Herman Cain photo this week: Angry? - image from The Atlantic
From the Washington Post comes this ditty by Dana Millbank, ”The Herman Cain crack-up”, a piece so full of vitriol, obvious political bias, bitterness and bravado that one who is a moderate (i.e. an individual who looks at all sides, history, and the facts as they appear, not in print anymore, rather in the full length video (not in patched snippets that will make someone appear to be what they are not), or 8 X 10 color glossies (from Alice’s Restaurant, Arlo Guthrie) and with good reason – Millbank offers a prime example of this phenomenon. Although his “article” is entitled “opinion” and correctly so – it is more of a rant, rather than an actual opinion of the events:
In the article Millbank calls Cain a “long shot”, paranoid (in reference to a staff member who had accused another campaign of releasing a story about allegations of sexual harassment by Cain which took place in the early 1990’s.), he speaks about Herman Cain losing his temper, which “escalated into violence” at an event at a Hilton in VA, however, there is no video – only Millbank’s allegations to back up this charge. There is however a video from the AP below, which may be one of the many instances Millbank refers to in what can only be termed as a “Cry Wolf” piece, watch the AP Clip carefully, Cain does not answer the questions, but is overall polite, and not “shouting” – the proof, is in the pudding, so to speak. In referring to one particular brush with the press, (Cain’s healthcare meeting):
"At the Hilton, his campaign called off the “news conference” it had scheduled with reporters. Instead, Cain gave a few perfunctory words about health care while surrounded by people in white coats; they said they were doctors opposed to Obamacare, but there was no need to wear their white coats to the Hilton ballroom unless they were concerned about coffee spills.
To give the reporters the slip, Cain left the room through a service door, then used a service elevator to escape from the hotel. His chief of staff, the cigarette aficionado, was chased by reporters until he slammed the door of his chauffeur-driven Cadillac, which peeled out. "
To the average reader (it is truly doubtful that today’s average reader is actually reading the Post), Millbank asserts that the doctors at a conference are not doctors because they are wearing white coats – in other words, Cain’s campaign has hired props, and that Cain gave reporters the slip (see video below on this one), and of all things describes Cain’s Chief of Staff (without naming him) as a cigarette aficionado (How many millions of American’s still smoke?), and the fact that he was “chased” by reporters into a “Chauffer driven – Cadillac”. In 2008, campaign staff and candidates routinely used drivers, regardless of whether they were driving in Cadillac’s, SUV’s or a taxi.
His closing statement says it all – with so much school yard charm (dare we say Grammar School?):
“This time, Cain ignored them. As the party got to the meeting room, his bodyguard resumed his shoving and elbowing, blocking congressional staff and reporters from getting into the meeting. When challenged, the bodyguard explained himself: “I make the rules.”
Not anymore.
According to Millbank’s version of the universe, the press calls the shots for Presidential Candidates, or anyone for that matter – he sees himself as some sort of kingmaker – or queenmaker. The evidence lays in a more recent piece in which Millbank turns into a lapdog for a Progressive Senate Candidate in Massachusetts: Yes, the same Dana Millbank that glorifies the “Occupy’s Elizabeth Warren in a piece that belies what is actually going on in Massachusetts’ Senate Race. Warren is running against the popular Senator Scott Brown, and to date has made more mistakes than the now forgotten gubernatorial candidate Shannon O’Brien. In the piece Millbank refers to the gushing crowd of union members and bloggers as representative of Warrens constituency – however, that hardly represents actual voters in the Commonwealth – and more often than not in Massachusetts (refer to the Brown campaign in January of 2009) Union workers are “hired” to attend political events.
Millbank’s credibility and political ideology, not unlike other so-call Mainstream media journalist, are tainting each story they write, whether pro and or con, for either one who is a Democrat or Progressive (Socialist) (as the two are separate and should be noted as such), and or Republican, or Libertarian or yes, even Tea Party. Which brings one to the old adage of the “Boy who Cried Wolf” – after the last two decades of reading and listening to the political venom coming forth from every mainstream print, or broadcast piece, even on a local level, the credibility of the press declining with each passing decade (refer to Gallup and Trust in Institutions, and most recently Distrurst in Media Edges Record High) even if certain allegations from the 1990’s are true, the fact is that this “cry wolf, biased reporting that has taken place from Washington to the outskirts of the local CBS station in some western outpost) taints not the candidate, but the press. Individual reporters, are perceived as both arrogant and untrustworthy – therefore, if the Anti-Christ himself were to emerge as a Candidate, and the press were to “warn the masses”, it is doubtful the masses would listen.
Is it too late to turn the corner? Put things into perspective? Perhaps not – if every single report issued in video and print that is from the reporters own political perspective is stated as such, and actual news is not reported with innuendo’s, rather with just the plain old boring facts, and a straight face, credibility may return – in time.
Suggested treatment of why distrust of American Media is a complete necessity, regardless of network: Stephen K. Bannon’s ”The Undefeated”, available on Amazon here in DVD format. Bannon’s documentary, which has been shared with friends and neighbors from the Heartland neighborhoods, to yes, even Massachusetts, documents exactly the tactics the press used to villianizes former V.P. Candidate Sarah Palin – it is not so much about Palin but about the U.S. press, and the documentary gives evidence, in video, in 8 X 10 color glossies. It is a “how to” for the budding journalist, on how to destroy an individual in under a year, if that individual does not have the backbone to stand up to this type of press. It is also why, in part, that those of Millbank’s ilk are either avoided or ignored.
Again, cry wolf so many times, and one day, when the story is true, and one has actual evidence to that fact (again they use allegations that cannot be substantiated, ask the candidate (hound is more appropriate) questions regarding allegations that are not yet substantiated, and expect that the general public will just turn away, or for that matter that Cain won’t stand up, even going so far as to lose his temper.
Raw Video Cain Mobbed by Reporters – Meeting on Health Care (AP Video You TubeCompare to Millbank’s take on what occurred.
Final note: On sexual Harassment charges. There are instances where actual sexual harassment takes place, more often than not, and it involves not only women (mostly) but men as well. In the 1990’s however, when the concept of sexual harassment was put into place, it was not uncommon for the rules to be a bit…ridiculous when it came to transitioning those of one generation (Perhaps Cain’s and this bloggers), to that of another (everyone born in the following generations). A complement becomes “sexual harassment”, a pat on the back for a job well done is inappropriate, a joke which is off color may offend someone who then can make a claim. In addition, there are those who would make allegations, knowing they have something to personally gain, where little or no harassment has taken place. The following examples are from this bloggers experience in the corporate world, and the evolution of sexual harassment: from the 1980’s a co-worker complements one’s “gams” (legs), form of dress or pats one on the back – given the age of the male (an all male staff, with one glaring exception at the time), this was a complement not harassment, (although others have suggested otherwise). Fast forward to the 1990’s, a man sits in his office pants down about his ankles, as one walks into the office for the morning briefing – the man makes an outlandish suggestions. That is sexual harassment – however, it is also laughable.
In the workplace, women or men who are told they have no job, unless they submit to sex with the boss (or the bosses client) is, to this mind, sexual harassment. Inappropriate grabbing (not patting on the head), is sexual harassment, and of course, language from a co-worker regardless of rank, if not invited, (key phrase) suggesting a sexual liaison, repeatedly, is sexual harassment. Complements, no matter how one slices it – are not in this mind sexual harassment. Perhaps it’s because of an advanced age, and vanity, but if someone (male) notes that they might find this blogger attractive, that’s not to this mind sexual harassment, that’s a complement. One has to take into consideration the generation of the “offender”, the context of the statement, and if one is patted on the head, is that pat on the head, from a “fatherly” perspective, or is one being treated like a “child” in a condescending manner (for a job well done”) In either situation it is not, to this mind, sexual harassment.
I would again caution, that without seeing the severance agreements (not settlements, which is not the appropriate legal terminology here, regardless of what the press would have one think (see Trust), and without seeing the actual allegations of misconduct, one has no choice but to give the accused, the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, show substance and proof, not “allegations and fabrications (Millbank)”. It is these types of frivolous allegations that take away from those who are truly being harassed, and frankly, takes more credibility away from the press – and not their intended target.
Note to readers: if anyone can find the other incident referred to by Millbank in video please post a link in comments – due diligence aside, there may be others, which can further Millbank’s case which this blogger may have missed, and/or strengthen Cain’s.
Lastly a little humor from the Late Night shows:
At 6:21 minutes on the Late Late Show video with Craig Ferguson: (video link here) – Cain joke on harassment - noting that Bill Clinton has endorsed Herman Cain – going into impression of Clinton – Now this is humor.
No comments:
Post a Comment