Sad to see Ed Schultz suffer such sudden memory loss on live national TV. On his MSNBC show this evening, discussing Herman Cain's handling of the various allegations against him, Schultz: found it odd that Cain's wife had come to his defense; said he'd never "seen anything like this in American politics;" and claimed that by criticizing his accusers, Cain had hit "a new low in American politics."
With the mainstream media giddily reporting on an alleged affair involving Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, how long can it be before they break the news that their 2004 vice presidential candidate conceived a "love child" with his mistress, Rielle Hunter?
The left is trying to destroy Cain with a miasma of hazy accusations leveled by three troubled women. Considered individually, the accusations are utterly unbelievable. They are even less credible taken together. This is how liberals destroy a man, out of nothing.
Worrying that there are "[t]oo many lingering questions about his conduct with women," the Washington Post editorial board complained in the November 14 edition that GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain failed to satisfactorily answer reporter Maria Bartiromo's "legitimate question" at last week's CNBC debate: "Why should the American people hire a president if they feel there are character issues?"
"If the accusations are true, they depict a man who attempted to use his position of power to coerce sexual favors from subordinates or vulnerable women," the Post lectured, concluding that "[T]he public has a right to as much information as possible to weigh the competing accounts and to make a determination about Mr. Cain's fitness for office," even if, in fact, "The truth may be impossible to discern."
But in 1994, the Post's editorial board had a decidedly different take about Paula Jones's allegations of sexual misconduct by President Bill Clinton.
A former White House aide that accused Bill Clinton of sexually assaulting her back in 1993 says she's infuriated by the media firestorm caused by anonymous harassment allegations leveled at Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.
Speaking with radio's Steve Malzberg Friday, Kathleen Willey said, "Why are we even entertaining, you know, any of this from a person with no name and no face and a spokesperson who isn’t really clear on anything either" (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):
Alan Colmes on Saturday blamed Herman Cain for the media firestorm that occurred after Politico released its now infamous hit piece on the Republican presidential candidate.
As the panel on Fox News Watch discussed a Media Research Center study concerning the coverage of this incident versus how the press handled three sex scandals involving former President Clinton, Colmes actually said, "The reason the numbers are so different is because Herman Cain unlike Bill Clinton was out front on all of the media outlets talking about this" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
"With Herman Cain, let's remember here, Sean, we have nobody on the record, we have no specific allegation of anything that's happened," NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell noted on last night's Hannity, contrasting the "avalanche" of Cain coverage with the minimal coverage the networks gave to Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick's allegations of sexual harassment and, in the latter case, rape. [video of "Media Mash" follows the page break; MP3 audio available here]
Be kind to Bob Shrum. Perhaps the 68-year old is suffering from the not-so-early-onset of some dread memory-loss syndrome.
How else to explain his suggestion on Al Sharpton's MSNBC show this evening that the National Restaurant Association's settlement for a relatively modest sum, in today's litigious world, proves that Herman Cain must have done something wrong? Does the failed presidential campaign consultant's support of Bill Clinton, despite his much larger, $850,000 settlement with Paula Jones while "adamantly denying" her claims, fire any synapses in Shrum's cerebrum? Video after the jump.
In the 8:30 half hour of Tuesday’s "Today," NBC’s Matt Lauer interviewed Washington lawyer Robert Bennett on his new book "In The Ring." Lauer began by noting Bennett’s been in all manner of Washington scandals. But Lauer and Bennett chose to hone in on just one: Paula Jones. Lauer didn’t suggest there was anything wrong with what Jones said Bill Clinton did at a Little Rock hotel room, in dropping his pants and asking her, a stranger and a state employee, to kiss his penis. Instead, as usual, the Jones case was defined as a "vehicle" for "Clinton haters," the "hunting of a president." Clinton was not the predator. Jones was:
LAUER: You say allowing that case to go forward against Bill Clinton was, was the equivalent of hunting a president. Why do you say that?
BENNETT: Well, well it was. What happened is Paula Jones' case became a vehicle by which the Clinton haters were trying to shut up his message and defeat his election in 1996.