Tag: sex scandals

Rejoice, Herman Cain Supporters, Rejoice! There Are TWO Herman Cains!

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

November 11, 2011

On Tuesday this week, Herman Cain held a press conference featuring Herman Cain.  Herman Cain scheduled the event to explain Herman Cain’s take on the allegations continually surfacing about Herman Cain’s past sexual harassment of at least four women.  During the questioning, Herman Cain implied there is yet another Herman Cain running around town.  The Herman Cain at the podium spoke (in bold) numerous times for that other Herman Cain:  

“I chose to address these accusations directly, rather than try to do it through a series of continuous statements or spokespeople because that’s the person Herman Cain is . . .” Well, a businessman by the name of Herman Cain stepped forward. But you see, that’s one thing about Herman Cain that I think that a lot of the American people know, and that is, just because it’s tough, there’s no reason for me not to do what I feel like I have to do. Well, I happen to think where it’s coming from is that some people don’t want to see Herman Cain get the Republican nomination, and some people don’t want Herman Cain to become president of the United States of America. I can’t answer why the ones that have already made these – one anonymous – accusations and one that was, you know — you know, put their face on TV, started a media campaign to basically try and slander my integrity and my character, I can’t tell you what their motivation is, other than it’s to stop Herman Cain.”

As you can see, he continually skittered back and forth betwixt 1st and 3rd person. In one part of certain sentences, he uses “I” and “my” and “me,” 1st person pronouns that one uses to refer directly to oneself. In other places Mr. Cain (if that really is his name), he (or “they”) refers, in 3rd person, to another Herman Cain, one who apparently couldn’t make it to the presser. So, a man we’re quite familiar with stood at the podium, the man we’ve watched climb up in the GOP polls to a leadership position. However, the Herman Cain at the podium acted at times as a spokesperson for the other, missing, Herman Cain. 

Referring to oneself in the 3rd person is familiar in politics, recall Bob Dole’s circa 1996 presidential campaign. Also, I’m old enough to remember this one, after Nixon lost the 1962 California gubernatorial election: “As I leave you, I want you to know . . . just think how much you are going to be missing, you don’t have Nixon to kick around anymore because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.” Fat chance.

Illesimish or Simply Boorish? This practice of referring to oneself in the third person, I learned today, is called “illeism,” from the Latin ille (“that man; he”) + -ism (modelled on egoism). I call it boorish. Is Herman Cain boorish? I mean, here’s a man whose business success is legendary. His charisma is noteworthy. His rise in the GOP presidential field is unprecedented. Is this man a man one would call boorish?  Yes.

That aside, his boorishness is not the main issue here. In his scattered use of illeism during Tuesday’s press interrogation, he revealed a symptom that could trump his relatively benign illeisms.  People with true illeistic  personalities tend to remain in “voice” throughout. 

However, in using the 3rd person only periodically, while reverting to 1st person at other times, Herman Cain may have uncovered a more serious problem, Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), once called Multiple Personality Disorder. Here’s the relevant portion of the National Alliance on Mental Illness description of DID: “[a] disorder involving a disturbance of identity in which two or more separate and distinct personality states (or identities) control the individual’s behavior at different times. When under the control of one identity, the person is usually unable to remember some of the events that occurred while other personalities were in control.”

WebMD has this to say about the Cain-relevant symptoms: “Amnesia. This is the failure to recall significant personal information that is so extensive it cannot be blamed on ordinary forgetfulness. There can also be micro-amnesias where the discussion engaged in is not remembered, or the content of a meaningful conversation is forgotten from one second to the next.  Identity confusion or identity alteration. Both of these involve a sense of confusion about who a person is. An example of identity confusion is when a person sometimes feels a thrill while engaged in an activity (such as reckless driving, DUI, alcohol or drug abuse) which at other times would be revolting.”

Or, when a GOP presidential candidate gets caught consistently forgetting about various issues related to allegations of past sexual harassment settlements, agreements, peace treaties, and whether he sexually harassed anyone, anywhere, anytime, that’s an example too.

Certainly, he’s not simply lying.

News from the Legal Frontline – Herman Cain’s New Statistical Defense to Sexual Harassment Claims

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

November 11, 2011

At the GOP debate on Tuesday night, CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo asked Herman Cain about the well-known sexual harassment claims swirling around his campaign and his character like a river around a boulder. Like that boulder, unmovable, Cain answered, in part, and to applause: “I value my character and my integrity more than anything else, and for every one person that comes forward with a false accusation – there are probably – there are thousands who would say, none of that sort of activity came from Herman Cain.”

Well, besides speaking in the 3rd person, media outlets far and wide consider this a weak, even shabby, defense, the “proportionality,” or “statistical” defense. . . For example, “Your Honor, my client presents the well-accepted proportionality defense.  We ask that you take judicial notice of the clear fact that my client has robbed only a very very tiny proportion of the world population of banks and credit unions. Defense rests.”

I Beg To Differ. I disagree with the critics of this defense. In fact, I love the idea. Often, it would have pulled my chestnuts out of the fire: “Your Honor, think of the many times I did not exceed the speed limit by 45 miles per hour in that neighborhood, and that particular neighborhood is only one among millions of neighborhoods in this great country of ours, a country known for the fairness, in statistical terms, of its judicial system.” But, I’m not running for President. (Yet)

Bill Clinton could have used it. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” could have been expressed in this fashion, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, when one considers how many women there are in the world with whom I also could not have had sexual relations with either.” End of story. If the proportion defense existed then, well, Bill Clinton would still be President of the United States, and Monica Lewinsky would be Chief of Staff (no pun intended).

Newt Gingrich could employ it virtually every day of his life. “I did not say what you just viewed on that video. Just consider for a moment just how many videos are out there where someone is not shown blatantly and outrageously straying from the exact truth. And what is the exact truth anyway? Was it when Bill Clinton said . . .” You get the idea. Gingo’s hopeless.

It would be a boon to Mitt Romney! Imagine this page in his campaign brochure.

Many Have Claimed That I Am A “Flip Flopper,”
Particularly On The Issue Of Abortion. 
However, In Relative Terms, My Stance Is As Solid As Mount Rushmore.
 
 Consider This:
There Are Literally Thousands Of Positions, Highly Nuanced,
That I Might Take On The Abortion Issue.
 
I Chose To Take Only Eight:

  • Have The Abortion,
  • Don’t Have The Abortion,
  • Go To Jail For Having The Abortion,
  • Be Commended For Protecting A Woman’s Right To Choose,
  • The Right To Choose Is A Ticket To Hell,
  • If Men Had Babies, I’d Support Free Abortion Clinics,
  • The Fallopian Tube Is A Legal Person, And
  • Where Is The Vagina, Anyway?

With this defense Rod Blagojevich would today be in the U.S. Senate. Tom DeLay would be making a fine living dancing with rich old ladies at Vegas nightclubs. And Anthony Weiner . . . well, that’s another story altogether. . . And Nixon! “My fellow Americans, the Bureau of Justice Statistics
of the Department of Justice has just informed me that, in statistical terms, I am not a crook.”

So, if you ever think you’re not quite the best Dad or Mom in the world;  if you sometimes claim a little more for charitable deductions than you should;  if you consume three dozen glazed donuts in one sitting as a reward for doing so well during the first week of your diet, just remember this:

Statistics is your friend 

Jerry Sandusky, Master of Defense . . . and Offense – Sports Illustrated Writer Jerry McCallum’s Follow-Up to His 1999 Sandusky Article

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

November 10, 2011

The Jerry Sandusky allegations have brought some unwelcome attention to Sports Illustrated writer, Jack McCallum. His 1999 article about Sandusky was mentioned, in passing, in the grand jury presentment.  This week, Mr. McCallum wrote about his disappointment and shock at how his story had played itself out.

NO ONE, Mr. McCallum, can “blame” you for this story; at times, in your reflective piece this week, you seem to border on it. Don’t. You did a fine job with what you had at the time, especially, as you explain, the Sandusky piece was a replacement article for another you had planned. And as we now know – and the allegations seem substantial – Sandusky was a master of both defense . . . and offense, in the worst possible ways.
 
Here’s how Mr. McCallum sums it up, “Jerry Sandusky fooled a lot people over years — including me. Two things in particular haunt me. By the time I wrote the story, Sandusky’s showering with a youngster had already triggered a campus investigation, albeit one that never became public. And the revelations in the “Jerry Sandusky Grand Jury Report” — I recommend that to those of you who feel that Sandusky and Penn State officials are being railroaded fire up Mr. Google and read it — reveal that some of Sandusky’s worst behavior was going on right around this time. So I wrote a favorable story about a guy who was already a sexual predator.

The other thing haunting me is my last line in the story: “Here’s the best thing you can say about Jerry Sandusky: He’s the main reason that Penn State is Linebacker U … and linebackers aren’t even his enduring legacy.”

Irony upon irony . . .

Please, SOMEONE Ask Herman Cain to Define “Sexual Harassment”!

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

November 7, 2011

Hmmmm . . . . . . .

So far, we’ve heard very little from Mr. Cain about his actions that led to sexual harassment claims back in the late ’90s when he led the National Restaurant Association. Yesterday, he told reporters he simply was not going to answer any questions on the matter. O.K. Perhaps, though, he’d answer a very general question, “What, sir, do you think ‘sexual harassment’ is? What’s your understanding of the real world meaning of the term?” His answer would help us understand what he means when he repeatedly says, “I have never sexually harassed anyone.” So, please, some brave soul with a press pass, ask him! . . . .

Here’s one of his, sort of, references to sexual harassment, according to Politico where Cain was referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, where Congress created the right of victims of intentional discrimination, including sexual harassment, to seek money damages in court, rather than just a court order: “This bill opens the door for opportunists who will use the legislation to make some money,” Cain, then CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, told Nation’s Restaurant News. “I’m certainly for civil rights, but I don’t know if this bill is fair because of what we’ll have to spend to defend ourselves in unwarranted cases.” 
 
Potentially, Mr. Cain’s definition of what he considers to be “sexual harassment” will reveal far more than has been thus far about his character. Certainly, we’ve heard a lot from Cain himself about his present predicament, most of which can be boiled down to “Quit asking about that,” and “Get out of my face.” That approach, of course, is standard, and no surprise at all when a politician does it. But no one in the media has to my knowledge asked him, “Just what, Mr. Cain, do you think sexual discrimination in the workplace is? Can you provide some examples?”

 It’s time to do so. George Will once wrote, “Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.” Would that characterize Cain’s response? In any event, his answer is important. It would reveal more about his character. It could help him. It could sink him. So, please, someone ask him!

Please Give Us Some Examples of “Nothingness.”  But, like some of us think a tomato is not a fruit, but a veggie (I do, despite so-called “science”), I guess we all have our own definition of sexual harassment. Here’s the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s:

“Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” [29 C.F.R. § 1604.11]

The laws prohibiting sexual discrimination were, by the time of the infamous Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas showdown, already on the books, aka The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC definition above, as in most laws intended to have a long reach, is couched in general terms. Some phrases do appear to be commonsensical, though. “Requests for sexual favors” is one. But others, from the first sentence in the EEOC regulation, leave room for disagreement, for example: Unwelcome sexual advances, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.

What do most of us label as verbal conduct of a sexual nature? Telling a sexually loaded joke?  Calling a woman a “babe” or a “cutie”?  These are just a few of many possibilities and remember that they apply to males as well. And, of course, women can themselves be guilty of sexual harassment. And it also covers all gender identifications.

Here’s some explicit examples deemed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to be sexual harassment. It’s from their agency-wide guidance, Understanding Workplace Harassment (FCC Staff): Examples of actions that may create sexual hostile environment harassment include: 

  • Leering, i.e., staring in a sexually suggestive manner
  • Making offensive remarks about looks, clothing, body parts
  • Touching in a way that may make an employee feel uncomfortable, such as patting, pinching or intentional brushing against another’s body
  • Telling sexual or lewd jokes, hanging sexual posters, making sexual gestures, etc.
  • Sending, forwarding or soliciting sexually suggestive letters, notes, emails, or images

Perhaps some cub reporter will ask Mr. Cain what kind of actions he considers to be sexual harassment. I think we’d all love to hear the answer.

The Herman Cain Controversies — Utah Senator Orrin Hatch Says Cain Mistreated by Media, Praises GOP Family Values. . . HUH?

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

November 3, 2011

Longtime Utah Senator Orrin Hatch has his shorts in a bunch about the media coverage of the Herman Cain allegations, claiming, among other things, that conservatives get worse treatment from the press in matters sexual scandally than the Dems. Personally, I don’t keep track, but I do enjoy this kind of news regardless of party affiliation, although I’m truly ashamed. It’s not Hatch’s belief about press treatment that gets my shorts in a bunch, though. It’s what he said next that was exceptionally misleading. . . Here’s the portion of the story related to what Hatch believes about press coverage of GOP sex scandal allegations:

Senate GOP rips media for Cain story, alleges double standard

By Alexander Bolton – 11/01/11 02:45 PM ET

Conservative politicians like Herman Cain come under more media scrutiny than liberal candidates, several Republican senators said Tuesday. The GOP senators ripped the media for its handling of anonymous sexual harassment allegations against the Republican presidential candidate, and asked whether a Democrat would face the same kind of reporting in the absence of a public accusation. “It’s easy to take potshots at conservatives,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who described the media’s treatment of the Cain story as “overdone.” Hatch argued conservative candidates often get harsher treatment from the mainstream media.”  [To read the rest just click here]

I never looked into this double standard allegation until today when I needed to thanks to Senator Hatch and his GOP cronies. Being a kindhearted soul, I limited my research to allegations of scandals amidst presidential races since the Cain controversy seems to be what caught Hatch’s eye. What I found refutes Hatch’s sense of (typical right-wing GOP) victimhood:

  • In 1987, Gary Hart’s affair with Donna Rice created a media feeding frenzy, culminating in the infamous “Monkey Business” photo that, a week later, forced Hart out of the presidential race
  • In early 1992, prior to the New Hampshire primary, Bill Clinton’s affair with Jennifer Flowers was trumpeted with enormous energy throughout the media.
  • John Edward’s extramarital affair . . . well, let’s forget about that one. . .

I think most of us can recall the media shark attack the followed these. The press treatment of these Democratic presidential candidates was far from minor as Hatch and others would have us believe.

Yet, Hatch Continued to Speak . . . A Sentence Too Far. Here’s what Hatch said next that does not pass the smell test: “Conservatives are family oriented, for the most part religious, they believe in raising children and they believe in marriage.” O.K., I’ll bite. Let’s check this out, using past and present GOP presidential candidates since 1992. I think you’ll see a pattern. 

Newt Gingrich (2008, 2012)

Rudy Giuliani (2008)

John McCain (2000, 2008)

Gary Bauer (2000)Dan Quayle (2000)

Bob Dole  (1996)

Phil Gramm (1996)

It’s not the sexual scandals themselves that steam me, we’re all human (well, mostly), and our fidelity synapses are not well-developed, but seemingly our sex wiring is full-blown manic (pardon the pun). So, as Donald Rumsfeld might say, “Sex happens.” 

What rankles most – for all of us, I think – is the hypocrisy involved. This thought, of course, is a common criticism of the right by the left. But it’s still worthwhile to remember that, for decades, “family values” has been at the core of the Republican party image. They’ve touted it from pulpit to campaign stops to the floor of the House and Senate. Entire libraries could be filled with their scribblings about “family values.” Worst of all, they’ve deigned to haughtily instruct us. Yet, as far as actually living family values rather than merely talking about them, well, as Gertrude Stein said about Oakland, California in the 1930’s, “There’s no there there.” And, Senator Hatch, their claim to family values, and that energetic hypocrisy is why they get hammered in the “lamestream media.” And who should be surprised by that?

Flaccid House Democratic Leaders Call for Weiner’s Resignation

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

June 12, 2011

The Worms Turn.   Yesterday, congressman Andrew Weiner’s own party began in earnest to push him out. As always, it seems, following the GOP’s lead – the party of David Vitter, John Ensign, Larry Craig, “Perfesser Gingo,” and many other family values paragons – the Democratic House leadership led the party to an embarrassing show of weakness and disloyalty. Moreover, it’s a self-inflicted shot in the foot since the congressman is one of the few democrats who has the voice and the courage to attack the GOP crapola machine. In fact, Weiner’s passion in that regard acts as the supercharger to the disloyalty of a Dem leadership so very into “civility,” despite the GOP’s mystification at the concept. 

His “voluntary” leave of absence announced today – obviously engineered by Pelosi – marks a nearly certain end to the career of a man who took the fight to the enemy with magnificent moxie. And to be sentenced without reflection or rationality by his own political family is shameful. His was a summary execution for offenses of very small consequence, a triumph of “civility” in the face of the shameless and hypocritical party of Vitter/Ensign. Nowhere did Minority Leader Pelosi or DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz call out Louisiana Senator David “Ho’monger” Vitter, nor did Pelosi mention the ethics hearings she had been so charged up about last week.

This new chapter in Weinergate began at 2:00 pm yesterday, when the WaPo reported:

“The top leaders in the Democratic party called on embattled Rep. Anthony Weiner (D) to resign Saturday, a potential tipping point in the two-week long scandal involving the New York Democrat’s online liaisons. ‘Congressman Weiner has the love of his family, the confidence of his constituents, and the recognition that he needs help,’ said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.). ‘I urge Congressman Weiner to seek that help without the pressures of being a Member of Congress.’ Of Weiner, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) said ‘the behavior he has exhibited is indefensible and Representative Weiner’s continued service in Congress is untenable.’ Weiner spokeswoman Risa Heller said Saturday afternoon that the Congressman ‘departed this morning to seek professional treatment to focus on becoming a better husband and healthier person.’ She added that he would request ‘a short leave of absence from the House’ after which he would make a decision on his political future.’”

Under The Bus, and Then Off The Bridge. O.K., one can agree that the congressman really stepped in it. One can be disgusted with him, disgruntled, or just mystified. I agree, but I’m not going to waste time with all that. So far, what I’ve read and heard leaves me shaking my head, not much more. In the realm of adult-to-adult behavior, Weiner’s offenses were mild, at best;  I certainly can’t volunteer to throw the first – or any subsequent – stone. I felt the same about Republican Chris “Craigslist” Lee when he resigned last February. Neither man had violated so-called “black letter” law.

Weiner’s behavior does bring Congress under a moral microscope, and that too is understandable. In a philosophical sense, though, the House displays far worse moral behavior than Weiner’s – and it’s not remotely sexual. Witness Republican proposals to impoverish millions for the sake of Ayn Rand and Paul Ryan. Sex, though, is a trump card in scandals; one’s urge to look away is always shellacked by one’s curious glee. We’ve all giggled like fourth graders since the story reared its ugly head. When any behavior, sexual or otherwise, crosses into the area of illegality, like non-sexual misdoings of former House Speakers Gingrich and Wright, sanctions are called for, and resignation plausible. When alleged illegality is absent, though, as with Weiner, then only the moral question remains. And for many years, disagreements over morals have divided our country decisively. And sex scandals? Wow.

Given that national moral paralysis, and the obscene choice of letting Congress decide Weiner’s fate, let’s separate our moral opinions of Weiner’s poor judgment, and put this mess where it belongs, in the hands – and votes – of his constituents. Thus far, they’re in his corner. If they want to rid themselves of him, if they consider him a moral wasteland, they will do so in about 17 months in the 2012 election. Period. Paragraph.

Flaccid House Democratic Leadership Quivers. Speaking of morality, is there a level of moral flaccidity so stultifying that it requires a declaration of time of death? If so, the House Dems are trending that way. You can see the quotes above – Pelosi’s astoundingly insincere concern; Wasserman Schultz’s usual moral certainty and overreaction; and the silent others, most of whom couldn’t deign to throw the man a life preserver. Sadly, by and large, this is the Democratic party today. With some exceptions – like the unabashed partisan Weiner – it’s been that way for years.

If You Can Dodge a Wrench, You Can Dodge a Ball.  Here, the Dems once again allowed the GOP to deploy one of their favored tactics: the cynical use our sense of morality against us. It always works like this:

1. Weiner did as wieners do, and got caught, then lied, and thereby injured his wife, family, supporters, constituents, etc. etc.,

2. GOP cynics quickly jump to roundly condemn him. With long faces, shocked demeanor, and self-righteous falderal they lecture him, the Dems, and us just plain folks on the consequences that ought to befall such moral failings, such sexual “creepiness,” to paraphrase the skeevy GOP Chairman, Reince Prieibus.

3. The hypocritical GOP song and dance goes on to boost the favored position of their own party’s family values, and thereby draw in and rally their base constituency (and I mean “base” in both its senses).

4. When it’s pointed out to them that they inexplicably express no concern whatever about the likes of the departed GOP Senator John Ensign, or the (still seated) GOP Senator David Vitter, the GOP en masse goes utterly deaf, and simply pushes aside these questions as irrelevant and improper. 

5. As the aforementioned Reince Priebus told Greta Van Susteren last week, “I’m not here to re-litigate the David Vitter story.” Last night he said the Vitter matter “is a seven year old story.” Wow! A virtuoso. See? Thereafter and forever, as we’ll see, the GOP stays completely on message and cycles it again and again, mentioning God, the dignity of the House, ethics, morals, family values, and all their balderdash.

6. When Democrats – dumbly – think they’re falling behind, that a “morals gap” is opening, they – dumbly – do not fight back, but instead – dumbly – overreact and, in Congressman Weiner’s case, they go for what they believe will be the winning blow, and instead kick themselves in the groin by displaying rank cowardice, and ironically, moral weakness. Isn’t loyalty is a moral act?

Let’s face it, unless it’s revealed that Weiner violated any state or federal law, the likely illegal acts of Vitter and Ensign make Weiner’s bad behavior look like a schoolboy in short pants unleashing a spitball. You see, most of the GOP elite has no interest at all in a definitive set of moral values except as a tool to build a following among their now largely evangelical political base, especially now with the Iowa straw vote approaching. Faking it, however, causes the base to conclude their GOP celebrities are plain folk too, just like them.

Here’s what’s key, though. The Democratic party time and again reacts with a head down long sigh of shame. Do they fight back?  Do they vigorously explain to the American people the Grand Canyon-sized distance between Weiner’s case and Vitter’s or Ensign’s?  Simply put, do they fight for one of their own, regardless of how mixed their feelings are about his abrasive legislative personality? Of course not. Why? To Democrats these days, fighting back with the unvarnished truth about GOP hypocrisy would violate one of their leading principles: don’t look “angry,” or “aggressive,” or, most of all, don’t sink into “incivility.” And that’s how the GOP plays our own values and morals against us, values they do not themselves share, do not even credit.

Sometimes A Cigar Is Just a Cigar – Attributed to Sigmund Freud. This GOP indifference is particularly true of sexual morality – witness David Vitter canoodling with prostitutes as often as his constituents say “Obamacare” on an average day. Look there at Gingo Gingrich, burying his “ethics” in then staffer Callista Bisek (now Callista Gingrich) at the same time he was driving the country insane trying to impeach Bill Clinton. How about Speaker-elect Bob Livingston who was to succeed Gingo after he resigned? This “family values” guy was rabid for Clinton’s impeachment. Oh, and which Louisiana politico replaced Mr. Livingston? Another “family values” guy, David Vitter! This cynical use of moral beliefs held by their constituents pays off at the ballot box, and then, in office they work steadfastly against the needs of the very plain folk who bought their bill of goods and put them in office.

So, by pushing Congressman Weiner to resign, the Democratic party leadership, and the vast majority of the Dem caucus, have as usual fallen headlong and clueless into the GOP trap. They allowed the GOP, that pack of lying hypocrites, to determine Democratic tactics. To avoid at all costs the appearance of having backbones, Pelosi, Wasserman Schultz, and the weasel pack ran sniveling and panicked into the deep hole prepared by the GOP. This will, in its cowardice, as always, cause some more voters to turn away from the “Democrat” party in disgust. Civility in answer to provocation is not a moral victory, it’s a moral failing.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus Talks Weiner -They Really WILL Say Anything!

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

June 8, 2011

Yesterday, on Greta Van Susteren’s On the Record, Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee got up on his hind legs to discuss wieners.  Anthony Weiner’s wiener, to be exact.  Reince was in high dudgeon, to be sure. A tornado of botheration was he:

“VAN SUSTEREN: All right, you say [Weiner should immediately] resign.

PRIEBUS: Well, yes. Obviously, after all that, the man is a creep and an incessant liar, and I think that’s pretty obvious. You don’t need an investigation to figure that out. What I think is more outrageous, though, Greta, is the fact that Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz of the Democratic National Committee is not calling for this guy’s resignation! I mean, the guy is an incessant liar. And listen, it was Nancy Pelosi, you might remember, who said that she was going to drain the swamp in Washington and clear the field of these kind of people. And what does she do? She calls for an ethics investigation. Now, either she condones the behavior or she calls for his resignation. That’s her choice.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, you know, he’s still — I mean, it still makes sense to go through a process and give him a hearing. I mean, we’ve all pretty much reached our judgment about him. I mean, the pictures are quite damning. But he’s hired by the people in his district, you know?

PRIEBUS: Oh, really? I mean, do we need to really, though, Greta, spend taxpayer dollars on an investigation to determine whether or not Anthony Weiner is a creep? I mean, we know what the story is. We know what he did. The guy lied. He brought reporters back in the hallway when he knew he was lying, came back outside into the hallway, lied again. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats ought to show a little bit of leadership and get this guy out of town.” 

The Persistence of Memory.  Recall that Priebus, the man with a surname as dead-on a term for wiener as Weiner, launched no righteous indignation at Ex-Senator John Ensign whose skedaddle from the Senate via resignation was a millimeter ahead of the posse he knew was about to expel him summarily. Remember too, Reince Priebus had no particular concerns about then Louisiana’s Congressman David Vitter  whose prominence on the D.C. Madam’s “frequent rider” list might have garnered criminal solicitation charges in D.C. Vitter, for God’s sake, took calls from the Madam on the House floor, during votes! (Vitter, rather than resigning from the House, stayed on, then won his Senate seat in the next election. ) About Vitter, here’s what Priebus told Van Susteren , who, by the way, admirably held his feet to the fire:

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there a difference with Senator David Vitter, I mean, with the whole — with his whole little prostitution — he’s on a prostitution client list. Is that different?

PRIEBUS: Well, I don’t know if it’s different. I mean, this is…

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, nobody called…

PRIEBUS: Frankly, I’m not relitigating the David Vitter situation. We have…

“Relitigating”? The Vitter sex machine was neither litigated, nor prelitigated.  There’s the rub. Weiner, as far as we know today, is not alleged to have violated any law; Vitter, prima facie, many allege, appears to have done so. Priebus has a very selective moral sense – the very “moral relativism” the GOP goes on and on and on railing against. Of course.

Resign, Schmensign!  Earlier yesterday, Priebus began his parade of hypocrisy. He appeared on MSNBC’s Martin Bashir show, calling Weiner a “creep,” as if creepiness were a violation of Senate rules. If that were true, how have Joe Lieberman, Mitch McConnell, and David Vitter remained senators? 

Priebus also rages about Weiner’s lying to the press and the American people as well. That apple doesn’t fall far from the Republican tree either – John Ensign brought the lie to Shakespearean heights. And Newt Gingrich? Who can define the infinite space his lying occupies? John Ensign? Oy!  Yet, of course, Priebus supports them all.

Stand Up For Weiner.  Anthony Weiner appears as of now to have violated no law. He’s likely examining his psychological and moral life overtime. He lied about a sexual peccadillo, involving adults, between adults. He harmed many – principally his wife, Hilary Clinton’s closest aide at State. Yes, he embarrassed Congress, yet, Congress, with few exceptions, is an institutionalized embarrassment.

Anthony Weiner does have some sexual issues (who among us dares throw that first stone?), and he will deal with them; he did not, though, as Ensign did, canoodle with the wife of another man, both of them, mind you, members of his staff. Unlike Ensign, Vitter, Mark Foley, John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, and many others, Weiner never deemed to instruct us about the superiority of his own “family values.” Getting lectured by Ensign, Vitter, and Gingrich, is like getting ethical investment guidelines from Jack Madoff or Goldman Sachs.

Won’t You Stay, Just A Little Bit Longer.  Mr. Weiner ought not to resign. Far worse have remained for more outrageous and potentially illegal acts.  The House banking scandal sent Kentucky Congressman Carroll Hubbard to jail. Illinois’ Dan Rostenkowski went too. Real crimes; real disgrace; real candidates for expulsion.

Indeed, Mr. Weiner, as Congressman Weiner, has lost much of his legislative mojo. His inimitable rants at GOP congressloons may fall silent, although the boxer-tough congressman may fool us. For the progressive cause silencing the congressman would bring more silence to an already mostly passive Democratic House; for the GOP that would be a triumph. They do not happily abide news coverage of Mr. Weiner putting their hypocrisy, their incessant lies, and their simple meanness on display. He’s in trouble now, and he’s a friend of the progressive cause, and thereby a friend of the lost middle class and all those who aspire for small successes and a decent wage. I’ll not abandon him at his neediest hour. Let the Priebuses prattle on.

Anthony Weiner Is Not Funny Anymore

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

June 6, 2011

Pants Fell Off in Public.  Today, Anthony Weiner, the exhausted New York congressman, admitted that he had indeed sent that infamous tweet to a 21 year old Washington state college student. Also, he admitted other similar bad conduct involving telephone conversations, computer usage, and Twitter. Nancy Pelosi has asked for an Ethics probe, and quickly thereafter the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s Rep. Steve Israel released this:

“Congressman Anthony Weiner engaged in a deep personal failure and inappropriate behavior that embarrassed himself, his family, and the House. Ultimately, Anthony and his constituents will make a judgment about his future.

“To remove all remaining doubt about this situation, I agree with Leader Pelosi’s request that the House Ethics Committee use its authority to begin an investigation.”

The French Correction – “Le Grand Séducteur,” IMF’s Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Not So Grand

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

May 20, 2011         

The Back Story.  Sixty-two year old Dominique Strauss-Kahn, retired Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), has not been managing very well lately. A man known not as much for his professional reputation as for his lively, yet often butterfingered, participation in the bataille des sexes. Last Saturday night, however, the Grand Séducteur apparently took a wrong turn at his Manhattan hotel room’s bathroom door and, perhaps accidentally, perhaps not at all, grabbed the 32-year-old African American femme de chambre who was cleaning his $3,000 per day suite. Allegedly, he then forced her into his bedroom and attempted to rape her. When she managed to escape briefly, the gracious Mr. Strauss-Kahn ran her down and then, according to the maid, forced her into the bathroom where he demanded, and received, oral sex. She then successfully fled and called in the police.

Strauss-Kahn also fled, and with high velocity, leaving behind his cellphone, and his job at IMF. The police rounded him up a short time later as he sat on an Air France flight waiting to take off for Paris, and his nation’s patriotic policy of “non-extradition” of French citizens. After the maid identified him in a lineup, he spent the next 24 hours in the slammer. Presently indicted, he has been granted bail, subject to 24/7 surveillance;  $1 million cash bail;  $5 million insurance bond secured by Strauss-Kahn family property; surrendering of all travel documents; and 24-hour confinement in a Manhattan apartment rented by his wife, Anne Sinclair; wearing an electronic monitor; allowing video cameras in the apartment and building entrances; and be under around-the-clock supervision by at least one armed guard, and paying for it to boot.

J’accuse conspirateurs!   Thus, in one fell swoop, Mr. Strauss-Kahn was downgraded from Grand Séducteur to Grand Défenderesse. The IMF, in haste, replaced him with his deputy, John Lipsky, now acting managing director. Strauss-Kahn subsequently resigned, setting off what is considered a crisis at IMF.

Also, in France, a political crisis ensued.  Strauss-Kahn was heretofore considered the Socialist party’s front runner in their race to depose President Sarkozy in next year’s election. Some believe there is a conspiracy still flying beneath the radar, perhaps initiated by rivals of the IMF, or the Sarkozy camp, or his rivals in the Socialist party, or even the New York police and judicial system. Perhaps al-Qu’ida will take responsibility.

J’accuse les puritains américains!  Gilles Savary, a Member of the European Parliament representing Île-de-France, blames the Puritans, and makes some other observations:

“Indeed, everyone knows that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a libertine, and that he is distinguished from others by the fact that he doesn’t try and hide it. In France, until further notice, the public wisely confines this kind of life to the realm of privacy when it does not involve indecent assault, nor [deny] the free consent of adults. Catholic heritage without doubt tolerates sin as long as we do regularly contrition.

In Puritan America, steeped in rigorous Protestantism, gambling is tolerated infinitely better than the pleasures of the flesh. So, there, it is easy to trap a personality with as little resistance to the attractions of the fairer sex than Dominique Strauss-Kahn. For it would be hallucinatory that he [having endured a number of sex scandals, leaving him dubbed “the Great Seducer”] would rush after a maid.

Of course, as head of the IMF and a  possible center-left Socialist party 2012 presidential candidate, Strauss-Kahn, has many competitors who benefit from his latest – and most serious – pratfall. Conspiracy theorists rise to arms on all sides, within Sarkozy supporters, to IMF rivals, to rivals in his own Socialist party.”

J’accuse tout le monde! The International Business Times reports: “If Strauss-Kahn was indeed set up, the list of beneficiaries is large, including Sarkozy (who would have removed a huge obstacle to his own re-election) as well as other French Socialist politicians seeking to become the party’s presidential candidate. Rivals and enemies within the IMF would also benefit by seeing the haughty Strauss-Kahn embarrassed and deposed.”

And let’s not forget the Housewives of New Jersey.