Your Opinion: Cain reference reflects bias

Dear Editor:

Mr. Boldt in your letter of Nov. 17 you listed a number of notable individuals that have shown a lack of character. Among those individuals you listed those that have been accused, along with those that the facts surrounding their crimes have long been established.

You are so right that we are innocent until proven guilty, but to include those being accused with the likes of President Clinton and John Edwards does a great injustice to those being accused.

Not only did President Clinton commit adultery with Monica Lewinski, he had to pay Paula Jones $850,000 and lost his law license in Arkansas because he lied to a federal judge.

I watched his testimony on television and noticed the profound change in his facial expression when asked about the stained blue dress, which Lewinski saved.

Even today in 2011 the Progressives hold him in high esteem, which to me, is beyond belief.

Then we have the highly regarded John Edwards, who could have been president who not only lied about his adulterous actions while his wife was battling cancer, but in addition, who really thinks that the vaunted Washington news media was clueless?

The Big three, ABC, CBS, and NBC try so hard to protect their buddies that we here in fly-over country do not find out about these scandals until many years after the fact, if at all.

Look at the number of stories that this vaunted news media have run about Herman Cain and compare that with the number of stories they have run about prominent Democrats and the accusations against them.

You tell us of the bad example of Herman Cain's lawyer saying that if any woman wants to report allegations of misbehavior they "should think twice," before coming forward.

You also cite the Judge Thomas testimony before the US Senate by many of your hero Democrats and Anita Hill, but do not mention the Clinton administration and James Carville calling Paula Jones "trailer trash" and saying "drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you'll never know what you find."

In Herman Cain's case they are as yet unfounded accusations, while in Edwards and Clinton's case, they are facts. I suppose you find that, what Clinton's people said, was not a problem?

Your bias is showing big time.