A new accusation of sexual impropriety was raised against Herman Cain yesterday. Not by yet another anonymous source, but by a Ms. Sharon Bialek, who is represented by attorney Gloria Allred, a liberal stalwart who seems to have a penchant for representing sexual harassment victims (or the occasional defendant).
The first question is what can Herman Cain actually do? Not very much useful, truth be told. Even though this woman has come forth and publicly made her case against Mr. Cain, and even though there is no corroborating evidence or witnesses. There are also claims of existing affidavits mentioned by Ms. Allred which claim to corroborate that Ms. Bialek told some friends that something happened without specifying exactly what. Such affidavits are , legally, merely hearsay evidence at best.
So Mr. Cain is limited to telling anyone who will listen: “No, I never did anything like that.”
In this day and age, with the Democratic Party propaganda arm, which is another way of saying the mainstream media, in full cry to show that they (and by inference any right thinking person) have zero tolerance when it comes to anything even approaching anything improper when it comes to the relationship between men and women.
I’ll pause here, so that those of you who are laughing too hard at that idea as you think back on zero tolerance Democrat politicians such as Jack Kennedy, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson. Please pull yourselves together so you can keep up with the rest of us.
Obviously Mr. Cain can’t just say, “Well, those other guys did it!” Bad move if you try that Herman.
What he must do is gather up a couple of dozen very attractive women (for reference, please view a photo of his accuser, Ms. Bialek) who will state clearly, and for the record, that they worked with Herman Cain here, there and everywhere else with absolutely no hint of such behavior. If he were a serial predator, he’d be rather hard pressed to find 24 women who could make such a statement.
If he is lacking credible defenders, Mr. Cain has only one choice for what he should do. Get out of the race completely, and do not endorse anyone. State clearly that the lack of an endorsement is not a negative evaluation on the character or ability of any of the other candidates, but that an endorsement under these circumstances would simply add a negative element to the campaigns of any of the others. Guilt by association, even if the person with whom you are associated hasn’t been legally judged guilty of anything, is still damning in a political sense.
For those who feel this has all been orchestrated by the Mitt Romney campaign, or the Rick Perry campaign, or even the Michele Bachmann campaign, I can only politely disagree. This episode reeks of Chicago-style politics and the tricks used in a variety of Obama’s earlier campaigns for public office.
Herman Cain is a dangerous opponent for Barack Obama. He may not be the best debater, he may not be a glib as Obama, but he carries a one-two punch that worries the Chicago Democratic Party machine much more than anything Perry, Romney, Paul, Bachmann, Gingrich and the rest of the candidates can muster. One: Cain could split the black vote and allow African Americans to jump off the Democratic Party plantation. Two: Cain would nullify Obama’s use of the race card which will undoubtedly be used by our self-styled Uniter-in-Chief.
This article was originally published on November 8, 2011 on the American Thinker website. Click the link to go to the site.