Why Did Herman's Hermits Have to Walk Into Rick's?

I know everyone seems altogether exorcized over this "Cain Matinee", but I'm not storming out of the theatre just yet. That may be because I haven't figured out the plot yet or because it's good Karma to stay for the credits, but it isn't because I'm a "liberal, progressive female Democrat". It's not like I''m gonna vote for the guy--you can tell that from the pictures below--but I also don't find it necessary to pull the production in Act One. I'll give Herman Cain a chance to explain himself.

I do not think the "alleged activities" of twelve years ago are his biggest concern at this point--unless something entirely untoward comes to light--but rather the way in which, even with ten-days' notice, he mismanaged his explanation of those events. "Accused" and "committed" are vastly different words, same with "settlement" and "agreement". But Mr. Cain's method of communicating his side of events waffled between self-contradiction and messenger-blaming constantly.

His campaign is certainly not doomed but his credibility has been damaged and is in need of repair. More details and a better handling of them will decide whether his star rises or falls.

~~INTERMISSION~~

Now we're off for the concert of the century, "Rick's Rock". (No, not the one on the hunting grounds--the rock-and-roll variety.) Mr. Perry's animated New Hampshire speech is also the talk of the moment. And as I blogged earlier, I have no problem with the speech and found it refreshing and enjoyable. If you take that speech alone, maybe you have one view. Likewise if you take just his debate performances into account, you will develop another idea of Mr. Perry. BUT, if you look at both his "Manchester vocals" and his "Staged instrumentals" you might just decide to let this guy off the vaudeville hook as it were. (Now I've mixed my metaphor...)

I am reminded of another rising rock star who had his career cut short by one performance: Howard Dean. One little bit of excitement, one "unmanly" scream and you're off the campaign charts forever. That seems so ridiculous when you contemplate one of the biggest problems with our politics--and thus governance--these days which is a propensity to be reactionary rather than take the long view. Are we as "pundits", "observers", and "voters" guilty of the same thing for which we deride our politicians? No one wants a "one-hit wonder" in the Oval Office do they?

Mr. Cain's "debacle" needs to play itself out in the way of facts and in the handling of those facts before a decision is reached and Mr. Perry's "specter" needs to taken as one moment in time. I know I wouldn't want my stupidest day ever recorded for all eternity and replayed on the 24-7 news cycle loop.

While we lament that this isn't the "Golden Age of Washingwood" we need to remember that in the 1930s-40s production values were such that they covered a lot of sins. And though we may not be listening along during the "SuperPac Groups Era", those 1960s-70s rockers didn't have to contend with the extra spotlights of social media and 24-hour entertainment news channels. In other words, it was easier for things to go on behind the scenes when there were scenes to hide behind. No, I'm not suggesting that we go back to no cameras in the courtrooms, closed-door sessions as the norm, nor debone the Freedom of Information Act, I just think we need to look at these things historically and not in a vacuum of the latest goofy gaffe.

So what's my motivation? I'm certainly not going along with the script when I'm defending two candidates I couldn't imagine in the White House. And am I singing off-key? That's for you to decide. I just know that when something hits me as wrong I call it out. And this current singalong of the news cycle has our TV pals over-acting.