- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Dial 678-HOT-HERMAN

Another day, another Sexy Hermanator story [1]. This one is not about sexual harassment, but about an actual affair. A 13-year-affair. With documentation. Yoink!

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.”

You know he does! More:

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.”

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.”

How’s the Hermanator going to get out of this one? Stay tuned. Unless he can prove she’s tried to blackmail him, I think he’s done. If he’s guilty, and he knew this was out there, why on earth would he run for president? Do these men really believe they’re not going to get caught, or be held to account? The egotism of these guys. Then again, if Cain’s sexual harassment accusers are telling the truth, the man has gotten away with caddish, possibly illegal behavior towards women for so long he probably believed he was invincible.

Advertisement
30 Comments (Open | Close)

30 Comments To "Dial 678-HOT-HERMAN"

#1 Comment By Charles Cosimano On November 28, 2011 @ 10:28 pm

Up until now now Hermie was holding his own pretty well, albeit losing to more seasoned campaigners. The “The [email protected]@@@ is lying and my voters don’t care anyway,” defense was working pretty well. But a 13 year old?

Of course if he or his people are creative enough that can probably find someone to fabricate evidence of blackmail.

#2 Comment By Surly On November 28, 2011 @ 10:41 pm

So what’s your take on Newt then? Even if I agreed with his politics, I can’t imagine voting for a guy with a record of callousness and hypocrisy (leading the impeachment drive against Clinton for lying about his affair while he conducts his own extramarital affair).

#3 Comment By MWorrell On November 28, 2011 @ 10:46 pm

Not looking good, but we’ll see. I never thought this man would be President, but I think he had some value in shaping the primary race.

#4 Comment By John Haas On November 28, 2011 @ 11:18 pm

You’re obviously just angling for some “strange new respect,” Rod . . .

#5 Comment By Grumpy Old Man On November 28, 2011 @ 11:36 pm

FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ and Clinton all had affairs. They may have been good or bad Presidents, but I doubt their sexual activity had much to do with it one way or t’other. Seems to me it’s between them, their wives, and God.

Do I approve? No. Am I the one to cast stones? Also no.

With Orwell, I question whether saints make the best political leaders.

#6 Comment By Charles Cosimano On November 28, 2011 @ 11:43 pm

And this is what I get for thinking the worst of Hermie. I misread the 13 year affair for an affair with a 13 year old! Oh well, that may be next.

#7 Comment By Lord Karth On November 28, 2011 @ 11:49 pm

Sounds just like what happened with “Sex/Crimes Bill” Clinton. Except that Clinton actually won.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

#8 Comment By Rollo Tomassi On November 28, 2011 @ 11:58 pm

I think you misjudge the electorate. Nobody cares about this anymore. It’s expected, makes people more human.

Bill Clinton was as popular after he had his intern in the Oval Office as he was before. And that’s something that is illegal for goodness sakes! Falls under sexual harassment for the rest of us, and the public just doesn’t care. The only reason Monica was a big deal is that she wasn’t hot enough for a popular president to molest – Bill just didn’t show good enough taste, and that almost cost him. Had it been a supermodel, it would have been cool. And it’s not just Clinton – look at Barney Frank, scandal after scandal with a gay lover on the public dime. Nobody cares.

In the same way, it wouldn’t matter with Cain as long as he was nailing something decent looking and he came off like an alpha. Heck, go turn on TV and watch what’s on prime time. It’s sex, sex, sex. The only thing that can ruin your career regarding sex is if you look petty and pathetic (like Wiener). I’m not sure a guy with an ego like Cain could be that way.

#9 Comment By Rod Dreher On November 29, 2011 @ 6:54 am

So what’s your take on Newt then? Even if I agreed with his politics, I can’t imagine voting for a guy with a record of callousness and hypocrisy (leading the impeachment drive against Clinton for lying about his affair while he conducts his own extramarital affair).

I think he has no principles except serving himself. I would vote for Obama a hundred times before I would vote for Newt Gingrich.

#10 Comment By Concerned reader On November 29, 2011 @ 7:16 am

Rod, I’m starting tto be a bit concerned that your blog is taking on a tabloid feel. I read your work because you are a deep and thoughtful thinker who discusses important issues of the day. This is not one of them. I know you’be been stuck at home a lot lately, but I think you’re doing your ‘brand’, so to speak, a disservice by commenting on anything and everything that comes across the wires. A little less gossip and more wine, politics, culture, and religion, please.

#11 Comment By Stef On November 29, 2011 @ 7:38 am

No, Rollo and Grumpy Old Man, it’s not irrelevant at all. Previous Republicans like Eisenhower did not run on the Moral Crusader platform. Since the mid-1980s, the GOP has positioned itself as the Party of Good Morals, while often as not it’s the Party of the Wide Stance.

It’s not that people care about an elected official’s affairs. What people *do* care about is the hypocrisy, and the more fringe GOP elements who want to essentially write religious laws onto the books, while themselves cavorting around, or at least expect everyone else to ignore the cavorting around.

#12 Comment By Rollo Tomassi On November 29, 2011 @ 8:09 am

Since the mid-1980s, the GOP has positioned itself as the Party of Good Morals

What planet are you talking about? The GOP doesn’t care about nailing women out of wedlock, divorce, or the type of stuff we are talking about. What laws are you thinking of? If anything, Democrats have a bigger hypocritical issue on sex – with all the pro-feminist crap they push it’s more hypocritical when defending the likes of Clinton with interns that any feminist should decry. No, the public doesn’t see hypocrisy in regards to sex for either party. They see it as normal and expected. As they should – they engage in it themselves. Why should the public be hypocritical against themselves?

#13 Comment By mm On November 29, 2011 @ 8:17 am

Perhaps he was a mink in a previous life.

#14 Comment By John E On November 29, 2011 @ 9:07 am

What planet are you talking about?

The one where GOP-identified politicians and political commentators claim that homosexual marriage is an existential threat to Traditional Marriage?

#15 Comment By sal magundi On November 29, 2011 @ 9:10 am

“I think he has no principles except serving himself. I would vote for Obama a hundred times before I would vote for Newt Gingrich.”

good on yourself.
@ GOM: when someone (gingrich) starts pontificating about personal morality, then his own personal morality becomes an electoral issue.

#16 Comment By Ethan C. On November 29, 2011 @ 9:11 am

I think maybe the bigger problem is lying to the public, not the extramarital affair itself.

I might not care about whether Cain was a good husband, but I do care that he’s apparently been lying to me for a really long time. Or maybe I just don’t like being reminded that politicians are pretty much always lying to us all the time…

#17 Comment By Rod Dreher On November 29, 2011 @ 9:16 am

John E., honestly. I know you disagree with the conservative case against gay marriage, and that’s fine. There are good reasons. But it’s neither fair nor accurate to act as if the conservative case is utterly bizarre and groundless. As I and other conservatives have argued, to accept gay marriage as legitimate requires a fundamental (= at the roots) redefinition of what marriage is. You may believe that’s a great thing, but let’s not pretend that it’s not an enormous thing.

The problem we trads have is that gay marriage is not a cause but a symptom of a shift that took place decades ago. I think the more realistic and honest of us recognize that. The reason gay marriage is such a Rubicon-crossing moment is that it marks the irreversible institutionalization of the new view of marriage.

This, by the way, is a separate (though related) issue from the question of religious freedom under the US constitutional framework, vis-a-vis civil rights and homosexuals.

The problem with the GOP and gay marriage is that Republican politicians don’t believe their own rhetoric, or at least don’t feel so strongly about it that they were willing to do what it took to defend traditional marriage back in 2005, which was pretty much the last time the conservative position stood a chance. Some did — Santorum, for example — by introducing a constitutional amendment, the only surefire way of defending traditional marriage. If they had let that go through and go to the States, and it had been defeated at the state level (as it may well have been), I wouldn’t see reason to complain. But McCain and other Republicans saw to it that the thing was killed in the Senate — and George W. Bush, having mined the issue for his re-election, issued a perfunctory endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment, then dropped it. And that was the end of that.

#18 Comment By Jason Morehead On November 29, 2011 @ 10:19 am

I agree with what Ethan wrote above.

I think that having an affair is a bad, bad thing (I’ve seen first-hand the damage that affairs can do). However, having an affair doesn’t necessarily call into question a person’s ability to lead and govern. What *does* call into question their ability is how they’ve conducted the affair, and how they deal with any potential fallout from it.

Do they use their power, authority, etc., to coerce and attain their partners? Do they use their power, authority, etc., to cover up the affair, shut down people people who are talking about it, redirect coverage, etc.? If they do, that, in some ways, raises bigger questions about their integrity and character than the actual affair itself.

If a politician came clean as soon as allegations of an affair surfaced, if they called a press conference and said “Look, I did have an affair, I screwed up, and I’m sorry” and then discussed how they were making reparations and trying to put things right, I’d likely have even more respect for them. They have the integrity to admit their wrongs, seek forgiveness and restoration, and move on.

#19 Comment By Grumpy Old Man On November 29, 2011 @ 10:43 am

The hypocrisy point is important, but I think except for Santorum the whole family values thing has been toned down. When they start talking about our mass-production of bastards and no-fault divorce, I’ll believe “family values” is an issue and not just a ruse for the rubes.

The new hypocrisy is calling a coupon clipper,a usurer, or a speculator a “job creator.”

#20 Comment By Stef On November 29, 2011 @ 11:02 am

@Rollo: The GOP cares about abortion laws, and cares very much whether a candidate is pro-abortion or pro-life. John McCain had to go to Alaska to dig up one GOP female politician who fit the party line, when others like Olympia Snowe or Kay Bailey Hutchison were right in the neighborhood.

The GOP cares about gay marriage. You hear “sanctity of marriage” repeated by elected officials who get caught “hiking the Appalachian trail” or propositioning (young male) interns. Again, it’s the hypocrisy – because many within the GOP really do care about the “sanctity of marriage.”

Some factions of the GOP care about birth control, enough to fight public funding for birth control; keeping things like Plan B prescription-only, etc.

Whether a person agrees or disagrees with these things on a religious or personal basis, it’s pretty obvious that 1) some of these culturally conservative ideas do make up part of the GOP “platform,” and 2) the GOP religious-conservative base has become way more important to the party.

#21 Comment By John E On November 29, 2011 @ 11:11 am

But it’s neither fair nor accurate to act as if the conservative case is utterly bizarre and groundless.

No, but it is bizarre is to see people making that case also engaging in extra-marital affairs.

Which set of actions is more of a threat to marriages – homosexuals looking for recognition of their committed relationships or GOP politicians cheating on their wives with no consequences?

#22 Comment By Rod Dreher On November 29, 2011 @ 11:21 am

Come on, John, after all this time, you’re bringing this up? We have already established — and I did so in this very thread! — that heterosexual misbehavior has undermined belief in traditional marriage, though the bad behavior of heterosexuals is, strictly speaking, not relevant to the argument itself.

What are you going to say next? “I don’t understand how my gay neighbors’ marriage affects my own.” It’s a cliche by now. Let’s not go over all this again.

#23 Comment By Bruce Ross On November 29, 2011 @ 11:26 am

Cain’s a man of considerable personal charm and business accomplishments, with no business being president. That he would wreck his own reputation in this way shows an astonishing hubris.

But that the American people would take him seriously enough to let him cause this train wreck — that’s what I just can’t understand.

#24 Comment By John E On November 29, 2011 @ 11:30 am

Okay Rod, then can we both agree that the GOP has appropriated for themselves the claim that they are the defenders of Traditional Morality even though the behavior of their leadership shows that there is no penalty for their members who transgress against Traditional Morality?

#25 Comment By John E On November 29, 2011 @ 11:33 am

But that the American people would take him seriously enough to let him cause this train wreck — that’s what I just can’t understand.

Not the American people as a whole, just a segment of GOP Primary voters.

#26 Comment By VikingLS On November 29, 2011 @ 11:38 am

Cain has to beat the other Republicans before he even gets a shot at Obama. Republican voters may prefer an adulterer to a “radical muslim socialist” but right now they still have other options.

#27 Comment By John E On November 29, 2011 @ 12:11 pm

Also, you know who else appropriated the claim that they are the defenders of Traditional Morality even though the behavior of their leadership shows that were no penalty for their members who transgressed against Traditional Morality…?

#28 Pingback By The American Conservative » Daily Round-Up: Nuclear Money Pit, Abridging Free Speech, Scialabba on Hitchens On November 29, 2011 @ 3:04 pm

[…] much heat can Herman Cain take before he gets burned? Rod Dreher talks about Cain’s newest lady-friend scandal — an alleged 13-year affair. Newt Gingrich is no stranger to controversies of infidelity […]

#29 Comment By Stef On November 29, 2011 @ 5:44 pm

@John E: Or caucus attendees. The Missouri GOP is having a caucus this Mar 2012. I wonder if there will be any Cain delegates/supporters left by then.

#30 Comment By Lord Karth On November 29, 2011 @ 5:54 pm

This discussion just became academic; I’m starting to see articles that say Mr. Cain is “rethinking” his campaign.

It’s just a matter of time before ol’ Herm drops out.

Your servant,

Lord Karth