Do we, as a nation, care more about the unsubstantiated charges of sexual harassment against a presidential candidate than that candidate’s not knowing China is a nuclear power? Yeah, we kind of do.
The proof is in the numbers. Google “Herman Cain” and “sexual harassment” and you’ll discover there are a total of 88,900,000 results.
Now try Googling “Herman Cain,” “China” and “nuclear.” There are a total of 8,170,000 results. There are more than 10 times as many results for references to sexual harassment allegations against Republican presidential candidate Cain than there are references to his gaffe — and it was a huge one — about the People’s Republic of China’s nuclear capabilities.
The first news story — that is, one from a genuine journalistic source, not one from some joker who sits down in front of a computer and thinks he or she is a journalist, just because he or she is sitting in front of a computer — was from the Washington Post, with this headline: “Herman Cain, asked about sexual harassment charges: ‘Don’t even go there.'”
There were 2,474 related stories.
The first story that appeared about Cain’s China’s nuclear capabilities gaffe was from the Huffington Post Web site, with this headline: “Herman Cain on China Nuclear Capability: ‘I Misspoke.'”
There were 161 related stories.
So we have 15 times more stories about Cain and sexual harassment than we have stories about Cain’s not knowing China has nuclear capability, and has had it since 1964.
Now which is more important if a guy wants to be president of the United States: that he knows which countries have nuclear capability and which ones don’t, or whether or not he made some inappropriate comments to women way back in the 1990s?
I’m not saying sexual harassment isn’t an important issue, because it is. But when compared to a presidential candidate’s knowledge of which countries have nuclear capabilities and which ones don’t, the sexual harassment thing kind of diminishes in importance.
And that’s more so the case with the Cain controversy: It’s now been a week since the first sexual harassment revelations came to light, and we still don’t know what, exactly, Cain is alleged to have said.
Was it something truly disgusting? Was it something said in earnest or as a joke? Was it something as innocuous as “I like that dress you’re wearing”?
I’ll probably be accused of “trivializing” the issue of sexual harassment for that remark, but I can see how, in today’s America, a guy can be accused of sexual harassment for saying something as harmless as “I like that dress you’re wearing.”
Remember Inez Sainz? She’s an extremely attractive sports reporter from Mexico who went to the New York Jets training camp last year.
Jets players — being normal, healthy, heterosexual guys — responded to her as they likely would to any similarly attractive woman. Here’s the kicker: Sainz said she didn’t consider the players’ comments or actions to be “sexual harassment.”
Sainz didn’t realize that, once she crossed the border, she’d entered the land of perpetual victimhood, where some Americans seek victims everywhere, as long as the victims are women, racial minorities or gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or transsexual.
(A heterosexual white guy in prison who is gang raped by a bunch of black or Hispanic inmates won’t be considered a victim of anything.)
So it took one of these perpetual victimhood seekers to convince Sainz she was a victim. Are Cain’s accusers genuine victims?
Even if they are, why is their story more important than Cain’s ignorance about China’s nuclear capabilities?
Examiner Columnist Gregory Kane is a Pulitzer nominated news and opinion journalist who has covered people and politics from Baltimore to the Sudan.
