About Me

Name: Steve
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

Ann Coulter on Herman Cain's accusers, a summary

 

Ann Coulter wrote another great article yesterday. In the article, she summarizes the claims by the various women against Herman Cain. In the summary, all the women have one thing in common. Their credibility is definitely compromised prior to making the claim. Each one has financial trouble at this time. Each one has made claims like this against prior employers. Each one has ties, either directly or indirectly, to David Axelrod. The list goes on and on. Also, each of the claims comes from a three year period in Herman Cain’s life when he served as President of the Restaurant Association.

It is interesting that the head of the Illinois Restaurant Association is a close confidant of David Axelrod. She has access to Herman Cain’s records when he was President of the National Restaurant Association. It is just too coincidental that all the claims come from this narrow period in his life. If there were validity to the claims, they would have been spread over a much longer period of time. Why was he completely clear during the rest of his life and only abusive with women during a three year period? Just asking that question raises serious doubts about the validity of the claims.

Another point that Ann Coulter brought up is that these women have no evidence to back up their claims. The best evidence is Ginger Wright. She has cell phone numbers and records of telephone calls between the two. That is far less than the accusers of Bill Clinton had and the main stream press ignored their claims as having no validity. Gennifer Flowers had tapes of phone conversations with Bill Clinton’s voice saying damning things. But still, that was not enough for the main stream press. These women have no evidence at all to back up their claims. Even Monica Lewinsky had lots of evidence of Bill Clinton’s infidelity with her, including the semen stained dress.

You have to wonder why the difference in coverage. One group of women had lots of evidence, including testimony from people from the original time period. The other has nothing in the way of evidence that would back up what they say. The group with the evidence is dismissed as being unimportant and the group without the evidence is being treated as truth tellers.

The difference is who is being targeted. The women with the evidence targeted Bill Clinton, a darling of the press. The press was not going to allow anyone to sully Bill Clinton’s name regardless of what information or evidence they had to back up their claims. The women making claims against Herman Cain are making claims against a conservative black man. In the eyes of the main stream press, a conservative black man is guilty just because he is a conservative black man. Any claim, no matter how baseless, will be given full treatment as if they were backing it up with sworn testimony of thousands.

There is no doubt that the press is biased in their reporting. If you look at their reports for any length of time, you see a pattern that develops. Anything that supports a left wing socialist agenda is brought forth with gusto. Anything that goes against a left wing socialist agenda is not reported on at all. If it does get reported on because it is so momentous that they have to, the report is put at the end and given short shrift. Anything that brings down conservative politicians or puts them in a bad light is put at the front of a telecast. Anything that might bring down a liberal politician or puts them in a bad light is ignored or put at the end of a broadcast. This has been going on for years. Conservatives have been complaining about it for years. The main stream press continues to insist that they are impartial and do not do what they are accused of. But, any impartial judgment of their news reporting will agree with my assessment.

Ann Coulter’s assessment of the claims of these women is that they are most likely being put up to the task by David Axelrod or his operatives. That would fit the MO that David Axelrod has used in the past. That is how Barack Obama became a US Senator. They are trying it out to see if it works to keep him as a President. Let’s not let it work this time.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive