Jack Kelly Sunday

I have no idea if Ed's doing a Jack Kelly column this week but if/when he posts, I am sure it'll be as good as always.

But sometimes, Jack's so whack that I gotta add my voice to Ed's and ask, "What is Jack doing?"

Take a look at Jack this week.  The column is more or less the cliched "lib'rul media double standard" argument.

Here's his setup:

Herman Cain's nightmare began two weeks ago when the webzine Politico reported two women had accused him of sexual misconduct when he was president of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.

The story was thin. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal summarized it this way: "Anonymous sources told Politico that unnamed women alleged that Cain said unspecified things."

Notice how Jack immediately quotes an opposing summary. But did you see a quotation from the Politico story that began it all?  You didn't?  Gee, I wonder if Jack just forgot.

Let me try to fix that.  Here's how that Politico story begins:

During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.

The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.

But there's far more than Taranto's limited summary.  If you read the piece (and I am assuming Jack does NOT want you to read it for yourself), you'll see a whole mess of confirmations on a whole mess of aspects of the case:

• POLITICO has confirmed the identities of the two female restaurant association employees who complained about Cain but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.
• On the details of Cain’s allegedly inappropriate behavior with the two women, POLITICO has a half-dozen sources shedding light on different aspects of the complaints.
  
  The sources — including the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the women upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.

And so on.  But let's move beyond that.  Let's get to Jack's "media bias" argument.  Here's how he frames it:

It triggered a media feeding frenzy anyway. ABC, NBC and CBS reported on the Cain "scandal" 84 times in the first week, according to Scott Whitlock of the Media Research Center.

This contrasts with zero, the number of times in 2008 ABC, NBC and CBS mentioned allegations of sexual misconduct by former Sen. John Edwards when he was running for president that year.

We'll just assume the research of the MRC is accurate (yea, I know - giggle).  But take a look at his data regarding Ex-Senator Edwards' creepy ("...zero, the number of times in 2008 ABC, NBC and CBS mentioned allegations...when he was running for president that year.").

Zero, huh?  That's a low number.  And a damning assessment of the media coverage.  But look carefully.

Edwards ended his presidential campaign January 30, 2008.  By framing the point as he does, Jack is able to dismiss any ABC/NBC/CBS news report of the creepy done after Edwards left the campaign.  Like this ABC NEWS REPORT from August 8, 2008.

Interesting to note, isn't it?

Then there's this:

And it contrasts with four, the number of stories the broadcast networks ran in the week after Juanita Broaddrick said she'd been raped by President Bill Clinton.

We've been through this before, haven't we?

• Broaddrick signed an affidavit saying Clinton didn't rape her.
• She recanted that affidavit a few months later.

So if one asserts that Broadderick was raped by Clinton, one also has to assert she's a perjurer.

Oh, and perhaps this was the reason why it had no MSM coverage. It's from the Washington Post the day after Broaddrick's interview with Lisa Myers of NBC, February, 1999:

Broaddrick was dubbed Jane Doe No. 5 in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton early last year, when Jones's attorneys cited her in court papers and she filed an affidavit calling the allegation of sexual assault "untrue." In the interview, Broaddrick, 56, said: "I didn't want to be forced to testify about the most horrific event of my life."

Broaddrick later recanted that affidavit when questioned by FBI agents working for independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, who found her account inconclusive. Two of the House impeachment "managers" spoke to Broaddrick but did not pursue her allegation.

Interesting details that Jack fails to include, aren't they?

Have we done enough damage to Jack's column?  I don't think so.  Let's take one more look:

Ms. Krausharr is currently a press aide in the Obama administration, used to work for Clinton attorney general Janet Reno and has contributed to Democrats.

Let's be more specific, shall we? The Daily reports:

Karen Kraushaar currently serves as a communications director at the Inspector General’s Office of the Treasury Department, a position she has held since last year.

Not exactly "in the Obama administration" is it? Especially since the person she answers to in the Treasury Department, according to Mediamatters, is a Bush Appointee.

That'll do it - oh, the stuff Jack has to leave out to commit a good smear!

More On Herman Cain's Religious Tolerance

GOP hopeful Herman Cain had some interesting things to say about Church State matters this weekend.

Take a look:


The part I like best is that he opens with:

Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state.

And then uses that to assert that a community has the right to ban a mosque's construction in that community.

It's a stunning piece of logic, to be sure.

As far as I can tell, it's based on the idea as Cain ably states, that Islam is both a set of laws and a religion. Since it's both and since the Constitution (and it's oh-so refreshing to hear a conservative - even a nutty one like Cain - say this) guarantees separation of Church and State, any "religion" that's looking to impose itself onto the law can be banned.

He's just wrong when he says that non-Islamic religions don't have a set of rules or are otherwise not looking to impose their rules onto the law.

So when Archbishop Dolan says that New York's Gay Marriage Bill is an "Ominous Threat" he's not looking to impose Catholic Church doctrine onto the people of the Empire State.

So when the Southern Baptist Convention, in 1984, called for its members to push for legislation that agreed with their position of abortion, it wasn't looking to impose its faith upon the law.

Freedom of Religion for me but not for thee. That's the GOP.

Hey, I rhymed. Thrice - or was that twice? Anyway, how nice.

Teh Tea Party Crazie - Herman Cain Edition

Stumbled across this at the Huffingtonpost. It's about Herman Cain and his tea party try at the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Here's a taste:

His candidacy is not taken seriously by party regulars, but Tea Party organizers in the crowd said Cain has been working hard to gain their support here in Iowa since the summer of 2009.

And his speech had lots of red meat for a Tea Party audience.

“We’ve got some altering and abolishing to do,” Cain said, referencing the Declaration of Independence. “The Founders got it right. It is within the power of the United States of America to alter stuff that we don’t like. We don’t like this radical socialism that’s being shoved down our throats.”

Talking to reporters afterwards, Cain also said he thinks the imposition of Islamic Sharia law is a legitimate threat in America and that he would not appoint any Muslims to any positions in his Cabinet if he were elected. [emphasis added.]

I guess he's never read the constitution. Article VI, Paragraph 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [emphasis added]

But where would someone like Herman Cain get his informaiton?

Take a look:


He said:

I read a lot of the papers that are published by The Heritage Foundation. I happen to think–and I’m not on their board, they don’t pay me–they happen to be one of the greatest of sources of accurate analysis, policy and information we have in this country.

Too bad simple Constructional Law doesn't seem to be included - or if it is, it's not enough to overcome some obvious religious bigotry.

As able a public speaker as he is, to Cain it's all about the threat of Sharia Law:

“I get upset when the Muslims in this country, some of them, try to force their sharia law onto the rest of us,” Cain said.

As opposed to those Christians who are trying to force their biblical law onto the rest of us. That's OK, I guess.

Not surprising he's a tea party favorite.