The Herman Cain Sex Scandal (Such As It Is)

On Sunday, Politico (an unofficial arm of the DNC) broke a story that revealed a major scandal in Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain’s past. That’s “broke,” “story,” and “major” as interpreted by Democrats.


Here’s what we know so far about the story:

  • During the 1990s, while he was head of the National Restaurant Association, Cain was accused by two women of inappropriate sexual conduct.
  • Cain denied any impropriety.
  • The NRA made a financial settlement with the women involved that did not require Cain or the NRA to admit any wrongdoing.
  • Cain was not fired.


Yup, that’s it.


Here are some things we don’t know:

  • Who the women were.
  • The particulars of Cain’s alleged conduct.
  • The full terms of the settlement, including dollar amounts.
  • The results of the investigation into the matter the NRA most certainly undertook, including any evidence pointing towards Cain’s innocence or guilt.
  • The specific time the events allegedly occurred.
  • Whether the two cases or two women were in any way connected.

So, essentially, what we have here is a liberal take on the old “sexually aggressive black man” motif. And, as is pretty much the default case when a conservative is accused, the liberal standard of proof boils down to “the seriousness of the allegations” is enough.


If you want to entertain yourself, take a look at a few cases where the initial allegations (and, in many cases, the developing story didn’t merit such sharp attention. Cases such as, say, this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or, hell, even this crock of crap.


Double standard? Why, that would be ridiculous! The media would NEVER do something like that. Just because Cain’s a Republican and the fellows involved in the scandals above are all Democrats is, of course, simply a wild coincidence, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a right-wing kook, hater, and probably a racist too.


Rules Are For Little People
Occupy a free clinic