For you Simpsons fans out there -- and if you're not a fan, particularly of the first, oh, 10-12 seasons, what's wrong with you? -- Ranker has a great list of "13 Simpsons jokes that actually came true."
Like, for example, how Lunch Lady Doris puts gym mats in a meat grinder and how we now learn that one of the ingredients used to make gym mats, azodicarbonamide, is actually found in the horrendous McRib. Or how there really is a Scotchtoberfest. And a Flaming Moe. And a Good Morning Burger. And a Land of Chocolate. And a Leftorium, of sorts. And how The Hangover would appear to be a blatant ripoff of the episode "Viva Ned Flanders."
Well, read the whole thing, but allow me to draw your attention to #6, the eerie similarity between Governor Schwarzenegger, as portrayed on The Simpsons, and Herman Cain. At least with respect to the relationship between leading and reading.
A pictorial representation of the race to be the 2012 Republican nominee for president.
Why?
Why not?
Every other sensible prediction I and many others have made has gone down in ruins -- like the Hindenburg, if you will:
It'll be Romney. Republicans like establishment types, he's got money and organization, and he's next in line for a party that likes clean succession.
Wait. Bachmann is crazy, but maybe the right sort of crazy for today's crazy GOP.
No, she's insane. And Perry is much more appealing. He sounds a bit too much like Bush, but he certainly looks the part, more down-home and authentic than stuffed-shirt Romney.
But Perry's such a dolt. Check out his embarrassing debate performances. Can he string a coherent sentence together? And why does he keep sticking his foot in his mouth?
This Cain guy is clearly unqualified even to go on a White House tour, and his support is clearly just protest support, but maybe he'll be a factor.
So it has to be Romney. If only by default. He's got a low ceiling, but eventually the party will learn to love him, or at least to live with him. He's already got the "elite" behind him, knocking off his challengers one by one, and he's electable, so they say.
Wait... what? Newt? He's still in the race? But he doesn't even have a campaign staff. But you know what? Sort of makes sense. Good media presence, reputation as an ideas man, known commodity, and he seems to be in the right place at the right time. With the other anti-Romneys falling away, he's left to carry the flag for the majority. And look! He's surging in the polls! He's even saying he'll win! It's... it's... inevitable!
Oh, right, Newt is Newt. A disaster for the party, and the "elite," pundits and politicians alike, knows it. Now they're going after him. His poll numbers are tanking. He's way back even in Iowa now. He won't even make it to Christmas.
How about Huntsman, though? He's doing okay in New Hampshire. No, forget I brought him up.
Or Paul... He's surging in Iowa! He'll win Iowa! But of course he'll never be the nominee. Just too... out there.
So now it has to be Romney, right?
I mean, who else is there? Palin is talking about "folks" -- i.e., herself -- getting into the race even at this very late date, but that's just unrealistic. Maybe there'll be a brokered convention, maybe it'll be Christie, or maybe even Jeb, but that's highly unlikely. Republicans don't like such uncertainty.
But... what about Santorum? He's picking up big-time endorsements, by Iowa standards, left and right -- or rather, far right (Schultz) and even more far right (Vander Plaats). The Christianists love him, because he's one of them. He's crazy, but keeps his craziness in check (unlike Bachmann). He's polished from his years in the Senate (unlike Perry). He's a social but also economic conservative (unlike Romney and Paul). He doesn't have a history of personal misdeeds (Gingrich).
And, well, it's his turn... isn't it? Makes sense, no? He's the one!
**********
Okay, okay, I'm not being serious. (For those of you who couldn't tell.) But there's been such consistent and pervasive nonsense in this embarrassingly awful Republican race for president that nothing, no prediction, can really seem all that ridiculous at this point.
"Veteran GOP strategist Karl Rove said Monday that the head of the Republican National Committee (RNC) should step in to 'discourage' presidential candidates from attending the upcoming debate moderated by Donald Trump," reports The Hill.
The recent rise of Newt Gingrich, the whole Herman Cain thing, the flirtations with Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry over the summer, the popularity of Donald Trump as a possible candidate (way back when), the ongoing cult of Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney's deep unpopularity with the GOP base (even with Rove and the "money" backing him) -- all of these point to one thing: the impotence of what passes these days for the Republican "establishment."
Once upon a time -- actually not so very long ago -- the GOP was controlled by an establishment that, while undeniably conservative, was nonetheless pragmatic. Hence, at the presidential level, Reagan, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, and McCain, all electable candidates with broad appeal (Bush I lost re-election largely because of Perot, while Dole was running an unwinnable campaign against a popular incumbent in Clinton and McCain ran into the Obama juggernaut at a time when the Republican brand was, as it is still, garbage).
Once upon a time, a Karl Rove, and indeed Karl Rove himself, could have maintained control over the process and, with the snap of his fingers, shut down anything like this ridiculous Trump-moderated debate. But now that the GOP has shifted so far to the right, dominated by ideologues and moved largely by talk radio and Fox News, with propaganda flowing directly to the base and not through establishment channels (and mediators), with the Internet and social networking obviating the need for any such "establishment" to filter the communication between the politicians and their supporters, there's only so much he can do. And however much he may protest, it's not really up to him, is it?
Karl Rove still matters, of course. There's still a need in politics for organization, for ground campaigns and advertising and the like, but times have changed and no longer can he, and others at the "center," control the process or the party.
Hence Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, and Donald Trump. Hence the utter craziness of the 2012 Republican presidential race. Because, yes, what's going on now makes Rove look like a sensible pragmatist. And that's certainly saying something.
It really wasn't a big surprise that Herman Cain suspended his campaign for president this weekend. (By "suspending" it as opposed to formally ending it, he avoids some legal issues with fund-raising and the FEC. Plus, he keeps a glimmer of hope alive for the Cain-bots.) It's hard to believe that anyone truly thought that he would ever be the Republican nominee, and even if he was, that he had a serious chance at winning the election. We like to encourage these kind of quixotic campaigns for the entertainment, but we also know that when it comes back to reality, it isn't going to happen.
The Very Serious People and pundits will all now say that there was an important lesson in the four months of Mr. Cain's ride in the polls above 1%: that we should learn from his candor and his flaws and his loopy 9-9-9 tax plan and his utter lack of knowledge of foreign policy that a high school kid skimming Yahoo! news tweets would know better. There are candidates who may not be career politicians, but they can be a voice in the selection of our leader, and that is essence of the American dream.
Oh, come on -- seriously? The GOP and their enablers inside the Beltway should really wonder if they have a grip on reality when someone like Herman Cain -- even if only for a few weeks -- was atop the leader board in the GOP primary while other candidates with a lot more experience and insight such as Jon Huntsman or Gary Johnson languished at the bottom. It was like Pauly Shore being in the lead for an Oscar while Kenneth Branaugh couldn't get a notice. And if you were able to get Herman Cain to speak honestly about his real goals and why he went through all the trouble and exposure, he would probably confess that it was all about selling books and getting the attention that some people really crave. He was this year's Sarah Palin... remember her? And people wonder why most people are cynical about politics and the turn-out for elections wouldn't keep a mildly funny sit-com alive on the CW.
The Iowa caucuses are in less than a month. By then Mr. Cain will be little more than a memory on the 2011 highlight reel that runs on New Year's Eve, and the party will be focused on the next wild and crazy one to run; I hear Donald Trump is thinking about getting back in. It's always fun to think of what it would be like with a complete outlier in the White House, but the reality is that we all know deep down that we would be truly messed up if we thought for an instant that we would ever trust the nation and the world to someone who really didn't want the job in the first place.
Despite their undeniable significance, I don't want to make too much of the Iowa caucuses, let alone of a single poll still a month out from the vote, but what appears to be going on there reflects what's happening nationally.
As Jed Lewison reports at Kos, a new Des Moines Register poll shows Gingrich in the lead at 25 percent, with Paul in second at 18 percent and Romney in third at 16 percent, with Bachmann (8), Cain (8, but he's now out), Perry (6), Santorum (6), and Huntsman (2) well back.
Looking at polls going back to June, the trends are clear:
-- Gingrich is surging, up from just 7 percent in late October.
-- Paul has also improved, jumping up from 12 percent in late October. (Both he and Newt were at 7 percent in June.)
-- Romney has been steadily declining: 23 to 22 to 18 to 16 over the four polls.
As Lewison writes, "he's not only run into a polling ceiling, he's starting to lose ground... and he's losing it just as he's gearing up to try to win the state." I've been saying for a long time now that Romney has a low support ceiling. It may be getting lower, particularly with Gingrich emerging and Paul picking up steam. Romney could rise again if Gingrich falters (and if Newt self-destructs either by being himself or because people start paying attention and see him for what he is (and has been throughout his political career), but with so little time before Iowa and New Hampshire, that may not happen until it's too late, if ever.
-- The rest of them are done. In particular, Perry's hopes of a comeback. It's over.
I don't consider Paul a serious contender despite the intensity of the support for him. (For an example of that, see this piece I wrote for The Huffington Post on Friday. It looks at the ad Paul is running against Newt, but it's really about Gingrich as the frontrunner and the current state of the GOP race. But I included a throwaway line about how Paul will never be the nominee and that was enough to arouse the ire of Paul's fanatics. Check out the comments, including my responses.)
As we're seeing in Iowa and elsewhere, the race has turned into Gingrich vs. Romney. Given his low ceiling, Romney was depending on the anti-Romney conservative vote being split among a number of candidates -- that is, on no one rival emerging to unify the conservative vote. It looked bad for him when Perry surged into the lead after the Iowa Straw Poll over the summer, but that didn't last long, not with Perry doing so badly in the debates and generally embarrassing himself. It was fine when it was Cain as his main rival, because Cain wasn't really a serious contender.
But now, with Gingrich? It doesn't look good, and Gingrich, unlike Perry, seems to have what it takes to stay on top (assuming he keeps Bad Newt -- that is, the real Newt -- in check), at least long enough to win Iowa, place a strong second in New Hampshire, and then win South Carolina, building up his ground campaigns and securing the necessary support, both financial and otherwise, to pick up even more steam from there.
Well, by now you've no doubt heard the news (if you pay any attention at all to U.S. politics): Herman Cain has "suspended" his campaign for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination:
An unapologetic and defiant Herman Cain suspended his presidential campaign on Saturday, pledging that he "would not go away," even as he abandoned hope of winning the Republican nomination. Instead, Mr. Cain announced what he called a "Plan B," continued advocacy of his tax and foreign policy plans.
"As of today, with a lot of prayer and soul searching, I am suspending my presidential campaign," Mr. Cain said. "Because of the continued distractions, the continued hurt caused on me and my family, not because we are not fighters. Not because I'm not a fighter."
First, by suspending his campaign he's not ending it. Which means he still wants money. Let's get that straight. As Marc Ambinder writes in a very good requiem for Cain, "Cain is not ENDING his campaign because he needs to raise money and will get federal matching funds (taxpayer money!) to help him with any debts in January." Is there anyone who still thinks he's a man of integrity?
Second, while he may not be going away, he's pretty much done as any sort of major public figure. He was a joke, most people knew he was a joke, his 9-9-9 tax reform plan was a joke, his foreign policy "views" are a joke, and no one with any sense is going to pay him any attention. (Unless he gets, say, a Fox News or other high-profile right-wing media gig, which remains a possibility -- though I supsect he'll ultimately fade back into obscurity, and sooner rather than later.) It's like when American Idol contestants say they have bright futures, even after they've been voted off the show. (Because the stupid judges unfairly keep telling them they're going far, because they've become celebrities, because their 15 minutes aren't quite over yet.) They don't. With only a few exceptions, they're done.
Third, this all played out so predictably. I actually thought he'd quit after all the harassment stories came out -- and after his numbers declined. Well, his numbers have certainly declined, but it took the Ginger White affair story to be the final straw. No, let me rephrase that. It was in a way the final straw but what it really was was the excuse he needed to get out of the race. He was never going to win the nomination, not with Karl Rove and others pointing out repeatedly that wasn't (and isn't) up to the job, and with his rivals (and even some of his friends) basically treating him like a moron with silly ideas and waiting for his time to be up (which they all knew was coming, which is why they never really bothered to go negative on him), and he was really only a contender for a brief time, but he had become a major figure in the GOP and needed the right time to get out with at least some of his credibility (at least among conservatives) still intact. That right time was today.
Fourth, please note that, like countless Republicans before him, he played the victimization card while blaming others for his troubles and refusing once again to take any responsibility for his actions. He keeps denying any and all wrongdoing regarding the multiple allegations of harassment and Ms. White's 13-year affair claim, and, again using the Republican playbook, lashes out at the media (i.e., the messenger), just like his pal Newt does.
So he talks about "continued distractions," though of course the only distraction has been the truth coming out and revealing just what sort of a person he is. And he talks about his and his family's "continued hurt" caused by others, but the real hurt isn't the revelation of the truth, the reporting of it in the media, but what he himself has done over the years to others. You want hurt? How about the women he mistreated, including Ms. White, whom he presumably kicked to the curb when she was no longer useful to him (i.e., when he decided to run for president)? How about the hurt he caused to his wife? How about the hurt he caused to his supporters, to all those people who took him at his word and actually believed he was a good man worthy of their support? Oh, no matter, it seems. Cain apparently thinks he's done nothing wrong. And that makes him a pathologically self-righteous thug.
(Ed. note: See also my post on Cain's announcement here. -- MJWS)
Unlike some people, I have a lot of respect for the political process and for politicians. I would prefer that good candidates make themselves available. I recognize that the task is a difficult one, but I am pleased that so many good people still present themselves to the American public for approval.
It saddens me when so many fools show up, when so many unqualified candidates insist on embarrassing themselves and us by their antics and shameful pasts.
Herman Cain, one of the bigger fools to grace the national stage in a long time, seems to have had enough, as The New York Times reports:
An unapologetic and defiant Herman Cain suspended his presidential campaign on Saturday, pledging that he "would not go away," even as he abandoned hope of winning the Republican nomination. Instead, Mr. Cain announced what he called a "Plan B," continued advocacy of his tax and foreign policy plans.
"As of today, with a lot of prayer and soul searching, I am suspending my presidential campaign," Mr. Cain said. "Because of the continued distractions, the continued hurt caused on me and my family, not because we are not fighters. Not because I'm not a fighter."
Herman, what happened here was done by you to yourself. What hurt came to your family is of your own doing. And I think Americans everywhere have heard enough about your tax policy an uninformed views on foreign affairs. Hell, I think you've proven yourself too stupid for Fox, and that's saying something.
Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) has shared a Tweet with you:
"stevebruskCNN: Huntsman on Cain: unique and valuable voice to the debate over how to reform our country's uncompetitive tax code & turn around the economy"
I realize he's just trying to say nice things, but... seriously? Is he trying to win over a few Cain supporters? Or just trying to take the high road?
Whatever the case, it's pretty pathetic.
I thought better of Huntsman, the only relatively sane voice in the GOP field. So much for his credibility.
Herman Cain acknowledged Thursday that he repeatedly gave Ginger White money to help her with "month-to-month bills and expenses" without telling his wife of more than 40 years.
In fact, the embattled presidential candidate said, his wife, Gloria, "did not know that we were friends until she (White) came out with this story" alleging that the two had a 13-year extramarital affair.
In his most candid interview since the latest allegations emerged, Cain adamantly maintained that he and White were no more than friends.
Who gives money for "month-to-month bills and expenses" (whatever the latter even means) to someone who is just a friend? Is it really likely that Cain kept this from his wife even though, as he claims, it wasn't an affair? Then just what was he hiding? An innocent friendship with a woman? That hardly seems likely.
And, really, no more than friends? Isn't it possible that she came forward not so much because she "felt bad" for the women Cain had sexually harassed and was now attacking, as she initially claimed, but because Cain had cut off the affair and, with it, the financial support? (The AJC is reporting that "[j]ust days before coming forward with allegations of a 13-year affair with Herman Cain, Ginger White was repeatedly having contact with the presidential candidate, according to her cellphone records.)
I don't mean to suggest that White has done anything wrong. Perhaps she just felt hurt after years of playing Cain's mistress. Cain does, after all, seem to have a long history of using and abusing women. The issue here isn't about her but about him. He has presented himself as a "family values" candidate, as morally upstanding along religious right lines. But all we seem to be getting from him is dishonesty, a covering up of his past (his recent past included). Normally I'd say such matters should remain private, that an affair like this is no one's business (whether it was sexual or not), but such hypocrisy and dishonesty shouldn't be excused.
Actually, while this may be a general rule, it hasn't really applied to the 2012 Republican presidential race. Romney has been at or near the top more or less throughout the campaign so far, but he has, interestingly enough, avoided the vicious attacks one might have expected. Even Romneycare, his (deeply unpopular among Republicans) proto-Obamacare health reform in Massachusetts, has been spared. Sure, Rick Perry went after it in a TV ad aired in October, but people didn't seem to care, and it continues to be one of the surprises of this campaign that it hasn't been a dominant issue, the main target of the various anti-Romneys who have alternated as Romney's main rival.
But there's a reason for this, and it's that the anti-Romneys have all been incredibly weak, rising and falling quickly: Michele Bachmann, Perry, Herman Cain. They've been struggling so much either to get to the top or to stay there that they haven't had the comfort of launching a sustained attack on Romney from a position of security.
Plus, they've all been so incredibly incompetent. Bachmann is the best communicator of the three, I suppose, she wasn't Romney's main rival for long, and it certainly wasn't long before her message imploded, her campaign right along with it. Perry is a terrible communicator whose campaign has been a string of gaffes and embarrassments. Cain can only communicate simple things and has no political capacity whatsoever for anything other than self-aggrandizing inanity, and of course his campaign, ever since he gained some notoriety as a possibly serious contender, has been plagued by scandal, stupidity, and ineptitude. All of this has allowed Romney to remain above the fray, deeply unpopular with Republicans but on top because the anti-Romney constituency that dominates the GOP has been fractured, unable and unwilling to get behind a credible alternative.
(And, yes, I still can't believe it's come to this. Like many others, I'd written him off long ago.)
The way things are going, the race will come down to Romney and Gingrich, with Ron Paul likely still around as the libertarian alternative with a small but enthusiastic base in the party. At some point, that is, Romney will have to join the fray. He'll be pulled in, regardless. And once he's secure as the anti-Romney, Gingrich will no doubt turn his attention to trying to bring down Romney. But that's down the road, perhaps after Gingrich firmly establishes his position by doing well in Iowa, the the next battlefield in Romney's backyard of New Hampshire. Then things could get nasty.
For now, though, it's the others with no hope at all of winning who are aiming their sights at those at the top. We've seen Jon Huntsman do it in presenting himself as the only reasonable alternative to the extremism that dominates the Republican presidential field, but now it's Paul taking the initiative with a blistering assault on... Newt Gingrich:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul is tearing into Republican presidential rival Newt Gingrich with a new web ad that ranks among the most scathing of the year.
Hitting similar themes that the Democrats used earlier this week with a video highlighting Mitt Romney's litany of flip-flops, the Paul campaign blasts the former House speaker in a video entitled: "Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy."
Largely using news clips from recent weeks, the ad seeks to paint Mr. Gingrich as a paid hatchet man for the health-care industry and the mortgage giant Freddie Mac. It is also heavy with clips of conservative icons such as Rush Limbaugh and Rep. Paul Ryan taking swipes at Mr. Gingrich’s positions.
The video will not run on television. But the Paul campaign is promising to send it "to a far-reaching email list of conservative voters nationally, including in key early voting states."
Newt has certainly provided a lot of material over the years. He used to care about climate change, for example, and he actually has somewhat humane views on immigration, and earlier this year he even went after Republican wunderkind Paul Ryan, calling Ryan's budget plan "radical" and "right-wing social engineering" before ultimately caving in, apologizing, and betting for forgiveness. He may not have quite the unacceptable past that Romney does (he's certainly never been a moderate, not even close; a good term for him might be "eccentric conservative"), and he may not be quite as shameless a political opportunist as Romney is (though he certainly is one, flipping and flopping on a wide variety of issues, including notably the military campaign in Libya this year), but there's a lot for his opponents to exploit.
And now that he's the co-frontrunner with Romney, and even on top in some states, building his campaign as quickly as possible now that he's actually got a shot, he's an obvious target. Maybe Paul thinks it will soon be his turn at the top and is only trying to expedite Gingrich's inevitable collapse. Whatever the case, it will never be Paul, and a Gingrich collapse would only mean an easier Romney win, but nonetheless Paul's efforts to go after Gingrich are significant. They indicate that Gingrich is indeed a genuine contender to be reckoned with, that Gingrich will have to start playing defence, and that the race, with the voting set to start just over a month from now, is about to get a whole lot uglier.
Public Policy Polling (PPP) has just gone into the field in Florida and Montana, and early indications are that New Gingrich is likely going to have a double-digit lead in both states. The polling firm also says that his support has not peaked.
Significantly, PPP indicates that with Herman Cain perhaps poised to drop out of the race, Gingrich's surge should continue for a while, assuming he doesn't shoot himself in the foot, which is a big assumption.
A key piece of information from their polling is that Cain supporters love Newt and hate Mitt:
Our last national survey found that Gingrich's favorability with Cain voters was 73/21. Meanwhile Romney's was 33/55. That's the same basic trend we've seen in every Republican primary poll we've done in the month of November. On average in 7 polls we've done this month Gingrich's favorability with Cain voters is 69/22. Romney's average is 31/57. In other words Gingrich's net favorability is 73 points better with Cain supporters than Romney's.
This gets us into that all-important second choice dynamic so essential in nomination battles. Not only is Romney stuck at fairly mediocre levels of support, but his opportunity for growth, once lesser candidates either bail out or become less viable, is limited.
Gingrich is coming on anyway, and if Cain goes away Newt will get much of that support.
I know many of us have been beating this point to death for months, but this Republican nomination race is not political business-as-usual. Voter preference does not appear to be motivated by a rational calculation of who can best take on Obama. The level of ideological fervor in this election may mean that many right-wing voters will be incapable of supporting a relative centrist like Romney.
And, after shopping around for months, they could be coming around to Gingrich, a candidate they believe to be consistently on the right who doesn't misspeak every second time he opens his mouth.
Once again, we are seeing evidence that Romney could be in more trouble than most of us thought.
Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) has shared a Tweet with you: "jaketapper: Cain email: 'It's no secret that the Democrat Party + their surrogates in the mainstream media are out to derail Herman Cain's candidacy...'"
Yes, I'll admit it. We all conspired to persuade Cain to harass, grope, and generally disrespect women, to have a long-term affair, and to wallow in shameless hypocrisy, not to mention to look like a fool throughout this entire campaign. We devised that whole 9-9-9 idiocy and held his tongue while he struggled to remember what Libya was all about.
Once more, we see that Cain refuses to take responsibility for anything and everything. It's always someone else's fault. And this will be his bullshit narrative when he quits the race.
According to a number of different sources, Cain said in a conference call this morning that he's "reassessing" his campaign. He's apparently concerned that the story of his alleged 13-year affair with Ginger White would be "too much of a cloud."
This may be part of it, but I suspect that this latest revelation for what is already a scandal- and incompetence-plagued campaign, not least in this case because he's presented himself as the candidate of unimpeachable "family values," is just what he needs, just the sort of excuse he needs, to bow out of the race on his own terms, blaming others and refusing to take any responsibility whatsoever.
Look for his self-aggrandizing departure soon, followed by an endorsement of fellow philanderer and disrespecter of women Newt Gingrich.
An Atlanta businesswoman is breaking her silence, claiming she has been involved in a 13-year-long affair with Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.
Over the Thanksgiving weekend, FOX 5 senior I-Team reporter Dale Russell sat down with Ginger White, who had a story to tell.
"I'm not proud," White told Russell. "I didn't want to come out with this. I did not."
White was worried a political tsunami was headed her way. So, she decided to head it off, by confessing she was involved in a 13-year-long affair with presidential hopeful Herman Cain.
"It was pretty simple," White said. "It wasn't complicated. I was aware that he was married. And I was also aware I was involved in a very inappropriate situation, relationship."
It came out oddly, however. Cain actually went on CNN just before Atlanta TV station WAGA (FOX 5) aired the interview with White (which you can watch below) and pre-emptively denied the claim:
Cain, who lives in suburban Atlanta, upstaged the report by going on CNN a few minutes before the station broadcast its interview with White. He told CNN's "The Situation Room" that her assertion was coming and would be false.
"It is someone that I know who is an acquaintance that I thought was a friend," Cain said. But he added, "I did not have an affair."
"I acknowledge that I knew the woman," he said. "I acknowledge that I have known her for about that period of time. But the accusation that I had a 13-year affair with her, no."
*****
In a written statement issued after the interview aired, he said, "I will not fight false claims as it is not what America needs or wants."
"The American public is tired of dirty politics and smear tactics as evident of their tremendous outpouring of support for me, my family and my campaign this past month," he said. "I am running for president of the United States of America, and the reality is that there are individuals out there that favor the status quo of higher taxes, more government and political cronyism and they are afraid of a Cain presidency."
First, let me say this: I don't care.
I don't care if Cain had an affair with Ms. White or with anyone else. That's his business, and hers, and his family's, and hers, but it's not, or rather should not be, public fodder. Yes, he's a big-time political figure, and, yes, he justifiably faces intense scrutiny, whether he likes it or not, and, yes, his judgment and ethics are fair game, but something like this should remain private. Hold him accountable for sexual harassment, or worse, but not this, not what appears to have been a meaningful romantic relationship.
Not the affair, that is.
But he should absolutely be held accountable for his lying. And there appears to be little doubt that he's lying here, just as he did before when reports of all those sexual harassment allegations came out.
Yes, it's possible that Ms. White is making this up. But... really? I'd say that's very unlikely:
She says he gave her his newly-published book, Leadership is Common Sense, and he wrote: "Miss G, you have already made a 'big difference!' Stay focused as you pursue your next destination."
She says during the next 13 years, he would fly her to cities where he was speaking and he lavished her with gifts. She says they often stayed at the Ritz Carlton in Buckhead and dined at The Four Seasons restaurant. She says he never harassed her, never treated her poorly, and was the same man you see on the campaign trail.
"Very much the same, very much confident, very much sure of himself," White said, describing Cain. "Very arrogant in a playful sometimes way. Very, ah -- Herman Cain loves Herman Cain."
When his new book, CEO of SELF, came out in 2001, she says Cain once again autographed it for her writing, "'Friends are forever! Everything else is a bonus.'"
When asked if it was fair to say the relationship is going on even now, White said, "I think it is safe to say that after this interview, that will be the end of it. Yes, we have a friendship now."
She says the physical relationship ended about eight months ago, right before Cain announced he was running for president. But the communication did not. When we asked for any corroborating evidence, she pointed us to her cell phone contacts. One name: Herman Cain.
She showed us some of her cell phone bills that included 61 phone calls or text messages to or from a number starting with 678. She says it is Herman Cain's private cell phone. The calls were made during four different months-- calls or texts made as early as 4:26 in the early morning, and as late as 7:52 at night. The latest were in September of this year.
"We've never worked together," said White. "And I can't imagine someone phoning or texting me for the last two and a half years, just because."
We texted the number and Herman Cain called us back. He told us he "knew Ginger White" but said these are "more false allegations." He said she had his number because he was "trying to help her financially."
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. And just like Cain, who is treating yet another woman with disrespect. From what we know of him, it's no surprise at all.
Now, why is she coming out with this now? Shameless opportunism, as Cain's apologists might allege? It would seem not:
She says she planned on keeping the relationship a secret while Cain made his run for the White House until she and her family watched reports of different women who had accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment.
She says she was not surprised by the allegations, but was bothered by the way Cain fought back, attacking the woman, including during an appearance on Late Show with David Letterman.
"It bothered me that they were being demonized, sort of, they were treated as if they were automatically lying, and the burden of proof was on them," White said. "I felt bad for them."
We received a phone tip from someone who knew Ginger White. That person claimed Ms. White was having an affair with Herman Cain. The tipster also called a number of other national media outlets who reached out to her. White told FOX 5, she felt trapped.
"I wanted to give my side, before it was thrown out there and made out to be something filthy," said White. "Some people will look at this and say that is exactly what it is. I'm sorry for that."
To its credit, FOX 5 did its due diligence:
Before our interview, we checked into Ginger White's background. We found she filed a sexual harassment claim against an employer in 2001. That case was settled.
We also found a bankruptcy filing nearly 23 years ago in Kentucky, and a number of eviction notices here in DeKalb County over the past six years. The most recent happened this month.
Ms. White says she has been unemployed, and she is a single mom with two kids struggling to make ends meet.
*****
We also found a lawsuit filed by a former business partner, Kimberly Vay, who once sought a "stalking temporary protective order" against Ms. White for "repeated e-mails/texts threatening lawsuit and defamation of character." The case was dismissed; but was followed by a libel lawsuit against Ms. White. A judge entered an order in favor of Kimberly Vay because Ms. White failed to respond to the lawsuit.
So maybe. Yes, maybe. I hope it's true only because I hope this woman wouldn't make up something like this for personal gain. Right now, though it's a she-said-he-said thing. We'll have to see if the media dig up more evidence, or if Ms. White supplies it.
But a statement sent to the TV station by Cain's lawyer, Lin Wood, is revealing:
Mr. Cain has been informed today that your television station plans to broadcast a story this evening in which a female will make an accusation that she engaged in a 13-year long physical relationship with Mr. Cain. This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace – this is not an accusation of an assault – which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate.
Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults – a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public's right to know and the media's right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one's bedroom door.
Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media.
I agree. It is a private matter between, if it happened, consensual adults, and it is not, or should not be, a matter for media or other public scrutiny.
But we're past that now. Cain went on television first to make a private matter public. He didn't just say it was a private matter, he denied Ms. White's claim before that claim was even aired. And now, having created a he-said-she-said dynamic, that is, having created a conflicting narrative, he says we're not supposed to ask any questions before it's private?
Uh, no. Because that would mean taking him at his word, and refusing to take Ms. White's at hers, and allowing what would appear to be Cain's campaign of denial and disrespect to prevail. This is what he wants, for the truth to remain hidden behind the bedroom door, for Ms. White to be disregarded by the media and the public, to be able to avoid scrutiny simply because he's powerful and she's anything but, because he's a man and she's a sexual object who can be cast aside at his leisure, just like the woman he harassed and groped.
Ideally, yes, this all would have remained private. But it didn't, and now he shouldn't be allowed to get away with yet more dishonesty. If he didn't do it, fine, then he deserves an apology. But if he did, as it would seem he did, and therefore if he's lying to us once again, then he deserves what's coming to him.
We've all had good fun chuckling at the succession of losers tossed up as frontrunners in the Republican presidential nomination process. It seems that simply hanging around long enough will mean getting a turn at leading the pack. Now it's Gingrich. Yesterday it was Cain. A little while ago it was Perry and before that Bachmann, even Trump for a couple of hours, once upon a time. And then, in all the jockeying, Romney never really goes away.
To ask the question why so many marginal candidates continue to stay in the hunt is to, I suppose, prompt the answer that this thing is so unsettled anyone could win. But that's not really true. And despite what has happened, I still think it's going to be Romney and that most people, even the candidates themselves, know it.
Typically, though, marginal candidates run for these big prizes all the time, and do it without any real chance of success, though their efforts are far from in vain. No, there are good reasons to hang around for at least a little while and maybe longer.
Does anyone doubt that Herman Cain has been running in order to sell books and maybe get his own show on Fox? Up until recently it was a given that Gingrich was running to raise the profile of his brand in order to make money further down the road. Trump's brief foray was obviously a publicity stunt. And though Bachmann has been tanking in the polls for some time, she too has a new book that could use some free publicity. Given the fact that she gave up her day job as a member of the House, she'll need to generate some income when this is all over.
Then their are the no-hopers who use the high profile of a nomination fight to promote pet issues and political perspectives as is the case with Ron Paul's wing-nut libertarian views as well as with Rick Santorum's relentless efforts to push his hard-core anti-abortion stance and other issues important to social conservatives.
A recent post on the CBS News website addressed this issue and pointed out, correctly, that history shows future leadership posts -- and presidential runs -- can result from failed nomination bids.
Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa waged a long-shot bid for the Democratic nomination in 1992, getting forced out after the early primaries. He endorsed candidate Bill Clinton, kept his seat in the Senate and became an influential voice in the Clinton White House.
Romney lost his first presidential bid in 2008 but used that experience to build a network of political and financial supporters serving him well in this election cycle.
In Harkin's case and those like him, there may be some gambling going on too. You get in early, run a bit of a campaign, look around to see who you think could actually have a shot and then throw your support there. If you're right, you might get a cabinet post or ambassadorship out of the deal, or just have a lot more clout with the administration you helped win.
In Romney's case, he ran the first time to set up the next time. If I'm not mistaken, Obama had the same sort of thing in mind before it became clear that this time was going to be his time.
In our media-obsessed word, fame is everything. It's the currency that really matters the most, and for many months every four years, the cameras are rolling more or less non-stop on a group of would-be presidents, which always seems to include a subset who are not-ready-for-prime-time, but there they are.
Of course, there is always a long-shot chance that an obscure candidate will vault to the head of the pack and actually win. Politics is so full of that sort of story that every candidate thinks it possible, if all goes right, to win. No matter how hard to imagine, no candidate believes it impossible that he or she could be victorious. That's simply not the way politicians and prospective politicians are hard wired.
So, it's hard to fault them for trying to keep their mugs in front of us for as long as they can. There are lots of reasons that just being in the game, on the stage night after night, is worth the trouble.
Unfortunately for us, we have to watch theses trainwrecks perform because it is one of the costs of living with this form of government. What was it again Churchill said about democracy?
At The Daily Beast yesterday, Paul Begala wrote that "the Gingrich surge is just the latest Republican tulip craze... -- with Newt simply serving as the latest vessel for the ABR movement: Anybody But Romney."
Richard made that point last week, and it's more or less the conventional wisdom now. Ultimately, that wisdom goes, Romney will win, but his conservative rivals need to exhaust themselves first, one by one rising and falling.
And yet.
The question must be asked: Could Newt actually win?
At The Atlantic the other day, Molly Ball examined Newt's appeal: He is "an overwhelmingly charming figure," he has "a long list of crowd-pleasing accomplishments," and, in terms of the GOP presidential field, he "manages to embody the response to all the the flawed contenders who preceded him."
Which is to say, if I may broaden Ball's point, he isn't just the anti-Romney, he's also the anti-Bachmann (experienced and seemingly not crazy), the anti-Perry (articulate), and the anti-Cain (knowledgeable and with baggage already widely exposed).
Yes, conservatives have been going from one anti-Romney (or, more positively, right-wing standard-bearer) to another, but they're not doing this because they can't make their minds up but because each option has proven, in turn, to be inadequate. They want someone to get behind for the remainder of the campaign. If Perry had been up to it, it would have been Perry. But he wasn't and so it hasn't been. Same with Bachmann and Cain.
And so... Newt. Why not?
Like me (and, no doubt, many others). New York's Jon Chait can hardly believe Newt's sudden rise -- "The Newtening," he amusingly calls it. But, more and more, it seems to make sense. As he wrote last week:
The pattern of anti-Romneys rising and falling has naturally made the press corps suspicious of the latest version. But here's the thing. Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain didn't rise and fall because of some natural tidal forces. They fell out of favor because they did not know how to handle a national campaign. (Actually, Bachmann was just sort of swamped by the Perry wave.) Gingrich has tons of liabilities — non-orthodox positions, erratic behavior, little money or organization — but he does have experience in the national spotlight. It's not completely inevitable that he will implode.
And there's not much time left. The Iowa caucuses are less than two months away, with the holiday season in between, when public attention is low. Of course, Newt is "notoriously erratic," as Chait also wrote, but in terms of the horse race he's got a lot going for him right now: Romney stuck with what appears to be a low ceiling of support, Cain falling, Perry failing to get going again, no other viable conservative rival.
Meanwhile, whatever his plentiful baggage, he's adopted the tactic of attacking the media, an appeal right to the core of conservative Republican primary voters. Writes Chait, "Gingrich's incessant and often unprovoked media-bashing is one of the keys to his success. It converts every question about him into a tribal contest between conservatives and the hated Other." He's good at that, just as he's good at being in the national spotlight, where his mix of articulateness, quasi-intellectualism, and partisan extremism are what many Republicans are looking for to take down Obama.
Chait is right: Newt isn't exactly pure (his record includes support for cap and trade and various other currently heterodox positions in the GOP), but unlike Romney, that "perfectly lubricated weathervane," he isn't viewed with insurmountable suspicion by conservatives. He's flipped and flopped, but he isn't seen as an untrustworthy opportunist who will say anything to get elected but rather as a dedicated partisan. Sure, a lot of this has to do with the fact that his record hasn't been exposed the way Romney's has, given that he hasn't held elected office in some time and wasn't until just recently seen as a credible candidate, and it's possible that his current popularity won't hold up to scrutiny. But, again, there isn't much time left before it all gets going. Time is on his side.
I can't quite believe I'm writing this. Newt? Gingrich? Really?
I can't see Gingrich pulling this off, but you never know, not with such a lackluster field. He may just be enough of everything, enough of the various constituencies of the GOP, to sneak through, and he certainly has the big name and media appeal to differentiate himself from the likes of those three governors. Conservatives like him more than Romney, who will never be able to escape his health-care reform in Massachusetts, not to mention his much-deserved reputation as a shamelessly opportunistic flip-flopper...
So, yes, we'll see, but I think Gingrich just has too much baggage to prevail. Under the sort of media scrutiny he'll face if he manages to rise to contender status and to carry that into the upcoming primary season (not just of his personal life but of his inconsistent policy positions over the years and poor record as speaker way back in the '90s, when Clinton trounced him), he may collapse, or rather his popularity may, and that, in that event, would be that. If he's serious about running, he'll no doubt be a stronger candidate than Giuliani and Fred Thompson, two high-profile Republican celebrities, were in 2008, but I suspect similar failure awaits him down the road.
Well, the 2012 Republican presidential field has been even more lackluster than expected and it may just be that Newt's in the right place at the right time.
Let's say he wins Iowa and keeps it close (or at least exceeds expectations) in New Hampshire. Then what? South Carolina? Sure, he can win there. And then... who knows? He could pick up support from, as well as the endorsements of, his conservative rivals (Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum) and end up in holding the conservative flag against Romney (with Paul perhaps still in as well). The establishment backs Romney, it seems, but that may not matter. Besides, if Gingrich continues to look strong, and if he actually wins, say, in Iowa, the establishment (nowadays, Karl Rove et al.) may have no choice but to anoint him their choice even against their better judgement (as Romney would be the much stronger challenger to Obama).
Crazy? Sure. Who saw this coming?
But crazy is the norm in today's GOP -- and in that sense all of this makes perfect sense.
Code language in politics is an interesting thing. Candidates will sometimes say something in a way that is intended to appeal to the biases of a certain constituency, without explicitly saying the thing they are implying. In politics, this is a called a "dog whistle," which is to say that only those listening for it will hear it clearly. Only those open to the message will understand.
And even if others understand what is really being suggested, the politician in question can deny his or her true intention.
A couple of days ago, presidential candidate Rick Perry (R-TX) appeared on the Hannity program and said that President Obama grew up "privileged" and "never had to go through what Americans [are now] going through."
That's the dog whistle that Rick Perry is going for. The president was not raised privileged. He wasn't handed anything. He absolutely had to work for everything he got. But for Rick Perry to say that President Obama was privileged and didn't have to work for what he got, that code is, he got into Columbia University, he got into Harvard University not through merit, not because he is smart, but because he took the place of someone else through affirmative action, that someone else being someone white.
If there is one thing that Herman's Cain's short-lived rise as a potential GOP candidate has given Republicans, it has been the ability to deny that race has anything to do with radical-right disdain for President Obama. And perhaps it has obscured that. Leave it to Rick Perry, now a desperate candidate, to start going there again, if only in code language.
Rick Perry likes to say that he is a man of action, not of words. But in this case, his use of words is almost clever. Perhaps he should be a little less clever, and tell us more directly what he intends by calling Obama privileged. Just this once, Governor Perry, please do a better job of saying precisely what you mean.
Presidential candidate Herman Cain will receive protection from the United States Secret Service, the agency confirms to CNN.
Cain will be the first candidate in the race for the Republican presidential nomination in the 2012 election cycle to be placed under the protection of this federal law enforcement agency.
It is not yet clear why Cain is getting Secret Service protection.
This is very early for any presidential candidate -- more specifically, for any candidate for a party's nomination for president -- to get such protection. Apparently "the Cain campaign requested coverage, and the review found that it met the criteria."
But... why? Perhaps he has received credible threats. Or perhaps, if we may apply a rather more cynical lens to it, he wants to appear to be the target of credible threats, which would feed his phony narrative of how the (racist) left is out to get him because he's a black conservative.
Or perhaps he just wants to be taken more seriously -- and you're taken pretty seriously if you have a Secret Service detail.
