Editorial Staff December 9, 2011 @ 6:09 PM
1 Comment ››

Author: Steve Turner –

We experienced an event last week that should be generating questions in us.  Herman Cain’s “suspension” of his campaign for President leaves me saddened.  Not because he is the perfect candidate for President, but because he is was attacked with allegations that resulted in the “suspension” of a candidate with a high degree of integrity and character, which would provide a much needed refocus of priorities and policy in the White House.  We need people like this running for office so that the public has the best candidate pool to choose from.   I asked myself when this started, if the allegations were to any degree correct, why would anyone run for President knowing full well that these types of things would come out?  Why subject themselves and their families to the resulting humiliation?  We have examples of people being in positions of power that for some reason, results in what appears to be an absence of flow to the brain.  Power can cloud the thought process if the power becomes the god of that person.  I do not think that Herman Cain falls into that category.

Unfortunately the nature of political campaigns leaves room for accusations becoming accepted as truth.  The campaign cannot afford to spend all of its time defending such allegations, and those that make the allegations know that.  So, the more that is said, the more it is received as truth.  All the accusers need to do is say it often enough and the accusation will accomplish its task due to the nature of the campaign environment.  We get into the situation of questioning the character and integrity of the candidate.  Then, so that we do not allow ourselves to be unpersuaded by the allegations, we fall in line so that we appear wise and we confirm by our actions that we certainly do not want a candidate of questionable character running for President.  In that confirmation, we make unsubstantiated decisions.  The issue is, upon who’s statements do we make these decisions?  Unless there is proof of some kind that the allegations are true, we make a decision based on what would certainly not hold up in court.

The candidate certainly has a responsibility with how he or she handles the allegations.  A quick, pointed response is required with emphasis on truth that is supported by clear statements that say that there is no truth behind these allegations and there is no proof available to substantiate something that did not happen.  If there has been a “misinterpretation” of a factual event, lay it out there!  Make it clear.  Draw a line in the sand as to the fact that the candidate is not going to spend his or her valuable time defending accusations and will continue to serve the American people better by focusing on the issues of the campaign.  If a candidate cannot do what I have described here, then he or she should consider alternative actions.

When I thought about this issue with Herman Cain and the speed by which he was “convicted” I was reminded of another time when Jesus “drew a line in the sand” when He was approached by the Pharisees about a woman caught in adultery.  They were trying to trap Him into confirming the Law that said that women caught in adultery should be stoned, or to act against the law that was provided by His Father by saying that she should not.  The issue here as Jesus saw it was that the Pharisees wanted to stone this women, yet Jesus in classic Jesus style reminded them about themselves and the sin they had engaged in.  He started to write something in the sand.  When they pressed him on the issue, He said in John 8:7, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”  The description of this event continues in John.  He went back to writing in the sand.  The Bible does not say what He was writing, and the fact that it does not reveal what He was writing probably makes the point He ultimately makes applicable to everyone.  Some Bible scholars believe that He was writing sins in the sand that had been committed by the Pharisees.  One by one they walked away,  the oldest to the youngest, leaving the woman and Jesus alone there.  Jesus stood up and asked if anyone had condemned her.  She said no.  He said in verse 11, “I do not condemn you, either.”  Now, He did not stop there.  This was not a “get out of jail free” card.  He said, “Go, and sin no more.”  She had to change her life style, which could have been a type of jail for her because she may not have known how to do anything else.  Or, she may be subject to this again.  The point of all this was not an issue of whether she was guilty or not.  It was an issue of judgement by people that were in no position to judge based on their past lives.  After all, there may not have even been a trial yet for this women.  The Bible  does not make that point clear, which takes the issue back to the judgement issue.

Herman Cain was judged and convicted before there were facts to substantiate the actions.  Is Herman Cain perfect?  No.  Are we?  No.  This is not to say we should accept  candidates of proven questionable character.  It means we should not throw out candidates with unproven questionable character.  The political approach of trying to destroy the character of strong candidates should not be allowed by the public.  How do we do that?  Stand behind the candidate.  The poll results will show support and we will not end up with bad results.  The minority is controlling the majority.  It is an approach taken because the opposition does not want to face the facts, or the face, in the campaign.  Was Herman Cain’s character challenged when he was low in the polls?  No, he was not perceived as a threat until later.  Then, the mud slinging started.  There will be times that a candidate’s character should be challenged.  When it happens the next time, examine the timing of the event.  To be honest with you, I am hoping that God allows the truth to be revealed, and that the proper result occurs.