UPDATE: what I heard on the radio tonight that indicates they really don’t get the problem
Or at best misconstruing, and if you don’t believe that, just ask the conservative propaganda machine, where women are guilty until proven…well, they’re just guilty. TPM put a bunch of examples together For a couple examples:
Many conservatives believed Anita Hill was, at best, out for craven political gain. And at worst, she was nuts. Even as details are scant and sketchy about what happened during Cain’s tenure at the National Restaurant Association, conservatives are already casting the same aspersions on Cain’s accusers. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) told the National Review that there were similarities between the Cain allegations and those leveled at Clarence Thomas. “There are some parallels here, and to the extent that they played a role in this, it’s very, very offensive, and it’s going to backfire severely,” he said.
Right-wing talk show host Laura Ingraham, a former Thomas law clerk, was also ready to blame the women. “We have seen this movie before and we know how it ends. It always ends up being an employee who can’t perform or who under-performs and is looking for a little green,” she said on her show.
We don’t know what Cain was accused of, let alone if the charges were justified. We also don’t know that the women misconstrued. We don’t know that the women were lying. We do know that when a conservative is under attack, no such niceties matter.
I STILL believe Anita Hill.*
*20 years ago, during the controversy over Clarence Thomas’ nomination to the Supreme Court, after Anita Hill’s story became public, a popular button on the left said “I believe Anita Hill”. If the right can pull their nonsense out of history’s dustbin, we can sure reach into the old button collection.
UPDATE: While driving tonight I turned on a local conservative talk station. Yes, I do hit myself with bricks because it feels good to stop, why do you ask? It was Neil Bortz and a caller going on about Cain’s problems being liberals’ fault, because we’re endeared — I think that’s the word he used — to Bill Clinton even though he raped a woman. And harassed her. And we felt the same about Ted Kennedy even though he left a woman to suffocate.
First, Kennedy, really, still going there? Well, I guess when you haven’t had anything new to use since 1969. Second, Clinton, so beloved of liberals that we used to call him the “best Republican president ever” until we got a load of a real Republican, had a tawdry affair, but affairs are consensual. Harassment is non-consensual pretty much by definition, and rape — that needs explaining, really? You do understand what these words mean, right?
Look folks, for you conservatives poking around to see what the liberals are doing in their blogs, we almost surely didn’t give Politico the dirt on Cain. I say “almost” because I don’t know where the story came from, but I’m pretty close to certain that if we had the information, we’d have saved it for the general election. What’s the point of knocking out Cain now? He was clearly a goofball even before his scandal broke, no Democrat thinks he’s got a serious chance to be the nominee, and we’d love to run against him. It would make no sense to go after him now. Who would it make sense for? Apparently someone thought his flavor-time (as in “of the month”) was going on too long. Every rival has something to gain by knocking him down. Some of us might be enjoying a bit of schadenfreude, but this is your fight, and we have nothing to do with it, much as you wish we did. What you need is for an Agatha Christie detective to go into the greenroom when your candidates gather for the next debate, close the door, and announce the source is in this room. And no blaming the butler!
My guess, it was Cain himself, as a plot to make himself look sympathetic and put all his rivals under suspicion. Nah, I don’t really beleive it, but it would be fun to get the conservative conspiracy theory impulse pulsing.