Attack on Cain Shows Media's True Color

In political tomes, the first week of November 2011 will be remembered for the allegations against GOP front runner, Herman Cain.

As leaked by Politico, Cain is accused of the sexual harassment of three women while he was head of the National Restaurant Association during the 1990s.  I'm not going to debate the truth of these allegations, because there's not enough factual information available to determine who's telling the truth and who's not.  Rather, I'd like to present a history of the mainstream media's behavior to these types of attacks, at a time when Cain -- who is black and conservative -- is leading the GOP field for president.

Is Cain being treated in a similar manner as Democrats -- including President Clinton and presidential candidate John Edwards (to name just two) -- who were also accused of sexual allegations over the past decade?  And what, if any, does Cain's color and strong, conservative leanings have to do with the national media's attack?

Herman Cain.

Guilty until proven innocent?

Over a period of just three and one-half days, national news organizations ABC, NBC and CBS reported an incredible 50 stories on the allegations against Cain.  Politico, the web site that broke the story, has published 90 stories in five days.  The fevered pitch, despite the unsubstantiated and anonymous nature of the allegations and the women surrounding them, can be summarized by the following reports:

ABC's Brian Ross, on Good Morning America, described Cain's time as head of the National Restaurant Association without offering any facts, by saying,  "It fits with the kind of culture we were told that existed there, with young women who had been, sort of, lobbyists for the restaurant association, working with various states.  They were the new ones, the young ones.  And they say that's where Cain often socialized."

GMA's George Stephanopoulos gleefully stated the latest,  "Another woman.  Herman Cain facing new allegations that he was aggressive and inappropriate to a third employee, inviting her back to his corporate apartment.  Is the pressure finally getting to the front-runner?"

And finally on Today, Lisa Myers, adding to her own chaos, declared the story "a feeding frenzy."  She trumpeted, "Herman Cain, this story is quickly going from bad to worse."


Compounding the Cain problem are the payments that were allegedly made to these women.  As part of the settlements made back in the 1990s, no one can talk about what really happened, including Cain himself.  Never one to let facts get in the way of biased reporting, the media and political talking heads on cable are quick to attack Cain's "no comment" responses when in fact there is little he can legally say.

Legal experts always say that it's cheaper to settle in court than to fight false accusations for years just to prove your innocence.  Sad, but true.

Finally, the allegations are for something nobody can agree on, but certainly not rape or lying under oath.  Not that I condone sexual harassment of any kind, but the media is treating this like Cain raped and murdered his accusers.  As the editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, said "I think he's got it coming to him, don't you think?  Got WHAT coming to him, Mr. Bradlee?  Would you be referring to your politically-motivated, high tech lynching?  In Washington, you are assumed guilty until proven innocent.

Unless you're a Democrat.

Bill Clinton.

Can you feel his pain?

We all know the facts about Bill Clinton.  But do you remember who it was that broke the story and when?

First the facts:   Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas, allegedly would look for women, using state troopers as his procurers.  As President of the United States, Clinton engaged in oral sex with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office.  He went to court and lied about it under oath and was impeached.  Other sexual accusations followed Clinton, including one that he raped Juanita Broaddrick.  Or that he sexually abused Paula Jones.

But you wouldn't know it based on the way the media treated any of those facts.  After burying the story of Clinton's sexual abuse of Paula Jones and his affair with Lewinsky for months, Newsweek finally published its findings after The Drudge Report leaked their cover-up.  Had it not been for this conservative, internet gossip site, who knows how long (if at all) it would have taken to attach Clinton's despicable behavior to Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky.

Equally important, was the media's reaction once the story broke.  Instead of questioning and attacking President Clinton for inappropriate behavior, the mainstream media instead attacked his accusers, reminding us that Clinton's poor judgement shouldn't overshadow his good deeds.

For example, Susan Estrich in Slate Magazine had this to say, "Are we (the liberal press) inconsistent in supporting Anita Hill and not Paula Jones?  Consistent with what?  With the goal of protecting women from sexual abuse?  I think that goal is served by supporting Bill Clinton.  I think that it is important for us, feminists in particular, to acknowledge that taking sexual harassment seriously doesn't mean that every time a woman complains, the man should be damned."

She continues, "Here's my bottom line.  I don't want a sex police in this country, and I certainly don't want to be a member of it.  I'll take care of my like, and let others take care of theirs.  There's plenty of very serious abuse out there, if the press is interested.  I'll give you a dozen people with worse stories to tell than Paula's, who don't have ideologues eager to help them."


I'm willing to bet that more people remember the attacks on Paula Jones, than her allegations against Clinton.  I vividly remember Clinton adviser, James Carville discrediting her by saying you never know what you will find "when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park."?  I seem to remember Saturday Night Live! doing a skit on Jones -- and it didn't make her look very good, either.

I wonder how long we will have to wait before the media discredit Cain's accusers?  I, for one, am not holding my breath.

John Edwards.

What were you thinking?

In 2006, John Edwards, a one time presidential candidate, had a romantic relationship with a former campaign worker, Rielle Hunter.  However, he refused to admit to it, claiming that there was nothing to the rumors -- including that he had fathered a child with Ms Hunter, even though he was married at the time.

The fact that Edwards was having a relationship with Ms Hunter -- while married to his wife of many years --was not the whole story.  The bigger story was that ABC, NBC and CBS refused to report on the story for more than 9 months.  Why?   Because Edwards was denying it.   The scandal was even covered by foreign newspapers and lampooned by Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien long before network news ever mentioned it.  Their excuses were as follows:

. the National Enquirer was tabloid trash, certainly not a reputable newspaper

. the national newspapers were afraid to step up on the story because, "Sex may sell, but it can really hurt your relationship with readers."  This according to David Carr, a columnist for the New York Times.

. they were waiting for verifiable proof.  ABC correspondent Kate Snow had this to say, "We at ABC were working on this story, and if we had had any proof and any verifiable facts, we certainly would have gone with the story.  It was just a matter of, we're not going to put something on the air until we know that it's true."

. most major news networks took the stance that the rumors of an affair were just not newsworthy.

Can you believe it?  These are the most laughable excuses I've ever heard, especially in light of how they are currently treating Herman Cain.  Without question, the media was trying to protect one of their own.  And not only one of their own, but truly one of the darlings of the Democrat Party -- young, good looking, and a liberal in his approach to helping the poor, minorities and women.  They saw so much potential in Edwards and refused to admit that their prized pupil was just another sleazy politician caught with his pants down.

There are many other Democrats who have received favorable treatment by the mainstream media, including Anthony Weiner, Barney Frank, Daniel Inouye, Gary Hart and of course, Teddy Kennedy.  Politicians have been having -- and getting caught -- in sexual affairs for as long as there have been politicians.  Both Republicans and Democrats.  The difference I am trying to make is that the media treats those affairs tied to Republicans in a much different way than those connected to Democrats.  Cain's treatment by the national media is a prime example.

Why?  A simple answer is that they want their candidates to succeed, and Republican candidates to fail.  A more troubling answer lies in the threat Republican politicians like Herman Cain and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas present to their liberal ideologies and public manipulations.  Conservative blacks cannot be allowed to break the DAILY IMAGE being telecast and reported in newspapers.

For if black conservatives are able to defeat the media's misrepresentations, than how many other media mistruths will fall next?