Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Things I regret saying on the internet

    Things I regret saying on the internet

    1. Why I respect Jennifer Rubin (October 22, 2011)

    The post in question was limited to the following matter of respect:

    I don’t always agree with Jennifer Rubin, the not-liberal blogger at The Washington Post, who used to blog at Commentary.

    But I respect her because unlike the Stockholm Syndrome suffering not-liberal columnists at The New York Times, Rubin is willing to take on her own newspaper.

    But I deeply regret saying it in light of Rubin’s conduct with regard to the Herman Cain allegations.  Rubin has been vicious, as pointed out by Dan Riehl tonight, far more so than the worst left-wing flame throwers.

    Rubin repeatedly invokes her prior career as a lawyer, but has had a completely unlawyerly lack of concern for facts.  The demand for facts is portrayed by Rubin as a slavish adherence to some mythical conservative cabal, when facts are what we all should be demanding.

    Where are the receipts for the hotel Sharon Bielak says was upgraded? Where is evidence of her travel?  Why did she not tell her fiance about it until the night before she flew to meet Gloria Allred, and why did she not tell one of her best friends at all?  We should be demanding these facts as a matter of basic fairness to both parties.  If the facts support Bielak, so be it; but if the facts support Cain, why would Rubin not want to know it?

    And as to Karen Kraushaar, there are no facts reported as to what Cain allegedly did, other than Cain’s own recollection of a non-sexual hand gesture.

    Politico reports that there were “conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually  suggestive nature….”  Those aren’t facts, those are characterizations.  What did he say, what words were used, when were the statments made, where was each statement made, and who else was present.

    These are the basics which should be included in any reputable reporting, and these are the facts we all should be demanding before reaching conclusions.

    Demanding facts as to Cain’s alleged conduct is not the same as excusing proven conduct.  But none of that lawyerly stuff seems to bother Rubin in the least.

    If Cain is guilty, I’ll be the first to say it.  But show me the facts first.  That’s not a blind allegiance to some cause, other than the cause of justice and fairness.

    I apologize.

    [Note: Change made to paragraph regarding Kraushaar shortly after posting]


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    “As newly reviewed records pointed to deeper financial problems for the Chicago-area woman accusing Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment, he wasted no time Tuesday in suggesting she is motivated by monetary gain.

    Sharon Bialek’s fiance — who said he is her primary source of financial support — is unemployed and preparing to file for bankruptcy, according to Lake County court documents reviewed Tuesday by the Tribune. And in Cook County, lawsuits show she has been targeted by creditors who claimed she owed them thousands in unpaid rent, personal loans and credit card bills.

    In a round of TV interviews, Bialek, 50, said she had no financial reasons for coming forward and had not been promised a job in exchange for accusing Cain of groping her in a parked car 14 years ago. She sought to downplay past financial problems.”,0,4756421.story

      spartan in reply to Viator. | November 9, 2011 at 9:13 am

      Let’s get this straight; what Bialek claims to have happened is not sexual harassment in the workplace. I suggest you reread what happened in the Paula Jones case. The trial judge found Clinton’s behavior, while boorish, did not rise to the standards of sexual harassment. Clinton won on summary judgement.
      Had Bialek made these claims 14 years ago, she would have gotten nothing. I think Kraushaar’s complaint will be devastating. I think what Bialek alleges, so will Kraushaar. I don’t know for sure but there is a reason you bring in Lin Wood. It isn’t to litigate the non-claim of Bialek (and suing her for libel/slander is pointless as she has no money). You don’t bring in a big gun like Wood unless you have a big problem. Perhaps, the claims made while Cain was at the NRA were not frivolous.
      Something to think about.

    The ‘conservative’ columnist (calumnist?) at the WaPo is always going to be a bigger problem for conservatives, it’s the Washington Post for crying out loud. Does anyone honestly think they’d allow it to be any other way?

    With their willingness to jump in and carry water for the LSM the Perry camp has effectively placed themselves among the Romneyites in my book.

    Regardless of the particulars of Cain’s situation this was a prime opportunity to put the media on the defensive – to point up the egregious double standards and blatant hypocrisy of their unwillingness, if not flat refusal, to investigate charges against their anointed ones (Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Obama, particularly as compared to the inquisitions they have directed at those they deem unfavorable (Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, etc.)

    Every time they brought the Cain story up it should have been met with return fire directed at their own failures. Sure, that might have lightened Cain load, but it would also lighten everyone’s load.

    Instead Perry’s and Romney’s people have both (and again) chosen the classic beltway RINO tack of sucking up to the LSM crocodile, hoping they get eaten last.

    If this is what they are, we neither want nor need them, because they are not on our side.

      boone in reply to ThomasD. | November 9, 2011 at 10:23 am

      You do realize that Perry has said absolutely nothing about Cain ‘s allegations? Including offering a strong denial that he leaked the story and then standing down, which I gelt showed a lot of class, considering Cain was lobbying grenades inside the tent.

        ThomasD in reply to boone. | November 9, 2011 at 4:07 pm

        You do realize that you have entirely avoided all of the Perry supporters who have been fanning the flames over this?

        Or do you honestly think anyone is buying your Perry as disinterested Hamlet schtick?

    jasygrama | November 9, 2011 at 10:05 am

    These things happened during a time when the Sexual Harrassment era enforcement was very strong. I remember men couldn’t even comment on a woman’s fragrance – sounds silly to me but it could be construde as a “pass” and anything relating to a comment like “you’re looking good today” could be sexual. I remember it well because some women were more sensitive to that sort of attention and would report even the slightest comment. There were meetings galore about what was proper behavior during that time.

    What is even more interesting, there have been no reports to come through since that time 14 years ago of any misconduct by Cain. I have been sceptical of the women who have brought charges and continue to support Herman Cain.

    “On his radio program Tuesday, Mark Levin aired a clip of veteran journalist and CBS anchor Bill Kurtis on WLS saying that Herman Cain’s accuser, Sharon Bialek, is a former CBS employee with a “track record.” Given her checkered past, a chuckling Kurtis posited that Bialek‘s and Cain’s roles in the alleged car-incident could even have been reversed.”

    If nothing else, this is making it quite clear that Perry is attracting a lot of the support he should be ashamed of; not exactly a shock.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend