Skip to content

Friended by Herman Cain

Our friend (and I mean friend like Cain means ham sandwich) Andy Borowitz is channeling Herman Cain’s political ghost in this satire of a Herman Cain fare well speech:

A Farewell from Herman Cain
[by Andy Borowitz of The Borowitz Report]

Dear Friend,

And when I say “friend,” I mean it in the normal way, not “someone I’ve been sleeping with for 13 years.”  Unless, of course, I have been sleeping with you for 13 years.  In that case, I do mean it that way.

It is with a heavy heart that I have decided to end my inspirational quest for the White House.  After much reassessing and reconsidering, I have decided to spend more time being screamed at by my wife.  And by “more time,” I mean 24 hours a day, stopping only for bathroom breaks.

But before I go, let me share with you my final thoughts on my campaign.  After months of crisscrossing this great land of ours and participating in over three hundred televised debates, I am being disqualified because of an extramarital affair.  And that raises the following question: are you fucking kidding me?

I mean, let’s get real.  I never heard of Libya.  I didn’t know whether that CNN dude’s name was Wolf or Blitz.  And my only training for running the #1 nation in the world was running its #8 pizza chain.  Yet none of that, I repeat, none of that disqualified me.  In fact, I was the front-fucking-runner, as long as I kept my 9-9-9 in my pants.  (I have no idea what I meant by that — I just like saying 9-9-9.)

But here’s the part that really kills me.  You’re kicking me to the curb because I was messing around, and instead you’re going with… Newt Gingrich?  I repeat: are you fucking kidding me?  Oh, I know what you’re saying: you love Newt because he’s an “intellectual.”  Well, Newt Gingrich is the intellectual of the Republican field the way Moe was the intellectual of the Stooges.

And that leads me to my final point: you disgust me, America.  Right now if I had my way, I’d up and move to another country.  I really, truly would.  Only I don’t know where any of them are, and my wife won’t let me leave the house.

Goodbye forever,


I just want to clarify – there’s that big word Clair-E-Fie again – the farewell statement above is a SATIRE written by Andy Borowitz!
– Iron Filing

Highlighted Comment (for those of you who don’t read the comments in Political Irony, you’re missing half the content sometimes – IF):
IL-08 wrote:

Here’s what really makes me question our society. Herman Cain had MULTIPLE SUBSTANTIATED accusations of sexual misconduct and his campaign donations went UP. One accusation of consensual sex between adults and he is forced to quit. Something is very wrong here.



  1. TENTHIRTYTWO wrote:


    I read somewhere (don’t think it was on here, but possibly) that Newt is “a dumb person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like.” Never before have I had my feelings summed up so concisely (and precisely!).

    Sunday, December 4, 2011 at 9:46 am | Permalink
  2. IL-08 wrote:

    Here’s what really makes me question our society. Herbert Cain had MULTIPLE SUBSTANTIATED accusations of sexual misconduct and his campaign donations went UP. One accusation of accentual sex between adults and he is forced to quit. Something is very wrong here.

    Sunday, December 4, 2011 at 10:22 am | Permalink
  3. Dan wrote:

    IL — good point; that’s a further way in which this ass-backwards.

    Is it possible that the accusations are neither here nor there, and it’s just that Fox and friends decided to plump for Newt at the moment, and needed a recent reason?

    I mean, if you want ridiculous reasons for ending a campaign, just recall the “Dean Scream”: not only was it incorrect (the ‘scream’ could no be heard by the audience at all), but even if it were true, as a reason for ending a campaign, are you fucking kidding me?..

    Sunday, December 4, 2011 at 10:34 am | Permalink
  4. Don wrote:

    Yup. I mean, come on, these are Republicans who believe that marriage is sacred. Sexual harassment doesn’t compromise the wedding vows, it just means the person doing the harassing has socio/sexual conflatulation issues (I made that word up – conflatulation, that is, not issues) buried deep in his or her brain. Social malocclusions (I didn’t make that word up, but it’s rather poorly used here but sounds neat, I think, so I’m sticking with it) are cool as long as you don’t break the family values rules. In fact, there seemed to be a certain cachet for the Hermanator as pointed out by IL-08.

    Having an affair, on the other hand, can lead to a true violation of the honor code of the right: do whatever you want within and without your marriage vows, just don’t get caught. Wanna be gay? That’s cool, just don’t get caught. Wanna play around while your wife is being treated for cancer? That’s cool, just don’t get caught. It’s the “just don’t get caught” part of the code that Herman violated.

    Herman Borowitz is confused as to why he didn’t bomb out of the campaign because he knew diddly squat about the world outside of his self aggrandizing inspirational book and speech circuit. He didn’t because the people these apes are preaching to wouldn’t know the difference if Herman knew where Libya was or not. They don’t know, so why would you expect them to expect Herman to know. Look how far Rick Perry made it with his 3rd grade education. He got drummed out of the top spot because he couldn’t think fast, not because he didn’t know anything. Newty is making points because he sounds like he knows something. 1032 is spot on with his quote.

    Sunday, December 4, 2011 at 1:11 pm | Permalink
  5. PatriotSGT wrote:

    Playing the devils advocate here, but “MULTIPLE SUBSTANTIATED accusations”. Since when were these accusations substantiated? Particularly when they are all I say, so it must be true. To my knowledge there has been no proof, no written reports from the time of the alleged incidents or police documents. And I’m not saying he could not have done it, he absolutely could have, but thats speculation. This is more of a tried in the media case, public court of opinion with no due process. Who cared when he was a citizen, but for a candidate it is crushing. If Cain were a Liberal candidate and the right was leveling the non-stop media blitz would the left approve of that right wing attack against a black liberal candidate or would they be shouting racism. The report of an affair is a different matter then sexual harrasment and that should and will be between Mr. and Mrs. Cain to sort out. Substantiated is not a word I would use in this case.

    As to the collective intellect of the campaigners I’d have to agree with most of what is said here.

    Monday, December 5, 2011 at 7:08 pm | Permalink
  6. TENTHIRTYTWO wrote:

    Didn’t it come out (finally) that he settled with the people he “allegedly” sexually harassed and locked them into NDA’s? This was after he first denied knowing them, then acknowledged knowing them but denied paying them, then acknowledged paying them but denied sexually harassing them. Or something like that…to be quite honest I lost interest in it.

    At the end of the day he is either guilty of sexual harassment, or innocent but willing to pay someone off to keep them quiet about it. I’m not sure how the latter is any better than the former considering he is trying to be leader of our nation.

    The whole “if Cain was a liberal” and “racism” comments are really brilliant, wholly irrelevant distractions. Implying that people on the left “approve” of the “attack” is pretty twisted as well, considering the nature of the allegations. Who precisely are these people who are cheerleading a sexual assault? Ahh yes, those evil libruls!

    Monday, December 5, 2011 at 10:24 pm | Permalink
  7. IL-08 wrote:

    Gee, I was going to respond, but 10-32 said what I was going to say and did so a lot better than I would have. To me, substantiated is $70,000 of hush money paid to keep two women quiet. 10-32’s comments on the whole ‘If Cain etc.’ are spot-on and wonderfully stated.

    Monday, December 5, 2011 at 11:31 pm | Permalink
  8. PatriotSGT wrote:

    1032 and IL-08 – I don’t believe Cain “settled” with anyone and to my knowledge no one ever said he did. What was said to my recollection was the NRA paid severance pay to the tune of 35k to 1 or both. Now, if my sister, wife or mother had told me of some egregious harrasment by a corporate head I would not advise them to accept 35k and loss of employment unless the offense was so irrelevent that I thought it was an awesome deal. If it was a terrible thing, I’d advise them to should file suit for millions.
    But, I guess if you say something enough and “imply” things that were not said people will believe it.

    Again, I’m not saying he didn’t commit the offense, I just saying I don’t know because no substantiated claim was ever made. Aside from the questionable account of the last accuser what was the harrasment substantiated by the previous alledged victims?

    Tuesday, December 6, 2011 at 8:29 am | Permalink
  9. IL-08 wrote:

    Sorry PatriotSgt that there isn’t any video….

    Just stick to the facts. One was paid 35k, the other 45k. They were not highly paid employees, I believe each amount represented one years salary. They were obliged to sign NDAs. Each one independently reported through attorneys that each was offered the severance when they complained of sexual misconduct by the Herminator. Their claim is substantiated by the existence of the severance amount and the NDA. Hence, they are Substantiated Accusations. Not proven, no one ever said that, at least not until we get that video…..

    Tuesday, December 6, 2011 at 8:45 am | Permalink
  10. PatriotSGT wrote:

    LOL -now that would probably be materiel suited for the new .xxx domain. I get it IL-08. I defended Clinton like this in the 90’s to some brash conservatives who were doing the same thing, based early on just he said/she said. Of course they ate me for lunch as evidence bagan to surface. I would likely suffer the same fate in this case as well, but I’d still hold on to the need for evidence vs conjecture and theory. My position probably stems from my work as an intel analyst where I constantly try to disprove “theory” to actually verify it it’s faact or fiction. (and no I didn’t have a hand in the WMD/Iraq debacle, but they probably wish they’d had me)

    Tuesday, December 6, 2011 at 11:20 am | Permalink
  11. TENTHIRTYTWO wrote:

    You’re doing well! Now you’ve shifted the blame to the victims, just like you are supposed to. You see, if there was any real harrassment, they should have never settled for such a pittance. Ergo, no harrassment. Or at least not any non-“irrelevant” harassment. Whatever that is. Don’t forget to throw Gloria Allred in the mix, too.

    “Asked if he’s ever seen a financial settlement paid to one of two women who accused him of sexual harassment, Cain said, ‘No. I don’t recall signing it. Now, the fact that I say I don’t recall signing it doesn’t mean that I didn’t sign it, but I simply don’t recall if I signed it.'”

    He also explained that there is a difference between a settlement and an agreement. This is probably the same subtle distinction between profiling and “targeted identification” that he could never quite explain.

    Sounds pretty solid to me. I’d definitely continue defending this guy if I were you. Because unless someone has a photograph with his hand up a woman’s skirt, we can never really blame him for anything.

    Tuesday, December 6, 2011 at 11:29 am | Permalink
  12. Don wrote:

    Seems to me PSgt has stated several times that he’s not saying it did or didn’t happen. He’s simply trying to use a different set of connections to make his point.

    I would like to point out, though that this was in the mid-90s. Sexual harassment wasn’t such a big deal, yet, and it hadn’t been fine tuned to the point it is today. The definition at the time was of more base actions – a real quid pro quo was proposed or actual physical contact constituted SH – not just a joke considered off color or wandering eyes like today.

    The ploy of calling it a severance package is just that – a ploy. One doesn’t get a severance package with a non-disclosure agreement unless the party offering the package is trying to cover something up. Could be, though, that the NRA just didn’t want others to find out and press for the same thing. I can see that as a practical reason – not just to shield their president.

    Me? I think there is a decent amount of credibility in the allegations. At the same time, I think he would have weathered the SH charges, but the affair was just too much on top of them. We’ll see how Newtie’s infidelities play out in the next couple of months. They aren’t allegations. He really started an affair when his then wife was undergoing cancer treatments, dumped her, and married the woman he started the affair with. This is fact, not fiction.

    If one wanted to play the race card, it would be against the Republican power elites for going after Cain and not Newtie (I insert this hypothetically, but, then again, the Hermanator had served his purpose and was dispensable).

    Tuesday, December 6, 2011 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
  13. PatriotSGT wrote:

    1032- I get the humiliation and degradation that sexual harrasment has on it’s victims. I do not tolerate it within my sphere of influence or my workplace. But, I also understand that not everything is SH. If I smile at someone or pat them on the back thats not SH. If I do and they tell me they’re uncomfortable getting a pat on the back then I stop. Still not SH if i stop. But what we don’t know with Cain is what the allegations were, excepting alledged victim #3. He was already tried and convicted by that point so her statement sentenced him because since he had already been found guilty by that point. And thats my point.
    That being said, in todays world I can’t understand why anyone who has a past and wants a public spotlight thinks they can get away with anything. Look at Weiner, look at Edwards, look a Newt. These people have either got to be idiots or narcissists (sp?).

    Tuesday, December 6, 2011 at 2:12 pm | Permalink
  14. Don wrote:

    I vote for ego-maniacs and narcissists with a serious dose of denial thrown it for good measure. I don’t think they’re idiots. Okay, well some of them are, but that’s not what’s leading them to run. We’ve had some pretty lame folks who ran and were actually elected.

    Tuesday, December 6, 2011 at 2:49 pm | Permalink