The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Mike Rogers to Mona Charen: No, Cainiacs Are Not Liberal Hypocrites

Posted on | November 12, 2011 | 11 Comments

In a column at National Review, Mona Charen suggested that the boos from the audience in Wednesday’s debate for Maria Bartiromo’s “character issue” question were because Republicans have adopted “liberal hypocrisy.” This prompted Mike Rogers — a New Hampshire volunteer for Cain — to respond in the comments:

That’s a very uncharitable interpretation, and it fingers you as a liberal. Why, because LIBERALS are the ones who project their foibles and character problems onto Conservatives.
If you do your research as a journalist, you will find plenty of reasons to believe that the only two accusers known to actually exist have been found to be gold-digging serial accusers, one of whom is chuckled about in the halls of CBS for her past.
Character DOES matter, and the boos signify that most of the audience think that the charges are baseless and the resent the media trying to pile on.
Clinton was protected by people who said “we know it happened, and we don’t care — attaboy!”
Cain is supported by people who believe firmly that it didn’t happen, and have reasons for that belief — they will desert en masse if he’s lying.

It is perhaps uncharitable for Mike to accuse Charen, a veteran conservative writer, of being a liberal. But I fear she has succumbed to the temptation of letting others do her thinking for her — being influenced by what “everybody knows,” rather than considering the possibility that the Conventional Wisdom is mistaken.

The truth of the matter is that, in regard to the allegations against Cain, we don’t know what we don’t know and, alas, there are some things that are unknowable. However, many people have vouched for Herman Cain’s character, describing the accusations against him as implausible and, at this point, we have less reason to doubt his denials than we do to doubt his accusers.

Hey, why aren’t the media doing feature stories about Herman Cain’s longtime acquaintances who say they’re sure he’s innocent? Isn’t that . . . y’know, news?)


11 Responses to “Mike Rogers to Mona Charen: No, Cainiacs Are Not Liberal Hypocrites”

  1. MrPaulRevere
    November 12th, 2011 @ 7:03 pm

    National Review needs to move its headquarters out of NYC immediately. The ‘conventional (i.e. progressive) wisdom’ is is like a chemical in the water there, one will unknowingly absorb it. Atlanta or Charleston would be excellent choices.

    November 12th, 2011 @ 7:04 pm

    “Isn’t that . . . y’know, news?”

    We’ll get back to you. At the moment on that, “no news is good news.” We’ll be consulting the JournoList and possibly post our findings on page 17 in the classified ads section on the 17th of Never.

  3. Shawn Gillogly
    November 12th, 2011 @ 7:06 pm

    National Review hasn’t been relevant since William F. Buckley Jr. passed away. That’s the sad truth.

  4. Shawn Gillogly
    November 12th, 2011 @ 7:07 pm

    And btw, I’m the same Shawn Gillogly as used to post in by Facebook. But apparently my new PC didn’t like the FB login, but did Twitter. Strangeness.

  5. TR
    November 12th, 2011 @ 7:21 pm

     Moaning Mona thinks too much of herself. 

    She decided that Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol was just too badly brought up (one of her hard hitting columns) for us to consider Sarah for President. 

    She was going to go to Indianpolis and “cajole Daniels into running”  LMAO. 

    Her conclusion on Paul Ryan for President, “Finally, there is another reason
    that Ryan would be a formidable nominee — he is likeable. Likeability is
    an important trait in any politician, of course, but it’s particularly
    crucial for conservative Republicans, who will be reliably demonized by
    the Democrat-leaning press” 

    Ah ha, I think Mona must have  all the secret handshakes memorized too!  Mona thinks she is one of the pied pipers and that we (lemmings) are going to follow her to the cliffs. 

    This is her bottom line (10/7/11) “To be fair, Romney, who was a good candidate in 2008, has become an
    excellent one in 2012. He’s knowledgeable, unflappable, and dignified.
    He doesn’t frighten independents and he may be the Republican party’s
    strongest nomine, blah blah blah…” 

  6. Charles
    November 12th, 2011 @ 7:25 pm

    When Mona says “No fewer than five women have filed formal or informal complaints against him.”she is asking people to judge Cain by the fact of the complaints and their number, not their substance. But five women have not “filed” complaints.

  7. Anonymous
    November 12th, 2011 @ 7:50 pm

    Couldn’t they headquarter on a cruise ship? They seem to like the accommodations. I think this year’s vessel is the USS Romney.

  8. Anonymous
    November 12th, 2011 @ 8:01 pm

    Charen: “No fewer than five women have filed formal or informal complaints against him.”

    How do you “file” an informal complaint, exactly? Write a complaint on a company-supplied Post-It note and tell everyone that you did?

    Do you know how many informal complaints I’ve filed against Obama? It has to be at least three. At least. Surely I’m not alone. I mean, the guy offends my sensibilities endlessly.

  9. Anonymous
    November 12th, 2011 @ 9:00 pm

    Well at least she didn’t write that the “allegations are a body of evidence”

  10. Anonymous
    November 13th, 2011 @ 8:46 am

    And RINO-lovers like Mona will help in the demonization any way they can.


  11. McGehee
    November 13th, 2011 @ 10:21 am

    Inigo Montoya wants to have a talk with Ms. Charen about the meaning of the word “filed.”