Friday, November 04, 2011

Did Cain Do It?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Herman Cain has been the lead story on most news channels and news programs this week. Not simply because he is leading other GOP candidates in many polls, but because the liberal media sees an opportunity to unleash on him.

You've heard it all week.

But, did he do it?

Ann Coulter used Clarence Thomas' famous phrase calling the Cain story a "high-tech lynching."

Rush Limbaugh said Politico, who first carried the story used, "The ugliest racial stereotypes they can to attack a black conservative."

Brent Bozell, head of the Media Research Center was the most forceful in his comments saying, "In the eyes of the liberal media, Herman Cain is just another uppity black American who had the audacity to leave the liberal plantation."

But did he do it?

Ben Shapiro is an attorney, a Fellow at the Freedom Center and columnist for Front Page Magazine.

He wrote a column yesterday, exploring what we know at this time about the Cain media event. It is the best look at the controversy as of today---Friday. More information will come out in the coming days.

He also looks at who may have initiated the story in Politico.

If you care about the process of choosing a candidate to challenge President Obama, and I know many of you do, I strongly recommend you read this column. It is relevant and timely.

Have a great weekend. God bless you.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. Why on earth would Gary recommend a piece of semi-coherent, self-contradictory drivel like that?

    Shapiro starts and ends with claims that Cain can't speak out about the charges because of the confidentiality agreements in the settlement. In between these two claims, Shapiro says that, per Cain, one of the women settled for only $15k, and only sued because she was fired for incompetence - information gleaned from Cain talking about the settlement, which he is forbidden to talk about, in great detail.

    I find the rush by Republicans to play the race card to be laughable. Cain himself has claimed that this is all motivated by racism, while admitting that he has zero proof. He has also accused the Perry camp of being the source of the story - so I guess that makes Perry racist? The simple fact is that the press loves a sex-scandal. In fact, the last politician to undergo this sort of press pile on was the very white, very liberal Anthony Wiener. Of course, Wiener wasn't accused to harassment or any illegal activity.

  2. The more than comes out, the worse it gets for him. Cain says the settlement was 3 or 4 months salary. Turns out it was a full year's salary in one case. That's substantial.

    Witnesses are now coming forward who witnessed the actual event, and their descriptions sound pretty bad for Cain. Their descriptions can't be good for his marriage either.

    Another victim has come forward.

    If the NRA doesn't release the women from their confidentiality agreements, it's just going to look worse yet. Someone else will re-pay the salary to free them to talk.

  3. It's interesting that when someone like Shapiro in this case isn't saying what liberals want him to say it suddenly becomes semi-coherent, self-contradictory drivel. Thanks Gary. I for one hope all this with Cain isn't true, but if it is as big as the press is making it then it should be reported and Cain needs to explain.
    9:20 Thanks for your support of Perry.

  4. This should have killed his campaign, but he continues to have support of talk radio, fox news, and right wing blogs. They might just get him through this.

    I hope they do. I'd love to see him win the Republican primary.

    Cain / Palin - 2012!!

    Mark in Tigard

  5. Hypocrisy. The right is a scandal-generating machine, with "facts" based on mere imagination... Remember the "Is Obama really a Muslim?" and "Was Obama really born in the US?" controversies that live on to this day?

    But, when it comes to one of their own, even substantial claims from real people, and irrefutable evidence of big settlements does not warrant answers. There's nothing to see here, folks!

    Whether Cain actually did it is still up in the air, and he deserves a fair shot at clearing his name if he really is innocent, but I'm surprised that you -- as such an outspoken Christian -- are so willing to so quickly and easily put politics above ethics. Do you just want a Republican in office that badly?

  6. @10:36

    It has nothing to do with what I want Shapiro to say. As I pointed out quite clearly (and I can't help noticing you didn't address) his arguments are self-contradictory. If Cain is at a disadvantage because of confidentiality agreements, why was he able to divulge all these details to Mr Shapiro?

  7. Gary does not care about the well-being of women or sexual abuse - Gary cares about power and control - he will use women and sexual abuse when it is in his interest to obtain power and control - or ignore or disparage them as necessary - when it is in his interest.

    We have Gary's number. It is 0.

  8. Dear 5:55 and the "we" to whom you refer: Your comment was a hoot! Stupendously bereft of truth, but a good giggle. Mimi from MA

  9. So, Mimi, why don't you explain why?

  10. I think Gary is off the mark here. The question is not whether or not Cain did it. The real question is whether or not republicans care if he did.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.