Some Thoughts on Herman Cain

I was on vacation over the weekend, and I missed--thankfully--a lot of the news that occurred, with much of it centering on Herman Cain and the allegations against him that are growing by the day.  I am not sure if he did what the growing number of women allege that he did, but it is obviously troublesome to say the least.  It is not that troublesome that Cain did not seem to prepare for these allegations; Rush Limbaugh said on Monday that it is kind of preposterous to say that Cain should have seen this coming, and he is somewhat right:  most of the women settled with the National Restaurant Association back in the late 90s, and Cain was unaware of the settlement conditions.

The troublesome thing--and somewhat unsurprising thing--is the way the media has come after Cain.  Those politicians on the Left seem to always be given the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and those defending certain politicians--e.g., Bill Clinton--seem to still want to blame the women accusers or redefine the meaning of sexual assault in a Hobbesian kind-of-way (or, in the case of John Edwards, be in constant need of having to wear a neck brace).  Cain and most politicians on the Right are presumed guilty right away.  Those defending Cain should be careful not to so much as defend the man--who may be guilty--but the principle underlying this whole ordeal:  the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.