Tuesday, November 01, 2011

Cain's sexual harassment charge

Scattered thoughts...

I've been watching the breaking news updates regarding the charges being lobbed against Herman Cain.  Fascinating stuff.  I have two weird hunches.

A. The woman will be WHITE (this could leave a bad vibe with entrenched elements of the tea party).
B. She will be about 100 lbs. overweight (designed to further diminish his credibility).

Alright, there were 2 women who filed harassment charges.  Both cases were settled.  Why has only one of them come forward?  Seems like the goal of a smear campaign wouldn't want to focus on the he said/she said crap.  Although any particularly salacious testimony could be a nice, unintended bonus.  The main objective would be to drag everything out as long as possible.  That means one thing - OMG!  Now the other woman's coming forward!

People might think I'm completely full of shit, but it bears a striking resemblance to the Wikileaks rape allegations against Julian Assange.  When orchestrating the hatchet job, always go with drugs/alcohol or sexual accusations.  It works so much better than money.  After Bernie Madoff set a new standard and scammed 60+ billion, it's difficult to get people riled up over an amount.  The American public has little interest in numbers, they want the wicked dirt.  That's why the real disaster, the housing collapse, will never top 9/11.  People don't care about 10 trillion dollars.  They just can't grasp it.  They prefer things to be simpler and spoon fed, much like the unseasoned mush of Mehlman's Cafeteria.  Sifting through the details of the sup-prime collapse will never hold their attention span.  Even Obama doesn't want to mention... raising taxes is simply going from 32% to 36% on the top income earners.  It would make him look like he's lecturing the public.  He's still mindful of the dreaded price of arugula.  At the time, the arugula controversy was a BIG deal.  Made him look too pompous and egalitarian, something he desperately seeks to avoid.  What's comical - assuming the Republicans choose Romney, they forfeit that entire mode of attack. 
The only point the media seems to agree on: Cain's campaign never had a handle on the story and was woefully negligent.  I completely agree.  Cain's staffers and his lack of professionalism almost rivals Rick Perry's team.  At least, Perry's minions raised a shitload of cash.

And how about the notion that the reemergence of the scandal came from somewhere deep within the Restaurant Lobbying Association?  What's that about?  Yep, it's gonna take TIME to unravel the trail of origin.  Cain has shown a weakness for sticking to talking points.  I have a hunch he's not the kind of guy who likes to stay up late, fielding hypothetical questions and scenarios from his staffers.  This is Cain's achilles heal.  He comes off as incredibly personable, but suffers from a certain amount of hubris.  Comes with the territory I suppose.  Rick Perry has a comparable amount of hubris, but it's mostly centered around his own ineptitude, stupidity and that Dukes of N*ggerwood, backwoods spunk.    

Mark my words, this thing will DRAG.  That was the real intended consequence.  You would think someone in the press might pick up on this.  That's the question?  How long will it go on?  Well, I'll step up.  I'll set the over/under at 63 days.  Coincidentally, about the same time for the Iowa caucus vote on January 3.  I suspect you'll see something unfold like the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings.  Except it will be played out in the press.  Even better!  And you'll see these women get dragged through the mud.  Anything to smear their credibility and keep the story going.  It won't have anything to do with unresolvable answers.  The entire Cain charge is about the TIME FRAME.

1 comment:

sonofsaf said...

One of those late night comedians should use the line...

It appears that Cain is not "down with the brown" - he's trying to get "right with the white."