The Herman Cain Dust-Up: A Couple Of Additional Questions

ABC News asks a cogent question: Who, exactly, are Cain's accusers?

Another good one is: Where are they? After all, if we are to be about the business of tarnishing the reputation of a public person, seems that going public would be the thing to do. A good rule of thumb would be: If'n yew don't wantcher pictcher in the paper or alllllll over the internet, don't deliberately say and do stuff that creates media interest. Sorta' like, don't cover yerrself in hunney and walk into a big anthill.

So, here we are, with the wheels coming off Europe, riots ginning up in California, the professors of Southern Illinois University on strike (Really, ya'll! Why do folks with tenure go on strike?), another trading firm gone tits-up with 700 million of the clients' dollars missing, run by one of Obama's ardent supporters (Jon Corzine, former senator, former governor of New Jersey), large swaths of the Middle East in chaos, Iran working on a nuke--so let's spend our time obsessing about....drumroll please/the envelope please....what Herman Cain did or didn't do in the 1990's (the age of, ummm, Bill Clinton).

Hmmm....

So, OS has another question or two as he scratches hiz ole' grey head in puzzlement: Let's assume, fer the sake of argumint, that all those tarrrible thangs they sayin' 'bout Herman iz true! Does it disqualify him from running or taking office? Really?

Remember the stock phrases about Bill Clinton?

It's not about character, all that matters are his policies.

This does not rise to the level of an impeachable offence.

It's his business what he does with that cigar and that intern, none of ours.

He wasn't lying when he denied 'having sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky', now was he? All that stuff they were engaging in in that bathroom off the Oval Office, that wasn't really sex, you know.

So, Bill is lionized, with all his actual misbehavior documented in detail.  Herman is vilified, based upon anonymous allegations.

Which leads to another question:

Is there one set of rules for white Democrats, and another for black Republicans? 
(Remember the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court confirmation hearings? This all feels soooooo familiar to those of us alive to have witnessed that dog-n-pony show.) It was a replay of the Robert Bork debacle, only with the hoods and burning crosses on display for good measure.

Which leads to another question, which OS refers to as the 'Homer Simpson Question':

Is there anyone alive, who has really engaged the world, attempted to get stuff done, worked with all manner of people, who hasn't had a few Homer Simpson moments along the way? 

 OS can certainly look back to more than a few moments of 'Dooooh!'. He actually owns up to a 'Decade of Doooooh!' He works diligently to not create more of them, to put another day of distance between him and them with every day that passes. But he, like everyone else alive, is not immune. It doesn't mean he doesn't go out and engage the world today.

Herman deserves the same consideration, in the humble of opinion of a life member of the 'Dooooh!' fraternity. Last time OS checked, Herman only smokes his cigars, and didn't illegally take 700 million of his clients' funds and lose them on the roulette wheel of the European sovereign debt casino.

That, ya'll, is an actual 'Dooooooh!' event.