Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
As Herman Cain starts his surprising rise in the polls, he is quickly hit by four (five?) separate accusations of sexual impropriety by as many different, unrelated women. Well, that's politics.
Isn't it?
Some people immediately said it must be a setup: Democrats dug up these women, maybe fabricated charges, etc. etc. to try to destroy Cain in ways that can't be disproven or even traced.
Others, mostly Democrats, just as quickly scoffed at the idea:
(1) Baloney, we didn't do it. And the women are telling the honest truth.
(2) Even if we wanted to go after a Republican candidate, why on Earth would we do it to Herman Cain? Barack Obama would easily crush Cain in a Nov. 2012 election. But Obama would have a tougher time defeating Mitt Romney. We would LOVE to have Cain as Obama's Republican opponent - it would guarantee Obama's re-election! No way would we attack Cain like this and knock him out of the race now.
So the Democrats airly insist.
If the accusations against Cain are genuinely true and Democrats DIDN'T have anything to do with them, then the point is moot, and in fact Cain would deserve all the grief he's getting, and more.
But what if the women are lying and Cain didn't in fact, do anything to anyone as he maintains? And what if it turned out that Democrats somehow DID gin this up? Why would they try to knock out such an "easy" Nov. 2012 opponent?
Note that all the statements about how "easy" Cain would be to defeat in Nov. 2012, are coming from people who, without exception, do NOT have access to the Democrats' secret internal polls. (Every political party takes and keeps such polls.)
Could it be that top-echelon Democrats are actually finding that Cain would NOT be so easy to defeat in November? And are letting the current "everybody knows" screaming, go on as an effective smokescreen?
In Nov. 2010, Americans elected a lot of more-conservative-than-usual Congressmen. And those Congressmen are, for the first time in living memory, actually holding the line AGAINST the Democrats' longtime (and even Republicans' recent) tax-and-borrow-and-spend policies. And Cain shows every sign of intending to do the same, and more.
Could Democrats' internal polls - the ones they don't talk about publicly - be telling them that a more-conservative candidate like Cain - whose popularity has already risen beyond anyone's expectations - is actually likely to garner MORE Republican votes in November, than the semi-liberal Romney? And could Democrats be calculating that Romney's sometimes-liberal policies put him much more in the mold of, say, John McCain... whom Obama has already beaten once in a Presidential race?
Could it be that - despite what they tell us publicly - Democrats would actually prefer the semi-liberal Romney as an opponent, than the forthright, more-conservative Cain?
It has been borne out again and again, year after year, that the candidate the Democrats attack the most viciously, is the candidate they fear is most likely to defeat them.
Is there any reason to think it's any different now? Despite what "everybody knows" about each candidates' chances in the Nov. 2012 election?
And especially considering each candidate's track record - and reasonable expection - of cooperating with Democrats?
I have no idea if the women are lying or not. But if in fact they are lying....
...maybe the Democrats have a lot more reason to try to destroy Cain early, than they are telling us.
Isn't it?
Some people immediately said it must be a setup: Democrats dug up these women, maybe fabricated charges, etc. etc. to try to destroy Cain in ways that can't be disproven or even traced.
Others, mostly Democrats, just as quickly scoffed at the idea:
(1) Baloney, we didn't do it. And the women are telling the honest truth.
(2) Even if we wanted to go after a Republican candidate, why on Earth would we do it to Herman Cain? Barack Obama would easily crush Cain in a Nov. 2012 election. But Obama would have a tougher time defeating Mitt Romney. We would LOVE to have Cain as Obama's Republican opponent - it would guarantee Obama's re-election! No way would we attack Cain like this and knock him out of the race now.
So the Democrats airly insist.
If the accusations against Cain are genuinely true and Democrats DIDN'T have anything to do with them, then the point is moot, and in fact Cain would deserve all the grief he's getting, and more.
But what if the women are lying and Cain didn't in fact, do anything to anyone as he maintains? And what if it turned out that Democrats somehow DID gin this up? Why would they try to knock out such an "easy" Nov. 2012 opponent?
Note that all the statements about how "easy" Cain would be to defeat in Nov. 2012, are coming from people who, without exception, do NOT have access to the Democrats' secret internal polls. (Every political party takes and keeps such polls.)
Could it be that top-echelon Democrats are actually finding that Cain would NOT be so easy to defeat in November? And are letting the current "everybody knows" screaming, go on as an effective smokescreen?
In Nov. 2010, Americans elected a lot of more-conservative-than-usual Congressmen. And those Congressmen are, for the first time in living memory, actually holding the line AGAINST the Democrats' longtime (and even Republicans' recent) tax-and-borrow-and-spend policies. And Cain shows every sign of intending to do the same, and more.
Could Democrats' internal polls - the ones they don't talk about publicly - be telling them that a more-conservative candidate like Cain - whose popularity has already risen beyond anyone's expectations - is actually likely to garner MORE Republican votes in November, than the semi-liberal Romney? And could Democrats be calculating that Romney's sometimes-liberal policies put him much more in the mold of, say, John McCain... whom Obama has already beaten once in a Presidential race?
Could it be that - despite what they tell us publicly - Democrats would actually prefer the semi-liberal Romney as an opponent, than the forthright, more-conservative Cain?
It has been borne out again and again, year after year, that the candidate the Democrats attack the most viciously, is the candidate they fear is most likely to defeat them.
Is there any reason to think it's any different now? Despite what "everybody knows" about each candidates' chances in the Nov. 2012 election?
And especially considering each candidate's track record - and reasonable expection - of cooperating with Democrats?
I have no idea if the women are lying or not. But if in fact they are lying....
...maybe the Democrats have a lot more reason to try to destroy Cain early, than they are telling us.
