With this caveat: of course we have to first evaluate whatever negative information is brought up about our candidates. If, having done so in a reasonable (non-Jerry Springer celebrity-crime mentality frenzy) way, a person concludes that the incident does not impugn the candidate's character or conduct, THEN the response from there on out should be exactly as you say:
SO.
The less we talk about this and try to call out the LSM or blame someone for bringing up stuff that actually happened, the more we are cooperating in actings as PROPS in the LEFT'S DESTRUCTIVE POLITICAL THEATER.
A lively debate on just this same idea is here:
Hermain Cain is Reckless and Arrogant. (Do yourself a favor and skip the vanity post that started it all. Go straight to the comments.)
With this caveat: of course we have to first evaluate whatever negative information is brought up about our candidates. If, having done so in a reasonable (non-Jerry Springer celebrity-crime mentality frenzy) way, a person concludes that the incident does not impugn the candidate’s character or conduct, THEN the response from there on out should be exactly as you say:
Theoretically, this is best. However, I don’t see anyone but mitt left as our potential nominee. If we even stop to consider whatever it is they throw at Herman, we have Mitt.
Seriously, what could even be such a deal breaker in Cain’s past that would make Obama a better choice? That’s why I am more radical. Just say “So” no matter WHAT they throw at us! They want us off message and “carefully examining evidence.”.
So, publicly, we should all but ignore the charges. We don’t have another option.