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.


    theres an excellent post on national review corner by french expressing wha i have been trying to say about the legal insanity in the cain affair – no link writing from kindle makes it difficult

    Referenced above..

    “This is unjust . . . to Herman Cain. He faces old claims from women who obviously felt that the initial incidents (if any) didn’t merit a legal filing. In some ways, Herman Cain faces a more difficult challenge than Clarence Thomas. At least Justice Thomas had the opportunity to confront his accuser in a format where Americans were able to weigh their competing stories, saw them competently cross-examined by senators from both sides, and were able to reach a judgment, a judgment that was decisive at the time: Justice Thomas had been wrongly accused. As painful as that experience was, I wonder if it is ultimately less painful than shadow-boxing against accusers whose celebrity attorneys parade them on the morning shows, making allegations that are impossible to disprove yet equally impossible to ignore. Herman Cain is being forced to prove a negative — without access to contemporaneous evidence.”

    “Yet Cain also wins greater scrutiny, not exemption, because he is black — or at least a certain sort of black. In addition to his conservatism, his voice, bearing, grammar, and diction, even his showy black cowboy hat, bother liberals in much the same way that Joe Frazier was not Muhammad Ali and Clarence Thomas was not Anita Hill. Black authenticity, as defined by Southern mannerisms and darker complexion, amplified by conservatism or traditionalism, earns liberal unease. Rarely has anyone been so candid in confessing just that unease as were Senators Harry Reid and Joe Biden in their backhanded praise of Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign. I think Reid (“light-skinned,” “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”) and Biden (“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy”) both were trying to say at the time that Barack Obama did not look or sound like someone analogous to Herman Cain.”

    “Again, the comparison with Obama is volatile: Cain is authentically African-American and of an age to remember the Jim Crow South; Obama, the son of an elite Kenyan and a white graduate student, came of age as a Hawaiian prep-schooler, whose civil-rights credentials are academic. Cain’s lack of experience and seemingly embarrassing ignorance about the right of return or nuclear China are amplified by his unaffected style, whereas Obama’s similar gaffes (57 states) and buffoonery (inflating tires to preclude drilling for oil) are mitigated by metrosexual cool. After all, we live in an age when Herman Cain, with his black hat, his deep Southern cadences, and his ease among tea-party crowds, is suspect, whereas Barack Obama booms on about “millionaires and billionaires” while golfing, jetting to Martha’s Vineyard, and shaking down demonized corporate-jet owners at $35,000 a pop.”

    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