I hate our news cycles.

Syrians are rising up against their dictator and being shot down. Shouldn't that elbow out at least a little of the wall-to-wall Herman Cain coverage?

Did you know that Herman Cain is facing accusations of sexual harassment from back when he was the head of the National Restaurant Association?

If you don’t, welcome back from that black hole.

Ever since this broke I wasn’t entirely interested in whether or not Cain had made a gesture or made someone feel uncomfortable. I’m far more interested in his 9-9-9 plan, the modified 9-0-9 plan, whether he can bone up on foreign policy and perhaps learn the name of the president of Uzbekistan, and if he could clarify once and for all his position on abortion.

Also, we’re still facing unruly riotous crime-ridden mobs squatting in major cities, harming local business and charity work; headlines have suggested a collaboration among the US, UK, and Israel for a strike on Iran; a top Obama donor and former Democrat governor of New Jersey just bankrupted his multi-billion dollar company; race-baiter and habitual liar Eric Holder is still attorney general and is stonewalling over ‘Fast and Furious'; the economy added a paltry 80,000 jobs last month, which did not keep pace with the number of people who have simply stopped looking for work and therefore aren’t counted against the unemployment rate; the Department of Health and Human Services continues its assault on religious liberty; Democrats in the Senate have introduced legislation to repeal DOMA; the Department of Energy and the White House are still stonewalling over Solyndra; Europe is on the verge of economic collapse, unless China (!) can bail them out; Bashar Assad has begun using tanks against protesters in Syria; the Horn of Africa isn’t exactly peaceful at the moment; then there’s Kim Kardashian and Justin Bieber who are having bad weeks…

Okay, maybe the last two don’t rise to the level of the rest.

But seriously: keep an eye on the Cain allegations? Sure. If they’re true, and the behavior was worse than presently alleged, it speaks to his character in an unfavorable way. But there is so much more to talk about that is far more important.

The only reason this is still such a story is because of the horrible crisis management done by the Cain campaign. I don’t think they could have drawn up a worse response strategy than they have executed if they had tried.

And that may prove to be more politically damaging than the salacious allegations.

But seriously: Move. On.



  • Matt

    People, we have to understand that the only people that stand a chance in election in 2012 is Obama, Romney, and Cain. Obama is Pro-Abortion, and Romney has changed his position consistently throughout his life, which makes me doubt he’ll follow through his whole time in office. In the end, Cain may not be the perfect candidate, but he is the best one, he’s never held elected office. All of the other ones have or are, no wonder we have such a bad situation. Everyone is on the basis of “been there, done that” or “well, everyone’s doing it, so should I” give Cain a chance, he messed up some impromptu interviews and impromptu speeches. But that only shows that he is human, give the guy a chance, I doubt you’d do better than he has so far.

    • Greg Smith

      Matt ~ While I believe that some of the GOP contenders are truly pro life, most others simply “take the pledge.” In Cain’s case he not only flip flopped on abortion, he managed to flip flop in the same paragraph! Although foreign policy is overshadowed by the economic debate, it can be critical. Remember that the last Republican president who told us “Ah’m against abortion and gay marriage too” got us into a ten year unnecessary war which at least, thank God, involved conventional weapons only. Not a lot of things scare me. However, the thought of Cain calling the shots in the situation room when a nuclear armed Kazi-kamakazie-Kazakhstan has invaded Uzbeki-becki-beckistan in order to seize Northern Afgani-gani-ganistan to threaten nuclear armed Paki-paki-Pakistan is one of them. ~ Greg PS: In that scenario, the only two I’d really trust out of the whole pack are Jon Huntsman and President Obama

      • Brian C


        In your ‘situation room’ scenario, why would you not trust Romney or Gingrich?

  • Jennifer Roche

    I agree! Move on!!
    Good article.


    Dear Tom~ Sure all the issues you mention are important. The question of Herman Cain, however, goes beyond the sex scandal(s). Here is a candidate who seemingly has no grasp of the issues and looks like a wholly owned subsidiary of two multi-billionaire brothers who is within striking distance of being the Republican nominee. That, I submit, is a big deal. ~ Pax Tecum, Greg

    • MikeM

      What’s with the sudden liberal obsession with the Koch brothers? Suddenly, the left third of the nation has come to believe that because two billionaires donate money to some political causes, they must be puppet masters of the entire Republican party. Guess what, guys… pretty much all of the billionaires out there make some political contributions (and contributions to all kinds of other things), they don’t all donate to the same party, and no one (or two) of them has secret domination of US policy. Can we stop with the paranoid ramblings?

      Additionally, if Democrats want to stack up the Koch brothers against their most controversial billionaire donor, George Soros, well, I’m happy to be on the Koch brothers’ side. I’d much prefer to be aligned with people who made billions running companies that do an excellent efficient job of providing much needed goods and services to people across the country, while winning awards for their treatment of their employees and their environmental stewardship than with someone who made his billions short selling currencies, and crashing the economies of poor countries. I’m just sayin’

    • Matt

      Every side has their billionaires. Conservatives have the Koch brothers. Liberals have George Soros and Warren Buffet.

  • Sarah

    I am absolutely interested in whether Cain made “a gesture or made someone uncomfortable.” If the allegations are true, sexual harassment in the work place shows a complete lack of moral character that would mean he is unfit for public office, much less the president of the United States. We need to get to the bottom of this now, not later.

    I’m very glad to see DOMA repeal being addressed by the Congress. Marriage has always been a decision left to the states and this law doesn’t protect any marriages. It does harm couples that are already legally married under existing state laws. There really is no rational reason to deny these families the federal rights that are given to every other married family. This law is clearly going to be struck down by the federal courts in the next few years. It would be better for Congress to address the issue and fix the law rather than a court throw the whole law out.

    • Greg Smith

      Dear Sarah,
      My concern for some time now has been that the bishops are so overly focused on this issue that they create bad side effect of stirring up anti-gay hysteria. A good example of this is in today’s news about Daniel Avila. Mr. Avila, an advisor to the USCCB on marriage, actually got a column published in The Pilot, Boston’s Catholic newspaper, claiming that SSA is caused by the work of Satan! In less than 24 hours he, and The Pilot, refuted the article and he resigned form the USCCB. This ought to be a cautionary tale for our bishops. Pax tecum, Greg

    • Eric

      No rational explanation? I’m sorry, but the rules are the rules and they apply to everybody. Not you, or I, or anyone else within the sound of my tapping keyboard are allowed to marry anyone who is of the same gender, or within the immediate family, or with anything not human. Everyone, including myself must follow these simple guidelines in order to become wed.
      There IS a slippery slope.
      My gay friends, who agree with me by the way, has said on several occasions that 30 years ago, the very idea of marriage was laughable. Today there is a debate, not only about Gay Marriage, but also Polygamists now want equal protection. A Gentleman in Northern Maine was in the news within the last few years crying foul that he cannot marry his Collie. Laughable now…but in 30 years from now?
      The Gay marriage issue is NOT ABOUT MARRIAGE AT ALL! Most people I’ve spoken to had no problem with Civil Unions between homosexual couples, who would be able to share the same benefits as their straight counter parts, including being recognized as having an exclusive relationship with another person. But no, it MUST be called marriage. The issue has nothing to do with love, but everything to progress a liberal agenda bent on the destruction social norms. All this by a group that, until the last 10 years, embraced the moniker, “ALTERNATIVE” lifestyle.

      • Greg Smith

        Eric – Just a quick note that I’m all in favor of Civil Unions. However those opposing gay marriage, including the USCCB and NOM also reject civil unions an domestic partnerships. Greg

    • Matt

      My question is who actually has moral character in this field. Moral Character is consistent, (Perry, Paul, Romney Santorum don’t), lack of personal indecencies (Cain and Gingrich don’t), stands strongly for social morals (Hunsman and Obama don’t), and doesn’t lie about others (Bachman, Romney, Perry, Paul, Obama all have). Now we have to chose, not the perfect candidate, but the best one.

      • Greg Smith

        Dear Matt ~ Please tell us how Jon Huntsman doesn’t stand strong for social morals. Thanks, Greg



Receive our updates via email.