Cain Fields Another Accusation of Extramarital Sexual Activities
Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on November 29th, 2011 5:47 am by HL
Cain Fields Another Accusation of Extramarital Sexual Activities
He has dismissed a prior accusation of sexual impropriety as the false claim of a “troubled” woman, but GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain may have a bigger problem on his hands with his latest potential scandal, instigated by one Ginger White, whom Cain’s camp tried to preempt Monday with the candidate’s own statement that he didn’t have a 13-year affair with her. Cain said his motivation in talking first about the impending report of long-term infidelity was to protect his family and head White off at the pass, and judging by his lawyer’s response, it was also an attempt to shut down any more chatter about the alleged affair. According to attorney Lin Wood, his client “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.” But is Wood right? What place, if any, do detailed investigations into possible sexual peccadillos of presidential candidates have in the broader picture of their suitability for the country’s top office? Yes, we’re really asking—feel free to sound off with your comments below. —KA “Political Hotsheet” on CBS News: According to an Atlanta affiliate of Fox News, the woman, who has been identified as Ginger White, is claiming she and Cain were romantically involved for 13 years. “It was pretty simple,” White told the Fox affiliate, which will air its report at 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time. “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.” Cain described the woman as an “acquaintance who I thought was a friend” and said his campaign was going to handle the charges “detail by detail, accusation by accusation.” When asked explicitly if he had either sex or an affair with the woman, Cain said “no.” Read more
He has dismissed a prior accusation of sexual impropriety as the false claim of a “troubled” woman, but GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain may have a bigger problem on his hands with his latest potential scandal, instigated by one Ginger White, whom Cain’s camp tried to preempt Monday with the candidate’s own statement that he didn’t have a 13-year affair with her.
Cain said his motivation in talking first about the impending report of long-term infidelity was to protect his family and head White off at the pass, and judging by his lawyer’s response, it was also an attempt to shut down any more chatter about the alleged affair. According to attorney Lin Wood, his client “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.”
But is Wood right? What place, if any, do detailed investigations into possible sexual peccadillos of presidential candidates have in the broader picture of their suitability for the country’s top office? Yes, we’re really asking—feel free to sound off with your comments below.? —KA
“Political Hotsheet” on CBS News:
According to an Atlanta affiliate of Fox News, the woman, who has been identified as Ginger White, is claiming she and Cain were romantically involved for 13 years.
“It was pretty simple,” White told the Fox affiliate, which will air its report at 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time. “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.”
Cain described the woman as an “acquaintance who I thought was a friend” and said his campaign was going to handle the charges “detail by detail, accusation by accusation.”
When asked explicitly if he had either sex or an affair with the woman, Cain said “no.”
Related Entries
- November 23, 2011 How China Has Benefited From America’s Hostility to Iran
- November 22, 2011 Why Does Obama Suddenly Want a War With China?
Wolf’s OWS Report Sparks Debate
Did Naomi Wolf get her facts straight in her Guardian report about American mayors acting in cahoots with the Department of Homeland Security in their recent crackdowns on OWS encampments, or did she engage in a little journalistic extrapolation? Those aren’t the only two options here, but at least one noteworthy critique calls some of her claims in to question—and it’s not coming from Fox News. —KA AlterNet: There has been a flurry of speculation surrounding various reports suggesting that a “coordinated,” nationwide crack-down on the Occupy Movement is underway. The problem with these stories lies in the fact that the word “coordinated” is too vague to offer any analytic value. The difference between local officials talking to each other — or federal law enforcement agencies advising them on what they see as “best practices” for evicting local occupations — and some unseen hand directing, incentivizing or coercing municipalities to do so when they would not otherwise be so inclined is not a minor one. It’s not a matter of semantics or a distinction without difference. As I wrote recently, “if federal authorities were ordering cities to crack down on their local occupations in a concerted effort to wipe out a movement that has spread like wildfire across the country, that would indeed be a huge, and hugely troubling story. In the United States, policing protests is a local matter, and law enforcement agencies must remain accountable for their actions to local officials. Local government’s autonomy in this regard is an important principle.” Read more
Did Naomi Wolf get her facts straight in her Guardian report about American mayors acting in cahoots with the Department of Homeland Security in their recent crackdowns on OWS encampments, or did she engage in a little journalistic extrapolation? Those aren’t the only two options here, but at least one noteworthy critique calls some of her claims in to question—and it’s not coming from Fox News.? —KA
AlterNet:
There has been a flurry of speculation surrounding various reports suggesting that a “coordinated,” nationwide crack-down on the Occupy Movement is underway. The problem with these stories lies in the fact that the word “coordinated” is too vague to offer any analytic value.
The difference between local officials talking to each other — or federal law enforcement agencies advising them on what they see as “best practices” for evicting local occupations — and some unseen hand directing, incentivizing or coercing municipalities to do so when they would not otherwise be so inclined is not a minor one. It’s not a matter of semantics or a distinction without difference. As I wrote recently, “if federal authorities were ordering cities to crack down on their local occupations in a concerted effort to wipe out a movement that has spread like wildfire across the country, that would indeed be a huge, and hugely troubling story. In the United States, policing protests is a local matter, and law enforcement agencies must remain accountable for their actions to local officials. Local government’s autonomy in this regard is an important principle.”
Related Entries
- November 23, 2011 How China Has Benefited From America’s Hostility to Iran
- November 22, 2011 Why Does Obama Suddenly Want a War With China?
