Does anyone care about Paterson’s adultery controversy?

At a minimum, this is a little embarrassing. Just a week after Eliot Spitzer’s sex scandal, his successor publicly acknowledged having an adulterous affair several years ago.

The thunderous applause was still ringing in his ears when the state’s new governor, David Paterson, told the Daily News that he and his wife had extramarital affairs.

In a stunning revelation, both Paterson, 53, and his wife, Michelle, 46, acknowledged in a joint interview they each had intimate relationships with others during a rocky period in their marriage several years ago.

In the course of several interviews in the past few days, Paterson said he maintained a relationship for two or three years with “a woman other than my wife,” beginning in 1999.

Paterson acknowledged marital problems at the time, but he and wife “went to counseling and we decided we wanted to make it work.” The governor’s wife was aware of the affair long before yesterday.

What made Paterson come clean? The New York Daily News, which treated this as a blockbuster story, reported, “The First Couple agreed to speak publicly about the difficulties in their marriage in response to a variety of rumors about Paterson’s personal life that have been circulating in Albany and among the press corps in recent days.”

The timing of the announcement makes sense. Paterson wants to get the dirty laundry out into the open now, so it won’t be a distraction later.

That said, I’m a little surprised the right is raising a fuss about this.

Paterson’s problem, by all appearances, was a personal one. No laws were broken. His family stayed together and the whole unfortunate incident was years ago.

And yet, quite a few conservatives seem outraged this morning.

One said, “Define irony? Booting a governor out of office in disgrace due to a sex scandal while at the very same moment swearing a new one who has already had a sex scandal…. I guess NY Democrats are just happen [sic] he didn’t pay for services, he just cheated on his wife the old fashion [sic] way. Unreal.”

Another said, “Is it really that hard to stick to the rule against adultery? … If you can’t keep that one solemn promise you make in front of everyone important to you, why should you be trusted to keep any of your promises? … So Gov. Patterson [sic] cheated on his wife, and vice-versa. Okey-dokey. Hand him the keys to the governor’s mansion and let him have at it. I’m sure we can trust the man. Right?

I can appreciate the fact that conservatives want to take advantage of Paterson’s previous marital problems, but is this really where Republicans want to go? A years-old extra-marital affair is, in and of itself, a major scandal and front-page news? Someone with adultery in their past should necessarily be considered untrustworthy?

If so, why exactly did the party just make John McCain its presidential nominee?

McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, according to The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof, “aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich.” McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife’s family money. In 2000, McCain managed to deflect media questioning about his first marriage with a deft admission of responsibility for its failure.

Just sayin’.

So frustrating….”double standard” – those two simple words just don’t cover the hyprocrisy.

  • I don’t care about it. I only care about the personal lives of government officials when it crosses legal boundaries. Like sleeping with a lobbyist.

    He had a rough patch with his wife. Big deal.

  • IOKIYAR.

    Reagan had the same issue, and he’s a saint, don’cha know.

    I tend to think that Republican women might not want to vote for a guy who dumped his older wife for a rich girl 17 yrs younger, but then again I will never understand how these people think.

    Just make sure you remind people that McCain is a very rich man, and that he got all that money by cheating on his wife.

  • People are human and fail from time to time. Paraphrasing the words of Rumsfeld: free people tend to do dumb things, but they are also capable of acheiving wonderful things. This guy ran into some tough times and is purportedly better now.

    But seriously, wingnuts don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to Moralizing and shameless hypocrisy.

  • If McCain profited financial from a sexual relationship, would that make him—to paraphrase a certain Mr. Imus—“a silver-headed ho’?” I mean, if the guy did it for the cash, then maybe John ought not be seen as “the john” in this matter!

    Just my few coppers’ worth on the subject….

  • Does anyone care about Paterson’s adultery controversy?

    I don’t, but for many the game is “gotcha!.” It’s an easy game to fall into, often pointless and destructive, without even knowing it.

  • The next person in succession for the governorship is a Republican so they’d love to get Patterson out of the way.

  • Direct answer: No.

    1) Did not happen while Governor
    2) Did not break any laws
    3) In an interesting twist, wife was co-violator, not victim
    4) Family stayed together
    5) He put the story out there rather than falling behind the breaking news
    6) Is now at least 5 years in the past

    Even setting aside massive Rethug double-standards and hypocrisy, this is a story with no teeth whatsoever.

  • If so, why exactly did the party just make John McCain its presidential nominee?

    Yes, but real right-wingers didn’t want McCain. Real right-wingers despise McCain. They wanted someone different, someone more like their greatest hero — Ronald Reagan.

    Wait, let me try again….

  • McCain’s story is far more sleazy. What marriage that lasts a long time doesn’t have a near miss, only averted by circumstance, or brush with infidelity? Marriage, in the real world, is like work. Not many make it through a whole career without having a bad day here and there. Americans need to grow up about sex.

  • If anything social conservatives should be happy this marriage didn’t end in an divorce. Or does the sanctity of marriage only apply to people who hold your same political view?

  • As I read it, the main irony is that the chief judge who swore in Paterson was herself elevated to that position when her predecessor was ousted… because of a sex scandal.

  • I first saw this story under the Google news headline: “New NY governor admits to illicit affair.”
    When one clicks to the USA Today article, the “illicit” has been replaced with “extramarital” and no mention of any broken laws are in evidence. Is this just a case of people not knowing what ‘illicit’ means? Why wouldn’t the Google headline and the linked article match?

  • Does anyone care about Paterson’s adultery controversy? No.

    I can appreciate the fact that conservatives want to take advantage of Paterson’s previous marital problems, but is this really where Republicans want to go? A years-old extra-marital affair is, in and of itself, a major scandal and front-page news? Someone with adultery in their past should necessarily be considered untrustworthy? No, no, and no.

    Unlike either Spitzer or the Clintons, Patterson (and McCain) have handled their issues, to the point where it is pointless to discuss it any further. Patterson did the right thing, pre-empting those who would idiotically make it an issue, and hopefully, it’s done. Time to move on.

  • That said, I’m a little surprised the right is raising a fuss about this.

    Seriously? If you are honestly surprised that conservatives are trying to raise a fuss over something that is obviously a non-issue than you really haven’t been paying attention for the past… well forever. I know thats not true of course. You are a consistently sharp political observer so what could possibly be surprising to you about this. The hypocrisy? The fact that they expect not to be called on said hypocrisy? Honestly, I cannot find anything even mildly surprising about anything the right is doing here.

  • SteveIL, it is indeed shocking that I almost agree with you. But then again, you purport to have knowledge that the Clintons haven’t “handled” their issues, while McCain has. Do you suppose McCain’s ex-wife would say he “handled” his issues?

    Then there’s the Newt. Gingrich had his secretary over his desk even as Clinton was under impeachment charges on the TV across the room. Is this perhaps how Republicans “handle” their issues? Also please weigh in on Larry Craig and Mark Foley and the wonderful example they’ve set in the area of “handling their issues”.

  • Sorry to jump in here, but does anyone have anything to say in support of fidelity in marriage?

    Set aside who did what to whom and who’s a liberal or conservative, just for a moment. Is fidelity in marriage a positive value at all? Is keeping wedding vows admirable when it does happen?

    Should we at least give credit, praise, encouragement and support to the millions of people (some politicians included) who do manage to remain faithful and keep their familes together for a lifetime, despite all the temptations?

  • Yeah! How dare Gov. and Mrs. Paterson work through their problems and save their marriage? Paterson should have dumped his wife for a sweet young thing, preferably while Mrs. P. was suffering a life-threatening illness (Gingrich) or after she went through a windshield and was no longer attractive (McCainiac). Doesn’t he know that wives are only to be used as a shield against accusations of hanky panky with men? The nerve!

    And this, my friends, is why the fRighties are so uptight. The Paterson’s are much better than their leading lights.

  • Gina Cobb said:
    “Sorry to jump in here, but does anyone have anything to say in support of fidelity in marriage?”

    No, Gina, but it’s not because we don’t believe in it. Rather, this is a site about politics, not marriage policy. Perhaps you could start “themarriagefidelityreport.com”.

  • Surprised at the outrage? Really? The wingnuts are outraged about everything! It doesn’t matter to them what they are outraged about as long as they can be outraged about something. It gives them meaning and imagined importance. It is what they need.

  • Gina –

    yes marriage vows are, generally speaking, a good thing (thought so much of ’em i took ’em two different times 🙂 )

    while there may not be any posts expressly saying “it would be better if all public officials were faithful to their spouses,” i also don’t see anyone here promoting or encouraging infidelity or saying it makes one a better person or better public officeholder.

    i think many, perhaps most, here believe, however, that (a) historically, in most cases, there is little demonstrable relationship between marital fidelity and quality of public service – JFK was not faithful, I suspect Dick Cheney has been; and (b) in the current political environment, infidelity is too often used as a politcal sword by those who may not even believe in it themselves (how many Clinton impeachers were later learned to have had affairs?) And perhaps a (c) – it is an unfortunate change in this country that we now have so little privacy that everyone knows about each others’ marital problems (which in some ways is counterproductive because it makes it much harder to repair them and work through the problems in the marriage).

  • Sorry to jump in here, but does anyone have anything to say in support of fidelity in marriage? -Gina Cobb

    I’m whole heartedly support fidelity and honesty in marriage. However, above that, I support privacy and I believe that marriage is between two people, and unless that marriage crosses legal boundaries, I think they should have a right to keep all matters pertaining to that marriage private.

    I will focus on my marriage and let others worry about theirs.

  • The issue of fidelity in marriage might or might not be an important issue for the two people who are married. That is their issue not ours.

    Maybe with Paterson it is a good thing that these issues come out early and are dealt with. To me they are non-issues. Lets get on to important issues like the fact that the economy seems to be falling apart.

  • lol .. reading the ronald reagan info from the post back up ^^ there aways ..

    wow .. reagan spent a couple of years ensconsced in a place called the “Garden of Allah” .. what we could do with that today eh ??

    “oh yeah .. well riddle me this .. if Raygun wasn’t a closet muslim .. why’d he live in the Garden of Allah for so long ..??”

  • Capt. Kirk (#16): SteveIL, it is indeed shocking that I almost agree with you. Don’t be. It happens sometimes.

    But then again, you purport to have knowledge that the Clintons haven’t “handled” their issues, while McCain has. Do you suppose McCain’s ex-wife would say he “handled” his issues? Per this piece, McCain admits he failed in his first marriage. Plus, it says his first wife and he are still on good terms. I don’t know any of them personally, so I’m just going on what I see being reported.

    As far as the Clintons? I suppose one could say they do “handle” their issues well; Bill acts like a rutting pig and is able to get “satisfied”, and Hillary lets him do so in order to use his name to garner political office. The only reason Hillary Clinton was elected and re-ellected to the Senate, and is running for President, is because she is married to a President. That’s it. She would have had an inkling of my respect years ago if she had even once admitted that there wasn’t a “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” out to smear her “husband” since it was her “husband” who was the one doing the lying to the American people and to a grand jury. And then dumped his sorry ass to run on her own, with her own ideas and no ties to Bubba. But she didn’t.

    Then there’s the Newt. Gingrich had his secretary over his desk even as Clinton was under impeachment charges on the TV across the room. Is this perhaps how Republicans “handle” their issues? Also please weigh in on Larry Craig and Mark Foley and the wonderful example they’ve set in the area of “handling their issues”. You would have been better off naming David Vitter and forgetting these three; Vitter isn’t due to run again until 2010, and he has actually worked things out with his wifre regarding his affairs. Craig should have resigned but didn’t; unfortunately for you all, he’s gone at the end of the year since he isn’t running for re-election. Then you mention Gingrich and Foley. I’m surprised you didn’t mention Giuliani. Here’s a clue; none of them are in office or running for office. The comparisons are invalid.

  • Comments are closed.