Is Justice in Politics possible?  How is it possible within the confines of America today?

How does one prove a negative?  How do I prove that I was not where someone wants to place me or that I did not do that of which I am accused?  When I am not in that location where I am accused of being, I do not leave evidence that I was not there.

Why are we so quick to believe the premise?  Herman Cain denies having harassed this woman at this conference fourteen years ago.  She has him upgrading her room.  She has him with her in his car.  She has him sliding his hand up her skirt and pulling her head to his crotch.  The immediate question is not,”Were you in the car?"  It is, "What really happened in the car?"  How is Mr. Cain supposed to answer that if he was never in the car?

Premises:

1. There is no shortage of men who when placed in a power position would not take advantage of a woman.
2. There is no shortage of women who would falsely or unfairly accuse a man of dastardly deeds if scorned or if provided some advantage.  

Why do we so often forget that second premise but we never fail to forget the first?

How many have warned that this political campaign was going to be dirty and ugly?  The president must deflect attention from his abysmal record and the only way to do this will be through negative attacks on the candidates.  If we know this, why at the first sign of mudslinging are we prepared to dismiss a candidate?  If anything this proves to me that Cain has become too much of a possible competitor.  Obama cannot levy charges of racism against a candidate like Cain.  Cain is more of an authentic black according to the NAACP than Obama.  Cain was the descendent of slaves.  Cain was the son of a man burdened by the irrational hatred of Jim Crow America.  Obama was neither.  

This really needs to stop.  How can the public assure honest elections when the media jumps on an accusation and treats it as a certain truth?  I do not care that Gloria Allred has found a woman who is willing to step forward and accuse Herman Cain of assaulting her because 1) I do not trust Gloria Allred and 2) the introduction of this woman and her story is what I predicted in my earlier article on the relevance of what were once anonymous accusations.  If the grievance was real, the woman should have brought charges of assault against Cain when it happened.  The insertion of these comments now only serves to cloud a political campaign with a "he said - she said" barrage of charges.  People, as you review all the "what if's," do not lose track of the "what if" Cain may be telling us the truth.  If this is true, those of you who supported him or could have supported him before but who now may not support him are being manipulated by people whose motivations are contrary to yours.  It is just as possible that Gloria Allred is trying to play you for suckers. 

Too many pundits and too many citizens are prepared to write Cain off because of these charges.  Why?  We did not know this woman before November 7.  We have no idea whether she is credible or not.  We have no idea whether Cain is guilty of these charges or not.  Yet, we are prepared to call Cain a cad because of the mere accusation of impropriety.  Would we be as willing to call this woman a whore?  Probably not.  However, if not, why not?  Is it not possible that she is receiving some windfall from her new celebrity status or some political payoff?  Could she not be said to be whoring herself for political advantage?  Yet we probably wouldn't say that would we?  Despite the fact that Herman Cain heretofore has had an unblemished record and no evidence has surfaced prior to a political campaign that would impugn his character many are prepared to accept the charges this woman has levied against him as accurate.  

She is only one person.  There is no one person whom I know that I would allow having that much power over my political decisions.  Why would I allow some woman I do not know to have this same power?  

Republicans cry "foul" when Democrats manipulate the system, use ACORN to register Donald Duck and circle the wagons around candidates to protect them from legitimate questionable circumstances surrounding their own candidates.  Why then do we not also circle the wagons and demand proof when charges are levied against Republican candidates?  Why are we always so quick to throw a candidate under the bus for the mere presence of an allegation that is years old and for which there is no proof?  We had proof about Barack Obama's association with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davies, etc.  Some cried for proof of Obama's collegiate records and even his birth certificate questioning his eligibility to serve as president.  In all these instances, Obama was protected.  Yet, levy an unprovable and inconsequential allegation against Herman Cain and suddenly some treat him like bad meat.  This is ridiculous.  It is small wonder so few are willing to run for political office.