Herman Cain offered no alternative histories. He offered no apologies. He had no stories to recall. His denial was that nothing happened.
The media loves the idea of proving a negative. If nothing happened, why can’t Cain produce evidence of that? One idiot reporter asked if he would undergo a lie detector test. Not a bad idea, but exactly what questions would prove he was telling the truth? What if one of the accusers passed one? You’re back to square one.
George W. Bush had the same problem with the National Guard Memo. Some disgruntled Democrat created a memo out of thin air using the default settings in Microsoft Word and CBS held onto it like a junkyard dog (fake but accurate) until the story actually improved Bush’s standing. Luckily, the veracity of the document became so questionable that a few conservative websites were able to prove a nearly impossible scenario, if not a negative. Then again, some politicians just play chicken. Gary Hart dared the press to follow him around, and they found some Money Business.
Now Cain has laid down his marker. He’s either innocent and these allegations will fall apart or he’s guilty and some real evidence will show itself. I don’t for one minute think that he’s both a major sleazeball and managed to hide all evidence of the fact. Those two things just don’t go together.