An Article you will Never See Written by a Democrat About Obama

Interesting article.

Every time I've read someone defending Cain in recent weeks, I've found myself shaking my head. In this case, I was nodding along. And I was EAGER to see Cain vindicated of all charges.

First off, Cain's recent admission does indeed seem like a guilty man trying his best to let just enough of the truth out that we stop asking him questions. Clinton did that too. This breaks my heart, because I liked Cain and wanted to support him. But, Simon has hit the nail on the head. The real issue here isn't "is Cain guilty" but "has he behaved in a trustworthy manner that gives anyone, regardless of political persuasion, the feeling that he's not hiding something?" and the answer is "No."

In his first two paragraphs, Simon DESTROYS Cain's credibility with honest voters. Cain has been caught in several lies already. I listed them in a previous post, but I'll briefly go over them again.

1. He first claimed that at no time had there been an accusation, or a settlement, or if there had been, he didn't recall.

2. He claimed that he had never met Sharon Bialek when impartial witnesses saw them meet, and apparently saw her shamelessly flirt with him. It would be unlikely that he wouldn't recall that.

3. Mark Block, apparently with Cain's blessing, claimed that Karen Kraushar's son worked for Politico, when not only was the man in question not her son, but he worked for a different publication.

4. Block would later accuse a Rick Perry campaign staffer of leaking the story, claiming he "new" it was him. It wasn't, and it turned out Block had no proof at all.

And now, Cain has admitted that not only did he give Ginger White money on several occasions, but his wife not only didn't know about the money, she DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THEIR FRIENDSHIP.

If it was innocent, why wouldn't Cain tell her? What minister would think it was appropriate for a married man, particularly one with the amount of power, influence and public persona Cain has had for most of his adult life, to have a friendship with a person of the opposite sex that he could not tell his wife about? Any time you're doing ANYTHING with a person of the opposite sex that you cannot inform your spouse about (especially if money is changing hands) you are cheating on your marriage. Maybe it isn't a physical affair. Maybe it's not an emotional one. But if you can't tell your wife about it, something is up.

You married men out there; how many of you could do something like that and not feel like you were breaching your wife's trust? Okay, now how many of you who raised your hand are still married and NOT having an affair? That's what I thought.

Roger L. Simon is a political conservative but a social libertarian, and he still recognizes the significance of this. All people with a conscience would. But this actually helps to illustrate exactly why I'm glad to call myself a conservative, and why I now believe liberals are fully corrupt and racist at the core of their philosophy. Why? Because not a single article like this was written by a liberal about Barack Obama.

"But he didn't have any affairs!" I hear liberals screeching. And I'm not suggesting he did. Of course, John Edwards did, and we didn't hear about it for a year after it was first discovered, when a lovechild was the result. But that's another story.

Obama may not have been a philanderer, but the man's closet is so full of skeletons that he had to expand the presidential bedroom to include another for his empty suits. Obama's past is shrouded in mystery. He has deliberately concealed his school records. We don't know what nationality he travelled under. We know he had friendships with people like Tony Rezko and William Ayers, which in itself is suspect, but that's all we know. We know he attended a racist church for 20 years. All these things struck the left-wing media as uninteresting and not news-worthy. Obama is the equivilent of finding out that Mitt Romney is regularly attending KKK rallies and having behind-closed-doors meetings with the Unabomber and Bernie Madoff. And yet, not a single liberal media personality took a step back and decided that he would not be blinded by Obama's race and would instead actually take seriously just how little we know about Obama and how troubling what we do know is.

This is an example of liberal racism. They are so blinded by race that the rest to them doesn't matter. In the case of black liberals, it's literal racism; we will vote for him because he's black, no matter what. For white liberals, it's a case of the kind of "feel good" absolution of white guilt they accused us of having with Herman Cain. They wanted Obama, not only as a mouthpiece to use in order to enact legislation they've wanted to enact for decades, but couldn't because they knew the American people would never accept it, but also as a way to feel good about themselves for being so "progressive".

If the Tea Party and American conservatives were really just trying to make themselves feel like they weren't racist by rallying behind Cain, as Janeane Garofalo accused us, then it wouldn't matter to us about his past because we wouldn't care about him as a man. He would be nothing but a symbol; either a symbol we can use to our advantage or a symbol of "how far we've come"--that skin color used to hold you down and is now the very thing that moves you up. His past? What does that matter, everyone has affairs! Isn't that what they said about Clinton? Why should we believe the idea of Cain having affairs and covering them up has any bearing on what kind of president he'll make?

Of course, conservatives don't believe that at all. They didn't believe that about Clinton, they certainly didn't think Obama deserved to be absolved of any past associations just because of his skin color. But they're liberals. Cain is a conservative that we all liked and wanted to see succeed. And when we found out about this, he lost support. This kind of thing hurts conservatives when it doesn't hurt liberals precisely because we care about values and character, while liberals are blinded by meaningless things like race, sex/sexuality and party affiliation.

This goes even for rank and file liberals who claim to have a moral compass. I run into liberals daily who claim to be moral people. I'm sure they would tell you in a minute that cheating on your wife is wrong, yet they love Bill Clinton. They'd also tell you that a candidate's past is important and they all need to be fully vetted, yet Obama has their vote in his pocket. The reason there is no right-wing candidate we can truly say that about is that we care first and foremost what the candidate stands for and immediately second what kind of person they are. You simply cannot be a liar, an anti-American, a racist, a socialist, a sympathizer with America's enemies, etc. in your personal life and NOT be one as president, as Clinton and Obama have both proven.

The difference between conservatives and liberals is that we understand this to be true ON BOTH SIDES.