BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Desexing politics

66 comments on Desexing politics

Desexing politics

: I long for the day — in this universe or the next — when sex is not an issue in politics, when your sex life is your personal life and your personal life is personal and we judge you in office the way we should: on the quality of your work.

If sex were not an issue, then Jim McGreevey could not be blackmailed over being gay. He could not be blackmailed over having an affair. He could be blackmailed for using state money to give a job to a lover but that’s quite another matter.

If sex were not an issue, then Jim McGreevey could not hide his real sin against the people behind the gay-rights banner. As David Weinberger said this morning:

You know what sucks about James McGreevey resigning as governor? Him blaming it on being a gay adulterer. Since when do adulterers have to resign? Since when do gay men who come out of the closet have to resign? No, obviously he’s resigning because there’s some real dirt that’s going to come to light, rumored to be about sexual harrassment. Resigning because he’s gay would be like Madeline Albright resigning because she discovered that she’s a Jew. Sheesh! (Note: I am aware that the analogy is not perfect.)

Sex should not be an issue in politics but it is on the straight side because we as a nation are still a bit puritanical and we’re certainly gossips, and it is on the gay side because we have not reached the water level we need to on civil rights. And it’s not as if one can editorialize or legislate such opinions away: If you don’t want to like or vote for someone because they have affairs or are gay or get BJs from interns or take their wives to sex clubs, that’s your privilege.

But let’s get this straight and stop acting shocked: Politicians are the most human of humans. They are full of foibles. No news there. They have libidos and they use them. So what? They have affairs. I don’t care. Lots of them are gay and we don’t know it. That’s their business.

McGreevey, it’s being alleged, did something terribly wrong and violated the public trust. That I care about. McGreevey was also a bad governor and messed up on taxation and the police and security and development and more. That’s what matters.

66 responses to “Desexing politics”

  1. Richard Cook Avatar
    Richard Cook

    I have always had a problem with the argument that you can section your various roles into pie shaped slices. Does character count at all? If the man was willing to cheat on his spouse, arguably one of the most sacred pledges you can make this particular trait will carry over into his political life. Of course pols have to break deals, etc because of changing circumstances, but, this is cheating on your spouse thing bothers me. No its not that he is gay its the fact (should it be proven) that he did this while still married. And the best response is not “no one is perfect”, thats a given but does he recognize the nature of the promise he made to his wife, the vows?

  2. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    McGreevey, it’s being alleged, did something terribly wrong and violated the public trust. That I care about. McGreevey was also a bad governor and messed up on taxation and the police and security and development and more. That’s what matters.
    So why the post about desexing politics? It’s not an issue in this case, only McGreevey is making it an issue. Why are you even addressing McGreevey’s chioce of lifestyle? You’re making sex the issue by your statements about blackmail when really the only statement you should be making it this last one mentioned above. This post would have been more appropriate during the Jim Ryan fiasco. This resignation has absolutely nothing to do with McGreevey being gay!

  3. O' Avatar
    O’

    I’m tellin’ ya, Jeff…DO NOT STOP AT STARBUCKS! Ixs-nay on the Venti. You’ll be asking for trouble. You are hopped up enough already!

  4. Sydney Carton Avatar
    Sydney Carton

    Mike is right, Jeff. This post is all over the map. The mistkes involving sex led to bigger mistakes. They’re both connected. Kinda like Clinton’s lies about sex soon enough found him lying under oath. No one cares about one’s private sex life until it cases acts of public misfeasence. Lying under oath, or appointing your boy-toy as a paid yet unqualified homeland security adviser, are acts of public misfeasence that demand impeachment or resignation.
    And what’s this bunk about being puritanical? Excuse me? We’re post-Madonna here. This is the age of Britney Spears, Rosie O’Donnell, and a 10 billion dollar internet porn industry. If you think Americans are puritanical, think again.
    The fact is, no one gives a crap about McGreevey being gay. They DO care that he let his passions get to his head and hired his lover as a homeland security director on the public payroll, jumping through all sorts of hoops to get him there. Would you want that sort of man as governor, charged with protecting the people of NJ post 9/11?
    The media, of course, will spin this as a gay-victim angle. But the truth will out, once again.

  5. Eric Deamer Avatar
    Eric Deamer

    Sydney Carton:
    I agree with you on most things including the sentiment in your post, but “Rosie O’Donnell”? Whaaa? She puts a lot of people right off thinking about sex so she’s probably a chastening influence. Please explain what you mean if you have time. Or not. Whatever.

  6. Edward Avatar
    Edward

    The media, of course, will spin this as a gay-victim angle. But the truth will out, once again.
    Oddly enough, I would have hoped McG could withstand any inquiries into his dodgy dealings had he not come out (i.e., if he hadn’t played the victim card). We have plenty of pols with scandals and while clearly they need to be rooted out, there’s no shortage of things pols do to be upset about.
    But by playing the victim card, I now just want him out of there. Watching his body language during the announcement, I noticed what seemed sincere relief at being able to FINALLY declare who he was (like a huge weight was lifted off his shoulders), but it was a totally self-indulgent thing to do given the context.
    At best he was no where near sensitive enough about how his wife must have been feeling. At worst it was a calculated attempt to make the coming criticisms look like they’re motivated by homophobia.
    Sleazy, any way you slice it.

  7. Scott Avatar
    Scott

    In Germany, openly gay politicians are becoming something of a trend (DW Online: Out is In Among German Politicians). None of the recent examples involved family or charges of infidelity. Two came out on their own, the third was threatened with blackmail by one of his own cabinet members.
    Not that this proves that German politics is any better or worse than American politics. Just different.

  8. Former CNN Watcher Avatar
    Former CNN Watcher

    A better analogy would be if Bill Clinton had made Monica Lewinsky his National Security Advisor.

  9. Dar Avatar
    Dar

    Jeff–How can you think this is just about sex? He deceived his family, and that’s a major character flaw!
    If he deceives those closest to himself for his own personal, sexual gratification, are the public supposed to be stupid and gullible enough to believe he’d treat them any better? If he’ll lie to and cheat on his loved ones and risk his entire political future just to get his jollies, are we supposed to believe he’s somehow above taking bribes or other substantial, personal gain for political favors, office appointments, pardoning prisoners, etc., and abusing the power of the office of governor?
    To think this is only about sex is incredibly naive–it’s about trust, honor, and integrity. The people of New Jersey deserve better as governor!

  10. Sydney Carton Avatar
    Sydney Carton

    Eric,
    I brought up Rosie’s name because she’s a public personality who’s openly gay, and it hasn’t affected her career at all. I don’t think that people are going around being puritanical about her. But I could be wrong. In any event, it’s not like she’s forced to quit her career because of it.

  11. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    It is not about sex. Politicians are using defense lawyer -victimology to parse the public impressions. The media spread it cause it’s a bigger story when its in parts.
    Character, Honesty, Integrity are the true victims here. A whole lifetime of words and deeds have been revealed hollow. The person who claimed to be pursuing a common good was revealed to be seeking personal advantage.
    We have politicians come before us, asking for our vote, claiming to be Trustworthy based upon years of X, plus years of Y, plus a “Trust Me”. When the years of X and Y are proven to be lies the “Trust Me” evaporates.
    Whether it is Clinton or Kerry or McGeevey, when the “Trust Me” is gone so should they. If they lied about their past how can you trust them with your future?

  12. Edward Avatar
    Edward

    Whether it is Clinton or Kerry or McGeevey, when the “Trust Me” is gone so should they. If they lied about their past how can you trust them with your future?
    Come on, surely you can expand that list to include Rowland or Ryan or Bush…

  13. Stephen Silver Avatar
    Stephen Silver

    I brought up Rosie’s name because she’s a public personality who’s openly gay, and it hasn’t affected her career at all.
    She used to have a talk show and a magazine, and now she has neither; one reason they pulled the plug on her magazine was that her being openly gay turned off lots of her readers. So yes, I would say it has affected her career.

  14. Peter Avatar
    Peter

    Ever notice that when a Republican gets caught up in a sex scandle it’s always just a sex scandle? when a Donk gets caught up in a sex scandle it’s always something involving the taxpayer’s money somehow? Clinton and his White House staff and State Troopers, McGreedy and his $110K a year national security advisor that can’t get a security clearance?
    I really don’t care who a politician diddles, just leave my money out of it. Is that too much to ask? It is for a Donk, I guess.

  15. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    Everyone knew Rosie was gay for years. Her “coming out” might have surprised 2 people in DeMoines. What turned people off is that she is a total freaking hateful BITCH!
    But I must side with the opinion that this McGreevey thing is not about sex, it’s about corruption and deceipt.
    He’s using the gay thing to deflect attention from the real scandals, and it seems to be working. People are actually treating him with sympathy, instead of contempt.

  16. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    Um, Peter? Surely you know by now the Troopergate thing was an elaborate hoax? And that just last week, the final hold-out admitted to being paid to spread the stories, and is now under indictment for lying to the FBI, among other things?
    Surely you know that was just another right-wing financed story?
    Oh well, maybe Rush didn’t spend too much time on his show recanting yet another bullshit story he lived on for months.

  17. James Avatar
    James

    If he cared anything about his marriage (as strange as that may sound) he could easily be blackmailed about having an affair. Maybe he was, and maybe he was pressured into illegal activities as a result. If so, I’m sure that will all come out…no pun intended.

  18. shark Avatar
    shark

    Lets cut through all the crap here. I’ll summarize it nicely:
    1) He’s gay. Who gives a crap- except for his wide and children, whom I feel very sorry for right now
    2) Sexual mistakes do matter. It all goes to judgement and character. I agree, the gay aspect made it harder for him to risk exposure, but once again, his sexual mistake did him in.
    3) Now lets LEAVE THE SEX OUT OF IT. McGreevy did several bad things, including (possible) harassment and appointing an unqualified non-citizen to an important homeland security post (while the smoke was rising from 9/11 rubble) And you expect to tell me Dems. can ever do better on the war on terrorism issue?
    4) McGreevy declared that he could not effectively serve as Gov- and then said he’ll stay until Nov. 15th! Wow, real concern for NJ there, a powerless, useless man staying in office for the next few months. I wonder why….oh yes, he’s putting party loyalty over the interests of the people. Typical Democrat move.
    5) Thanks to this clown and the sure to intensify bruhaha- and having him in office as a constant reminder to voters- Bush will now win NJ. Before NJ was in play, as Bush was within the margin of error in polls. Now he’ll take it. Thanks Jim!

  19. lucinda Avatar
    lucinda

    We expect our public figures to act with decorum whether they are a dean at the local college, a pastor at the church, a high school football coach or a community leader. Tawdry affairs, the perception of a wounded spouse, lend themselves to controversy, public scrutiny and diminish both the individual and the position they hold.
    I

  20. J. Rice Avatar
    J. Rice

    Besides the “I am gay; I am a victim.” defense aspect, there’s the fact that McGreevy effectively discredits Golan Cipel by implying that he is being blackmailed by the former lover.
    Now, why would McGreevy want to discredit Golan Cipel unless Cipel is working with the Feds and potentially damaging testimony is imminent?
    Golan Cipel – the non-American $110K Homeland Security advisor to McGreevy – was also employed by Charles Kushner. Kusher was the main backer of McGreevy. Kusher, under investigation by the Feds into his fundraising practices for Democrats, was indicted in July for witness tampering for hiring a prostitute to compromise two government witnesses. Early on, in the McGreevy administration, Kushner was appointed to the Port Authority for New Jersey and New York – the agency that oversees New York and New Jersey’s airports, seaports, bridges, tunnels, and mass transit, and the World Trade Center.
    When McGreevy wanted Kushner to head the Authority, the nomination was withdrawn when business problems came to light. Kushner resigned from the board.
    This isn’t a gay issue story. It’s a story of massive corruption in New Jersey with some major implications.
    Do a Google on Charles Kushner or Golan Cipel or George Norcross or Roger Chugh or Ronald Manzo or Gary Taffet or Zulima Farber or Elizabeth Wong.
    That’s just a start

  21. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    Yeah shark, only Democrats have scandals.
    Only Democrats appoint unqualified people to office (see Ashcroft, Ridge, and now Goss).
    To snarkily ask if the Democrats will do a good job in the “war on terror” is to imply that the Republicans ARE. That’s an unqualified “no”…
    Putting party interests over those of the people?!?!?! That’s the entire f-ing Republican election strategy! The couldn’t care less about ANYONE who isn’t giving them money or signing “loyalty oaths” at speeches. “Vote for us or we’ll screw you” is the GOP slogan.
    Myopic right-wing hypocrite and moron.

  22. Sydney Carton Avatar
    Sydney Carton

    Angelos,
    The fact remains: if he’s unqualified for the job, he should resign now. God knows what could happen in 3 months time. What if there’s another terror attack, and in NJ? McGreevey, already showing zero judgment or leadership by picking his lover as homeland security director, would be governor if an attack happened.
    Quite frankly, his staying in office is dangerous to the safety of everyone in NJ. I saw a news report stating that on August 4th, Ridge invited him to a terror briefing regarding the Prudential Building. McGreevey declined to attend, and instead went to a reading conference for teachers. !!!!!!!!! (ironic, since the Dems complain that Bush continued to read after the 1st plane hit the WTC) I’ll find the link to the article and post it.
    Forget the fricking politics. The man is too unqualified to lead in this age of terror. He should resign NOW.

  23. Sterling Avatar
    Sterling

    Look, everybody who keeps bringing up the wife: She knew. She knew all along. She was part of the deception. I have no idea what her real feelings are for him, or him for her – it could be that they have a fulfilling, genuine love for each other. But his homosexuality and his breathtaking ambition were always a part of their marriage, and the reason for it. She had a role to play, and she played it to the hilt.
    He was married to get elected. He had children to get elected. And she was in on it, so forget about her as a “victim”. The victims here are the taxpayers.

  24. Lynn Avatar
    Lynn

    My heart goes out to Mrs. McGreevey. As I watched the coverage the second time around on a news show, I focused on her face…it was frozen.
    It amazed me that even at the second he publicly stated he was gay, there was no movement, not the faintest change of expression.
    Many years ago, I was the confidante of a friend whose husband left her for a man. I listened to her private pain, heretofore, I had never given any thought that there may be a difference in the “damages”…differences in the thoughts and feelings of women whose husbands betrayed them with a man as opposed to another woman.
    Enduring betrayal by a loved one in such a public manner is a heavy one, gay or not gay.
    To have been used as “his beard for his political career”, then to stand there under the circumstances she did was a double whammy.

  25. Sydney Carton Avatar
    Sydney Carton

    Here’s the google cache of the article:
    http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:1AeoxN1C30kJ:www.courierpostonline.com/news/southjersey/m080404d.htm+%22McGreevey+skips+meeting+with+Ridge%22&hl=en
    Instead of meeting the Homeland Security Director, McGreevey has lunch with casino executives and attends a literary conference. This is damning.
    McGreevey Skips Meeting With Ridge:
    Wednesday, August 4, 2004
    By LILO H. STAINTON
    Gannett State Bureau
    TRENTON
    A day after terrorist threats led to tighter security around financial institutions, including Prudential’s headquarters in Newark, New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey skipped a meeting with the national homeland security chief to attend a literacy conference in Atlantic City.
    “The governor asked Prudential employees to go on with their normal lives, so he can’t really not do the same,” explained McGreevey’s spokesman, Micah Rasmussen. “If they can show up for work, he can too.”
    Rasmussen said McGreevey has been in touch with Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge daily since word of the new threat was made public Sunday. McGreevey is also briefed regularly by the FBI’s lead agent in New Jersey, Joseph Billy Jr., and doesn’t need to attend a Manhattan “press conference” with New York officials to stay informed, Rasmussen added.
    A news conference was preceded by a meeting Ridge held with New York Gov. George Pataki and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as well as financial leaders at Manhattan’s Citigroup Center, one of the institutions said to be targeted by the al-Qaida terrorists.
    Ridge told reporters that although the intelligence dates back several years, operatives were examining certain buildings as recently as January and the potential for attack is real.
    Even though he did not meet with federal officials Tuesday, McGreevey sent a letter seeking additional security funding. The governor asked President Bush to recognize the danger faced by the Garden State – sandwiched between two metropolitan regions, with major ports and transit links – and to restore millions in federal aid that he has cut from New Jersey programs.
    “New Jersey is uniquely vulnerable and federal dollars allocated so far simply aren’t proportionate with the risks the state confronts,” McGreevey wrote in a letter dated Tuesday. [my note: like hiring your unqualified gay lover wasn’t a risk?!?!]
    That work included McGreevey’s keynote address to the second annual literary conference, which gathered more than 500 educators in Atlantic City to emphasize the governor’s commitment to reading.
    McGreevey also kicked off a Jersey Shore marketing effort on the boardwalk, met with gambling regulators and joined Sen. William L. Gormley, R-Margate, for lunch meetings with casino executives.
    “His job is to lead the state of New Jersey,” Rasmussen said, adding that the governor checked with Ridge’s office before missing Tuesday’s meeting.
    Katy Mynster, a Homeland Security spokeswoman, said McGreevey was invited to attend the briefing but chose not to.

  26. Lynn Avatar
    Lynn

    Sterling,
    Hmmm, ironic we were posting totally different viewpoints on Mrs. McGreevey’s role at the identical time.
    Granted, it’s possible she did know. More like a Bill and Hillary team then?

  27. shark Avatar
    shark

    Angelos-
    Thank you for ignoring every single one of my points and just spewing your usual.
    Your very actions give me confirmation of what I say.
    Thanks!

  28. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    Enough of the “Age of Terror” nonsense.
    Fine, he’s not qualified. His replacement won’t be qualified. The Republican who many people think would win a special election on 11/2 wouldn’t be qualified.
    No one can affect the safety of anyone else. Of course, the GOP doesn’t spin it that way. Do you really think Ridge, his color chart, our unintelligence agencies, or least of all GWB are really doing anything? They’ll tell you they’re keeping you safe and attack free, but when the next attack happenes, thay’ll spin it as a reason to re-elect them, because they’re tough on terror.
    Look, McGreevey is obviously ethically challenged. If he is impeachable by 11/2, fine, get him out and hold an election. If not, he’s doing the right thing, holding on to the office to pass it on to his lieutenant. Tell me a GOP guy wouldn’t do the same thing.

  29. shark Avatar
    shark

    Hey, far as I am concerned, McGreevy should stay! Every day NJ voters see that Democrat in the Gov mansion, every day they see their gov in the papers, it works in Bush’s favor.
    Keep it up Jimmy!

  30. shark Avatar
    shark

    Fine, he’s not qualified. His replacement won’t be qualified. The Republican who many people think would win a special election on 11/2 wouldn’t be qualified
    Yeah, but I bet the Republican would appoint a homeland security advisor who was a citizen, and was therefore eligible to see claffified info from the Dept of Homeland Security.
    By the way Angelos- who WOULD be qualified, since you’re the great judge of who isn’t?
    No one can affect the safety of anyone else
    Ironic, coming from you. I’ve seen you shout “Bush Knew!” about 9/11 often enough.
    Tell me a GOP guy wouldn’t do the same thing.
    Tell you what. When a GOP guy DOES that, then feel free to call him on it. Until then, thinking a GOP would do the same doesn’t give McGreevy a free pass…..

  31. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    I thought I answered your 3 and 4 with my opinions, shark, but I’ll be more specific, so you can follow:
    1) we agree
    2) we agree
    3) Yes, he’s bad. Yes, he’s corrupt. What that has to do with terrorism? Nothing. You’ve bought into the the GOP talking point of turning everything back to “terror”, because the party has nothing of value to say and no accomplishments to lean on.
    Or:
    [Like] only Democrats appoint unqualified people to office (see Ashcroft, Ridge, and now Goss).
    To snarkily ask if the Democrats will do a good job in the “war on terror” is to imply that the Republicans ARE. That’s an unqualified “no”…
    4) Like I said:
    Putting party interests over those of the people?!?!?! That’s the entire f-ing Republican election strategy! They couldn’t care less about ANYONE who isn’t giving them money or signing “loyalty oaths” at speeches.
    Of course he’s holding on to office until after the elections. Please, try to claim that a GOP guy would be “honorable” and step down. Please, I need a laugh.
    5) Who knows?
    Better?

  32. Sydney Carton Avatar
    Sydney Carton

    Angelos, your partianship is affecting your grip on reality. Unless you’re suggesting that elected officials in power are helpless in protecting citizens, their actions do make a difference. You can mock the terror warnings, the entire intelligence community, Congressional intelligence committees, the 9/11 Commission, and anyone else who has an idea about protecting us. But “no one can affect the safety of anyone else”?!
    If you’re trying to confirm my thought that democrats don’t take the war on terror seriously, you’re succeeding marvelously.
    The reason he should step down right now is because if a terror attack were to happen, like the destruction of the Prudential building (full disclosure: I have friends working in there right now, and I work across from the Citigroup building in NYC), McGreevey has shown he is incapable of handling that. A new governor is needed.
    Note: NJ has no position of Lieutenant Governor. The Governorship of NJ is among the strongest executive positions of all states, in comparison of their constitutional arrangements. The President of the Senate succeeds to the position of governor in the event of a vaccancy, but STILL REMAINS as a legislator (he has 2 roles, and can actually propose bills in the Senate and then sign them as governor).

  33. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    Politicians aren’t qualified for anything. That’s why they get into politics. Please, just because a guy can run a campaign, he knows about security and terrorism?
    I never said “Bush knew” or anything like it. I did criticize their mishandling of reports like “bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US”. You know, subtle hints like that. I did criticize them for lying, obfuscation, and ineptitude, characteristics they maintain even today.
    I never gave McGreevey a free pass. But don’t be na

  34. shark Avatar
    shark

    I did criticize their mishandling of reports like “bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US”. You know, subtle hints like that.
    But if “No one can affect the safety of anyone else” then what were you complaining about?

  35. Sydney Carton Avatar
    Sydney Carton

    The point is, when you’re getting specific warnings about buildings being targets in your state, and when you have a radical islamist population in a major population center, and when you’ve shown zero competence on matters of security, it should NOT be politics as usual.
    But I guess for the Democrats, terrorism IS politics as usual. Sad.

  36. Sydney Carton Avatar
    Sydney Carton

    shark,
    Angelos thinks that “no one can affect the safety of anyone else” but that terrorism policy is just “politics as usual.” If you think about it from a merely political standpoint, and are unconcerned about REAL FRIGGIN’ THREATS, then of course, Angelos’ logic adds up. Terror is just politics as usual, to him.
    And I am convinced now that democrats are a national security problem and should never be entrusted with protecting citizens. Them, and their liberal supporters like Angelos, are manifestly unserious about the reality of terrorism. It’s amazing how deluded they are.

  37. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    Sydney, I’m am as far from partisan as it gets. I hate all politicans equally.
    If you’re trying to confirm my thought that democrats don’t take the war on terror seriously, you’re succeeding marvelously.
    If you’re trying to show us all how unserious you are, this is a marvelous statement. You’ve really tasted the kool-aid, haven’t you?
    I don’t know what “Democrats” do, but I take al Qaeda quite seriously. I cannot, however, take Bush, Ridge, Rumsfeld, not to mention this potential Goss bullshit, seriously. They have accomplished nothing, and brag about it.
    But here’s my point again, in different words: it doesn’t matter who is in office come next January, Bush or Kerry. We will be hit again. And again.
    They can listen to all the chatter they want. We will all be caught by surprise one morning, whether it’s October 2004, or October 2005. Regardless of the election results.
    So yes, I’m suggesting that elected officials in power are helpless in protecting citizens against undefined, unseen enemies.

  38. Sterling Avatar
    Sterling

    Lynn – I know his wife was involved because she covered for him when he broke his leg. She wasn’t with him in Cape May when it happened, but she rushed down to be his cover that the accident had happened on the beach, while they were together. I have heard this story from State Troopers as well as from a friend from Cape May whose brother-in-law was present for part of it.
    I would also argue that the timing of her pregnancy in 2001 was deeply suspicious – and intended primarily so that if the GOP tried an October surprise, McGreevey could stand up on the podium and deny his homosexuality, with his extremely pregnant wife at his side, turned at 3/4 angle to the cameras to exaggerate her tummy.
    Further, there was too much at stake for McGreevey to have a wife who wasn’t in on it. He couldn’t afford to keep her in ignorance of his homosexuality, only to figure it out at an inconvenient moment and leave him. She had to be a partner in the deception. He had (and probably still has) grand ambitions. He made a mistake with Golan, but the fact that she stood at his side smiling is proof that he did not make a mistake with Dina.
    If you think he didn’t spend weeks and weeks thinking all of this through prior to courting a second wife, then you don’t know the man. He is amazingly ambitious. Everything else comes in second.

  39. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    Here’s what’s funny, Shark and Sydney – you so easily accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being “partisan” or “liberal”. Open your minds, turn Fox off every now and then.
    But even funnier? Consider these scenarios:
    1) Terror attack in October 2004. Instead of being viewed as a failure in intelligence, Bush will spin it as further reason to elect him, because he’s tough on terror. I will laugh heartily.
    2) Terror attack in February 2005, Bush in office. No, that’s not a failure of intelligence, but aren’t you glad we’re in office, because we’re tough on terror? I will laugh heartily.
    3) Terror attack in February 2005, Kerry in office. The GOP will somehow blame it on the Democrats’ failures. And Rush, shark, and Sydney will nod in agreement. Ditto.

  40. shark Avatar
    shark

    But here’s my point again, in different words: it doesn’t matter who is in office come next January, Bush or Kerry. We will be hit again. And again.
    They can listen to all the chatter they want. We will all be caught by surprise one morning, whether it’s October 2004, or October 2005. Regardless of the election results.

    So yes, I’m suggesting that elected officials in power are helpless in protecting citizens against undefined, unseen enemies
    Are you just funning us? You can’t possibly be this dense. Do you understand the premise of the war on terrorism? Or are you claiming we cannot win, and should therefore adopt sharia law in an attempt to appease our soon to be islamo-overlords?
    Geeze…

  41. Sydney Carton Avatar
    Sydney Carton

    Angelos,
    I’m not saying that Bush or the Republicans will prevent all terror attacks, but when Kerry says that the war on terror is a law-enforcement problem, that seriously troubles me. I think it’s a good chance that Bush’s terror policies (homeland security as well as our offensive in the middle east) lessens the chance of a terror attack again, but nothing is guaranteed. I do think that Bush will respond better to a terror attack than Kerry or other democrats would, because he treats it seriously. Finally, Kerry’s legislative record of pacifism, appeasement, and antipathy towards the military all suggest he wouldn’t have the character to boldly notch up the war on terror if necessary, let alone keep things going steady.
    And would you REALLY laugh heartily after terror attacks? If so, you’re more derranged than I thought, and would treat it as mere politics as usual. The left has really gone off the deep end….

  42. shark Avatar
    shark

    Angelos- just a sad display really. You’re trying to have it both ways- you want to sit there and say that there’s nothing an elected official can do about terror, so if we DON’T get hit, you say “we’ll get hit down the road” and if we DO get hit it’s “haha, I told you so”
    Can’t have it like that pal. Sorry

  43. Barry D Avatar
    Barry D

    What’s politics got to do with it? Any married person (or unmarried person in a committed relationship) is vulnerable to being blackmailed about having an affair (assuming they are having one). That’s as old as the hills. The person doesn’t want the spouse to know about it, that’s what makes a secret affair. Politicians are just more “public” people. In fact anyone who has a big secret of any sort is vulnerable to blackmail. Do you think politicians should be held to lower social standards than the rest of us?

  44. la depressionada Avatar
    la depressionada

    I agree that this move was carefully planned, and I would argue, MG’s wife not only knew, but could have been one of the architects of this plan. She was politically active before they married, and they, politically astute New Jersey couple that they were, were married, after all, in Washington.
    MG has pruned his image before, and I think it would be wise to view this revelation as a Herculean attempt to prune his image. Just deconstruct the speech for a second. He didn’t start off with I’ve made a terrible mistake. His first allusion is “I am a gay American.” In that sentence right off, he is positioning himself now as a gay American political leader. I mean if he had not been in the middle of a shitstorm, those words ARE downright heroic.
    Harvard Law School has a negotiation project. A central thesis in learning about negotiation is that a person needs to have a “BATNA” — a best alternative to a negotiated agreement. This move is MG’s BATNA, and since, clearly, he couldn’t negotiate with whomever presented the threat to his privacy, he went with it.

  45. trump Avatar
    trump

    Angelos, your comments are fascinating. Please answer concisely:
    1) When 9/11 happened, what was your reaction?
    2) Do you support the operations in Afghanistan?
    3) Do you support any operations against terrorists?
    4) Do you support the theory of “draining the middle eastern swamp” as a long term way to fight terrorism?
    5) You said that nobody could have an effect on someone’s safety. Do you admit that is untrue, when appeasement can certainly bolster safety from terrorism in the short run? If so, do you favor appeasment of the terrorists?
    6) Do you view the WOT as unwinnable? If so, what is your alternate course of action?
    7) Given your disdain for politicians etc- are you a voter? Who have you voted for/donated to?
    Thank you

  46. onecent Avatar
    onecent

    No one can affect the safety of anyone else.
    Hey, Angelos, how about really looking hard at the stuff you spew like that sentence. Look hard at it. Think about it. And then, instead of your usual subterfuge, defend that statement. I dare you.

  47. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    Do you understand the premise of the war on terrorism?
    Do you shark? Do you know what that means? Or is that just a talking point to you?
    But since you ask, yes, I am claiming we cannot “win” as traditionally understood. Terrorist acts against Americans have been going on for decades, under presidents of both denominations, under many “intelligence” agency directors. I lived in Europe for 10 years, I almost lost a friend in a TWA bombing, I’ve seen the shit firsthand.
    Has it stopped? Will it stop? Do you actually think anything these Neocon wingnuts have done/can do will keep us safer or prevent future attacks?
    Do you think that when Bush trots bin Laden’s head out on a stick 4 days before the election (I know, I know, but that’s my favorite conpiracy theory so far), that we will have won anything? Don’t be an idiot.
    You’re trying to have it both ways- you want to sit there and say that there’s nothing an elected official can do about terror, so if we DON’T get hit, you say “we’ll get hit down the road” and if we DO get hit it’s “haha, I told you so”
    No, it’s the Bush administration that wants it both ways. Just because a bomb didn’t go off today, does that mean Tom Ridge saved us? Or does that mean there was no attack planned today? The Bush administration will tell you it’s their success in the war on terror. But when the bomb does go off, they’ll say that no amount of intelligence could have predicted exact times, locations, etc. But hey, we had it at orange, so we told you so. Now vote for us, because we’re tough on terror.
    And Sydney, I was saying I would laugh at the politicians, not at the attacks/victims. C’mon…

  48. shark Avatar
    shark

    So Angelos- while I slowly shake my head in abject amazement over your denseness- please tell us what we should do regarding terror? Stock up on gas masks and pray?
    No one can affect the safety of anyone else
    Why are we bothering with anything then? Angelos, what type of govt. do you advocate? I’m guessing some sort of Anarcho-socialist mess.

  49. shark Avatar
    shark

    Just because a bomb didn’t go off today, does that mean Tom Ridge saved us? Or does that mean there was no attack planned today?
    Maybe it means that we arrested the potential bomber because Pakistan cracked down on AQ and captured an AQ computer geektard who provided us with a trove of information that led us to someone planning an attack, THUS SAVING LIVES, and yes, directly effecting someone’s safety….

  50. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    1) Shock, amazement, anger
    2) As executed, the Afghanistan operations are a disaster.
    3) “Any operations against terrorists”… Like what? Rounding up hundred of people and holding them without cuase or due process? Ass-raping little boys in Iraq? Our administration’s MO so far doesn’t have much to support. Actual intelligence-gathering, infiltration, etc. would work, but then we give up moles to the media. Man what a disaster this administration is.
    4) Impossible. Theories are nice, but it’s apparent that the NeoCons have no idea of how the world works.
    5) You said it yourself, “short run”. So my point still stands, and is 100% valid. Ridge’s campaigning for Bush notwithstanding, if someone wants to attack, they will. It doesn’t matter who is president. I would feel a little better though, if we had credible, and independent, intelligence agencies. But as long as Bush is in charge, and all dissent is squashed, we will have completely ineffective domestic and international security. I favor the slaughter of terrorists.
    6) Yes, there is no victory against a diverse target. We could turn the Middle East into a radioactive desert, and still, there would be terrorism. The only course of action is bolstering our intelligence agancies, have them run by capable and apolitical people, and having a president with a clue. Right now, we’re 0-for-3.
    7) I vote local. I vote for people I can call, whose office I can visit. Donate? Are you kidding? These assholes waste thousands of my dollars every year. I’m going to give them more? Donate… That’s funny.

  51. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    So shark, you’re 100% guaranteeing me there will never be an attack?
    Maybe it means that we arrested the potential bomber because Pakistan cracked down on AQ and captured an AQ computer geektard who provided us with a trove of information that led us to someone planning an attack, THUS SAVING LIVES, and yes, directly effecting someone’s safety….
    a) If you have faith in Pakistan as an ally, you really DO have na

  52. shark Avatar
    shark

    ) These attacks are distributed amonst many cells. If you arrest 5 people, that leaves 30 more to plan and find replacements if necessary. You haven’t stopped anything
    ……..except those 5 people. Who give us more information to go after others. Who’s capture may disrupt the plans of the larger cell. Who at the very least won’t be killing anyone. Isn’t that worthy? Or are you saying that if we can’t stop every single one of them, we may as well not bother stopping any of them??

  53. shark Avatar
    shark

    Enough. Angelos- you’re in charge (god forbid)
    What do you do?
    Lets hear it

  54. Jeff Licquia Avatar
    Jeff Licquia

    They can listen to all the chatter they want. We will all be caught by surprise one morning, whether it’s October 2004, or October 2005. Regardless of the election results.
    We may. But if we aren’t, it will be because we have executed an effective strategy against the people who do things like this to us.
    You say that such a strategy doesn’t exist. You’re wrong. I can give you one that would be very effective: nuke Mecca, the source of their fanaticism. If it becomes impossible to follow the Koran, it will lose much of its power (to be misinterpreted or taken literally, depending on your view of Islam as a peaceful religion).
    Now, I happen to think that other strategies exist as well, and I fervently hope that I am right. Certainly, given the alternative, it seems foolish not to try.
    Which brings us to the election. At the very least, Kerry has a different strategy than Bush for dealing with this. Both may be hopeless, but what if one is not? Do you consider it folly to try?
    If you do, I hope you don’t own any property in Mecca.

  55. Sydney Carton Avatar
    Sydney Carton

    Angelos,
    First, as blogged by many others, Pakistan gave up Khan’s name to the NYT, who reported it first and noted that at the time they reported it the Administration would neither confirm nor deny anything about him. So thank the NYT for exposing his operations.
    Second, it sounds as if you’re a defeatist. You say you favor the “slaughter” of terrorists, but then get your panties in a twist when we try arresting 5 of them, saying that there will be 30 more. Either you’re not clear, or you’re letting your deluded defeatism infect your logic. Why favor the “slaughter” of terrorists but not their arrest? Also, why slaughter them at all if there is “no victory against a diverse target”, even if we turn the middle east into a parking lot?
    You seem to favor a permenant defensive position, through the bolstering of intelligence agencies under a supposedly better leader. But your suggestion that there is “no victory” leads to your conclusion that attacks will be inevitible, in 2004, 2005, 2006, etc… whether Kerry is president.
    The reason why attacks will be inevitible under your view is because of your permenant defensive posture. By checking yourself against arrest, and apparrently killing terrorists, you have nothing more to offer than defensive measures that will never be 100% successful. Why are you so reluctant to admit that some strategies might work against terrorists? Is it because your 10 years of Europe sapped the American culture of aggressive can-do attitude from you, and imposed their weak-willed wimpy attitudes (especially in relation to armed conflicts) on you? Who knows?
    But your defeatism will get you nowhere here. Americans want to WIN. That’s why ultimately I think Bush will win the election. Kerry seems to adopt your defeatist notions as well, (saying he’d only RESPOND to an attack and not deal with one as the threat emerges), and once Americans realize this, the election is a winner for Bush.
    BTW – if you were really serious about your 100% defensive posture and a credible intelligence effort, you’d see why McGreevey was totally unserious about terrorism security and how damaging his lover’s appointment to NJ homeland security director was. But you’re ignoring it, suggesiting that above all, politics is everything to you in the war on terror. Again, sad.

  56. Lynn Avatar
    Lynn

    Sterling….thanks for the info…quite interesting! I don’t feel quite as upset over her situation now.

  57. JamesJayTrouble Avatar
    JamesJayTrouble

    So, if I understand this correctly, “If you think he didn’t spend weeks and weeks thinking all of this through prior to courting a second wife, then you don’t know the man. He is amazingly ambitious. Everything else comes in second.”…
    ?
    Well, I don’t know about this “prior to courting a second wife” part, but the rest I’ve seen around in The Press and blogs, in little bits and pieces here and there. I’ve seen this from Stirling on other sites, but also in The Press, to be more precise.
    The bigger issue, to me, is where The Press uses the phrase “‘rumors’ had been circulating…” Sounds like “rumors” is basically synonomous to cover-up, but maybe I’m hearing that incorrectly.
    Nobody threw the blog at him previously, from what I’ve heard of all-a this, thus far. That’s for sure! And REAL hard to know who to trust, anymore, and character is largely the driver behind the wheel (and behind wheels falling off, frequently of late).

  58. JamesJayTrouble Avatar
    JamesJayTrouble

    Was it this thread or another, somebody asked (VERY approx) “When is some pol gonna announce marital infidelity and/or a three-some openly?”, and I’m wondering if that didn’t just happen yesterday…??
    However, of this I’ve seen nothing mentioned in the Libertarian/Mainstream Press/”blogs/diaries”, afaik, in precisely those words. Little bits ‘hear and there’.
    I hear JPB is planning some “disconcerting music” to “discombobulate” the Republican Convention, (and trying to do it surreptitiously (sp?) ?!? on his blog of all places???) but I think there’s enuf-a that going around both parties, frankly, imnsho.

  59. HA Avatar
    HA

    If you need any further evidence of the moral and intellectual corruption of the Democrats, look no further than the McGreevey scandal.
    When Clinton lied and committed perjury about getting blow jobs from Monica Lewinsky and sexually assaulting Paula Jones and others, they said the lies didn’t matter because they were just about sex. Never mind that they discarded 30 years of the feminist agenda about sexual harassment to protect their man.
    Moving along, it now turns out that John Kerry has been lying about his military record for 35 years. And furthermore, he has used his fabricated stories as justification for his votes to gut our national security and intelligence and oppose Reagan’s Cold War policies. The implied position of the Democrats is that lies about war, peace and national security don’t matter.
    Now McGreevey comes along and has his homosexual affair. Then, in an atttempt to buy the silence of his boy toy, McGreevey puts his lover who is NOT an American citizen on the government payroll in a homeland security position for which he is not qualified. The unstated position of the Democrats is that lies about nepotism, cronyism, fraud and homeland security don’t matter.
    It has now reached the point that I have this question for the Democrats – do lies matter to you at all any more? Do concepts like honor and truth and integrity mean anything to you any more? Or is your moral and intellectual corruption now complete?

  60. JamesJayTrouble Avatar
    JamesJayTrouble

    Allow me to answer, as a possibly-former-Democrat:
    No. No. And No… Same answer for Republicans, btw. And it’s NOT a case of “anymore”, they never did for either Party all that much, afaikt. (As fer as I ken tell…;-)
    “Never mind that they discarded 30 years of the feminist agenda about sexual harassment to protect their man.”
    This happened long before Clinton, back in the 70’s I gather from an article I saw linked to by Many2Many… When “the feminist agenda” got organized and decided the agenda was that 2 females is the same as a man and a woman.. in fact.. an ‘obvious fact’to some.. better than a man and a woman by self-definition.
    :
    It happened when “academics” and “scientists” decided they’d use their, in actual fact, false teachings and voodoo-science to make political points, starting in the field of computer, I believe.
    Stallman, for example, just plain lied when he said “the author is a programmer”, because the author was an academic who only wanted academics to be ALLOWED to program computers.
    He said let it be so, and ESR said okay-fine…
    And so it is, basically, today.
    Too bad, (disclaimer, especially since I’m a programmer fighting for my job these days,) the jobs are going to India and elsewhere and wonder if Stallman and Raymond have bothered to think through some of their consequences, even yet?

  61. JamesJayTrouble Avatar
    JamesJayTrouble

    Btw, my only question about all this is whether McGreevey timed the news to deflect the negative-impact from himself or to deflect the negative-impact from the ‘bad news’ from California Supreme Court…?!?
    Haven’t seen much-a anything on the latter, is why I wonder.

  62. JamesJayTrouble Avatar
    JamesJayTrouble

    Crap, I meant “no, no, and PLAINLY AND OBVIOUSLY YES“, hopefully obviously.
    Sheesh on me. I would sure LIKE to think it just took longer for the Democrats to “catch up”, but given the bias… ?

  63. Joe Baby Avatar
    Joe Baby

    L’Machine McGreevey has been so shameless in positioning him as a victim while trying to preserve the seat for Dems (and now blaming Republicans for being “partisan”), I don’t believe a word they say.
    At first, I suspected boyfriend probably was doing some blackmailing…but I wouldn’t put it past the guv’s people to claim that in order to trash the guy before he makes an appearance.
    This entire thing stinks.

  64. dave Hume Avatar
    dave Hume

    With the news out that in fact James McGreevey is, by his own admission, a homosexual; the Mossad honey trap has become somewhat unglued. Golan Cipel, the object of the Mr. McGreevy

  65. Joe Baby Avatar
    Joe Baby

    If Mossad was so intent on penetrating American intelligence (which they would certainly do above the state Homeland Security level), they would have been smarter to use an American citizen who could have actually gotten a security clearance.
    Also, you figure Mossad’s man in Newark would have actually shown up to work once in awhile.

  66. Monty Avatar
    Monty

    This is probably just a genetic holdover from my Puritan ancestors, but I can’t help thinking that sex is a factor in politics, inasmuch as it reflects on the character of the person running for office. If a politician will lie to his wife and children, that’s a reflection on his or her personal code of honor. Someone who will lie to his wife will certainly feel no compunction about lying to the electorate.
    Character matters. It’s not about sex per se, but it is about how you act and what you say. It’s a question of being able to trust someone.