Townhall

Sandy Rios, the former president of Concerned Women for America turned conservative columnist and Fox News contributor, doesn’t buy Sharon Bialek’s claim that Herman Cain made an unwanted physical advance to her during a meeting with him in 1997. Rios, now the vice president of Family PAC, says that if Bialek was planning an “over night visit” with someone she only knew “slightly,” then, “What was Herman Cain to think about a single woman making an unnecessary arrangement like that—agreeing to drinks and dinner on the basis of nothing more, according to her, than a few conversations at public dinners and receptions?” In her Townhall column today, Rios argues that “if he did what she said he did and she in turn flirted inappropriately, it is NOT sexual harassment, it is what happens every day in our sex-obsessed, morally bankrupt culture”:

Why do I discount Bialek’s story? I’ll answer with a few questions of my own.

What was Bialek doing meeting Herman Cain in Washington, DC? What did she hope to achieve by a face-to-face meeting? If she were staying in New Jersey, why didn’t she make it a daytime meeting, not an over night visit? Why do that with someone you know so slightly?

What was Herman Cain to think about a single woman making an unnecessary arrangement like that—agreeing to drinks and dinner on the basis of nothing more, according to her, than a few conversations at public dinners and receptions?

If Bialek were so traumatized and embarrassed, why did she eagerly seek him out at a recent Tea Party event in Chicago? Amy Jacobson, co-host of Morning Drive on WIND Chicago, was witness to that encounter with Cain and described her as “hell bent” on getting back stage to see him. Jacobson said Bialek “cornered him” and that her approach to Cain was “flirtatious.”

If you are embarrassed by a sexual encounter, you don’t eagerly seek out the perpetrator to reconnect for a chat. Unless you think the harasser might someday be president and you are imagining the connections that might come from that.

Why did she so carefully include the buzzwords of a harassment lawsuit? Herman Cain was “powerful,” she said, “in a position of authority over me.” Bialek was “shocked” that he would use his “power” in this way. Does a sincerely abused person so carefully script her account? Were there certain words she wanted to use? This was not a court of law, but her statement was worded like a deposition. She even described the clothing they wore—strange and unnecessary.

…

Am I excusing Herman Cain? No. But if he did what she said he did and she in turn flirted inappropriately, it is NOT sexual harassment, it is what happens every day in our sex-obsessed, morally bankrupt culture.

According to the popular conservative online news website Townhall, Comedy Central host Jon Stewart is the number 28 “most dangerous liberal” in the country. Written by Townhall’s Executive Editor Chris Field, Stewart is a “radical liberal” and part of George Soros’s progressive web. Stewart falls right below Rev. Jim Wallis, the leader of the Christian social justice group Sojourners, who placed #27, but he’s seen as far more “dangerous” than Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos (#40) and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC (#44). While Field didn’t have any problems with the Daily Show’s report by Aasif Mandvi on critics of the McDonald’s Happy Meals, Field slams Stewart for purportedly persuading young voters into becoming progressives:

Political satirist Jon Stewart's tongue is acid-tipped. His popular "Daily Show" program regularly slays elected officials for hypocrisy and self-importance, derides political buffoonery and skewers media excesses. More often than not, it's bitingly hilarious and decidedly Left-leaning: a potent combination.

A 2007 media survey revealed that more than one-in-10 young voters relied on Stewart's show as a primary source of political news -- a share that has undoubtedly swelled since. It's no small coincidence that voters aged 18-29 backed Barack Obama for president by a breathtaking 2-to-1 margin.

While acting as a formidable political opinion maker, Stewart inoculates himself against serious criticism by playing the "I'm just a comedian" card. This artifice has become known among conservatives as the Jon Stewart "clown nose on, clown nose off " routine.

Laugh all you want. It works.

Right-wing radio host Michael Medved in his new Townhall column has discovered how God would vote in the upcoming election, and the answer isn’t surprising. According to Medved, “it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that the Almighty would cast his all-important ballot for Republicans.”

But how can he be so sure of how God would vote in November? Well, Medved argues that progressives’ commitment to social justice cannot have religious sanction because he says that progressivism, unlike conservatism, is inherently discriminatory. “Biblical view” (read: Medved’s personal reading of the Bible) “directly contradicts the leftist inclination” of “unequal, potentially unfair treatment by government.” To prop up his point, Medved argues that spiritual and religious progressives are simply not as knowledgeable as the clergymen “who focus on Scripture as written” and accordingly “lean overwhelmingly to the right.”

Medved’s declaration that God would vote Republican and that conservatives have the best understanding of scripture echoes the views of other figures on the Right such as Glenn Beck, who called on parishioners to run away from and report churches who believe in social and economic justice. Beck said that social and economic justice are merely “code words” for Nazism and Communism, and also asserted that “progressivism is the cancer in America.” He has also claimed that progressives don’t have God on their side but are “enemies of God,” but you can “stand with God” if you follow Beck!

As right-wing commentators attempt to claim God as a GOP booster, Pastor Michael Hidalgo of the Denver Community Church reminds us that “God is not a Nazi or a Communist. Nor is God Democrat or Republican. In fact, God has no political affiliation.”