excerpt:
If she flew around the country and stayed with him in various hotels over a long period of time, presumably there would be records and witnesses.
Who cares? Women? How much did they care when Clinton got caught red handed?
This is not to explain away something or excuse it- provided that it is even true. It is galling to see who is doing this and why. Yet those on the conservative side are willing to let allegations alone be enough to disqualify Cain. I suppose it is necessary to be consistent, but Emerson said that
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
The herding of the sheep continues...
Update:
More of the same. Somebody wants to thin out the field awfully bad. But Barney Frank can't throw stones at anybody, neither Cain nor Goldwater.
Update:
Cain reassessing candidacy. He should only do this if he is guilty. That's because it makes him look guilty. In addition, even if he is guilty, he should stay in the race. To get accused by hypocrites and to bow down in the face of their criticism isn't strong. "If you can't stand the heat, get out the kitchen." His candidacy should be a reproach to those who accuse. Giving in to them only rewards them.
This may seem like supporting amoral behavior, but it isn't. Those who accuse are probably no better morally even if he's guilty. And what about it if he isn't?
People elected Barney Frank and Bill Clinton. What do people really care about morals? If people did care, why did they elect guys like that?
No comments:
Post a Comment