Apparently Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believe, 55%-39%, that the allegations of sexual harassment against Herman Cain are not a serious matter. Moreover, 69% say the situation will not make a difference in how likely they are to vote for Cain for President, and the remainder split just 23%-4% as to whether it makes them less or more likely to support him. (Honestly, 4%? Allegations of sexual harassment make you more likely to support the guy?) Now, okay, on one level I get it. If we were in the general election, and it were Cain vs. Obama, and I agreed more with Cain on the issues than with Obama (which is emphatically not the case), I'd vote for Cain. I'd vote for him despite the improprieties in his past. For a more substantive example, there have been lots of allegations of sexual misconduct against Bill Clinton throughout his life. If I had been eligible to vote in 1992 or 1996, even knowing everything about Clinton's sexual misconduct that we know now, I'd've voted for him over Bush, Dole, and Perot, practically without a second thought.
But, uh, Republicans, you do know it's not the general election yet, right? And, um, that Barack Obama guy you claim to be so desirous of kicking out of office? He would be cackling for a week if you nominated a guy who, on top of already being Herman "9-9-9" Cain, Herman "Bad-Pizza Mogul" Cain, Herman "Ubeki-beki-beki-stan" Cain, has also been accused of sexual misconduct. No incumbent President would dare pray for an opposing candidate that weak on paper, because it would be an unreasonable request. You couldn't possibly expect to be that lucky. Seriously, how do you not get that, when the matter at hand is who you want to be your party's standard-bearer, a history of sexual impropriety is something you want to avoid?!?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment