Why? What is it about Cain that engenders such mindless, low-rent criticisms of him and/or his ideas?
Look at the latest hit piece at Politico. The intrepid reporters there have managed to dig up some apparent "scandals"--two, actually--from the nineties that may or may not involve pubic hairs and a Coke.
Then--halfway through the "story"--these "reporters" have the gall to offer up this line:
The revelations come at a time when Cain is riding high in the polls, with a candidacy that relies heavily on Cain’s claims that his experience as a businessman and the former head of Godfather’s Pizza has prepared him to be president.This, after earlier noting that they've been sitting on the "story" for weeks, at the very least. It's the height of navel-gazing; the reporters refer to their own story's timing within the story, itself! And they present this as some sort of news bit, as opposed to what it clearly is: evidence of motive. Look, they even do it again:
Revelations about the settlements come as members of the association’s board planned to meet this month to talk about ways to use the organization’s clout to boost Cain’s campaign.I'd have more respect for them if they just spoke the plain truth: "we released this story now because Cain seems to be getting some momentum and we'd like to slow that down, if possible."
Now, all that said, sexual harassment and the like is no joke (unless your last name happens to be Clinton). But if this kind of stuff is going to be public fodder, the principals need to bring it forward, not a bunch of over-caffeinated reporters with secondary motivations.