Sometime yesterday afternoon (Pacific time), after reading a brief summary of the details of Sharon Bialek’s accusation, but before finding out about f the affidavits, I wondered how much due diligence Gloria Allred had done.  Had Bialek named friends or acquaintances who could corroborate her story?  Had Miss Allred obtained affidavits from said individuals?  (Only when I learned she had did I begin to consider that there might be some truth to this tale.)

Had the female publicity hound contacted the hotel in Washington to see if Miss Bialek had rented a room?  Had Mr. Cain called to upgrade it?  Did she ask for flight records, etc.?

Now, to be sure, this happened fourteen years ago and most people don’t keep records that old, but still did she even try to track them down?  Well, seems a conservative blogger is doing the work she has apparently failed to do.  Jim Geraghty reports that he

put in a call to the Washington Hilton; one aspect of Bialek’s story should be fairly easy to verify, presuming the Hilton Corporation holds records from 1997: did Herman Cain rent a suite at the Capital Hilton in Washington D.C.?

As the multiple updates to my post yesterday indicate, I remain skeptical about Bialek’s credibility, neither convinced that she’s lying nor that she’s telling the truth.

If the charges are true, we do know that he behaved better than Bill Clinton had in similar circumstances.  When the woman said, “No,” he acceded to her request.  Mr. Clinton did not show such respect for the wishes of several women.  And yet feminists and women in the media rewarded him with their votes, support and enthusiasm while the media pillory Mr. Cain.  Mercilessly. (more…)

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…)

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.

Hillary: State Dept. ‘Instrumental in Sealing Deal’ For Lady Gaga’s Gay Pride Gig in Rome

I mean, with all the problems in the Middle East and all, not to mention a couple of wars and various kinetic actions, you do have to have your priorities.

Via reader Peter from Houston.

Thought came to mind when I caught this on Instapundit:  ”JIM TREACHER: Weiner Tip #1: If you want to prevent a topic from becoming a distraction, call the person asking you about it a jackass.”  I mean, just like Sheen, he’s melting down and is all over the media.  Seems the Democrat has a similar saturation strategy.

Oh, and props to Anderson Cooper who does seem to be trying to be fair, tweeting this morning: “For those saying we shouldn’t cover the Weiner story, would u feel same way if this had happened to a conservative republican? Just asking?”  (H/t Washington Examiner.)

UPDATE:  Seems I’m not the first to come up with this notion.  In Politico, Ben Smith writes:

“Watching Anthony Weiner’s twitter and press blitz is like watching a Charlie Sheen meltdown. It’s amusing, uncomfortable, and not necessary,” a Democratic leadership aide (not from Pelosi’s office) told me just now. “If Weiner really wants to get beyond this, he’ll shut up and let Democrats get back to their Medicare message.”

(Via Jim Geraghty in Morning Jolt).

As Donald Trump bows “out of the 2012 contest in true Trump fashion on Monday, saying that while he would not be a candidate this year, if he had run, he would have been able to win the primary and the general election too“, the only question is why it  is generating so much media buzz.

Perhaps it’s because since the media who brought him to the forefront of the 2012 campaign needed to find their own kind of closure to the circus they created.  In his brief moment in the political limelight, the real estate mogul and reality star did nothing to further the debate on the important issues of the day.

That said, he did contribute to our understanding of our compromised political discourse.  To be sure, he did end for once and for all (save for those who can never be pleased) the “birther” controversy, getting the president to do something he should long since have done to quiet the controversy.

He also showed us two things we already know.  First, that many in the media will do whatever they can to sensationalize the presidential contest (and attempt to make Republicans look extreme, crazy or both in the process).

And he provided yet another example of just how prickly the president is, taking everything so personally.  Why did the Democrat have do hold a press conference when the White House released the certificate, lecturing us on civil discourse or national priorities or whatever when all he needed to do to trump Trump was to have some minor administration aide take questions when the certificate was released?

Back in 2004, when Michael Moore’s movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, was released, the guest list at the Washington premiere read like a Who’s Who of leading Democrats:

The Fahrenheit 9/11 premiere was organized by Clinton White House social secretary Capricia Marshall, and the attendees who praised the movie included DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, Sens. Tom Daschle (D), Tom Harkin (IA), Max Baucus (MT), Ernest Hollings (SC), Debbie Stabenow (MI), and Bill Nelson (FL), as well as Reps. Charles Rangel (NY) and Jim McDermott (WA).

Jimmy Carter invited the filmmaker to sit in his box at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and dubbed Moore’s movie one of his two favorites.  Now, Moore has been making some crazy statements about the death of Osama bin Laden, hinting at some bizarre conspiracy theories involving White House deception.

So, given Democrats’ past embrace of Mr. Moore, some might think it really shameful that the supposedly responsible leadership of the Democratic Party has not repudiated him.

Glenn Reynolds nails it:

SUCKER: Obama takes bait, embiggens Donald Trump. You don’t punish Donald Trump by giving him attention. A more experienced politician would know that. Nor is building Trump up good for Obama — Trump has actually hurt him more than all the others combined. Because, you know, Trump has actually been willing to criticize him without being afraid of the Big Media retribution. The various traditional GOP candidates still have the old cringe-reflex where Big Media criticism is concerned.

Now, what did Napoleon said about how to act when your enemy is busy making a fool of himself?  Oh, yeah, it was something about what not to do when your enemy is making a mistake.

Well, maybe the president felt he had to, given that the media has, as Jennifer Rubin put it, “now glommed onto Trump“, with their “circus” continuing even after he’s “he’s ‘accomplished’ his goal of mainstreaming birther coverage”.

My addendum to Napoleon’s maxim:  ignore the attack dog who’s chasing his own tail.

Once again, I turn to the indispensable Jennifer Rubin not just for news of this matter, but also for insight into its meaning:

It’s almost inexplicable. The White House bent to the will of the kook-squad and its kook in chief, Donald Trump, in releasing the president’s birth certificate. He’s going to speak on the subject later today.

. . . .

In essence, Obama has given a pass to the loony birthers by suggesting this was a legitimate issue deserving of a White House response. And, of course, he’s made Donald Trump into the uber-opponent. Trump, unsurprisingly, is gloating, declaring he’s “proud of himself for accomplishing something no one else has accomplished.” What’s next: Capitulate to his demand to release Obama’s college grades?

Read the whole thing.  And yes, Jennifer, the Donald is now calling for the president to release his college records.  And, um, Mr. Trump, I’d be kind of wary of that self-pride thing.  You might want to consult a Mr. O. Rex (understanding that unfortunate Theban monarch through the lens of Sophocles not Freud) before telling us how “very proud” you are of yourself.  We’ve all heard what sometimes happens to people who pat themselves on their back overmuch.

Yeah, I’ll grant that if Trump didn’t raise a ruckus, the president wouldn’t have done what he should have done long ago to quiet this furor.  It does seem the real reason the president didn’t release this sooner was a political one — to try to bait his political adversaries into beating the birther drum ever louder and so discredit themselves in the process.

It seems right now, we’ve been watching a media battle between two egomaniacs, Donald Trump and Barack Obama.  The latter would have been smarter to just release the certificate without making a “peevish” statement, indeed, without making any statement at all.

And with that statement, the president today gave Donald Trump a public relations victory. (more…)

Yesterday, while at the gym doing my cardio, I looked up at one of the TV monitors to see the smug mug of Bill Maher on Eliot Spitzer’s solo CNN show, In the Arena.  My first thought was why a program ostensibly offering commentary on the news would turn to such an ill-informed partisan self-styled comic as a kind of expert.  He seemed the latest in the string of left-wingers on the former Democratic politician’s show.  My second thought was, well, CNN does have the freedom to bring on whatever guests it wishes and to have ratings roughly one-quarter of those of FoxNews’s program in the same time slot.

In the interview, Maher demonstrated both his arrogance and his ignorance.  He claimed to understand better the economic interests of Tea Party protesters than they do themselves:

The Tea Party is a party named after a tax revolt that does not know very much about taxes. It’s very hard to get effective policy in place if the people are voting against their own economic interests. . . . I mean, if your agenda is the same as a billionaire, you’re not really a populist movement, and if they’re supposed to be all about taxes and deficits and debt, most of the money, most of the deficit money, the debt money, was from under Bush. These are facts that they don’t care about.

Yeah, Bill, they have the same salary as you do, so they can easily bear the burdens of high taxes — and the increased cost of commodities (due, in large part to government regulation).

So, according to Mr. Maher, any movements backed by George Soros by definition cannot be populist.  And then the unfunny comic goes on to argue that most of the deficit was under Bush.  Um, Bill, have you read the constitution?  It gives the power of the purse to Congress, controlled by Democrats since from 2007 until this January.  And it was the budget passed the Democratic Congress elected in 2006, that saw deficits, declining before their eleciton, began to grow — as the rate of increase of federal spending accelerated.

He then faulted the president for failing to blame Republicans: “He never blames the Republicans for anything. He’s their best friend. He always helps them with their narrative.”  This statement so shocked our reader Sonicfrog that he wonders if he had a memory lapse: (more…)

Charlie Sheen may well be outsmarting us all in saying increasingly crazy things in order to keep himself in the news, but that need to have us all pay attention to him is itself an addiction.  He’s not seeking fame through good and noble deeds, but seeking it in order to fill an inner void.

Just as he used his star power to lure countless women into his bed.  Or used his wealth to buy whatever narcotic it was though could give him the quickest high.  Now, he’s found a new means to get high.  And the constant attention he craves may well only momentarily serve to fill the emptiness.  He may need try something novel to find the necessary excitement.

Another strange way to find validation through attention.  Kind of kind a child throwing a tantrum.

One day, people are going to start tiring of Sheen’s shenanigans.  Various media outlets will see their ratings drop and stop covering this particular celebrity.  And he’ll have to look elsewhere for his latest fix.

FROM THE COMMENTS: Sebastian Shaw offers a sage insight:

Charlie Sheen may very well end up dead from a drug overdose. Hollywood hasn’t helped him at all; in fact, it has hurt him along with the media trying to exploit his weirdness.

Indeed.

Look, I’m not the first to say it, so I’ll just put this observation out there for your consideration and commentary.  People in LA want to be noticed; they want to be the center of attention.  And many don’t care how they get your attention just as long as they have it.

Charlie Sheen has ours now.  He’s all over the tabloids, in print, pixel and video.  When I got to the gym, I hear people talking to him.  When I go out to eat, even in restaurants outside LA, I hear people talking about him.  Certainly, he seems like he’s off his rocker.  But, is he?  Right now, everyone is paying attention to him.  He’s being noticed.  He has become the number one celebrity this week.

(A google search for “Charlie Sheen” (in quotation marks) results in over 500 million hits.)

To Hollywood celebrities, it used to matter what people thought of them.  Now it only seems to matter that people think about then.  And people are sure thinking about Charlie.

NB:  Moments after posting this, I decided to modify (albeit slightly) the title.

Several years ago, I defined a condition known as Huffingtonistis, in honor of that ubiquitous political celebrity Arianna Huffington:

Huffingtonitis, when one defines his political views and makes public statements in order to win social approval and/or acceptance.

Blogger Roger Simon, whom I cited in that post, offers a different spin on Ms. Huffington’s motivations to sell her eponymous Post to AOL:

Arianna Huffington is a brilliant businesswoman with an extraordinary sense of timing — first riding the feminist wave to write a best seller accusing Picasso of womanizing, then going conservative to marry a multi-millionaire Republican, and then switching to the liberal/progressive side and founding the most successful new media news and opinion site extant. . . .

Arianna has read the tea leaves. Progressivism, which was riding the crest of popularity on the election of Obama, is over. It is no longer good for business. And just as the stock market is said to be a leading indicator on business cycles, I submit Arianna’s track record has shown her to be a leading indicator on the zeitgeist. She knows when to get out. Obama, and by extension progressivism, is fini.

Read the whole thing.  Is Ms. Huffington then more interested in following the zeitgeist (as is the pop star Madonna in following the latest musical fads) than in currying favor with the liberal social and cultural élite who dominant her current hometown?

In such case, she defines her views not in order to win social acceptance, but to head whichever way the wind blows.

I regret that I have not had much time to blog in recent days, but have been busy preparing the final draft of my dissertation as well as practicing my defense which I will deliver later today in Carpinteria.

Friday, while at the gym, I got my daily dose of CNN and was appalled that that “news” network was giving a lengthy platform to an attention-seeking hate-monger.  They even showed an extended clip of the self-proclaimed Reverend Phelps talking about how Elizabeth Edwards had entered hell — or some other nonsense (in their extended segment on his latest stunt).

Didn’t Mr. Cooper know that he was playing right into that crackpot’s hands by giving him such attention?   Because that is exactly the reason the man protests funerals.

As you recall, this morning, Sharron Angle’s “campaign sent flowers and a thank you note to Behar,” prompting, as Mark Hemingway put it

. . . another charming response from Behar – “I would like to point out that those flowers were picked by illegal immigrants and they’re not voting for you, bitch.” (Yes, one would hope illegal immigrants are not in fact voting, as it is against the law.)

I just spoke to the Angle campaign and it’s another great day, having raised $136,000 more. In fact, the campaign is almost exactly where they were yesterday at this time. The Angle campaign is no doubt hard at work thinking of new and creative ways to annoy Behar.

Annoy? Don’t you mean, express appreciation to?

Well, I think a nice box of chocolates would be nice.  Do you agree?  Perhaps you can think of something more creative.

So writes Michelle Malkin in describing the floral arrangement Sharron Angle sent Joy Behar.  You see the day the TV talker delivered a mean-spirited rant against the Nevada Republican, the candidate had a “banner day fundraising” raking it $137,000.

As you my recall,

Behar repeatedly called Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle a “bitch” on the air yesterday, and told her to “go to hell,” for the release of a political advertisement the ladies of The View saw as racially charged.

“You know what I’d like to see her do? I’d like to see her do this ad in the south Bronx. Come here, bitch! Come to New York and do it,” Behar said.

Michelle alerts us to Elizabeth Crum’s post on NRO Battle ’10:

In response to Joy Behar’s vicious remarks on The View, the Angle campaign sent a lovely flower arrangement with a note enclosed.

“Joy, Raised $150,000 online yesterday. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, Sharron Angle”

Sometimes, I think Bill Maher makes a schtick of his animosity against Republicans, knowing that it will gain him favor in Hollywood circles and give him the much needed attention he so craves.

He has never distinguished himself by the quality of his arguments, the originality of his thought or the humor of his comedy.  He masquerades as an independent thinker while towing the left-wing Hollywood line.  He claims to be a libertarian while rarely opposing the big-government initiatives of the Democratic Party.

And now we see just how much in the tank he is for this party of government which has, in the past 20 months, distinguished itself by passing legislation which increases the size of the federal government and the scope of its intervention in our lives.  Hardly libertarian these.

The occasionally curmudgeonly iconoclast (a true libertarian he!) Robert S. McCain takes note of the recent remarks of this lock-step leftist:

“I am not here to carry water for this or any administration, but the facts of the coming election are Democrats have real accomplishments to run on. . . . [W]hen it comes to voting, when we only have two choices, you got to grow up and realize there’s a big difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy. . . . (more…)

So, some extremist Florida pastor has now had his “15 minutes of fame“.  Pastor Terry Jones who had been planning to burn a “Koran on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks said [today] he would not go forward with the event, adding he would meet with the imam planning to build an Islamic center near ground zero.”

You know, I wonder if fringe figure had gone forward with his publicity stunt if it would have attracted more media than the miniscule membership of his congregation.

Would anyone even know who this guy was if, as Mike Thomas asks in the Orlando Sentinel, the “media had ignored” him?

James Taranto contends that the media helped make this crazy pastor’s stunt successful:

. . . a fringe Florida pastor’s announcement that he would observe 9/11 by burning the Islamic holy book was not, in itself, news. It was a mere publicity stunt–which the media, by treating it as news, made into a successful publicity stunt.

It is a publicity stunt that fits a pernicious media narrative, exemplified by a New York Times story we quoted yesterday titled “American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong,” which cited the Koran burning as evidence of widespread anti-Muslim bigotry.

Anti-Muslim bigotry is a problem, but it is only exacerbated by the media’s tendency to exaggerate and sensationalize it–and by the adversarial and snobbish attitude many journalists and some politicians have adopted toward the vast majority of Americans, who are not bigoted and who see the Ground Zero mosque as an affront.

While the media sensationalize this story, Sarah Palin takes notes of a story that media are ignoring “Book burning is bad. But the Muslim cleric who is running for parliament in Afghanistan is calling for the murder of American children in response to scorched Korans, which is worse. Where is the media’s focus?”   (more…)

John Cusack Calls for ‘Satanic Death’ of Fox News, GOP Leaders

*(about MSNBC, CNN & Democratic Leaders)

**& it would generate far more attention in the MSM.