PJ: The rightwing has used every racial slur they could think to discredit President Obama since his election, from photo-shopped images of Obama's face on an Africa warrior-hunter to the images of the White House's front lawn planted as a giant watermelon patch. Now they claim that the left will do the same to Cain (although nothing has or is likely to happen on that front). When Clinton was charged with sexual misconduct, the right led the way to his impeachment. With Cain, the right blindly defends, defends, defends. The right has even gone so far as to blame the media for Cain's misconduct, charging that the MSM would never go after a liberal...but didn't the media go to great lengths to cover the misconduct of liberal Congressman Weiner which resulted in his resignation from the House earlier this year?
I enjoyed this snarky piece in the Times this morning which aptly demonstrates the lengths to which the right will defend their candidate purely on ideology. It is sad that they do not weed out the patch to find the rose. I've noted in past posts that Jon Huntsman is probably the only republican candidate who would give the American electorate a reasonable choice in the 2012 elections. He has the knowledge, intelligence and integrity to lead the country. The choice would be between two talented men with differing political agendas. It would give the electorate a reasonable choice that moderates (which make up the majority of US voters) could appreciate. But the GOP base has drifted so far to the extreme right that a reasonable choice is far from their thinking.
The New York Times
Don’t Call Herman a Monster
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Oh, Herman.
Just answer the questions — honestly. You know well that this “scandal” only strengthens the resolve of your base.
Here are the details in case you’ve been distracted by that Kardashian divorce or the California train robbers who stole $200 worth of pigs’ feet, or whatever:
There are now at least three women who have accused Herman Cain, the Republican presidential candidate, of sexual harassment. On the broad point, he has been clear. He says that he has never sexually harassed anyone. But, on the details, he’s been shaky. Typical Cain. He and granularity don’t get along.
There’s no way for me to evaluate the veracity of the claims. The details remain murky. Anyone can accuse another of anything, innocuous actions can be perceived as predatory and there can be reasons other than guilt for settling a claim. That said, the fact that there are now three accusers and only one denier must be considered. It’s not just his word again hers. It’s his word against hers and hers and hers.
Furthermore, sexual harassment charges are different from other kinds of scandals. Workplace harassment by a superior is invariably about an abuse of power. So if you aspire to be the most powerful man in the world, the answers to the questions become quite relevant.
Cain’s answers to date simply haven’t satisfied. They’ve been as ham-handed as it gets. He’s flip-flopped like a fresh-caught-fish in the bottom of the boat. Even if he didn’t remember the allegations, surely he could have gotten and read through the settlements before submitting to interviews. Right? Right?!
Such a botched response would have spelled trouble for a candidate of another stripe and in another time. But this is Herman Cain: the unorthodox candidate with unprecedented ascendance in a Tea Party age.
Cain isn’t a regular candidate, and this isn’t a regular race. He is the anti-Obama, and that absolves him from his multiplying errors and inoculates him against his enemy’s poison arrows.
The fact that Cain obviously isn’t presidential timber holds little weight with those who view the current resident of the White House as, at best, unqualified and, at worst, illegitimate.
Cain is an “American black conservative — an A.B.C.” who rejects prevailing wisdom among blacks about the racial state of play in America. He is a walking rebuff to the 400-year-old racism issue that continues to dog and drain this country. He lifts the burden of guilt from whites on the right and places it on the shoulders of blacks on the left — the ones still on “the Democrat plantation” and not willing or able to think for themselves. He is a fascinating sociological phenomenon but also an affront to some basic facts about the existence and impact of our racial reality.
Furthermore, he fits two prerequisites of the new right: he’s anti-intellectual and anti-establishment. He’s “real.” He’s a real guy with real passion who has had a real job but has no real understanding of government. Tea Party perfection.
And never underestimate the simple pleasure the right gets from supporting someone who so perplexes the left. Remember that lady from Alaska?
That is why, barring more accusers and more detail and more flubs, this “crisis” could help, not hurt, Cain with his base. It helps him more perfectly evoke the Christlike ideal among those on the right of persecution and perseverance. Claims that portray Cain as a predator and monster will be rejected out of hand. This isn’t really about him, but the idea of him. He could be the Teflon Pawn.
(On Friday, one of Cain’s accusers released a statement through her attorney citing “a series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances” from him. It’s too soon to say whether this moves the needle.)
It is no wonder then that they are trying so hard to resurrect Clarence Thomas’s 20-year-old “high-tech lynching” analogy and apply it to Cain. The symbolism is powerful and resonant: the falsely accused being strung up; the grave made for him not being able to hold him; it all happening because the world hates him for who he is, a truth-teller rejected by his own people.
Many of the far right’s worst racial demagogues are falling over themselves to help paint the picture.
Rush Limbaugh who once told a black caller to “take that bone out of your nose and call me back” slithered out from underneath his rock to defend Cain from “racial stereotypes” of “the real racists,” Democrats who would destroy Cain “à la Clarence Thomas.” He also added: “What’s next, folks? A cartoon on MSNBC showing Herman Cain with huge lips eating a watermelon?” Way to sneak that one in there, Rush. Obviously, this story needed some watermelon.
On Monday, Ann Coulter climbed off of her broom on “The Sean Hannity Show” to compare Cain to Thomas and to say that “if you are a conservative black, they will believe the most horrible sexualized fantasies of these uptight white women feminists.” She continued, that’s why “our blacks are so much better than their blacks” — “our” being the right and “their” being the left.
I know Media Attention Deficit Disorder is hard to treat, Ann, but seriously?
Furthermore, Cain still has some very powerful backers with their hands on his back — the billionaires David and Charles Koch, the Tea Party puppeteers. On Friday, Cain spoke at their Americans for Prosperity event, proclaiming: “I am the Koch brothers’ brother from another mother.” Indeed.
At this point, this all seems to be working in Cain’s favor.
His campaign told CNN that it had raised $1.2 million since the sexual harassment scandal broke on Sunday. And a new ABC News/Washington Post poll found that: “more than half of potential Republican voters say the controversy is not serious, fewer than a quarter say it makes them less likely to support Cain, and he’s running essentially evenly with Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination.”
On Monday, Cain ended a speech before The National Press Club by singing the gospel standard, “He Looked Beyond My Fault.”
They’re all looking beyond your faults, Mr. Cain. They all are.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/opinion/blow-dont-call-herman-a-monster.html?_r=1&hp
No comments:
Post a Comment