No, no, no--they're not racists! They just will attack, without justification, anyone of color who happens to be conservative.

After all, conservative minorities deserve it!

Karen Finney on MSNBC, approved of (listen at the end) by Martin Bashir.

MSNBC Democratic strategist Karen Finney told Martin Bashir on Friday that she thinks Republicans are supporting Cain because he is “a black man that knows his place.”

“Very seriously, and this is a little harsh, but one of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel OK, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy. I think he is giving that base a free pass and I think they like him because they think he is a black man that knows his place. And I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me.”

“Thank you for spelling that out,” Bashir responded.

Read this from Eugene Robinson. Now, for a moment, substitute Obama's name and circumstances in 2008 for Cain's:

Obama's policy positions range from the ignorant to the unworkable to the just plain goofy -- and yet he is running first or second in most polls for the Democratic presidential nomination. He trumpets his utter lack of Washington DC experience as a selling point and boasts of living for a short period of time as a child overseas. If through some bizarre series of events he were actually elected president, the result would surely be an unmitigated disaster.

Any white pundit saying such things was branded a racist, so why is it okay to talk about Cain this way?

In another thread, I mentioned I thought Cain was a loose cannon. However, it is the liberals questioning his qualifications for President and talking about him in a demeaning manner.

I wonder if Robinson was demanding all of Clinton's dealings with his accusers be released?

Btw, if the accusations against Cain were released, so what? We would know what two women claimed happened. How would that do anything to help prove what actually happened? We would have one side of the story. Again, would any liberal have demanded half of the story about Clinton and his conduct?

Is there any evidence of wrongdoing by Cain? Not yet.

As an anecdote, one of my buddies was accused of making homosexual advances on someone he wrote a ticket to. The man went into great detail about it.

Did that mean my friend was guilty?

If so, what would you do with the tape recording he had of the entire interaction? Thankfully, the cop recorded everything so the false accuser was arrested.

In an allegation of sexual harassment, is Cain necessarily guilty unless he recorded every interaction? Politico did a hit piece. Read their "explanation" today. There is no new info.

This is the lowest form of "journalism." It is unsourced, provides no substantive information, and puts the onus on the accused to exonerate himself.

What were the horrendous things Cain allegedly did? How much did it cost? Why did the association settle?

Politico provides no answers. That was a drive-by by a liberal site.

The Washington Post has gone after Marco Rubio twice in the last week or so. Why?

“Marco Rubio’s compelling family story embellishes facts, documents show.” The paper flagged a clear inaccuracy in his official Senate biography that states the Senator’s parents “came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover.”

But, other news outlets, including the Miami Herald, not exactly a right-wing paper, pointed out the flaws in the WaPo's analysis. Any fair journalist would have looked into the totality of the story. The WaPo has subsequently run a story about how choosing Rubio for VP would be "risky" for the GOP.

Over and over again, the mainstream media gives the President a pass. However, they go after GOP minorities like they are rats carrying bubonic plague.

First, I find it amusing that the right-wing guy attacking the Washington Post column on Rubio starts out with an egregious unrelated ad hominem attack on the columnist. Also, why is Senate Rubio's offical Senate biography incorrect? I doubt it's accidental-- maybe Senator Rubio can clear it up for us...Frankly, it's a better story to say that your family fled Cuba after the take-over instead of three years before. In any case, I'll wait until Senator Rubion clarifies why his Sentate biography is wrong to pass judgment...

As to Cain and Clarence Thomas and other unqualified minorities who get ahead by toeing the conservative line, yes, they will get attacked for it. Sorry, if you're a minority and you're conservative you better be good at whatever you do if you want to be in the political arena. Colin Powell was not attacked in that manner, was he?

I suspect the support for Cain is very shallow. Maybe they're picking him because he is not Romney, maybe it makes them feel good about themselves for voting for a black candidate, I don't know. Given his meager qualifications for the job of president, one has to wonder why he is getting any support.

With regard to the sexual harassment charges, I am just wondering why any liberal would want to dig up dirt on Cain. I guess if there is no viable conservative candidate in the Republican primary maybe that would allow Romney to keep towards the center and give him a better chance of beating Obama. As far as I am concerned, I am happy to see Cain go far into the Republican primariies. Cain can only hurt Romney, not Obama.

Karen Finney is an idiot for sure, she shouldn't be asked to appear again on MSNBC.

With regard to the sexual harassment charges, I am just wondering why any liberal would want to dig up dirt on Cain

What if the source of the revelations on Cains sexual harressment history turn out to be Governor Perry's camp as has been hinted at by Politico?
He's got a track record of very dirty campaigning.

I think the Democrats would love Cain or Perry to get the nod. I'm with you. I'm sure that if Plouffe got cains harrassment suit handed to him, he'd file it away for now...

freeman2 wrote:First, I find it amusing that the right-wing guy attacking the Washington Post column on Rubio starts out with an egregious unrelated ad hominem attack on the columnist. Also, why is Senate Rubio's offical Senate biography incorrect? I doubt it's accidental-- maybe Senator Rubio can clear it up for us...

What makes you say it's "not accidental?" I'm sure you have evidence and are not simply making an ad hominem attack, right?

Rubio did clear it up. Maybe that hasn't appeared in a liberal-enough blog for you to see it?

Read this full post if you want more details, but Rubio handles it:

“To suggest my family’s story is embellished for political gain is outrageous. The dates I have given regarding my family’s history have always been based on my parents’ recollections of events that occurred over 55 years ago and which were relayed to me by them more than two decades after they happened. I was not made aware of the exact dates until very recently.

“What’s important is that the essential facts of my family’s story are completely accurate. My parents are from Cuba. After arriving in the United States, they had always hoped to one day return to Cuba if things improved and traveled there several times. In 1961, my mother and older siblings did in fact return to Cuba while my father stayed behind wrapping up the family’s matters in the U.S. After just a few weeks living there, she fully realized the true nature of the direction Castro was taking Cuba and returned to the United States one month later, never to return.

"They were exiled from the home country they tried to return to because they did not want to live under communism. That is an undisputed fact and to suggest otherwise is outrageous.”

If his family left before Castro took over, then visited Cuba after his takeover and decided it was unsafe to return, how is that a major change?

Btw, how does that compare with, I don't know, [b]Obama lying about his mother not getting healthcare[/b] while he's trying to pass the healthcare bill?

Frankly, it's a better story to say that your family fled Cuba after the take-over instead of three years before. In any case, I'll wait until Senator Rubion clarifies why his Sentate biography is wrong to pass judgment...

Scarily ill-informed. Check out the Miami Herald:

The Post also says "the supposed flight of Rubio’s parents has been at the core of the young senator’s political identity." That's a stretch. The actual story of the "flight" is far less emphasized than the fact that Rubio's an Hispanic Republican, and the child of immigrants and exiles (Update note: I mistakenly called him an immigrant and exile in original post).

So to suggest Rubio serially embellished the "dramatic" story of his parents fleeing Cuba could be a little too dramatic itself. And it might be an embellishment as well -- absent more information clearly showing Rubio has repeatedly said his parents fled Castro's Cuba.

Rubio's office has told both the Washinton Post, the St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald that his parents came to the United States prior to Castro taking power. And he has said it more than once. In the article we wrote last month about his pending autobiography, Rubio clearly told us his parents came here before Castro took power. He struggled to recall the year (this isn't in the story, it's in my notes) and said it was in "57 or 58 or 59."

When asked pointedly: Was it before the revolution? Rubio said it was before the revolution.

As to Cain and Clarence Thomas and other unqualified minorities who get ahead by toeing the conservative line, yes, they will get attacked for it. Sorry, if you're a minority and you're conservative you better be good at whatever you do if you want to be in the political arena. Colin Powell was not attacked in that manner, was he?

Nope, Powell and Rice are moderates and they have one other "redeeming" feature in the eyes of the Left--they didn't run for high office. In fact, Powell supported . . . Obama.

Furthermore, what made Obama more "qualified" than Cain to be President? Teaching people how to protest against the government housing they were occupying? Setting records for voting "present?" Spending less time as a Senator than Cain has in the latrine before declaring for the Presidency? Seriously, who was the most accomplished prior to running for President--Cain or Obama? And, Clarence Thomas has more qualifications than Soniamayor.

Anyway, thanks for proving liberals hate people of race who disagree with them.

Given his meager qualifications for the job of president, one has to wonder why he is getting any support.

If I'd said that about Obama, I would have been questioned on my racism quotient. Can't you see the double-standard, or are you too busy jumping in with both feet?

It would not be racist to have said that about Obama. I don't recall you being called a racist for stating it many, many times over the past 3 or so years.

And you have indeed said that Obama was not qualified, or less qualified than others. And in terms of experience he certainly had a lot less of an executive history and a relatively short period of legislative office.

I think the racism accusations would make more sense if what people were saying was actually racist, rather than being criticism of a black man. Even Finney's comments, which are pretty offensive, are (if you read them properly) about how she thinks Cain is seen by white Republicans not about what she thinks he is. Which may be racist against them, but is not directly racist towards Cain.

And people did say the same things about Obama being acceptable as a black man to white people, I can remember it. I don't recall a massive race-baiting debate from Democrats about it as a result though.

Quick summary:

It's overtly racist to criticise a black man for being black or having attributes that are associated with being black.

It's not overtly racist to criticise a black man for something other than his being black. Such as being incoherent about what he stands for, or previous accusations of sexual harassment, or financial irregularities in his campaign finances.

It would be covertly racist to criticise a black man for something other than his being black but motivated by race. Without mind-reading devices, this kind of racism is hard to detect, let alone stamp out.

Scarily ill-informed? Where in that link is an explanation of why his official Senate biography said until October 22 that his "Cuban-born parents came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover.” It now reads that they came to the U.S. in 1956. From what I understand it is a big deal in the Cuban exile community as whether one arrived in the U.S. before or after the revolution.

This harassment claim and a lack of funding are going to be hard to overcome.

It isn't what happens to you, but how you react to what happens to you that matter... And Cain can't deliver a coherent response. To the sex harassment, to the electric fence (joking, unless you like the idea...), his stand on abortion ... or to a few others.
I wish he were a little better prepared, because he has shown a refreshing directness...
BTW, funding isn't an issue. If he delivered the Koch brothers were right there....

freeman2 wrote:Scarily ill-informed? Where in that link is an explanation of why his official Senate biography said until October 22 that his "Cuban-born parents came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover.” It now reads that they came to the U.S. in 1956. From what I understand it is a big deal in the Cuban exile community as whether one arrived in the U.S. before or after the revolution.

Better check your facts. I think that is reporting not based on the Cuban community. When all is said and done, we'll see how big a deal it is when he runs for re-election.

Again, how "material" is it compared to what Obama did--which was a bald-faced lie?

I agree with you Steve that this will not be a big issue for Rubio, mostly becaue he can finesse the issue (in other words, it will be difficult to prove that he intentionally lied). I disagree with you that it would not be significant for the Cuban exile community as to when a family emigrated to the U.S., before or as a direct result of the Revolution. However, given that neither one of is likely to have first-hand info regarding this issue, and would simply be relying on someone's opinion on this point, it does not make much sense to debate this point.

By the way, the reason that I pointed out that black conservatives needed to be qualified for whatever positon they hold is this: by holding conservative political views black conservativers are implicitly blaming African Americans for their economic problems. They are rejecting the idea that the failure of African-Africans to do as well academically and economically is at least in large part a legacfy of discrimination and de jure (and de facto) segregation. So if you're a black conservative rejecting "victimhood" and saying the black community has to pick themselves up by their bootstraps so to speak, then you better owe your advancement in life due to your own abilities and not to your espousing conservative views.

freeman2 wrote:By the way, the reason that I pointed out that black conservatives needed to be qualified for whatever positon they hold is this: by holding conservative political views black conservativers are implicitly blaming African Americans for their economic problems. They are rejecting the idea that the failure of African-Africans to do as well academically and economically is at least in large part a legacfy of discrimination and de jure (and de facto) segregation. So if you're a black conservative rejecting "victimhood" and saying the black community has to pick themselves up by their bootstraps so to speak, then you better owe your advancement in life due to your own abilities and not to your espousing conservative views.

Hopefully, all conservatives and liberals are qualified for the positions held.

But I strongly disagree with the notion that African American conservatives have some sort of extra burden. You can acknowledge a legacy of discrimination and segregation, and at the same time believe that the best way forward is for individuals to rise above their circumstances through hard work and self reliance. You can acknowledge an unfair past and at the same time believe that the existing institutions are fair enough that one doesn't need the government to provide hand outs. In fact, there are many important African American thinkers who believe that government handouts keep African Americans down because they create dependency. One can also argue that modern liberalism with its emphasis on victimhood and the unintended consequences of its welfare policies creates more long term problems for the African American community than it solves. Many intelligent African Americans and European (?) Americans argue just that.

As for the racism issue, I wonder what you all make of this:

Over a period of just three and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have developed an insatiable hunger for the Herman Cain sexual harassment story, devoting an incredible 50 stories to the allegations since Monday morning. In contrast, over a similar period these networks mostly ignored far more substantial and serious scandals relating to Bill Clinton.

This pattern continued on Wednesday night and into Thursday as the evening newscasts and morning shows highlighted the story 19 times. On Good Morning America, Brian Ross offered innuendo and slung gossip, recounting, "But behind the scenes, several of the campaigns are still urging reporters to continue to dig, George, saying, there's more to be found in the private life of Herman Cain."

Without offering facts, Ross described Cain's time as head of the National Restaurant Association: "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 trumpeted 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," inquired the former Democratic operative turned journalist.

On the November 3 Today, Lisa Myers, with no sense of irony, declared the story "a feeding frenzy." She trumpeted, "For Herman Cain, this story is quickly going from bad to worse."

We don't know who Cain's accusers are. We don't know the nature of the accusations.

By contrast, we knew who Clinton's accusers were. We knew the nature of the allegations.

So, how is the media justifying devoting all of this time to what, in the end, is private behavior AND, more importantly, about which we know NOTHING?

Doesn't this trouble any liberal here? Is there no presumption, if not of innocence, of the need to withhold judgment until some facts are in?

The media can't get enough. Why is this? I submit there are only three possibilities: 1) he is black; 2) he is conservative; 3) he is black and conservative.

You may say "It's because he's running for President."

Hogwash.

The sitting President of the United States garnered less attention when much more was known. As he once said, "That dog won't hunt."

4. Sex sells

Conservatives have to take this seriously. It would be different if it were just one accuser, but we have 3 different accusers so it is he said / she said X3. Cain changing answers also don't help him. Cain can survive this, but he has to show his deftness to do so, and he hasn't shown that yet.

I think DF's commentary is that Clinton had the same baggage, and was less covered. Why is the question. I don't think it is because of Cain's race. I believe it is because of his ideology.

Clinton had at least three different women, and it was sex as well (depending on what the definition of the word "is" is). The only differences in my opinion is the ideology, and the timeframe. Kennedy's dalliances were not covered at all, Clinton's covered a little, and Cain's being top news. It follows a geometric progression curve.