To the Editor,
Why do you bother printing the opinions of Cal Thomas, Republican apologist? Friday’s entry is typical of his not-so-clever spin doctoring.
In describing the Herman Cain sexual harassment fiasco, Thomas states, “Many in the media wolf pack have already judged him guilty because he updated his initial statement denying the allegations.” Say what? Cain didn’t just “update” his statement, he changed his story repeatedly throughout the days following Politico’s story early this week. At first, a blanket denial. Later, something may have happened, but he just couldn’t remember details. Still later, he remembered something about it, but the settlement (he thought it was just an agreement) was small. But Cain isn’t a flip flopper, he’s an “updater.” (Attention Mitt, new defense headed your way!)
And who can’t love the intentional deceit contained several sentences later, spun into question form: “Is Cain, a relative media novice, expected to have instant and total recall of events that may or may not have happened more than 10 years ago?” How disingenuous is that? As Cal surely knows, Politico contacted Cain 10 days before they ran the story to get his side of it. When does a 10 days heads-up to formulate a response “instant recall?”
All this leads to Mr. Thomas’ conclusion, that its hard to get good candidates to run for office because they don’t want “every mistake or bad decision” aired by the media. I’ll bet the media doesn’t have every mistake or bad decision by Herman Cain reported yet, but the first three harassment claims seem to be a darn good start. And, if true, Mr. Thomas is probably correct that Herman Cain doesn’t want those bad decisions brought to the public view.
Cal’s kind of drivel would be laughable, if it weren’t for his overlooking the pain that his candidate probably caused these women. Mr. Thomas opens by citing the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, but ignores the most obvious difference: that it was between two consenting adults, not a corporate executive trying to prey on women subordinates.
Does Cal Thomas really deserve the editorial space you routinely give him?
No comments:
Post a Comment