Herman Cain = Part II

Hi

In an earlier blog I said I liked Herman Cain as a candidate. Since then every thing has gone "to hell in a hand basket". Here is my take on the situation.

Almost all of the charges are allegations, he said, she said. Do we want to condemn a person for this kind of goings on? Or should we condemn? The media is biased against conservatives as it is, add to the mix the fact that Cain is a man of color, what chance did he have. I think playing the race card is a very foolish method of defense, but in this case, is it warranted? Let's compare similar situations.

First is Bill Clinton and his bimbo harem. We had credible allegations of a forced rape but the media largely ignored it, we had admitted affairs while he was governor of Arkansas, we had Ms Wiley, and of course we had Monica Lewinsky. If factual did anything Cain allegedly do come up to what Clinton did? NO. The media ignored Clinton but went after Cain. I feel that Cain should get the same coverage as Clinton.

Next we need to look at how the campaign of Edwards was covered. The media did not cover the story until the "checkout counter rag" the Enquirer broke it. I mean we all know that the media was forced to print the story because it had already been printed by the Enquirer. Here is the race card again, Clinton and Edwards are white, Cain is colored. Coincidence, I don't think so. In his writings Thomas Jefferson said that in order for there to be a free democracy, there must be a free (unbiased) press. Don't we deserve that much.

Remember to pray for our soldiers and their loved ones.
GOD Bless