In response to the media frenzy over the allegations of impropriety aimed at Herman Cain, some people on the Internet, I included, began to revisit the allegations from 2008 that Barack Obama was a member of the homosexual DLC arranged by hate whitey preacher Reverend Wright, either in blogs or on social media. In a story of thwarted bromance almost as compelling as that of the “gay penguins,” Reggie Love is now leaving the White House:
Reggie Love, the former Duke basketball player who has been a constant presence by Obama’s side since the 2008 presidential campaign, will depart the White House by the end of the year, a person familiar with his decision said.
Love, 30, is the latest in a string of longtime Obama aides to leave the White House this year, including senior adviser David Axelrod, press secretary Robert Gibbs, deputy press secretary Bill Burton and deputy communications director Jen Psaki. All were part of Obama’s team since at least since the 2008 race.
But it is Love who has had perhaps the most unique access to the president.
As Obama’s personal assistant — a job that’s also known as the president’s “body man” — since the beginning of the administration, Love has been a near-constant presence by Obama’s side, both at the White House and in travels around and outside the United States.
Body man. All I can say is, the slime job against Herman Cain had better work, or more heads are going to roll . . . in Chicago.
UPDATE: Thomas Sowell on the real scandal:
The real scandal in the accusations against Herman Cain is the corruption of the law, the media and politics.
Let’s start with the law. Some people may think the fact that the National Restaurant Association reportedly paid $45,000 to settle a claim made by one of its employees against Mr. Cain is incriminating.
Most of us are not going to part with 45 grand without some serious reason. But that is very different from the situation of an organization in the present legal climate.
The figure $45,000 struck a chord with me because, some years ago, my wife — who is an attorney — was fervently congratulated when her client had to pay “only” $45,000 in a jury award when the plaintiff was demanding a million dollars, in a case that was as frivolous a lawsuit as you could find.
The person who was suing was a drunk driver, whose car went out of control and slammed into a tree. After the sheriff’s deputies arrested her, she sued them on dubious charges, and the sheriff’s department was glad it had to pay “only” $45,000.
The department was painfully aware of the uncertainty about what ruinous costs a jury might impose on the deputies.
The real scandal goes far beyond the case of Herman Cain and his accusers. The real scandal is that the law allows people to impose heavy costs on others at little or no cost to themselves. That is a perfect setting for legalized extortion.
Not at all related:
Crazy conspiracy theories about Sandusky at Penn State. Don’t worry about the conspiracy theorizing, though: Big Brother’s taking care of all that nonsense.
Joy McCann on November 10, 2011 at 12:12 pm said:
Wheels within wheels, Dan . . . maybe you’d better take a fresh look at Ron Paul.
Dan Collins on November 10, 2011 at 12:22 pm said:
The original point was on the nature of evidence. My point continues to be one about the nature of evidence, and what happens when one subscribes to the idea that appearance is more important than fact.
Joy McCann on November 10, 2011 at 7:05 pm said:
I don’t know any serious person who imagines that such tiny amounts of money in the National Restaurant Association severence pakages mean much of anything: it’s a few thousand. As one of the right-bloggers with a legal background put it, it’s at the level “of a dirty joke.”
And I think there are few people who imagine that any of this is indicative of sexual harassment–because that’s a high bar to clear.
But the Bialek accusation is pretty much that he was on the make in the late 1990s, and if that pattern holds in terms of what we hear from other women (which it sounds like it may) it’s a problem. It wouldn’t be for a man in private life, but this guy is running for President (note: running for, rather than already in the White House–that makes a difference).
Yes, individual women lie about stuff like this, though they are less likely to do it when they are going to be subjected to public ridicule. But a conspiracy wherein 4-5 women are persuaded to lie simultaneously is tougher. As I’m sure you’ve heard, “three people can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.” (Not to mention the need for the time-travel machine to go back and file complaints against a man who, against all odds, would be a candidate for a candidacy for the POTUS fifteen years later.)
Dan Collins on November 10, 2011 at 7:58 pm said:
We have allegations. We have denials. We know that at least someone is lying.
But here these women are saying (all but Bialek), I could tell you a story that would make your hair start like the quills of the porcupine! And I’m going to do so, too! Only, on second thought, I’m not, even if the NRA release me from my legal agreement!
Then Bialek. Well, you believe her story, or you don’t. Your evidence is that she seems to you not to have any reason to lie. The guy with the voice stress software has a totally different read on the situation. The other woman with a name says that she would come forth with Bialek, but on second thought would need more than just her sustaining testimony.
That woman filed a harassment suit that looks pretty weak on its face the next time she was employed. When asked why she didn’t go forward with that one, she says, I decided I wasn’t serious about it.
I’m sorry. You can’t stand on principle and cover your ass at the same time.
Joy McCann on November 10, 2011 at 8:43 pm said:
I agree that on their own, ancient allegations of sexual harassment are pretty meaningless (at least with such tiny amounts of money attached to them, and no specifics whatsoever).
Can the guy with the voice-stress software give Bialek a reason for lying (and opening herself up to being villified in . . . well, roughly the way that she has been)? And I agree with the other named accuser: the only point to a joint presser would be to get other real, named women on-record in public. With no new data, it would just be a circus.
And I concur that her having filed a second harassment claim looks a little fishy–as does the presence of Gloria Allred at Bialek’s side. But I don’t weigh those facts as heavily as you do.
“You can’t stand on principle and cover your ass at the same time.” That sounds great, Dan, but you’re going to have to clarify what, if anything, you mean by that. Specifically, 1) what “principle” are you standing up for? And, 2) are you suggesting that I’m engaging in CYA? Or that one of the named accusers is? Because that’s now how it looks to me.
Dan Collins on November 10, 2011 at 9:00 pm said:
I’m saying that Kraushaar appears to me to be covering her ass. Is she the one who was upset at Cain’s up to his chin gesture? Why don’t we know, if it’s all so earth-shattering?
The only reasonably objective information that we have to go on, so far, it seems to me, is the voice-stress software.
There was someone who was supposed to have been a witness to a Herman Cain impropriety at a restaurant. Where is he? Included in those allegations were witnesses who saw a woman get into a taxi with Cain, only later it was found out not to be so. Then the woman in that instance woke up in Cain’s bed, only it turned out to be just his corporate suite. But who is she?
Everyone complains about Cain having changed his story. Well, a lot of stories have been changed, and they’re not all Cain’s.
If you have something, come forward. Give evidence. Otherwise, all of this is Iago-like playing on insinuation . . . only Cain’s Desdemona, and we’re Othello.
Joy McCann on November 10, 2011 at 10:28 pm said:
I have some “reasonably objective” magic beans, too. They are magical!
When you have feedback from this woman, let me know:
http://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_meyer_how_to_spot_a_liar.html
Dan Collins on November 10, 2011 at 10:39 pm said:
How about when you have something that isn’t hearsay, you let me know?
Joy McCann on November 11, 2011 at 12:16 pm said:
The term “hearsay” applies to actual trials that relate to actual crimes. It does not apply to scandal that surround patterns of conduct for politicians . . . such as, say, being a habitual philanderer.
Which is what is being discussed.
Joy McCann on November 13, 2011 at 4:37 am said:
And, about that voice-stress analysis…
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3554
Jeff on November 14, 2011 at 1:55 pm said:
Why bring Ron Paul into this? As far as I know his ideas on governance have never been tried outside of literature and movies, like “The Road Warrior”. The closest we came in America that I am aware of was in the 1920′s when Warren Harding ran for office on unrestrained capitalism, busted unions, dropped taxes on the rich, and pretty much all around ran on the philosophy that people can be trusted, so let them do what they do. Except poor people of course.
He got his will legislatively, and the massive shrinkage of the middle class was at first offset by a surge in the stock and real estate markets. The proportion of the population working in the financial/asset sector mushroomed even as jobs to support the middle class lifestyle vanished with their market. Eventually the bubble popped and the financial jobs went away, but the other jobs didn’t start to come back until Hoover finally realized after a massive letter writing campaign, that you can’t have a growing economy without a stable middle class. And you can’t have a stable middle class with economic policies that are specifically designed to remove dollars from spenders (the demand side) to rich savers (the supply side).
Hoover went from a stamp tax that resembles Cains 9-9-9 plan more than our current system to the most progressive tax increase in the history of the nation, from 25% top bracket to 65% based on this letter writing campaign. The economy flattened when this passed and bottomed and started going up 4 months later.
Ask any supply-sider what is likely to happen in the middle of a ressession when you increase the top tax bracket from 25% to 65% and I bet that none would say it is even possible to resume growth. However, it is actually just basic common sense that if you put money in the hands of people who spend it, growth resumes. The actual result of the tax increase, and the other reforms that were passed in the 1932-1933 time span were just as historically rare as the tax increase. We went from double digit economic shrinkage to double digit economic growth for the only time in the last century. No other era has even come close. To put that in perspective we have never even seen over *five* percent growth since the union busting of the 60s and 70s and the Reaganomics of the 80′s.
The good news is because the fed has been able to react to this systematic starving of the middle class beast by increasing liquidity in times of crisis. The bad news is if Ron Paul was in charge, that wouldn’t have happened and we would instead have a gold standard and be in the middle of Great Depression II.
If Ron Paul wants to live in a third world country, he has plenty of options to choose from. He doesn’t have to turn the US into one.
jefferson101 on November 11, 2011 at 9:55 am said:
After the conversation at my house last night, I’d think you two were married if I didn’t know better.
Sample out-take starts out with my wife commenting “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”
My reply: “No. This is Politics. Where there’s smoke, there’s usually some weasel with a smoke generator trying to create the impression of a fire.”
Heh.
Starless on November 11, 2011 at 10:36 am said:
Try: “When it comes to a GOP sex scandal, where there’s smoke it doesn’t matter if there’s fire or not as long as there’s a woman with a grave expression on her face willing to make outrageous accusations on camera.” (Sorry, Dan!)
Joy McCann on November 11, 2011 at 12:27 pm said:
The accusations aren’t really that “outrageous,” though: the guy [allegedly] made a crude pass. Others have suggested that this might be a pattern of behavior. We’ll know soon enough whether the anonymous ladies–or others–are willing to use their actual names, come forward, and say that the guy came on to them.
“After the conversation at my house last night, I’d think you two were married if I didn’t know better.”
Yeah, well–it feels like that, sometimes. (Though my actual husband appears to agree with me on this–that a lot of what is being said about Bialek on the right is reminiscent of how liberal Democrats vilified Katherine Harris in 2000 based on her hair and makeup. I’ve honestly read some amazing comments about her by those who identify as right-wingers–that she was dressed like a “whore” at the presser, that her lipstick was trampy, that her hairdo showed just what kind of a woman she was [a trollop, of course]: just blisteringly sexist and offensive things that have no place in public discourse.)
Bottom line: I see smoke, and I think there’s a real possibility–or even a genuine probability–of fire, based on the way previous scandals of this type have unfolded (Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods, John Edwards). Usually, there are a few initial reports, and the pattern of behavior emerges as more and more women come forward. But who knows? One person with a name is only one person with a name. If no others are willing to come forward, then the scandal fades.
Smoke generally dissapates in the absence of fire.
Starless on November 11, 2011 at 1:26 pm said:
I’ll say “shocking” instead of “outrageous”, then, based on Bialek’s detailed account.
If no others are willing to come forward, then the scandal fades.
I don’t agree. I think in the case of conservative politicians, the person fades, not the scandal. See: Trent Lott.
Mike G. on November 11, 2011 at 12:31 pm said:
As someone tweeted the other day…Sexual harassment charges are a deal killer for Conservative candidates, but they are a resume enhancement for Democrat candidates and politicians. I’m just sayin’.
Joy McCann on November 11, 2011 at 1:55 pm said:
Yeah–I get it about media bias, and I get it about double standards. But there comes a point such that we are being just as lazy to overapply those as the other side is when it cries “racism!” because someone had the temerity to disagree with the President.
If the guy spent years coming on to women who weren’t his wife, that will come out. He will then acquire a reputation as a man who spent some years coming on to women who weren’t his wife.
People will start to conclude that he may not be the best ambassador for conservative values, in such a case.
And that will be fine. Because it will be true.