Saturday, November 5, 2011

IS CAIN ABLE, AND IS MEDIA GOD??

 Herman Cain, the rising star in  the murky sky of Republican presidential candidates, has just experienced a harsh reality of politics in America----the blinding, punishing light of the scandal seeking media.  Politico magazine broke the story this week and the rest of the media picked it up like vultures after fresh meat.  Mr. Cain, a successful business man and CEO of Godfather's Pizza chain, was getting a little too much attention lately, coming in a surprising second to Mitt Romney, the front runner.  Time to dig up the dirt----in this  case, on Mr. Cain, who has been accused of improper behavior regarding the opposite sex---what?? What kind of improper behavior??  Well, that hasn't been clearly explained yet----unless you consider Mr. Cain's remarks about his chin being at the same level as a woman's height---uh, well---excuse me??  Perhaps there's more to the story, but we haven't heard it yet.  Mr. Cain did admit to a legal entanglement and a payoff of some kind, but so far, no details. Where there's smoke, there is usually some kind of fire---but  this sounds like a push deal,  a rush to judgment.  As this blog is going to press, both sides seem to be tip toe-ing around how much they can say under confidentiality contractual terms. But  even  the charges turn out to be nothing but a" he said she said" situation, or prior cultural norms, mis-interpretations, or even somewhat offensive behavior ---Mr. Cain's reputation has been put up for suspicion.  Another Republican presidential hopeful bites the dust---at least in the eyes of the media, who have been doing a superb job of eliminating all comers to the job of challenging their suspected favorite, the incumbent President Obama.  Is that an unfair charge against the media?  Let's look at what's been said so far about a few of the most promising  candidates---what's left of them.

Michelle Bachmann, congresswoman and--- once a promising presidential candidate, with lots of sass and class.  She has now been reduced pretty much to an also ran,with a strong conservative message--- too many holes in her historical references---and just a touch too religious.  Note to Ms. Bachmann---identifying oneself as "Christian isn't hip or cool these days---and above all, our media is hip and cool.

New Gingrich, a previous Speaker of the House, author, and current political consultant---obviously the brightest kid in the room with impressive experience and Washington know-how to get the job done. But sorry, he's got personal baggage, involving a divorce.  Never mind that was many years ago, and that divorce is hardly an uncommon sin among the media, let alone the general populace. But hey, we want 'em squeeky clean.  After all, if our ship is going down, the chief thing we want said about us is that our leaders had no infidelity and wonderful marriages, if nothing else.

Rick Perry,Texas Gov---this guy was promoted like global warming by the media for a short while.  Mitt Romney was running away with the prize, and somebody had to stop this run away train that might actually de-rail the Obama stop and go locomotive.   So, what to do?  Shine the spotlight on someone else---casting all others to oblivion.  It worked, until Perry showed himself to be less than stellar on the debate test. Bye-bye media. Though Perry did it to himself, they were more than happy to accentuate the negative.  This guy can run Texas like a well managed  gushing oil well, but no one showed him how to know when to fold 'em or hold 'em up there on that TV stage with all the other Republicans.  Note to Perry---the enemy ain't them.  Show us how you'd bring your Texas " git 'er" done expertise to Washington.  Meanwhile, the media has all but written you off. Get back on your horse, man, and stop the attack Romney schtick---it's not working. You need to bring it--because the media isn't about to do that for you.

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts---the most presidential looking one of all,  would probably make a very acceptable, if not exceptional, president.  He has all the credentials---he is a smart, experienced business man, with moderate conservative views---a-a-and---he's squeeky clean.  No personal baggage here---yet. Don't think the dirt baggers haven't tried. But there is that one little thing.  This man is RELIGIOUS. What??  Not only that, he's, gasp, Mormon! Double whammy. Terribly sorry, but that just does not fit the media's presidential template. On the other hand, they're not too worried about Romney, because, guess what?  The Republicans don't seem too excited about him yet, either. Maybe they, also, have been reading too many left wing editorials. After all they are " the third rail", and have a lot to do with how all the voters think and respond. Wouldn't it be nice if the National Republican Committee could rise above the media and publicize all that is good about  all of the nominees, and how each could improve the current situation? 

President Obama, meanwhile back at the ranch, isn't spending much time on the ranch. Touring the country in his tax- payer financed jet, spreading the "tax the rich" gospel, all the while proclaiming that this trip is not about the election, but about putting Americans back to work. Please. That, coupled with his sudden alliance to the Wall Street Occupiers, is really outrageously transparent---the guy is in trouble, and has retreated to the only thing he seems able to do---preach class warfare to the masses via speeches, teleprompters, and TV talk shows.

President Obama made an appearance on Jay Leno's show last week.  He made a very revealing statement when Leno asked who Obama was most concerned about as a serious competitor in the next election.  Obama replied that for now he wasn't worried---he was just waiting to see who would  be "voted off the island next." It rang true---why worry, when the media seems to be doing all the heavy lifting for him.  Hm-m--m, not a bad plan they've got going either----vote everyone off the island, until there's no one left but---who we've already got! No worries, man---another 4 years coming up. Happy days are here again,--- or will be as soon as they figure out this little economy problem. They're working on it---it's not their fault, you understand, they inherited it, they're learning as they go, and they don't have a lot of experience . But we have irreproachable behavior coming out the ying -yang with our prez.  He's never been divorced, nor involved in any personal scandals, (never mind the Jeremiah Wright or x-terrorist Bill Ayer's associations) not overtly religious, has even given up smoking, is thin, good looking, cool, and very well spoken at all times.  Not to mention he's black.  But wait---so is Herman Cain.  Well, that's different.  He's a Republican. Doesn't count. I believe they call that "reverse discrimination."  

 So moving right along, we're still a year away from the big election, but it feels like we're down to the wire, and just one or two are left standing----isn't it a bit premature, and shouldn't we demand as much fair handed reportage from our journalists as they demand from anyone who dares to run for president against the incumbent Mr. Obama. Printing or releasing  all the dirt that's fit to report, may be the unfortunate standard today, but it would seem in the Herman Cain case, especially that they could have waited until they had just a few more specifics. Perhaps the public is finally catching up and has had enough of this kind of journalism--word has it that contributions have been pouring into the Herman Cain campaign coffers since the news reported the, whatever it was," gotcha'" scoop.  
.
 Herman Cain may or may not be guilty of  personal indiscretions, but he will probably be the latest victim in the media controlled selection of an acceptable Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States, and that may be our loss. Back in the late 50's, I remember a man who wanted to be president and who was enjoying his own indiscretions with Marilyn Monroe, among too many to count others, while married and before the election. I knew about it, not from the media, but from people I knew who were privvy to such secrets. It was not public knowledge,  and his continued  dalliances never  became widely known, even after he became president.  John F. Kennedy would never have made the current media litmus test----or would he?    

 Note to Republicans, and everyone else---don't believe everything you read, and don't form opinions too quickly. The best leaders, may not always be the squeek-iest clean.Think Eisenhower,  Bill Clinton---Thomas Jefferson.  It's about the economy, governing philosophy, the very future of this country.  What we need now isn't necessarily idol love, media style, but it.is a real person, perhaps a little humanly flawed, but who has know-how, business acumen and experience, an international diplomacy that believes America must remain strong, and a touch of Solomon,----not a media perceived and conjured picture of impossible perfection.  Been there, done that. Is Cain able to overcome this vague, but probably very calculating move  to down grade his chances to become the next president?  Stay tuned---sometimes the American people smell a rat.    



19 comments:

  1. So what would Cain do about unemployment and the shrinking middle class? He's said what he'd do--it's every man for himself! Where's the commitment to the common good? Where's the understanding of what makes a nation go? What are his views on the exponential growth of income disparity? Beware! He's a motivational speaker, which is his niche. We'll be safer if he stays there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's not the point of the article---beware of a media that is all too eager to crucify a man before they even know or are willing to publish the crimes. Nobody is safe under their relentless search ---not for the truth, but for the "scoop", facts be damned.

    Cain was rising because he was somehow speaking for many who believe in the conservative view that government is playing too big a role in our lives today. It's not "every man for himself", so much as let every man have a chance to succeed without buckling under the weight of a welfare state, which many fear we have already become.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You don't seem to realize those chances are becoming fewer and fewer by the day. One of the largest holes in the bag is underpaid workers, because it takes money to invest in that "success". Another is insecure employment. Another is outsourcing. The little guy making it good in the USA today is becoming a worn out myth strengthened by anecdotal examples, only anomalies. I guess that's where we agree that the press is more interested in exciting stories than reality. But the fact remains that Herman Cain doesn't get it either. He imagines he can judge the opportunities of others by his own fortunate success. I know I missed the point of the article. I don't care about Cain's misdemeanors, but I am concerned about the millions of people he would harm were he to "get in". But I don't think I need lie awake at night worrying about that. Do you?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Do you believe all the conservative views?

    ReplyDelete
  5. No----just the general overview that if we continue to allow the government to take over our lives, this will no longer be the America that I knew and believe is the best system the world has ever known. Do you believe all the liberal views? And you still have never shown me a better example of a country than ours, flaws and all. You seem to think big gov. is the answer to everything---what makes you so sure that "they" will benignly rule without regard to their own pockets and destiny. The income disparity you talk about, however, may be a real and growing concern--we will stumble our way thru it and come up with answers eventually---but I hope we don't to coin an old phrase, "throw the baby out with the bath water"---the "baby", being capitalism. It's what makes this country tick, and those who think differently are referring to a socialistic ideal, which has never worked---end of story.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You regularly admit this country has its flaws, and here specify income disparity as one of those flaws. Good for you. I, in turn, have and will celebrate capitalism as what makes this country tick. The flaw of disparity is not a flaw of our country, however. It's a growing cancer made worse by the increasing grip corporations have on government, not tradition but an innovation that had its inception just 30 years ago. It was put in the fast track very recently by the "Citizens United" decision of the sitting Supreme Court when corporations were given the same rights as people. Hey! I'm on your side! But we have a new problem here! "Conservatism" is no longer about tradition. It has been hijacked by big money. Conservatives must take another look at who's on their side. That is beginning to occur, primarily a result of "Occupy Wall Street" making out-of-control income disparity a topic of discussion for everyone. A weak government is not the answer, though your points that bigger government will not necessarily answer it are well taken. The people must reclaim the land of opportunity once again. Not socialism, but moderated capitalism which makes success a reasonable expectation for most Americans. The latest irony is the declaration by both Perry and Romney that Medicare ought to raise the age for eligibility because people are living longer! To what else do they attribute that longevity? Thanks for opening up this conversation. I think all sides must open up to new ideas and I'm glad you don't just follow the party line. That's what makes a conversation in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Do you think we can trust someone like Speaker of the House, John Boehner, a follower of the ideas of Ayn Rand, founder of "Objectivism"? Former Speaker, Newt Gingrinch, is also an Objectivist, but is he OBJECTIVE?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ah, what a loaded question!!! Especially with the news media now blasting Newt Gingrich with their latest salvos of attacks, in order to bring down yet another Republican candidate who is rising to the top of the polls. Is Gingrich objective? Is Obama? Is Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Are you?? Objectivity is not a politician's trait, nor should it be--he or she is known and elected for his belief system, for which he/she stands---which is always subjective, Ayn Rand not withstanding---she wasn't objective, either--even existentialism is subjective, though you are alluding to the negative implications of individual reliance, instead of govt. nanny care---and mixing the two definitions of the word, "objectivity". Very confusing to a clear conversation. Go to God for supreme objectionism----even He has an agenda----

    ReplyDelete
  9. Like most "conservatives" you are repelled by knowledge, equating it with belief. But many things have become known since the beginning of the 20th century which we could use to the enhancement of life on this planet. As for Ayn Rand, her "Objectivism" is just another ideology based on nothing but her personal traumatic experiences during the Russian Revolution. Are we going to let the Bolsheviks win by over-reliance on this very bright though warped woman and her claim to objectivity? Unfortunately, many powerful politicos are her disciples. No, subjectivity is not our only choice. We now have available a huge amount of knowledge on human social and political behavior. Part of that knowledge would guide us to identify and shun leaders who have sold out their often considerable intelligence to a cult figure.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh my---your liberal sense of exclusionary right to "knowledge" is cult like and as usual, counter procuctive to a persuasive conversation, --- and not at all wise, in your tendancy to insult the other person's intelligence. Yes, knowledge and beliefs are two different things, but one's philosophy of governance is a belief, not necessarily based on cold facts or complete knowledge. Why the sudden focus on Ayn Rand?? Like she has suddenly become the standard bearer for the conservative party? Do not put people in boxes---conservatives range from poor to rich and from the center of the spectrum to the right. They basically do not believe that govt. has all the answers----and that if given too much power, they become not of the people, but of and for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well said. My extreme expressions came out of a sudden realization of how many powerful people in politics subscribe to the ideas of Ayn Rand. But I still believe greater knowledge leads to wiser governance. One must know the real needs of the people and the real, overall consequences of policies before practical policies can be enforced. The people had to know the actual effects slavery had on the victimized before anything could change. It is not only a case of any ol' opinion is as informed as any other.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't remember even implying that "any ol' opinion is as informed as any other". What I do mean to say is, beware of the arrogance that would assume you have the only knowledge which would lead to the only way to govern righteously. Market capitalism has been a proven success story---where else would you rather live than here---even as a poor man, if you were such? Socialism and its kindred anscestors have never worked. The problem with our society at present is the result of greed, not the system---and greed is present in all societies. The difference is that we can fix it eventually---not be bled dry by a govt. that insists it is the answer, the ultimate source of power and bottomless pit that needs higher and higher taxes to feed the needs of the masses, which become more and more dependant. The govt. needs to get out of the way and allow the market place to breathe once again--not the other way around. We shall soon see which way the wind will blow when the "super committee" either makes decisions which will tax for revenue or cut. I fear for our country---we are in peril, and must decide a balanced path or sink even further into decline.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Real capitalism depends on government regulations that prevent big money swallowing all the competition that keeps capitalism in balance. Government regulation has been steadily weakening since 1980, and we are now reaping the whirlwind. What more (specifically) would you have deregulated?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'll answer your questions, when you begin to answer mine---I'll refresh your memory with a recent one: Where else would you rather live, even if you were very poor? This is still the best system the world has ever offered--but we're tearing it down at a furious pace. You tell me how you would improve what we have----

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ah, that was a pretty hard question for you, huh? I am an American, born and bred here and I don't want to move out of Colorado. But I don't find much fault with the socialism of the Scandanavian countries nor Germany nor Israel. For them it seems to be working. I would begin improving what we have here by repealing the Taft/Hartly Act.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "60 Minutes" finally did a piece on Grover Norquist. If you saw it (or if you didn't), it's time to come to terms with this type of lobbyist and demand that our legislators are responsible to us and not to clever lobbyists who would bind them to promises when the facts on the ground would later indicate otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Must you be so condescending? Apparently so. Your remark re regulations is a good illustration as to why civil conversations die before bearing much fruit. The question re regulations is not too hard, just that it encompasses so much detail from the financial sector, to taxes, to health care, to energy policies that it's hard to hone in in this brief format. Perhaps a blog would be more appropriate---why don't you start one?? Here's a couple of thoughts to get you started with your own blog--- Regulations may be necessary , but over regulation, such as what we have now with the "no drill, baby" policicies are unbelievably unacceptable to a logical mind. We need both gas and natural energy desperately, and now--- and it's available right here under our feet!!! Even insider trade regulations have their negative, manipulative side, as they can still play havoc with the market's ability to flow freely without artifical means and intervention. Regulation begets more regulation---what we need is to have a balanced amount, better overseeing and accountability.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I couldn't agree more with your final statement. Balance--yes! But I don't want to start my own blog.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I guess Cain is down now and Gingrich up.

    ReplyDelete