Cain's Statement: I'm Going To Beat Up On The Media And Make Them The Story, But I'm Not Going To Address Particulars

See, it's a strategy. You should support this because he's playing by his own rules and not letting The Media boss him around.

On the other hand, he's also not denying anything Bialek said.

When someone stops you on the street and hits you with an accusation like this, they subsequently write a story about the look in your eyes, and how many seconds it took you to speak some words in response. They go to “crisis management experts” who offer the usual sage wisdom about “getting all the information out” – as if you can get any “information” out (aside from telling them nothing happened, which they don’t want to hear) in response to allegations that are unsourced and nonspecific.

Then, when you haven’t “calmed the firestorm” – if only because the people wielding the blow-torches have no intention of putting them out – more experts are put on the air to say this proves you are “not ready for prime time.”
Maybe that would matter if I was trying out for the cast of Saturday Night Live. But this should be a slightly more serious undertaking than that.

Contrary to the belief of experts, so wise and learned in the ways of politics, I do know what the established rules say I am supposed to do. I simply refuse to do it. That’s because the rules are ridiculous, and they produce leaders like Barack Obama, who play the political game like experts but govern like complete incompetents.

Sorry, I'm now kind of convinced of his guilt. He's trying to change the subject.

Not reassuring.

While he attempts to hoodwink you into thinking this is some principled stance, what I see is a guy who does not want to deny specific details (did he meet with Bialek? Did he upgrade her hotel room? Did the meeting end on a positive note or a negative one and if negative, why? ), because I see a guy who is worried that his specific denials will be proven false in turn.

So he keeps to the general. The vague. Even while he says he will not refer to his accusers' "vague" or "nonspecific" allegations, he ignores the specific and very un-vague ones, and will only offer "vague" and "nonspecific" demurrals in turn.

And what he's counting on is that the conservative movement is so dumb that it will elect him as a nominee without every figuring out what the damage and downside here will be, and you know what? There's a good chance he's right.

We have become pretty dumb. We're so damned eager to believe we seem to have forgotten that skepticism is pretty useful.

And yes, skepticism on both sides, not skepticism only towards his four accusers, while taking a completely unskeptical, believer-ish posture to whatever Cain says.

Guy can't even bother to tell me what Bialek said was false. He won't even say that. He writes a general slam of the media and expects the reader to conveniently read a denial in between the lines, despite it never actually being offered up.

We have a live, on-the-record accuser, who says Cain groped her vagina.

On the other hand, we have Cain, who... refuses to say whether he touched her inappropriately or not. The closest he'll come is...

Consider: I held various executive positions in corporate America for several decades. I had thousands of employees working for me. I can’t even begin to recall how many conversations I had with people during that time, how many directives I gave, how much friendly banter might have taken place.

Yeah well she didn't accuse you of friendly banter, Hoss. She accused you of pawing at her genitals.

So, it's not a he said/she said anymore; it's a she said/he refuses to say and changes the topic.

posted by Ace at 06:28 PM

| Access Comments