Among the many things I am currently reading about Sharon Bialek, the only woman to make public her accusations against Republican presidential contender Herman Cain, this one thing stood out, “Bialek does not intend to go forward with a lawsuit against Cain.”

If that’s the case, then why is Democratic attorney Gloria Allred on the case? That said, the publicity hound has “offered sworn affidavits from two friends to whom Bialek spoke shortly after the alleged encounter.”

That fact alone gives this accuser more credibility than the other alleged victims.  Indeed, as Jim Hoft puts it, citing twitter traffic, “she is as believable as Juanita Broderick (sic) was when she accused Bill Clinton of rape.”  And generating far more media attention for conduct far less offensive.

Cain, she alleges, “reached under her skirt in 1997 as she sought help in finding a job“, but did not persist when she rebuffed his advances.  Mr. Clinton persisted when Ms. Broaddrick rebuffed his.  This is not to diminish the allegations, but to wonder at the media circus.  As Andrew Klavan puts it:

Not only is the news coverage of alleged sexual misconduct different according to political affiliation, the consequences ofactual misconduct are often quite different as well. Republican congressman Mark Foley sent suggestive emails to male pages; he resigned under GOP pressure. Democratic congressman Gerry Studds actually had sex with one of the boys, then flung defiance at the House when they censured him; he was re-elected by Democrats until his retirement.

Via Instapundit.

Although I remain suspicious of Miss Allred’s motives, the sworn affidavits do cause me to take this charge more seriously than the others.

UPDATE:  Law professor William A. Jacobson reminds us that since the woman alleged that the sexual advance took place “after her employment terminated with a National Restaurant Association affiliate . . . the allegation is not one of workplace ‘sexual harassment’ but of an alleged attempt at infidelity“, adding that the “political damage will be significant”: (more…)

Watching the latest Obama campaign web video, Jim Geraghty observes, “Obama is dealing with the fact that he doesn’t have much of a record to run on by asserting that such a record is there — i.e, ‘progress’ and ‘change’ without ever trying to make the argument that Americans are indeed better off now than they were four years ago.”

“One year from now,” the ad warns, “all our progress could be erased.” Given how the Obama Democrats define progress nowadays, I agree with politicaljunkiemom who says, “Please, bring out the good erasers.”

The ad fails to specify what exactly that progress is, save the promise of change, whatever that means.  (Geraghty does identify some of the progress made since Obama took office.)  Ed Morrissey believes that the “ad reveals the core election strategy for Team Obama — fear“:

The ad reveals the core election strategy for Team Obama — fear.  “Oooh, without me, America will be scary!“  This strategy comes as no surprise, because after Obama’s record of incompetence and failure, fear is all they have left.

Wondering if more conservatives will be linking this ad to mock it than will Obama supporters to herald its message.

Seems those who supported Barack Obama with the greatest enthusiasm — and the highest percentage of their votes — are those who suffer the most under his policies.  Nearly three years after Obama became president, including two years with overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the “wealth gap,” according to the AP, “between young and old is widest ever”:

The wealth gap between younger and older Americans has stretched to the widest on record, worsened by a prolonged economic downturn that has wiped out job opportunities for young adults and saddled them with housing and college debt.

The typical U.S. household headed by a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times greater than a household headed by someone under 35, according to an analysis of census data released Monday.

Despite all this, “younger voters still backing the president by much greater margins than older generations.” Well, guess their lack of experience in the world causes hope to trump. That said, reports Mark Blumenthal at the Huffington Post, the “political enthusiasm and engagement that younger voters demonstrated four years ago is ‘substantially depleted.’”

Maybe now that young voters realize Obam policies aren’t creating more opportunities, they may switch their allegiance.  Or maybe not.  Does seem a lot of the Democratic appeal has little to do with the party’s record  – or its policies — but its image.  More on that anon.  Much more.

Still the waning enthusiasm doesn’t bode well for the Democrat’s reelection prospects.

Given her record, we can pretty much guess that this has more to do with politics than sexual harassment:

The AP reports that Democratic activist (though they don’t identify her as such) “Gloria Allred said Monday that another woman is accusing Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain of sexual harassment and will appear at a news conference in New York City later in the day.”

They call this gal a “High-profile discrimination attorney”. High-profile partisan is more like it. Does seem that whenever California Democrats want their dirty work done for them, they call ol’ Gloria.

Now, the lady is going national.

UPDATE: Given the woman who is trotting this accuser forward, we should demand corroboration before taking her seriously.

Byron York has a fascinating post this morning in the Washington Examiner addressing the question of why former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is running for president.  Despite having visited 97 of the Hawkeye State’s 99 counties, he still lags in polls, far behind Mitt Romney and Herman Cain who have spent far less time in the state:

The problem is Santorum isn’t close to the lead here in Iowa.  According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, he is the choice of 3.5 percent of Iowa Republicans — seventh in a field of eight candidates.  No matter who has led the field — Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain — Santorum has stayed near the bottom.

Yet Santorum is the most powerful voice on behalf of the conservative social positions that many Iowa Republicans hold dear.  It’s his bad luck to be running in a year dominated by economic concerns and to face opponents who more or less share his views on social issues but are perceived as stronger candidates on economic matters.  Santorum is stuck in a moment that’s just not made for him.

For all the bluster we hear from know-nothings on the left, particularly the gay left about the GOP being dominated by social conservatives, the social conservatives aren’t doing so well in this presidential cycle.  Michele Bachmann’s campaign never took off and she’s down to single digits in national polls.

Social conservatives, to be sure hold sway in the GOP, but don’t dominate it.  It’d be nice if the media abandoned their narrow narrative and took note of this fact.

When announcing that this blog had endorsed Patrick Forrest for Virginia State Senate, I reported that when asked “if supporting an openly gay candidate like Forrest will hurt him or other Republicans in rural parts of Virginia“, the Commonwealth’s Republican governor responded “emphatically” in the negative,

. . . pointing out that “Patrick Forrest is all about creating jobs, controlling government spending.  He’s a fiscal conservative.  He has his finger on the pulse of what’s going on in the Fairfax and Arlington communities.  He’s a great messenger for the fiscal conservative message and that’s what people care about right now.”

Forrest has done a great job uniting the diverse factions in the Virginia GOP.  Not only has he won the backing of Governor Bob McDonnell, often seen as a social conservative, he has also won the endorsement of moderate former Congressman Tom Davis, who, in 1999, was the first member of the House Republican leadership to address a gay gathering.

Former Governor and U.S. Senator George Allen is also a supporter.  He and his wife each organized a fundraiser for the openly gay Republican.  Washington veterans like Congressman Frank Wolf, first elected with Ronald Reagan in 1980, as well as Republicans in Richmond have joined Forrest’s team, with Virginia Board of Education Vice President Dave Foster offering his endorsement.

Does seem that if a gay Republican supports a small government, pro-growth platform, he can win the support of leading Republicans. These conservatives are more concerned with his policies than his private life.

If you haven’t already, please join me by contributing to this fine man’s first bid for elective office.  And if you live in Virginia’s 32nd Senate district, make sure to vote for Patrick Forrest tomorrow, Tuesday, November 8.

As I was closing some open windows on my desk top, I caught this comment from former GE CEO Jack Welch on what the president could do to right a listing economy, contrasting that with what he has proposed to do:

Oh, he can do a lot about the economy.  He could look at drilling for oil.  He can, by himself, can drive that posture.  He could put a moratorium on regulation until we’ve got unemployment below a certain level. He could do it.  And he could, most importantly, change the posture. Everything we do in this administration is more punitive than it is incentivized.  Let me give you a perfect example.  Let’s take the jobs bill. They put in there Section 371.  That is an ability to sue for unemployed people who are out looking for a job to sue for $300,000, for example, if they hire Andrea who has a job and don’t hire me, unemployed.  It’s crazy.  They, they give a $4,000 incentive to hire an unemployed person, then they give a $300,000 penalty if you happen to discriminate against an unemployed person. Come on, you’ve got to get a positive framework.

Emphasis added.  Sounds like some pretty sound advice.

Over the weekend, Glenn quoted a comment from Matt Welch which helps explain why I stay with the GOP despite a number of concerns with the Republican Party, notably its imperfect record on gays and its often inadequate commitment to Ronald Reagan’s small government ideals:

MATT WELCH COMPLICATES WILL WILKINSON’S NARRATIVE: “But here’s the thing that non-Republican, gay-marrying, pro-immigration, pro-choice, anti-empire potheads like me (and Will) need to grapple with if we insist on talking about the relationship between ourselves and various large political blocs: The GOP has been more receptive to libertarian ideas these past couple of years.” And the Democrats, not so much, despite all the “liberaltarian” hype.

He’s right. At least the GOP has been more receptive to libertarian ideas in recent years.  Heck, even the establishment candidate is starting to sound like a Tea Partier, proposing major cuts in federal spending.

In his post (which is well worth your time), Welch adds:

honesty compels the observation that among the governing classes, if you find an economic libertarian he/she is more likely to be a social con than a RINO (or DINO). The Gary Johnson crossover dream is still just that. Which makes me no more likely to join Team Red, but it does suggest that certain libertarianish traditions within the broader right have staying power, at a time when the libertianish tendencies on the broader left seem to be receiving little or no expression in the governance by Team Blue. That I wished things were different doesn’t change the basic facts.

I have noticed the same thing among a good number of social conservatives; they hold libertarian views on a great many issues.  It’s why some gay people are willing to work with these folks in common purpose — reducing the size of the federal government. (more…)