About Paterson’s ‘affair’…

Perhaps I should revise my earlier comments. We learned yesterday that New York Gov. David Paterson, several years ago, went through a rough patch in his marriage, and both he and his wife had affairs. They went to counseling, worked things out, and everything’s fine. I suggested that this really doesn’t, and shouldn’t, amount to much.

But then, the story took a little turn today.

In his first full day as governor, David Paterson acknowledged yesterday that he has had affairs with “a number of women” in the past – including one state employee.

Standing with his wife, Michelle, in the Capitol’s Red Room, the governor said his “conscience is clear” when it comes to his marriage and infidelities.

“I just want to get straight with New York’s citizens, so that they know who their governor is, and that their governor takes this office seriously,” he told reporters…. The 53-year-old father admitted that he was involved with numerous women “several years ago” – including one who worked in Gov. Spitzer’s office, aides said later, and has now been “inherited” by Paterson.

The governor added that he’s never been the women’s direct supervisor and that he never used state funds. Let’s certainly hope that’s the case.

Christopher Orr added, “The perceived rational of Paterson’s original admission of infidelity was that it was better getting this all out in the open at once, instead of having it drip out gradually and spawn rumors and innuendo. But that, of course, only works if you get the whole admission out of the way, rather than letting it drip out gradually and spawn rumors and innuendo.”

As long as no laws were broken, and no one did anything unethical (at least as it regards professional ethics in the workplace and/or under state guidelines), I see no reason that years-old adultery should seriously hurt Paterson over the next three years.

But if there’s anything else the governor would like to share, now would probably be a good time to do so.

Typo alert…’rational’ should be ‘rationale’ (spelled correctly in the source article)

  • But if there’s anything else the governor would like to share, now would probably be a good time to do so.

    I’d like to share that I was also in a threesome with McGreevy, stole Monica from Bill, slept with every member of Destiny’s Child – twice, and taught your girlfriend how to do that one thing you really like. I’d like to share all that and more, but what I really want to share is my deep and abiding belief that it’s none of your god damned business. Next question?

  • Whatever happened to the good old days when politicians didn’t play with their naughty bits and they were all celibate, virginal and pure like we seem to want them to be. Good times.

  • I’d like to share that I was also in a. . . .Next question?Guv’na

    Inappropriate, unneccessary, adds nothing to the conversation at hand and seems rather childish.

    Paterson has chosen to share personal information publicly.

    The point of the post is:

    If you choose to share personal information in an effort to “get it all out in the open at once”, then get it all out in the open at once, don’t draw it out over multiple days releasing additional controversial personal information again and again.

    CB didn’t ask Paterson to release further information, but rather stated that if Paterson intended to share anything further, it would be better to do it right away rather than draw it out further.

  • yeah, well, Danny you’re entitled to your opinion. But please give me credit for knowing that CB didn’t actually ask Paterson for anything.

    my point, and it appears sarcasm is lost on some, is that just once i would love to hear one of these politicians whose personal lives becomes fodder for the news low-hanging-fruit gatherers give a totally snarky answer that ends in “its none of your business.”

    you can think how i express it is childish all you like, but as to the substance i think our politics would be a much better place were this type of issue to matter a lot less and basics of economic theory or the important distinction between Sunni and Shia were to matter a lot more. i suspect i’d have some support for that one.

  • I can’t wait until people stop being so obsessed with adultery, or even personal wrongdoing by politicians. People aren’t perfect. Good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things. Even Dick Cheney might have once saved a cute kitten by mistake; yet no one would consider him a decent fellow for it. People are flawed, but as long as these flaws don’t involve their job duties, it shouldn’t make a difference in the job.

    I find it inexplicable that conservatives have the exact opposite attitude on these matters. I suppose that’s why they consider Cheney to be a decent guy. He may be responsible for the deaths of countless people, but at least he’s never been caught schtuping anyone.

  • . . . .but as to the substance i think our politics would be a much better place were this type of issue to matter a lot less and basics of economic theory or the important distinction between Sunni and Shia were to matter a lot more. i suspect i’d have some support for that one.Guv’na

    You’d certainly have my support for that one.

    I can certainly sympathize with your wish for a politician to answer media questions into their personal lives with a snarky answer and a “none of your business”. Of course, that would depend to a certain extent on the politician not being the one who chose to release various items of personal information multiple times on their own in the first place.

    Sure, there are many voyeuristic individuals who seem to get wrapped up in the personal details of the lives of public figures. However, Paterson seems to be only encouraging the behavior with the way he’s gone about this.

    I’d prefer he started out with “Personal issues my wife and I have had are none of your business”, but since he chose to release personal details of the issues they’ve had he probably should have figured out everything he wanted to tell people and done it all at once.

  • Who cares if he had affairs? So what? It is only the business of the people concerned. Even having lived in this country my whole life–I should be used to it by now–sometimes the level of public discourse just makes me sad

  • I see no reason that years-old adultery should seriously hurt Paterson over the next three years.

    and if it does, it had better hurt McSame over the next 8 months.

  • The only thing that made me look twice about this story is the state employee. If he is telling the truth that this was not an employee over whom he had authority, then there isn’t anything here that is relevant to his duty as New York’s governor. In fact, it’s a bit T.M.I. for me. Don’t care. Irrelevant.

  • This sort of thing is relevant if the politician involved is a holier-than-thou “family values” crusader. Therefore the dalliances of David Vitter are extremely relevant although not directly applicable to his performance in office. Spitzer prosecuted prostitution, so his dalliances were relevant as well.

    Who cares about Paterson’s affairs? I don’t. Let’s move on.

  • So, do I have this right now? In the main Democrats are sexy and Republicans are warped?

  • Actually, the more I read and think about this, the more I don’t want to move on. There are some issues here that need real consideration (maybe a speech like Obama’s on race, but about sex and politics) – and they aren’t the details of the sex. What needs discussed is the use (and abuse) of sexual issues to conduct political warfare.

    Apparently Ben Stein discussed this on Sunday Morning, and there is a good blog entry on Slate’s XX Factor on it. It is really too bad Spitzer stepped aside so quickly, and it is critical that Paterson not do the same.

    Here is the money ‘graph:

    Stein says, “Spitzer was elected by an immense majority in New York.” This is true. And “Now he’s out of a job, and a man the voters didn’t vote for as governor is going to be governor.” An acquaintance this weekend reiterated this sentiment: “Paterson may be the best governor in the world, but he’s not the guy I voted for.” I don’t know if I agree with this. When you vote for a governor, are you not also voting for the lieutenant governor, too, in the case that the governor cannot perform his duties? I think it is the “cannot perform his duties” that is the issue here. Can the governor not perform his duties because he hired prostitutes?

    While Stein acknowledges that what Spitzer did is a crime, he says, it’s “not a political crime, not treason, not terrorism.” He says, “Having elected officials kicked out of office by appointed officials is a very dicey proposition.”

    I think this is an important issue: the Republicans openly tried to impeach Clinton to overturn an election they didn’t like. Ditto with Spitzer — and now, look! — they are just one more person away from having a Republican governor, totally contrary to the will of the people. Lets get sliming boys!

    There are a ton of details we still don’t know (and I’m not talking about the sex). Why was the indictment on Spitzer so much more detailed than normal? Who leaked his identity? How was his downfall brought about so quickly?

    There are a lot of things that don’t add up – now throw in Paterson, with Republican Leader Bruno looking over his shoulder in wait – and it looks more and more like a political coup.

  • Wow, who would have thought that a middle aged blind man could get so much action? — Tommykey, @16

    As a female, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that a sensitive *touch* counts for much more than the boldest *look*.

  • Tommy@16 on who would have thought a middle-aged blind man could get so much action?

    Well, it never seemed to have slowed down the magnificent Ray Charles.

  • Y’all will enjoy Scott Horton’s “No Comment” today. He gives a rundown of the European take on our scandals du jour. Capsulized “What a buncha puritanical maroons!” Which is kinda what Guv’na was hinting at above. Don’t know what made you hold back, Guv, you’re right on target.

  • Oh, come on. Most men (according to the polls) have affairs. Probably a lot of women too. This is no doubt a terrible event in their marriages… but it has NOTHING to do with us!! We have no right even to know about it. This is beyond ridiculous.

  • Guv’na@3 Danny@6

    Algernon@12 had it almost right

    Sleeping with an employee was our business.
    No direct supervision? Good so far…

    Tell me instead there is no evidence she used his connection to get promoted past better candidates. I’ll move on.

  • Comments are closed.