BloggeRhythms 11/8/2011

I just read a recap of the recent accusation against Herman Cain by a woman who says he made sexual advances toward her back in 1997. Apparently, this is the first time she's mentioned the issue publicly, although it took place 14 years ago.

The story got me to thinking because, unless I'm mistaken, it seems to me that the press always pursues, or elects to highlight, one side of these stories. And it always appears to side with the complainant who most often are women.

From what I read in the recap, the woman involved originally met candidate Cain at a meeting in Chicago, then she called him a month later asking for help because she'd just been laid off from her job with the NRA. He offered to assist her and the two went out for dinner to discuss the matter. And it was after a couple of drinks and dinner when he accompanied her back to her hotel that she says he got aggressive, going so far as putting his hand up her skirt and being sexually aggressive while they were still in his car. However, when she told him to stop, he did.

Now, obviously I haven't a clue as to what actually happened that night, and don't think that outside of the two people involved neither does anyone else. So what it all boils down to is another case of "he said, she said." And this is the part that always frosts me, because we always seem to get the same slant from the press who consistently take the side of the woman.

However, high profile, successful folks with some clout like Herman Cain, are always targets for women for a whole raft of different reasons. Some seek publicity, some want to latch onto power any way they can, others are excited by status, while "baseball Annie" types chase celebs and jocks just for the thrill. Still others see opportunities for other types of personal gain through threats like extortion or blackmail. And the list of reasons goes on and on and on.

Now I'm certainly not suggesting that any of the preceding is what happened that night in 1997, because I haven't even an iota of information about what really took place. Nonetheless, any of the scenarios is certainly possible.

And that's why I think that before anyone goes off the deep end in these situations and implies guilt without proof, which is usually done by the press, it would be much better for high-profile folks if the reporters actually had some facts.

That's it for today folks.

Adios