As an ardent supporter of presidential candidate Herman Cain, it was understandably disheartening for me to see recent attacks on the man, both in the local press and the national media. It's unfortunate, because for every minute he spends addressing distractions, it's one less minute to address substantive issues. Allegations of sexual harassment may or may not be true, but time will tell and the facts will play out. Although, I presume that the facts — to the left and their faithful companion, the mainstream media — may be of secondary importance. In the meantime, I take some comfort in certain elements of the story. For instance, Gloria Allred, has now inserted herself into the fray. She's spent an entire career incapable of deciding whether to chase ambulances or TV cameras, and does nothing to lend credibility to the allegations. It appears that one of the accusers lives in the same apartment complex as David Axelrod, and one works in the Obama administration. Does anyone believe that if Herman was polling at about 2 percent, we would have heard anything from these women? Another thing I can take comfort in is remembering the lessons that the left has taught us over the last two decades. Lesson #1: The past is in the past. When Bill Clinton was running for president, tales of marital infidelity and allegations of sexual assault were numerous and widely known. There was Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Dolly Kyle Browning, etc. However, we were instructed, by the left, that all these things were in the past...and the candidate's past would, in no way, interfere with his ability to govern effectively. Lesson #2: Move on! With Clinton, it was his wandering eye. With Barack Obama, it was his questionable associations — Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Resko, etc. (Let him who does not routinely hang out with hate-mongering ministers, domestic terrorists, and convicted felons cast the first stone). But, we were instructed that the American people don't care about such things. We care about jobs, about putting people back to work. We care about the economy. We want our leaders to get back to work and solve our problems. We want to move on. Lesson #3: “Simpwy wepwehensible.” During the Clinton years, Democratic lawmakers taught us that by adopting an attitude of mock indignation, they could sweep many of Clinton's indiscretions under the rug. By calling his actions reprehensible, they could signal to the folks back home that they would under no circumstances tolerate any tomfoolery, but, at the same time give their guy a pass. Most of them had no idea what it meant. It was just a word that tested well in some DNC focus group. Some of the lawmakers couldn't even pronounce it properly. Lesson #4: The race card. The left taught us that any criticism directed at candidate or President Obama — as a person of color — had to be racially motivated. That there could be any legitimate disagreement on any issue was ludicrous. Intellectual laziness? Of course, it was, but it also silenced a lot of critics. How, then, might we apply all these lessons that we've learned to Mr. Cain's predicament? Well, it seems clear that any criticism of Cain — as he is a person of color — is purely racially motivated. Besides, the American people don't care about these things. They want to move on. They want their leaders to get back to work on the business of the people. Even in the unlikely event that these allegations prove to be true, though — which would be wepwehensible, of course — it would, in no way, affect Mr. Cain's ability to govern effectively.