Tag Archive | "accusations against Herman Cain"


Tags: , , , ,

In the maelstrom of the Herman Cain debacle, the word “innuendo” was bandied about.  It was used to describe the chain of events that now plague this Republican 2012 Presidential nominee.

The meaning of “innuendo”, according to Miriam Webster, is: a veiled or equivocal reflection on character or reputation.  Its synonyms are listed as “hint” and “insinuation.”  As you can see, innuendo never relates to “fact,” whose meaning, as per the above-named source is, a thing done.

Armed with this knowledge, one can see why the accusations against Cain are referred to as “innuendo” or “insinuation,” because of their lack of factual information.  Once an accusation has been established as fact, it is not innuendo or any of its synonyms; it is a truth.   But, I’ll admit, that’s how it goes in an ideal world.  Ours is anything but ideal!

In Herman Cain’s case, he states that he has been falsely accused due to a misunderstanding of a situation that occurred many years ago.  His accuser, however, has remained anonymous for obviously unstated “personal reasons.”  What was once a settled agreement between Cain and his faceless accuser has blossomed into a witch-hunt.  It’s opened up a Pandora’s box to more aggressive innuendo, in search of monetary rewards from the campaigning Presidential hopeful.  At least, that’s what it appears to be on the surface.  Scratch a little deeper, however, and it may very well be a political conspiracy against the only candidate who actually seems to represent the people of the United States and not Big Government.

Cain’s unfortunate situation is a lawyer’s dream, a chance to make not hay, but money, while the sun shines.  Most out-of-court settlements, such as that of Cain and his accuser, are resolved because of the cost involved in bringing the matters to trial.  For all the lawyers know, they may lose their cases if push comes to shove and a trial ensues if one of the parties refuses to settle out of court.  In a case such as Cain’s, it comes down to “he said; she said.”  And again, we come full circle, right back to innuendo.

“He said; she said” cases are tests of power, much like one gladiator fighting another in the ancient Roman Coliseum.  Power equates to money.  The party with the most money to spend on a long, drawn out case usually emerges the victor.  The one without the power (money) usually emerges somewhat bloodied.  If the party is a political figure (i.e., Herman Cain), it will be more than bloodied: it is usually a death knell to the politician’s attempt at gaining public office.

Sometimes, statutes of limitations keep these types of cases out of court. Or, double jeopardy protects the defendant from being tried again for the same charges.  However, the law is not cut and dried; U.S. law was not designed to be cut and dried.  This is the reason behind so many precedents being established and integrated into our legal code. It’s also the reason for attorney Alan Dershowitz’ statement that, “although the law is legally right, it does not have to be morally right.”

The facts of the Herman Cain case are as follows.  If Cain had never attempted this run for the Republican Presidential nomination, he would not have achieved his current media notoriety.  Had he not become a frontrunner, the faceless “she said” never would have brought up the subject again!  The innuendo of Cain’s life would have gone unnoticed; the media never would have reported it.  And it would not have tainted his campaign.

In defining the word “innuendo,” I asked an old time friend of mine, Joe Bananas if he ever heard of this word.  Joe’s response was, “Yeah. I think we used to call it the Italian Preparation H.”  ’nuff said! 

Site Sponsors

Site Sponsors

Site Sponsors

RSSLoading Feed...

Live Traffic Feed

RSSLoading Feed...