Right On Life

Christian, Pro-Life, Conservative

When Intolerance Is Good

Wolf in sheep's clothingNews commentary and blogs are beginning to use the word “liar” in response to Herman Cain’s handling of the sexual harassment allegations. Ouch.

Is the accusation of lying true? I demur.

I am commenting on the interesting fact that this kind of connection is being made. The use of this kind of stark analysis suggests that some folks are unwilling to tolerate lies from politicians. This is a good thing.

I often hear the false proverb, “All politicians lie.” Almost as often, I hear the suggested conclusion, that since all politicians lie, we need to support the ones that tell the lies we most like to hear. The problem with this cynical approach is that liars will eventually show their true colors. Sometimes the lie, sometimes the revelation of the politician’s true position is called a “flip-flop”. Either way, supporters are disappointed and no one is pleased.

Let’s hope that intolerance of dishonesty is on the rise. Bad character in lying unfits one for an office of trust as much as bad character in denying a person’s fundamental right to life does.

Pro-aborts and liars should quit running for offices of trust. We should refuse all support for those candidates who refuse to drop out.

4th November 2011 4:09 AM - Posted by | Qualifications for Office | , , , ,


  1. Right On! :)

    Comment by mishlevi | 4th November 2011 7:18 AM | Reply

  2. Evidently now at least one of the women involved has decided that she doesn’t want to come forward and open up.

    I can’t say whether Mr. Cain is lying concerning the original incidents, but he has effectively lied while trying to rebut, defend and get through this past week.

    He and his campaign’s handling of this proto/quasi scandal only exaccerbated the situation, feeding the media and political frenzy.

    To some degree it’s like his statements on abortion or how Michelle Bachmann shot her own campaign in the foot when she refused to get out of the mudhole she stuck herself in over Perry/Gardasil/HPV.

    Partly I think the problem is due to his campaign’s insistence on running a non-typical campaign, and partly due to his inability to be brief as he candidly speaks his mind. His positives are his own negatives.

    He’s had over ten years and more recently, ten days to be able to come up with a sound, honest and forthright answer. Instead Herman and his team have spent the past week pouring gasoline on a fire that would probably have died out on its own had he just been direct. He has effectively lied to hide or deflect events that he may truly be innocent of.

    This alone does not instill confidence for me.

    While his polls are still high, I wonder if he’s reached his peak? I suspect this is his Bachmann moment, but I could well be wrong. He’s losing the trust of many of the conservative/Republican pundits, and while they may be part of the chattering class, most of these bloggers and pundits have the ability to sway opinion.

    Why is the media and punditry holding Cain to such a high standard concerning these allegations and more importantly his handling of them? Perhaps several factors are in play, but I doubt it’s a sign of more to come concerning politicians in general…

    While Mr. Cain has been around the block for a while, he’s never truly been in the public eye before. All of the other major Republican candidates have had public, regional or national exposure to a point that most people are pretty aware about them, what makes them tick, their past, their demeanor and responses, etc.

    Unless you’re a Democrat/liberal – and at that the media has to like you – adultry, philandering and misogny doesn’t go over well with the public, especially if they don’t know much about you.

    It is interesting to note that there is one other candidate who supposedly fits in the same category as Mr. Cain – if indeed Mr. Cain is dishonorable to his wife and women in general – and that is Newt Gingrich. That said, Mr. Gingrich has time and public exposure in his favor. He’s never hid from his errors; the media and pundits cannot go after him with any scandal.

    I suspect that were Mr. Cain not the/a front-runner, even if the Politico story had broke we might see things happening a bit differently, but that’s neither here nor there.

    Mr. Cain may well have been handed his miracle today in that one of his “accusers” has stated that she has zero desire to relive the past, to open up and come out into the public. Unless others do come forward publicly, unless concrete evidence is provided, even if Mr. Cain did some unethical and immoral things, they’re now moot. The story is becoming a non-story. Mr. Cain may be able to stay in the race, imboldened by polls and cash, surviving his trial and baptism by fire, but how he has handled this past week will dog him all the way to the election and even afterwards if he manages to win.

    Mr. Cain is making a liar out of himself. He makes himself inconsistent, confounding, wishy-washy, untrustworthy and unrespectable.

    Mr. Cain and his campaign pride themselves on being the outside and unconventional team, but maybe it’s time they reconsider because if they really want to win the nomination and the presidency, they’re going to have to get structured.

    I had been considering giving Mr. Cain a closer look prior to this week, but his responses have shown me that he is not someone I can trust as President.

    Too bad Democrats and liberals never came to the same conclusions about Barack Obama – or Hillary for that matter, but then, what do you expect?!

    Man I talk too much!

    Comment by wadingacross | 4th November 2011 11:10 PM | Reply

  3. Thanks for the thorough analysis of Cain’s problem. The question for me is, be it this candidate or any candidate, will we support a liar?

    Some will (witness Clinton’s second term).

    My fundamental assertion is: the very first qualification for an office of trust is–trustworthiness. Period.

    Comment by Christopher | 5th November 2011 7:16 AM | Reply

  4. Christopher, I believe that’s where pragmatism v. principles as part of an internal discussion occurs.

    I don’t recall any Republican nominee ever carrying a label or consideration as a liar with the exception of Nixon.

    Cain is gaining something of that label and to a degree Romney already has it due to his record (flip-flopping in some instances might as well be lying).

    I guess we’re just going to have to sit back and watch and see how Cain’s polling and support does in the next week or two.

    Considering that Newt apparently got rave reviews last night in Iowa and will probably do quite well today in Texas against Cain debating, we could well see a semi-natural plateau or decline for Cain following this past week and against a seasoned, strong speaker and debator. Trustworthyness is no doubt an underlying factor, even if people aren’t consciously aware.

    As you noted with Bill Clinton, and I with Nixon, not to mention the number of wishy-washy, muddling nominees this nation has been handed for the last two decades, as the voting pool increases, so does the chances for people to lean pragmatically. You, me and many others might not be willing to drown our principles, but many others will – as I noted, I did so myself with McCain – though it wasn’t due to lack of or belief of trust but the whole package vs. “other”

    Something to consider might be to create a fake ballot for yourself, imagining you’re voting, and not just taking a poll. Create several ballots, so that you can then compare and contrast your thoughts and feelings before you cast your vote.

    1) Herman Cain, Barack Obama, Constitution Party, Other Party, Write In, Abstain
    2) Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Constitution Party, Other Party, Write In, Abstain
    3) Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama, Constitution Party, Other Party, Write In, Abstain


    Yes, I put Newt in there instead of Perry as well as Cain. Cain could well remain in the race and furthermore is central to our discussion on trust. Romney as the consistent frontrunner/second demands a place on the list. Perry could well remain in the race through a substantial portion of the primaries, but I’m beginning to wonder if he will be able to get the nomination. Gingrich’s turn seems to be here and I’m beginning to wonder if he may well be the surprise nominee, much as McCain was in 2008 and evidently Bush Jr., Dole, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc. were.

    If enough people do not truly trust Romney, he will not garner enough primary wins irrespective of all of the mechanations of the GOP insiders. The same goes for Cain, whether people point to this flopped scandal or not.

    That leaves Gingrich – though the New York Times believes for some reason that Huntsman or Romney stand the best chance of beating Obama – and maybe Perry.

    On trust and the other candidates, many people may trust Paul’s stances when it comes to the economy, but he’s viewed as a nut, rightly or wrongly. So, there is a lack of trust due to real or perceived ability, not morals. The rest of the candidates just don’t have the money, network or name to propel them enough to garner votes, even if people trust them morally.

    Comment by wadingacross | 5th November 2011 1:46 PM | Reply

  5. I don’t consider the general election (very much, anyway) when I choose my candidate in the primaries. None of the three is likely to get my primary vote.

    I am willing to consider candidates in the general that I would not support in the primary. Some candidates are beyond consideration under any conceivable circumstance.

    Comment by Christopher | 7th November 2011 8:41 AM | Reply

Leave a Reply to wadingacross Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: