Newsom’s affair, career killers, and the two-timing trifecta

As you may have heard, San Francisco Mayor [tag]Gavin Newsom[/tag] has become mired in a tawdry mess — he had an [tag]affair[/tag] with a female staffer who just happened to be married to one of his closest advisors and friends. Newsom has fessed up and apologized, his friend (who was going to be the manager of Newsom’s re-election campaign) has quit, and the whole sordid story has offered enough gossip for a trashy soap opera.

One of the more common questions in the media, however, is how this will affect Newsom, widely considered a rising star in Democratic politics, if he decides to run for higher office.

Whether voters will forgive him is another matter. Even in famously permissive San Francisco, news that the popular young mayor had cuckolded a close friend left the public reeling — and Newsom’s political future in doubt. Until now, Newsom, with approval ratings around 70 percent, had been considered a shoo-in for re-election in November. And despite controversy over his move three years ago to legalize gay marriage, Newsom, 39, was still considered one of the country’s hottest mayors and a rising star in the Democratic Party. For now, Newsom has no credible opponent for his re-election bid, even though several city supervisors were reportedly licking their chops at the prospect of Newsom’s downfall. The bigger problem may come down the road, when Newsom is expected to square off against Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, another young Democratic star — for either the U.S. Senate seat held by Diane Feinstein, now 73, or for governor, when Arnold Schwarzenegger’s term expires in 2010.

Indeed, CNN hosted a lengthy discussion on Thursday afternoon between Wolf Blitzer, James Carville, and former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.) about whether Newsom’s affair with a married woman is a “career-ender.”

I’m not even going to try to justify Newsom’s behavior; I find it wrong and offensive. I am comfortable, however, arguing that the talk about Newsom’s career being over strikes me rather silly.

Indeed, in the exact same CNN program in which they mulled over Newsom’s future, the Situation Room featured a lengthy puff piece about Newt Gingrich — without any mention of the former Speaker’s frequent adultery and family problems.

An article I wrote several months ago for the Washington Monthly seems particularly apropos in this context.

Now, just a few years after infidelity was considered a dealbreaker for a presidential candidate, the party that presents itself as the arbiter of virtue may field an unprecedented two-timing trifecta.

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. It’s possible that the age of the offense and McCain’s charmed relationship with the press will pull him through again, but Giuliani and Gingrich may face a more difficult challenge. Both conducted well-documented affairs in the last decade — while still in public office.

Giuliani informed his second wife, Donna Hanover, of his intention to seek a separation in a 2000 press conference. The announcement was precipitated by a tabloid frenzy after Giuliani marched with his then-mistress, Judith Nathan, in New York’s St. Patrick’s Day parade, an acknowledgement of infidelity so audacious that Daily News columnist Jim Dwyer compared it with “groping in the window at Macy’s.” In the acrid divorce proceedings that followed, Hanover accused Giuliani of serial adultery, alleging that Nathan was just the latest in a string of mistresses, following an affair the mayor had had with his former communications director.

But the most notorious of them all is undoubtedly Gingrich, who ran for Congress in 1978 on the slogan, “Let Our Family Represent Your Family.” (He was reportedly cheating on his first wife at the time). In 1995, an alleged mistress from that period, Anne Manning, told Vanity Fair’s Gail Sheehy: “We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, ‘I never slept with her.'” Gingrich obtained his first divorce in 1981, after forcing his wife, who had helped put him through graduate school, to haggle over the terms while in the hospital, as she recovered from uterine cancer surgery. In 1999, he was disgraced again, having been caught in an affair with a 33-year-old congressional aide while spearheading the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton.

Mayor Giuliani can march with his mistress in a parade and then, shortly thereafter, launch a presidential campaign. Mayor Newsom has an affair with an aide, and his career is over?

I realize there may be a double-standard, and Democrats’ affairs capture the media’s attention more than Republicans’ affairs, but there’s no way Newsom’s future could be finished, could it?

CB – you answered the question yourself: “I realize there may be a double-standard, and Democrats’ affairs capture the media’s attention more than Republicans’ affairs.” You know perfectly well that the repub rules don’t apply to them, just to us., and that the msm happily plays along with that. Until we make enough noise everytime the msm starts pulling this crap, it will keep happening. As you noted above, they are already doing it on this story.

  • It’s one thing to be nailed womanizing with the wife of a friend, allegedly she comforted him due to his difficult divorce, but its another thing to be “boyizing” like Mark Foley and then have his offenses be covered up and enabled by his party.

    Career ending sexual dalliances still go by the old saw of being caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, and I’ll throw in sheep just for good measure.

  • Newsom’s affair will not affect his career except to the degree that he has now lost a great manager.

    The “neocon corporate media” Murdoch, Disney et al, will of course continue in their slanted and non truthful offerings to the public. They don’t give a damn about truth or society at large, but do care about corporate $$$ for the coming quarter.

    As an aside: note that there is no such thing as “liberal media” which is the label that the neocons have attached to truth in journalism. And which is now difficult to find due to corporate takeover.

  • I know I am silly to be looking for logic, but I really don’t get why Democratic dalliances capture more media attention than Elephant escapades. By any reasoned analysis, Repub rendezvous should be more newsworthy because of the hypocrisy angle – I mean, everyone expects the party of 60s hippies, drugs, and free love to have loose morals, so that should be a dog-bites-man story. But when those good, clean living, upstanding, God-fearing family values moralists get caught in values-compromising positions. . . now that should be interesting copy. what am i missing? (besides the obvious political agenda of the media, that is)

  • Newsome can keep going. It’s not like power = sex is any big surprise. But he’s surrounded by willing women and this dalliance doesn’t seem to have been about much beyond sex, so his judgment in screwing over a good friend and confidant doesn’t inspire any respect.

    He’s not done because he’s got that ambitious drive. But he’s moved closer to the category of average rather than special.

  • I think the issue here may actually be the way it happened. People are comfortable with spouse betrayals – marriages are complicated beasts – who knows what really went on between husband and wife. Maybe they were headed for a fall anyway, maybe she was having an affair of her own.

    But there is something very insidious about this mayor screwing over his best friend. It’s just hard to come up with a rationalization for that. You just don’t DO that. That’s an element that Gingrich, Rudy, and McCain don’t have in their tales, and I think it might be a deal-killer for Newsom.

    If he was smart, he’d drop the re-election bid, put himself on Oprah and maybe cry a little bit, get every single detail out into the open, beg for forgiveness from all of us, then disappear for 2-4 years. When he re-emerges, nobody will care anymore.

  • Indeed, CNN hosted a lengthy discussion on Thursday afternoon between Wolf Blitzer, James Carville, and former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.) about whether Newsom’s affair with a married woman is a “career-ender.”

    I can’t believe James Carville fell for this shit. They probably thought it was hilarious to put him in a piece where they discuss a Democrat being caught in an affair at length, and then do a piece about Newt Gingrich in the same show without mentioning Newt’s affairs and hypocrisy.

    Did Carville at least have the presence of mind to mention Rudy’s, McCain’s, and Gingrich’s dalliances- so that he could say if Republicans want to use this for political ammunition they should consider it will be pointed out that they are “the pot calling the kettle black” if the Republicans don’t mention Rudy, McCain and Nest in the same breath? That’s a legitimate point to make if they want to smear Democrats with this and Carville need not hold back for concern with being sufficiently modest and polite. My guess is he probably did not have the presence of mind to raise this point. I’m not casting any aspersion on Carville, except that we have too many dumb Democrats around.

  • SS, your advice is probably as good as any Gavin will get. (Or he could recommit to winemaking; I think Plumpjack is slipping).

    That said, I was somewhat impressed that without delay, and without excuses, he called a press conference, admitted the story was true, apologized, and stopped. No Foley-esque “I was molested by a priest AND am an alcoholic.” No dodging and spinning, no hiding for days to see if the story would lose its legs. Just “I did it and I’m sorry.”

    That really should count for something, given how rare it is among politicians who screw up.

  • I’m not saying that Carville is no good or that he shouldn’t help out with stuff, I’m just saying that if he didn’t mention it he should learn a lesson and do better next time.

  • I have to admit, my first thought when I saw this on KO’s show was, “at least she was hot.” Then my second thought was, like SS @8, his best friend’s wife. That is just wrong. I guess we’ve been conditioned that extramarital affairs, while not condoned, are somehow expected….and then condoned.

    I think the double-standard comes in because Dems are more consistent in these types of issue. With Bill/Hillary/Monica, at the end of the day, it was still their issue to deal with. Same with Rudy, McCain, etc. Perhaps it sheds some light on their morality but I don’t know that we ever really know these people well enough to know exactly how.

    For Republicans, however, especially the current bunch, they are all about hypocritical, holier-than-thou, posturing. They will use such affairs to their benefit whenever and wherever they see fit. Then they will look away when it’s their own guy and it suits their needs.

    On some level, I guess I’m glad that I don’t think that what some other dude is doing in his bedroom is any of my business.

    PS – I think Newt’s negotiating the divorce while his wife is in the hospital with cancer is worse than cheating with your best friend’s wife. Maybe not – I’ll have to think about that one. But how much has it hurt Newt’s career? There certainly isn’t any real discussion on the right about it hurting his chances (or McCain’s or Giuliani’s).

    Hypocrites.

  • ” I’m just saying that if he didn’t mention it he should learn a lesson and do better next time.”

    This statement implies that James Carville actually has a brain, which, as our community lawyer should know, is very definitely “not a fact in evidence.” In fact, the evidence is all to the other direction with ol’ Snakehead of the Swamps.

    The guy is only slightly less slimy than his fellow pimp Dick Morris.

  • It’s Carville’s duty as a Democrat and especially as a strategist to have tried to make the show all about Newt and McCain and Giuliani. We have a duty to make sure the American people are treated fairly by not having CNN turned into a vehicle where you can only hear this stuff about a Democrat.

  • If Newsom were a Republican I would say he’s “outa there”, but then again to me Republicans were all born with two strikes and the strike zone of Manute Bol.

  • SF Chronicle has an interesting piece this morning about how women are already forgiving him (they know we are pigs) but that men are really ticked off–doing it with yr best friend’s wife is a violation of the guy code.

  • SF Chronicle has an interesting piece this morning about how women are already forgiving him (they know we are pigs) but that men are really ticked off–doing it with yr best friend’s wife is a violation of the guy code.

    How much does that really say, Buce. What if the genders of all the key characters in the story were switched? Then I bet women would respond to it differently and maybe that’s the situation we should look at to make a comparison.

  • Was talking to a friend of mine, a former Repub, now Indy (though he’s still a Repub at heart). He was saying how great Newt was, and I mentioned Newt’s affairs – the wife in the hospital, etc – he had never heard about ANY of that!

    What liberal press?

  • Obviously, being from “the party that presents itself as the arbiter of virtue” insulates one from sin. Do whatever you want during the week, but go to church on Sunday — and make sure people know it — and you’re off the hook.

  • There is an opportunity to be exploited here. Dems continue to point out the discrepancies of Roo-Dee and Unca Noot; any attempt to rally around Newsom will make Dems out to be total hypocrites. But—there are far too many in the GOP flock who turn a blind eye to one of their own, while rushing to judgement on any Dem who strays from the “straight-and-narrow,” so to speak. So here’s the deal—Dems need to be just as clamorous about Newsom as they have been about Giuliani and Gingrich; perhaps even more so. In so doing, the reThugs are forces to concede the moral high ground—and from what I’ve seen the past few months, it’s about the only political ground they’ve got left.

    Think of it this way—imagine the Dobson camp asking their followers, “Why the Republican Party turned out to be even worse than those terrible Democrats?”

  • He was saying how great Newt was, and I mentioned Newt’s affairs – the wife in the hospital, etc – he had never heard about ANY of that!

    What liberal press?

    I don’t think you can blame this on the press. I think it could have been on the front burner at CNN for a decade and GOPs who chose not to register it, would not register it. It’s not even “It’s Okay If You’re a Republican”–rather more like the disconnect that makes them believe it was Saddam Hussein who flew the planes into the World Trade Center, or that there Really Were WMDs.

  • Dems need to be just as clamorous about Newsom as they have been about Giuliani and Gingrich;

    I guess that’s alright, but if you mean we shouldn’t talk about those Republicans I think you’re misunderstanding people. This really resonates with people and if you tell them about it they will notice it. Newsom hasn’t really made his way in the world, relatively speaking, compared to McCain and Rudy and Gingrich, and if you weigh the importance of that guy against the future of the conservatives’ second and third top choices for ’08 (Rudy and McCain), it seems it’s worth it to scuttle a couple of their top choices’ campaign chances if Newsom loses prestige as a cost of that. If you’re just concerned that we shouldn’t be bothering with persecuting cuckholds, and you want to make us think of whether we’ll feel yucky if we spend a lot of time doing that, I don’t think cuckholds’ acceptance or feelings are anything we need to be that concerned about either.

  • Dems need to be just as clamorous about Newsom as they have been about Giuliani and Gingrich;

    If you’re just concerned the conservatives are going to call us hypocrites (which upon further thinking about it I see is just what you meant- sorry for presuming) I think you just have to tell them we’re not running this guy for president and we’re not praising him. Republicans are running Rudy and John McCain for president, and they treat all three of them as if they’re amazing. It’s not just that they’re cuckholds or that they cheated, it’s that they’re such assholes in how they were cuckholds or cheated. Rudy, McCain, and Gingrich are all bastards, but the Republicans still promote them; Hillary and Bill Clinton are regular, good people with flaws (and even Bill’s sinning wasn’t nearly as bad as any of these three guys) and we support them; but not because we’d support anybody as bad as the people the Republicans support and cover up for. The Republicans criticize us for supporting flawed people, but they’re the same Republicans who support people with even worse flaws.

    Whenever a Republican starts saying you’re a hypocrite, don’t get all deer-in-the-headlights about it and act as if you think, “Oh my God! Is he right? Am I a hypocrite?” Tell them why they’re wrong for God’s sake. We’re good people and we support the people we support because we’re good people. The Republicans throw the word “hypocrite” around because they’re purposely trying to distort and smear people and because they don’t think about things and know what they mean.

  • What’s really weird about all this is that affair had been over for like a year, if I’m hearing this right, and never would have come to light except that she was an alcoholic (…) and had to confess all her transgressions to her husband as part of her recovery process. How bizarre is that?

    Life can just be so strange sometimes.

  • Now, if CNN wanted to give its audience some well-spiced red meat, they should have had a well-balanced panel of unfaithful politicians. On the one side, three whose political careers had not been affected at all by their extra-marital derring-do — Giuliani, Gingrich and McCain. On the other side, those whose political careers had been destroyed by same.

    Might have required CNN to some real digging to find the other 3 (remember, only real-life politicians need apply, and only wife-cheating counts. No preachers, no e-fondling of Congressional pages and no fictional characters from TV shows), but that’s what journalists do best, no?

    And it would have made for a great show…

  • My question is: Is Newsom a sexual predator, or is he exploiting a personal situation? There is a different. Is he a man of personal vulnerabiities of is he a man of chronic exploitation?

  • I know I am silly to be looking for logic, but I really don’t get why Democratic dalliances capture more media attention than Elephant escapades. By any reasoned analysis, Repub rendezvous should be more newsworthy because of the hypocrisy angle – I mean, everyone expects the party of 60s hippies, drugs, and free love to have loose morals, so that should be a dog-bites-man story.
    Comment by zeitgeist

    Obviously, being from “the party that presents itself as the arbiter of virtue” insulates one from sin. Do whatever you want during the week, but go to church on Sunday — and make sure people know it — and you’re off the hook.

    Comment by beep52 — 2/3/2007 @ 4:36 pm

    see, that’s the thing. all these republicans cheated on their wives, but they didn’t really enjoy it. that makes it o.k.

    your pal,
    blake

  • I have to agree with Fifi about this ‘scandal’ – nobody here in SF really cares all that much. I also don’t really see any hypocrisy or double standards – unlike the republicans who were brought down over such scandals, Mr Newsom did not run on a platform of moral and sexual purity – and unlike Clinton, he did not lie or try to cover it up.

    This doesn’t affect the City in any way – we will still have our police/fire departments running, his program for helping the homeless is still functioning, and our public transit is still screwed up but getting better. He’s working on bringing more jobs back to the City and his plans to make things much greener are moving forward. That’s what got him elected, and will keep him in office.

    If/when he runs for Governor, this will be very old news, and the people who would really care about it wouldn’t vote for him anyway.

  • Richardson’s candidacy?

    Not that his offense sounds exactly the same….

    According to Steve Clemmons:

    Have you behaved inappropriately or not in public settings with female members of your government administration, jokingly or not? Have you gestured to female public servants and political appointees — who work as colleagues with you — and made lewd gestures, specifically pointing to them and then pointing at your crotch with a room full of media and other politicos there in the room?

    I ask this not to demean or undermine Richardson.

    I ask it because I was not in the room when this particular incident occurred but many others were — and rumors have long swept around Santa Fe that Bill Richardson makes a constant festive joke out of demeaning women. These incidents don’t have to do with the comments by Lt. Governor Diane Denish that Richardson is a “touchy” and “feely” Governor. They have to do with questions about a far more crude kind of gesture that demeans professional women

  • I wonder, is it the affiar that bothers people the most, or that he had it with someone he considered really, really good friend as well as a colleague? I think I can forgive an affiar (he is human after all) if there is real regret, but to betray a “friend” in this fashion – that is to me unforgivable and for me would mean I wouldn’t vote for him.

  • Possibly the press pays more attention to Democrats’ affairs simply because Democrats are more attractive than Republicans.

    Newsom for example is (like Bill Clinton) a good-looking guy–an attractive man and personality; you can imagine him in flagranto without being nauseated.

    But the mere thought of say Newt *Gingrich* being fellated? Euwwwww. Who even wants to contemplate it?

  • why should it matter if he did not remain faithful to the trust of his wife or his close friend? of course he would remain faithful to all the nameless people that he was elected to serve … after all he means well

    wake up people

  • Comments are closed.