Last week, I listed nine reasons why Republicans ought to nominate Herman Cain.
Let’s go straight to Reason #7 - “He Would Make Liberal Charges of Racism Look Really, Really Stupid.”
It seems that Leslie Savan of The Nation is eager to make that point for me. While she is kind enough to cite my Cain article she seems to have missed the point of it. Savan writes:
In an age when even the most rabid birthers and mosque molesters fly into a rage at the suggestion they might be bigots, it’s become impolitic to state the obvious: that a lot of Tea Party types are crazy for Cain because he shields them against charges of racism.
So if Republicans nominate Cain, it’s because they’re racist. If Republicans don’t nominate him, it’s also because they’re racist.
Perhaps Savan should have paid closer attention to Reason #8 - “The Content of His Character.”
But why would she? Far too many liberals define their liberalism with the notion that “conservative=racist.” It never occurs to these liberals that conservatives might actually judge people by the content of their character. It never occurs to these liberals that conservatives might actually like Herman Cain for his ideas, values, real world experience and sense of humor amongst other things. To do that, these liberals would have to think of conservatives as three-dimensional, flesh and blood human beings instead of one-dimensional, boorish caricatures. Remove those perceptions and you remove most of modern liberalism’s intellectual underpinnings.
Nevertheless, I wish to thank Leslie Savan for making liberal charges of racism look really, really stupid where it concerns Herman Cain. I’m sure she won’t be the last liberal I thank.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?