Gay Patriot Header Image

MSM: Subjecting Cain to the Scrutiny Obama Never Received

While I appreciate Herman Cain’s charisma and his Reaganesque ability to articulate the small government/personal freedom message that has animated our party at least for the last thirty years, I have several concerns about the personable businessman and do not back him for the White House nor do I share my co-blogger’s enthusiasm for the candidate.

In many ways, I see his appeal on the right in the 2012 cycle as similar to Barack Obama’s appeal to the left in 2008 cycle.  Both are charismatic men, running as outsiders to the political establishment.

Only Cain has made clear his commitment to conservative principles in his campaign while Obama obscured his advocacy of big-government notions in his.  And Cain has a record of accomplishment in the private sector — with the concomitant executive experience.  Oh, and the media has scrutinized the Republican’s record with a fine-toothed comb while paying little, if any, attention to Obama’s.

Hugh Hewitt sums it up:

Herman Cain is fun, and he’s generally right.  He has enormous energy and a sense of humor.  He may not be ready to be president, but he was certainly ready to run for president, just like then Senator Obama in 2007. The big difference is that in 2007 MSM supported Obama’s ambitions and that in 2011 MSM pushes back against Cain’s, reflecting the media elite’s valuing of Obama’s Harvard Law/University of Chicago credentials, time in the Illinois State Senate and cup-of-coffee years in the U.S. Senate much more than Cain’s decades in the private sector.  Obama’s resume matched the values set of the Manhattan-Beltway media elite, so they put wind into his political sails.  Not so with the Hermanator.  (Note also that the president’s books were signs of White House readiness.  Cain’s merely an expression of his opportunism.)

Go back to the two Times‘ stories linked and read through them substituting “Barack Obama” for “Herman Cain.”  Now try and find stories from 2007-2008 that asked the same questions about then Senator Obama and his readiness to be president.

Read the whole thing.



  1. Scrutiny of Obama would have been racist because who would want to stand in the way of having our first Black President?

    Scrutiny of Herman Cain is just doing due diligence because you can never be too careful about who we elect to the highest office of power.

    Uh, yeah.

    Comment by runningrn — October 28, 2011 @ 6:42 pm - October 28, 2011

  2. “Hermanator” LOL.

    Right wing support for the man isn’t by any means universal – Mark Steyn’s not impressed with the shallowness of the man’s foreign policy, I hear – but isn’t that why you make sure the Secretaries of State and Defence are competent people who know their portfolios well and can brief/encourage him as required?

    The US badly needs a President who has experience of doing what Cain has done – turning dismal failure into economic success. Such a thing would almost warrant putting up with his flaws and making sure he had a good bunch of Secretaries of X and a competent VP under him.

    Comment by perturbed — October 28, 2011 @ 6:56 pm - October 28, 2011

  3. Johnathon Alter, after smoking what must have been a truly epic amount of crystal meth, announces that not a single scandal has corrupted the pure-as-the-driven snow Obama White House.

    Comment by V the K — October 28, 2011 @ 11:10 pm - October 28, 2011

  4. Technically, Alter is correct in a couple of ways. The Obama White House was corrupt well before any scandals and there have been multiple scandals (as opposed to his “single”).

    Comment by ED — October 29, 2011 @ 12:58 am - October 29, 2011

  5. Interesting and correct observations…
    I still support Herman Cain.
    The pipeline that has spit out ‘the next in line’ candidates for the Republican nomination is no longer satisfactory. I could not be happier that the ‘old white guy egotist politician’ model is being heartily challenged within our ranks.
    I don’t want a politician, this time.
    I do want an aggressive, hands-on approach by someone who has specific financial leadership capabilities to turn this economic ‘tub’ around.
    I do want a person with experience in choosing (correctly) those to be in charge of the dept’s, resources and efforts engaged in this ‘turning around’.
    Now, as for beyond the particular acute challenge we face right now in this country:
    I want a person who is careful with their word choice, yet who is not afraid to properly label what they see.
    I want a person who seems to have common sense.
    I want a person who, realizing the cure may be temporarily worse than the disease, shirks not from the telling of prognosis, nor the giving of the medicine.
    I want a person capable of voraciously holding their personal beliefs on a subject, yet understands perfectly that those may not be those of his constituency and need not be.
    I want a person who admits he isn’t knowledgeable on a subject, but who is willing to research or to engage in conversation with those who are… (see his comments on homosexuality, in particular).
    And, on a COMPLETELY personal, schadenfreude front…
    I want to see the Lefty heads explode when they have to choose between the ‘right’, actually completely black man… and that other guy.

    Comment by rodney — October 29, 2011 @ 8:47 am - October 29, 2011

  6. Herman Cain committed the crime of being a Conservative black Republican; therefore, he must be destroyed. This will backfire on the MSM though.

    Cain also neutralizes the race card the Left plays all the time now; it’s become a sad parody.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — October 29, 2011 @ 9:49 am - October 29, 2011

  7. In many ways, I see his appeal on the right in the 2012 cycle as similar to Barack Obama’s appeal to the left in 2008 cycle. Both are charismatic men, running as outsiders to the political establishment.

    This does not break down to “many” ways. In fact, it mentions only one way (similarity): both are charismatic men. The “outsiders” to the political establishment is true of Cain. Obama was a sitting US Senator and had been a state senator and cut his teeth playing with the Illinois political establishment and manipulating his mixed race for personal gain.

    The other similarity is that Cain is black while half of Obama is black. That should not be overlooked. Cain is “authentically” black by American history standards. The rule goes that if you have a little black blood you are black, but if you have a little white blood you are not white, you are still black. It is a one drop rule that only goes one way.

    Let us be honest here. Many of us love Cain for his bedrock conservatism and his “Reaganesque ability to articulate the small government/personal freedom message that has animated our party at least for the last thirty years.” (H/T: Dan)

    What we relish is the fact that Cain, an authentic black who had every reason to be on the Democrat Plantation and a slave to their statism, is taking it to Obama and his smug, elitist, Marxist, corruptocrats.

    You read that correctly. Cain’s skin color, his dark skin color, is icing on the cake.

    Now, if you like, we could discuss whether America is ready for a black president. Clarence Thomas deserves company. America should be able to accept a black man on the black man’s terms, not because he is black, but because he is a man.

    Josiah Wedgwood created the image of a black man in chains kneeling and looking heavenward and asking: “AM I NOT A MAN AND A BROTHER.” It became a medallion and a block print and was the strong abolitionist image that aroused England to confront the slave trade.

    Is Cain not a man and a brother? Must the Democrat Plantation stand forever? Must the party of the KKK, segregation, and Jim Crow, be allowed to keep the black man pressed down in the muck and mire of party serfdom where they busy their time running the Amos and Andy Taxi Company to the amusement of their landlord party? Show me, please, just one credible Democrat black politician who isn’t some freak show escapee from a lodge meeting.

    When Cain says he was “po'” before he was “poor”, he is letting us know that his journey has taken him beyond the poverty of spirit and the poverty of complacency and sloppy habits of thinking and excuse making. Once you make that step, you can not go back. Your world has changed and you have learned that being positive about yourself and your view of mankind is no harder than being negative and always whining about fairness, justice, equality, hope, change and the other inflated hobgoblins of foolish minds.

    The ultimate poverty is to be rewarded by the state for just existing and settling for statism.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 29, 2011 @ 10:12 am - October 29, 2011

  8. And to top it off, a Dhimmicrat consultant/MSNBC contributor (yeah, I know it is redundant) called Cain “a black man who knows his place.”

    I kid you not:

    Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 29, 2011 @ 10:45 am - October 29, 2011

  9. They’re also going after Clarence Thomas:​11/jan/22/nation/la-na-thomas-​disclosure-20110122

    The left really doesn’t care for uppity black men who don’t “know their place.”

    Comment by V the K — October 29, 2011 @ 10:59 am - October 29, 2011

  10. The fact that this site is spending so little time scrutinizing Cain is disgusting. You wouldn’t know he was calling homosexuality a choice and a sin by the way people talk around here. I used to read this site for the Gay Conservative commentary, but now I feel like ditching. Doesn’t anyone care?

    Comment by Chris — October 29, 2011 @ 3:48 pm - October 29, 2011

  11. You wouldn’t know he was calling homosexuality a choice and a sin by the way people talk around here…Doesn’t anyone care?

    Remember, Bruce & Dan don’t like ass prints on their door.

    Comment by TGC — October 29, 2011 @ 5:03 pm - October 29, 2011

  12. Chris, I don’t vote for people of singular issues; I look at the whole package on a plethora of issues. Cain is a Conservative Republican in my book; I’m going to vote for Cain over Mittens Romney & Jon Huntsman–both who should be running as Democrats.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — October 29, 2011 @ 5:15 pm - October 29, 2011

  13. Chris, first, I don’t back Cain for president.

    Second, did you spend any time scrutinizing Obama for placing so much confidence in an anti-gay pastor–whose church he attended regularly for 20 years?

    And finally, are you cool with media offering so little scrutiny of a charismatic Democratic Senator short on accomplishment?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 29, 2011 @ 5:58 pm - October 29, 2011

  14. Remember, Bruce & Dan don’t like ass prints on their door.


    Comment by V the K — October 29, 2011 @ 7:24 pm - October 29, 2011

  15. I used to read this site for the Gay Conservative commentary, but now I feel like ditching. Doesn’t anyone care?

    Frankly, no.

    There are a billion other sites on the web for you to go be a drama queen and scream about how Herman Cain ruins your life, how if he gets into power gays are going to be herded into death camps, and how that means you and yours have to speak “truth to power” and call him a house slave, an Uncle Tom, a race traitor, and all the other wonderful names you and your fellow left libbies have come up with so far. Then you can all explode in glorious verbal orgasms over how Barack Obama is the most unprecedented everything anywhere and how super-fabulo-awesome his black skin makes him, and turn over and go to sleep.

    Meanwhile, there are people here whose career and life aspirations go farther than out of exploiting one’s sexual orientation to demand larger welfare checks to pay for alcohol and glitter, and who are smart enough to realize that someone ultimately has to make the alcohol, produce the glitter, and pay for those larger welfare checks.

    If you fall into the latter group, you’re welcome to stay. But you clearly prefer the former, so au revoir; you’re welcome back when you get tired of living in Neverland.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 29, 2011 @ 9:18 pm - October 29, 2011

  16. Saying homosexuality is a choice or a sin is not equivalent to a homophobic slur, nor would I consider it an impugnation on gay people. Personally, I disagree with Mr. Cain, but I pretty much disagree with everyone on some things. And I don’t see why this one issue would be more important than any others, especially considering the economic situation.

    Here is more on Herman Cain and his views on homosexuality:

    Cain’s statement is a reiteration of comments he made earlier this month on the ABC morning program “The View,” when he said “yes” to the question of whether or not he thought being gay is a choice.

    Joy Behar, one of the program’s co-hosts, responded to the Cain’s stance on the homosexuality by saying, “I don’t know how to respond to that, I mean I don’t think that anybody in this world wants to be gay, considering all of the vilification that is brought upon someone who is gay. Why would you choose that?”

    The former Atlanta radio host, said, “Well, you show me the science that says that it’s not, and I could be persuaded. Right now it’s my opinion against the opinion of others who feel differently. That’s just a difference of opinion.”

    In an interview with CBS News’ Brian Montopoli in June, Cain elaborated on his opinion concerning homosexuality.

    “I believe homosexuality is a sin because I’m a Bible-believing Christian, I believe it’s a sin,” he said. “But I know that some people make that choice. That’s their choice.”

    That doesn’t sound the least bit troubling or hateful to me; he in fact sounds quite reasonable.

    So, Chris, why would anyone spend time worrying about such minor and inconsequential things?

    Comment by Naamloos — October 29, 2011 @ 9:53 pm - October 29, 2011

  17. Dear 16,

    You don’t understand. Liberalism requires not just tolerance of a different viewpoint but total acceptance of it despite the fact that it make require betraying other beliefs. That’s because a liberal has no core principle, hope atheism to be true so he never has to answer to anyone, and worships only power, so he can help us bitter clingers. Therefore, anyone who says I think what you do is wrong but realizing you don’t share my faith, I accept its your choice is really a hateful bigoted racist homophobic pig.

    Please get with the program and start hating people who will let you make your choices because they make other ones. Otherwise we are going to have to consider you an evil conservative.

    Comment by Kevin — October 29, 2011 @ 10:19 pm - October 29, 2011

  18. Wasn’t there something about Obama spending $900k to measure the dicks of gay dudes? Maybe that’s why gay libs still support him. They’re waiting for their turn.

    That and the whole “evolving” thing doesn’t seem to have come full circle yet. I’m sure they’re breathlessly waiting to see how that pans out.

    Comment by TGC — October 30, 2011 @ 3:34 am - October 30, 2011

  19. Simply put the Bryan Fisher Party (GOP) support taxing the American People to death, much like GWB did, now Obamore supports GOP policy of more taxation, still I am surprised why the whinny delusional patriots still do not support Obamer, being that he does everything the Byran Fischer Party wants him to do (war monger, banker bailouts etc…)

    Comment by JS — October 30, 2011 @ 4:33 am - October 30, 2011

  20. Um, JS, who is Bryan Fischer and how come you have decided that he’s come to define the GOP?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 30, 2011 @ 5:15 am - October 30, 2011

  21. #19: JS, drink your juice! Drink your juice, JS! JS, DRINK YOUR JUICE!

    Comment by Sean A — October 30, 2011 @ 8:51 am - October 30, 2011

  22. Okay, JS, I looked up Bryan Fisher and this is what I found him saying:

    “A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone’s race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability.” –

    If hate crimes involve threats or harassment motivated by prejudice against someone’s religion, homosexual activists are the worst perpetrators of hate crimes in America.

    I had no idea who this guy was. I see his shirtless You Tube video has a lot of hits. Maybe he is a heart throb who needs castigating for being tight with the American Family Association and God squad. I don’t know.

    When activist, leftist, homosexuals go after people who have a religious belief that practicing homosexual sex is a sin, I would agree that they are engaging in hate.

    If you can not live with the idea that a sizable group of humanity does not approve of homosexual sex, perhaps you would be better off figuring out how to navigate in such a world rather than stomping your feet and demanding it be changed to suit your comforts.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 30, 2011 @ 9:45 am - October 30, 2011

  23. BDB, you can see more about Fischer at GoProud’s site

    Comment by rusty — October 30, 2011 @ 4:58 pm - October 30, 2011

  24. rusty, issue is not who Fischer is, but what JS feels it incumbent upon himself to a define a party by a man so obscure that a Republican who follows politics is not familiar with him. Would daresay that 99% of Republicans have no clue who the guy is.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 30, 2011 @ 5:06 pm - October 30, 2011

  25. Bryan Fischer is the Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association (AFA). He hosts the talk radio program Focal Point on American Family Radio and posts on the AFA-run blog Rightly Concerned.

    Yes, BDB, one man or woman is not a true representation (of any party). So very true.

    But Fischer is far from being obscure. And he and the AFA do have significant sway with SOCONS.

    Comment by rusty — October 30, 2011 @ 10:39 pm - October 30, 2011

  26. Oh yeah, the guy Romney whose rhetoric repudiated?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 30, 2011 @ 11:46 pm - October 30, 2011

  27. Dan, It matters a great deal who Bryan Fischer is, and it’s a symptom of a larger problem that you and 99 percent of Republicans, as you say, don’t know who he is. Because while you and most of the people here are carping about the Democrats and poor Mr. Cain, most of our candidates for president are kowtowing to Mr. Fischer, Mr. Perkins, and all the other wingnuts who are setting the Republican agenda on social issues during the primary season. Mr. Cain certainly knows who he is, since he’s been on his show several times, changing his previous positions on the FMA and DADT to suit Mr. Fischer’s prejudices. Mr. Cain didn’t get endorsed by Mr. Fischer without saying the things he wanted to hear. And it’s not just Cain; Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are also extremists with a long anti-gay history and scary platform. One can only imagine who would be invited into the Oval Office should any of these characters win. It would behoove your readers to look at issues besides strictly economic ones; there is a lot more to freedom than just low taxes and the repeal of Obamacare, and on many of those issues, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, et al have a very dark side diametrically opposed to the individual freedom you and presumably your readers claim to support.

    Comment by David Lampo — October 31, 2011 @ 2:25 pm - October 31, 2011

  28. David, please specify how, if elected, any of the candidates you list would limit individual freedom.

    And also note how you are helping an angry leftist hijack this thread. I was making the point that the media never subjected Obama to the scrutiny Cain now receives and instead of acknowledging that the media largely gives the incumbent Democrat a free pass, you beat up on our own candidates.

    I never mentioned Fischer and now you dwell on him.

    As to Cain, I have made clear on several occasions that, unlike my co-blogger, I don’t support the candidate, but do feel the media are treating him unfairly. As to Bachmann, why even dwell on her when her poll numbers are stagnant or sinking?

    And if you read the blog, you would know I believe there’s more to freedom than economic issues. (And you would know I think Santorum in an inconsequential joke.)

    Do you believe the media should ignore Obama’s misdeeds and focus instead on those of Republicans?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 31, 2011 @ 3:12 pm - October 31, 2011

  29. It would behoove your readers to look at issues besides strictly economic ones; there is a lot more to freedom than just low taxes and the repeal of Obamacare, and on many of those issues, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, et al have a very dark side diametrically opposed to the individual freedom you and presumably your readers claim to support.

    Sorry, Dave Lampo; we know what gay-sex liberals really want — which is to collapse the US government.

    And you know what else your fellow gay-sex liberals are endorsing and supporting? Shooting cops to get your revolution.

    And your Barack Obama supports this. Your Barack Obama says this is a legitimate goal. Your Nancy Pelosi has stated “God bless ’em” to these people. Your Elizabeth Warren is bragging about how she laid the intellectual foundation for this. Your Obama Party is supporting and endorsing these in every shape and form.

    In short, you and your fellow LGBT leaders are calling for the violent overthrow of the US government, including shooting law enforcement, and you are FULLY endorsed and supported by the Barack Obama Party and Barack Obama himself.

    THAT is a threat to my freedom, and 99% of Republicans and conservatives — and I would say an overwhelming majority of anyone else — would agree with me on that.

    Are you just spectacularly clueless? Or is collapsing the US government and shooting police officers so run-of-the-mill, so internalized as a good thing for Obama Party LGBT supporters like yourself that you don’t see a problem with it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 31, 2011 @ 5:19 pm - October 31, 2011

  30. Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them. Barry Goldwater

    Comment by rusty — October 31, 2011 @ 11:48 pm - October 31, 2011

  31. Always funny to see liberals like rusty try to quote Goldwater when they and their Obama Party tried to destroy Goldwater by claiming he was a nutjob.

    And even funnier — or more disgusting — to see rusty obsessing over peoples’ religious beliefs and the threat they allegedly pose when the gay and lesbian community is openly insisting that it wants to collapse the US government and kill police officers.

    What should we call gays and lesbians like rusty who are obsessed with suppressing other peoples’ religious beliefs while simultaneously calling for violent revolution?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 1, 2011 @ 1:59 am - November 1, 2011

  32. Oh Miss RITA BEADS, so lovely to connect with you again.

    So, let’s see, here it is. . .

    In response, Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud, issued the following statement:

    “Governor Romney is absolutely right. Bryan Fischer has a long history of outrageous and unbelievably bigoted statements. His comments about gay people and gay families are what you would expect from a barbarian like Ahmadinejad not from a man who professes to be a Christian.”

    It is funny Dan how other folk at other sites are very curious as to your consistent M.O. of silly attacks. You were supposedly better back in the day. Hope things turn around for you dear.

    Comment by rusty — November 1, 2011 @ 8:51 am - November 1, 2011

  33. So rusty, your response to someone challenging your insistence that Bryan Fischer runs the Republican Party is to quote the candidate who leftist gays bring forward as being representative of the Republican Party repudiating Fischer.

    This is where the insane bigotry of leftist gays like yourself becomes patently obvious. Romney repudiated Fischer, and yet you are still screaming that Fischer runs the Republican Party.

    You aren’t acting out of any rational or intelligent behavior here. You’re simply looking for a reason to bash religious people and Republicans. You are a complete and total bigot.

    Furthermore, you are a pathetic coward. You sit here and whine and cry about what other people say and demand that they be condemned, but then when confronted with what your fellow LGBT community members are saying, insist that you shouldn’t be required to do what you demand of others.

    Meanwhile, given what you and your fellow gay-sex liberals say about people like Dan, you can just f’ing fry when it comes to lectures about “silly attacks”. You and your felllow whiny gay-sex liberals are nothing but little hypocrites who think your sexual orientation exempts you from ever having to take responsibility for anything you do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 1, 2011 @ 11:57 am - November 1, 2011

  34. Dan aka NDT(miss rita beads), I refer to B. Daniel Blatt as BDB. . .

    the reference to silly attacks was directed to you.

    Tom Scharbach October 28, 2011 at 10:24 pm IGF

    In short, you are a bigot.

    What has happened to you in the last several years, Dan? You used to write interesting, if edgy, comments about ideas. Now all you post are personal attacks, half-truths and lies.

    Comment by rusty — November 1, 2011 @ 12:44 pm - November 1, 2011

  35. I am very well aware to whom it was directed, rusty, and I post my response from that very thread.

    Ah yes, the old Obama whining about civility trick.

    I think Don Surber phrased best why that doesn’t work any more.

    You’re a lawyer, Tom Scharbach, or at least you allege to be one. Contracts, treaties, and agreements bind all parties involved; when one party in a contract, agreement, or treaty breaks it, the others are no longer considered to be bound by the terms.

    Since you and your Obama Party of Wisconsin want to send bomb threats to Republicans, tweet how people should “punch a Republican”, and threaten small businesses with your union thugs, you’ve broken the agreement. Since you and your fellow gays and lesbians want to sit here and whine about “gay-baiting” even as you endorse and support your Obama Party doing it, I no longer feel bound by it.

    So not only are you a bigot and a hypocrite, Tom Scharbach, you’re a cheat. You and your Obama Party want other people to follow the rules when you won’t. You scream and cry and demand that others condemn behavior, resign, etc., but you won’t. You want the benefits, but you don’t want to have to change your behavior or take responsibility for your actions.

    I tried being nice. Unfortunately, Tom Scharbach, you’re a worthless hypocrite, bigot, and moocher who only sees people who are nice as something to exploit.

    And that’s where I stand. Bryan Fischer has never wished me dead. The gay and lesbian community has — and even more disgustingly, through the words of one of its leaders who is sitting there shrieking about suicide and trying to exploit dead teenagers even as he wishes other teenagers and their parents dead for being of the wrong political affiliation.

    And where’s the condemnation for this? Where’s the repudiation of Dan Savage’s statements? Where’s the insistence that he resign, that “It Gets Better” be defunded, that any apology he makes isn’t real or sincere and that his words reflect what he’s actually thinking? You know, like the gay community would be demanding and screaming if it were a Republican, conservative, or religious person?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 1, 2011 @ 1:31 pm - November 1, 2011

  36. End italics.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 1, 2011 @ 1:31 pm - November 1, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.