This article in the San Francisco Chronicle about why political wives allow themselves to be put through the humiliating “stand by your man” routine, wherein you literally stand by your man while he admits (or issues a semi-admission/semi-denial) to fucking a mistress, another man, or a prostitute to the press, is pretty interesting. Of course, to hear Dr. Laura speak it, the women being put through this humiliation at the behest of their beloveds (or at least sources of prestige and income) are being let off easy. They probably should be the ones apologizing, since they the reason men cheat, and if they were more submissive, this wouldn’t happen. But I suppose standing silently with pain written all over your face while your husband tells the press about his extra-marital dalliances is the first step on the long road to proper wifely submission.
All joking aside, it’s more painful when it’s a Democrat, isn’t it? Republican wives are a little easier to understand, aren’t they? Being a political wife is their career, and so standing by your man is basically just shoving through a major issue at your job, with the hopes that things will continue as normal soon. But the Democratic men are another story altogether—the high power, professional wife with a life of her own has become the standard. As the Chronicle states, Silda Wall Spitzer fits into this mold, with her history of being a handsomely paid Wall Street attorney. Same story with Hillary Clinton clutching Bill’s hand in 1992 to wave away his infidelities. These are women you can imagine just packing their things and walking straight into a brand new life without him.
I will say that one thing does go unmentioned in this story, a glaring omission that points to some of the issues here.
Silda Spitzer was following roughly the same script used by the spouse of Louisiana Sen. David Vitter after his name was found on a madam’s list last year; by the wife of Idaho Sen. Larry Craig after he was arrested for disorderly conduct for allegedly trying to pick up an undercover police officer in an airport bathroom last year; and by the wife of New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey who stood by when he announced he had a gay lover who also was a state employee.
And, perhaps most famously, Silda Spitzer followed the model used in 1992 by Hillary Clinton in a joint “60 Minutes” interview with her husband, Bill, then a presidential candidate. Responding to allegations that Bill Clinton had had an extramarital affair, Hillary Clinton created a media template for spousal behavior in times of scandal.
Spot the omission? Yeah, in 1998, when Clinton got on TV and addressed an apology to the nation for screwing around with Monica Lewinsky, he did not get his wife to stand there looking sorrowful. There’s a few key differences in that case. For one, the wife in this case was informed long before the press conference, and so she had time to think things over. I think, in a lot of these cases, the wife is in a bit of shock and could be more malleable to other people’s wills.
But more importantly, there’s no doubt in my mind that the Clintons were sculpting the strategy to get Hillary Clinton into a Senate seat and possibly into the White House at that point. So it was useful to quit playing her up as the submissive wife, and start putting her out there as a strong person, not the sort who stands around looking sad. But that initial standing by her man worked out really well for her, didn’t it? I’m not trying to be cynical—I think they have a love match, truly—but the realization that you’re going to have some professional benefit if he does well in his political ambitions has got to get many a political wife through the hard times. And this is true whether your job is to be the Mrs., of course, but it’s also true if you’ve got a career of your own that benefits if your reputation as being one half of a power couple precedes you.
The other part of this is that no matter whether you’re the high-powered political wife of the housewife political wife, you’re someone who accepted that your marriage is one long set of compromises a long time ago. You’ve accepted that you have to work for him for free on campaigns, you have to play nice to the cameras regardless of your mood, and you have to accept that he’s gone a lot doing all sorts of crazy things. You may even accept that this involves sex with other people. Habits are hard to break, and high stress times are not the time to start breaking them, as we all know. And when a sex scandal hits, all that training at doing what you’re told by advising staff and rolling with the punches probably kicks in.
Is it a smart move to drag the wife up on stage for a press conference after a sex scandal? I think for Republicans, it probably is. They probably have a solid majority of voters who are patriarchal enough to find that comforting. I think, for Democrats, though, it has the potential of a huge backlash. From the article:
“They have put these women through so much already - it just seems to be a second level of humiliation,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “It is supposed to make him look like not such a bad guy. Like, ‘Geez, look, his wife was standing next to him.’ But in this case, she looked so pained that, to me, he looked less sympathetic.”
The appearance of Spitzer’s wife standing next to him in this “outmoded tradition” should raise the ire of wives everywhere - both political and nonpolitical, said Penn State communications professor Nichola D. Gutgold.
“I saw that, and I wanted to yell to her, ‘You don’t have to do this! Go shopping! Go for a walk. Do anything else,’ ” said Gutgold, author of “Paving the Way for Madam President.”
“I keep waiting for one of these women to tell their husband, ‘You go make that speech yourself.’ Why should they - it was their husband’s wrongdoing? Why should they be internationally humiliated?”
Exactly. Liberals, at minimum, are likely to see it as an unnecessary humiliation. I’m not suggesting that the cheated-upon wives should leave their husbands—that’s their business—but the political calculation of having the wife standing there for the press conference has huge backfire potential and needs to be abandoned.
124 Responses to “Cut out the stand by your man routine”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
“I’m not suggesting that the cheated-upon wives should leave their husbands—that’s their business—but the political calculation of having the wife standing there for the press conference has huge backfire potential and needs to be abandoned.”
Interesting post. I agree. As a feminist, I find it sickening that these women “stand by their man,” and have to endure this public humiliation for something they didn’t even fucking do! It’s ridiculous. I suppose their are various and sundry reasons why they stay, and I’m thinking the children have a lot of do with it. But staying in a bad marriage is one thing - standing next to a a morally suspect man on a gigantic political stage while they confess their sins, is quite another.
When Hillary Clinton did this several years ago, I thought, like the post suggests, that her political ambitions took precedence over her personal ones. Also, and this is something I don’t hear too many people talk about, is the rumor that HRC is gay, and probably has her own secretive, sexual/romantic dalliances on the side. This too supports the theory that she stayed next to Bill because of the political arrangement of their marriage, and never really cared who he was fooling around with - Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky.
I don’t know much about Silda Spitzer, but did question why she would take that stage with him this week. And I’m dumbfounded to know that she is a professional woman with her own career and skills. If the roles were reversed you can bet that the Bill Clintons and Eliot Spencers would not be on that stage with their cheating wives. Public acknowledgment of being a cuckold would not sit well with most men, I’m afraid.
I agree with you. The spouse’s decision to appear on the podium I can choose to read generously, as an act of kindness to, or support of, someone she loves. The politician’s decision to subject her to that humiliation I have a much harder time defending.
I think the whole dynamic of having wifey beside you is the implicit message, “She forgives me, why shouldn’t you?”
But let’s face it, wife beside you or not, there’s no way to ‘fess up to something like this and not look like a schumck.
That said, isn’t it interesting that Spitzer is said to be about to resign, while Vitter and Craig are still in the Senate?
Personally, I wish one of these humilated wives would just take it one further and let the bastard have it in public. Slap him across the face but good and walk out - forever.
Seeing her standing up there beside him just broke my heart because she looked so, so miserable, and her eyes were so dead. I just wanted to tell her, you don’t have to do this! It’s obviously killing you, just don’t. Let him clean up his own mess.
I am just waiting for the press conference where the shell-shocked wife suddenly has an epiphany, glares at her husband, and walks off the fucking stage.
“Hi, honey. What? Get dressed for an unexpected press conference? Wear something demure?
Okay, motherfucker, WHAT DID YOU DO?
(ie, I’d deck the prick and WALK. Will never EVER understand why there is any other response but that…)
BTW, they’re evacuating the Capitol; a small plane has violated airspace.
roses, she’s in her 40s and a mother of 3 daughters. She’s plenty old enough to know how to do what you suggested.
For the life of me, I cannot imagine why she didn’t immediately take those 3 teens and go hide for 6 months, while letting her attorneys deal with him and his mess. There’s plenty of money in the bank to pay for tutors, new home, etc. while she started over.
I’ve been curious to see if you addressed this, and you didn’t disappoint.
I was also struck when reading the Chronicle piece that no one pointed out the huge difference between Hillary having a sitdown next to Bill so far after the fact, and these shell-shocked women having learned themselves about the indiscretion only hours or a couple days before standing there looking like a lost puppy. Why do they do it? Your suggestions make a lot of sense, but then I agree the people driving these standards need to reevaluate. This does NOT work for the Democratic wives. I was crushed by Silda’s appearance. Make Spitzer look more sympathetic, more human? Ha! When I saw the clip and his wife was standing there looking destroyed, it made him a monster to me. A monster. I’ve been a big and hopeful fan of Spitzers for a long time, so I was pretty disappointed when this news broke (not about the cheating/prostitue angle–whatever, his penis is his and his wife’s busines; but at all the potential lost, the stupidity and arrogance); but disappointment turned to horror and disgust when I saw he dragged her up there. Now I think he’s a big pig. And yes, because he took it to a whole other level by subjecting Silda to that spectacle for his own personal needs and (maybe) political gain. Asshole.
Difference between Hillary and Silda…
Hillary was facing her hubby having consensual sex. Silda’s spouse is facing possible disbarrment and/or felony charges. All the more reason for her to take her children and herself FAR away from his situation.
Being environmentally friendly, I’ll just recycle a comment I made at Feministe: “When he gets a tough question, does he pull the wedding ring off of her finger, activating her like a grenade, and tossing her at members of the press while he dives behind a row of sandbags?”
My current theory is that, during the last press conference, she as a Nexus-6 android was powering down for good.
Indeed. See Dina Matos McGreevey’s op-ed in today’s NY Times:
Sorry, I think you’re getting the vapors over something that is SOP for someone who is married to a politician. Just because we haven’t seen the press conference with hubby standing by the politician wife who is having to apologize for same scandal, doesn’t mean it isn’t expected of him as well.
Is it pathetic? Yeah. But to make it out as an exercise of masculine power over the wife is a bit of a stretch, really.
And not relevant at all, but if Spitzer did in fact spend upwards of $80K on hookers over a period of time, I do hope you are not going to tell me that Mrs. Spitzer is a smart Wall Street lawyer and in control of her own life, but that she had no idea of what was going on.
Oh, bullshit. “Fog”? WTF??
I can understand shock, but you’ve got an hour to consider your options and yet you STILL stand beside the cheating fuck? AN HOUR??? I’d had clocked him within 15 seconds- fist straight to the jaw and put the asshole in the dirt. Then turn on my heel and WALK. For about 3 days.
Sorry, Dina- you’re as full of shit as the rest of ‘em.
Update: Spitzer has resigned
Also, regarding Silda, she WAS a high-powered lawyer who DID out-earn him, but she gave that up to be the political wife, support his career, take care of their kids & home etc. She’s not in as good a position to “just leave” as she may have been some years ago.
Oh, great. And there she is again, at the resignation presser. Looking the fool now, a few days later, and she is starting to lose my sympathy.
Am I horrible for thinking I’d like to see the tables turned for once–a powerful woman who’s just been busted for a sex scandal with her husband by her side during the press conference? I imagine the story would unfold just a little differently, and that the questions hurled his way might be a bit, ahem, indelicate.
What if she just really loves him? He’s done a lot of good things in addition to the terrible things he’s done. Maybe she’s doing what needs doing for now, then deciding later, because that’s what he needs — and we do things for the people we love, even after they’ve hurt us.
And calliopejane, that is all true, but I don’t know that anyone was suggesting she could leave and continue her exact high-on-the-hog lifestyle; it’s not really about the specifics. I think the point is just that it’s not like she’s some unemployed housewife with no job skills, no resources whatsoever, living in the middle of nowhere with no options. Ms Spitzer COULD walk away and probably survive quite handily on her own, or certainly until the divorce settlement comes through.
Sorry, I think you’re getting the vapors
Good catch. You noticed I’m a woman. I am also hysterical.
I agree that there is no reason for the spouse to be onstage with the politician.
With regards the recurring “I’d deck him” “move out” etc responses, though, it really does presume that the spouse has no clue, or by definition is outraged to the point of ending the marriage over whatever the situation was.
In a lot of power marriages, political or not, I think that isn’t a valid assumption as a default. It also presumes that whatever the vice is, it is one-sided. That may well be true, especially when the politician is gay, but I don’t think it’s a given.
What sucks is giving your spouse, whatever their feelings, an hour to decide on THEIR public face on the scandal. And the public demanding that level of show.
If she had stayed off the stage, you know that the response wouldn’t be “finally, someone is letting the spouse deal with this sort of thing privately.” It would be absolutely about how she didn’t support him at all and was home packing her bags that minute.
Personally, I always pretty much assumed that Hillary’s take on Bill’s scandal was something along the line of “You dumb fuck, you had to know you’d get caught sooner or later, and this is the best you can do?”
I think this is a 100% no-win situation for the spouse.
Yes, agreed, she definitely does have resources and would likely do well on her own. But I’m just saying I can understand her reluctance, after giving up everything for the “career” of political wife, to just walk away. We want to believe our decisions were good ones, so she must be experiencing some serious cognitive dissonance right now, having done that for someone who then went and f***ed it all up so bad.
She might just need some time to figure out where she wants to go from here, and may leave him yet.
I really take exception to the idea that Dina Matos McGreevey is “full of shit,” that we should be passing judgment on Silda Wall Spitzer’s conduct (Tisse) or that these women should be judged in any way for the degree to which they do or don’t “stand by their man.”
These women are the VICTIMS, people. And I strongly strongly believe that VICTIMS have a moral right to choose the course that best suits THEIR interests whatever those interests may be — emotional, familial, financial etc. That can mean walking out on the cheating asshole, it can mean standing by your man, or it can mean some middle course. But they don’t need to justify themselves to anyone as to how they handle the situation.
Of course, we can criticize the “stand by your man” expectation and narrative. There’s a difference between that and tearing apart innocent women who are living it.
Just once, I would love to see the wife take the mike and say, “Hey–he cheated on me, not you. How the hell is this any of your business? My husband and I will deal with this problem in private and resolve it between ourselves. The rest of you can STFU and go tend to your own relationships, mkay?”
Then she could just take him by the hand and escort him out, deck him and walk away, or drag him off the stage by his hair–whatever she feels is appropriate.
As someone who is a (soon to be ex-)spouse of a cheater, with children, and who still loved her, I have to say that I was avoided a lot of humiliation when she left me. Otherwise, I might have done a lot to put up with her.
If she had asked me to come along to apologize to others, I might have. Knowing all I know now I might or might not, but at the time I most probably would have.
As for political spouses in general: they’re no more important and just as superficial as everyone else who stands by a politician on a daily basis. I wouldn’t want my spouse to have to listen to me give the same speech over and over again, nor would I want a backdrop of school choirs, police union employees, Red Cross volunteers, my family, my children, cute puppies, or American flags. Why can’t politicians just fucking admit that it really is about them?
Can we just accept that alpha males fuck a lot?
Amanda@20: Well, you’re not as funny as all that. And I did notice a lot of Vicks Vap-O-rub lying about the place, and I don’t think they were for the cats.
Another thing: I don’t think we should be promoting the idea that physical violence is an appropriate response to infidelity. I have heard of far too many women who have been physically threatened, injured, or killed because their husbands felt that violence was an appropriate way to respond to a wife’s extramarital affair.
It’s lovely to fantasize about a situation wherein the wife refuses to join him onstage, or kicks his ass off stage, but busybodies will wag their fingers at the scorned wife no matter what the fuck she does.
The public wouldn’t be cheering for her; they’d heap derision upon her for being unforgiving and unsupportive. Bleeeeech.
And it’s easy to say, “This is what I’d do!!” but I view that sort of claim the same way I view claims of “I’d NEVER have an abortion!” You don’t know how you’ll react to a shitty situation until you’re actually in it.
Punditus Maximus made the point I was looking for - maybe she just loves him. That wouldn’t excuse his asking her to stand with him at the press conference, if he did, but we don’t know that detail yet either.
I love my wife and I’d like to think I’d stand by her in a similar situation, instead of stoking my inner resentment. Who knows - perhaps I’m not a good enough person for that… but maybe Ms. Spitzer is.
It’s not getting “the vapors” to feel anger toward the man - and the system - that require a supportive political wife in the face of betrayal. But it’s not clear cut what these two very human people are experiencing and what is going into the decisions they’re making from moment to moment as they deal with a personal crisis far greater - to them - than mere politics.
But being angry with her? I think she has enough on her plate right now without the judgment of others raining down on her.
And I’ll go a bit further than Amanda and say that ALL these pol wifes know about their husband’s sex lives and ok with it. So let’s all drop this ridiculous act, fake outrage, forgiveness, etc. What a waste of time, blah.
@20.
As am I. But I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here. Aren’t there really better things we could be talking about, instead of the panty-sniffing of reading stuff into their relationship which we just don’t know? You keep telling us that she’s a smart and accomplished woman, and then go about second-guessing her decisions and telling us all what she should think and do, when you don’t know what the particulars of their relationship are? Please.
I need to fully endorse this statement by Margaret:
As a man who has chosen in the past to stay with a partner after an affair, I have to say that I never felt driven to lift a hand in response, and if I had felt so driven, and had done so, it would have been monstrous and unacceptable as any other kind of abuse. Infidelity may lead to the dissolution of a relationship, but relationships do not grant the right not to be physically attacked by your partner — that’s a basic human right that can never be revoked.
Excuse me, Margaret, how did I judge her? Like others, I am merely wondering why a woman would do this. And yes, as time passes and she continues the confounding choice to stand there, I am starting to lose my sympathy for her. That is “passing judgment”? ugh.
(And really… “victims”? Talk about destroying women’s power: automatically labeling women as helpless–assuming they have no control or played no part but the hapless victim in their marriages. I really take exception to THAT.)
calliopejane: just had the same thought when reading the NY Times profile on her right now… the need to ride it to the end once you’ve sacrificed so much already. Good point.
Margaret,
It came to mind in my situation. And it would have been both highly appropriate and highly wrong. On occasion, I rethink my decision and really want to have hit her. But that’s just between me and myself. I, on the other hand, am better than that.
Revenge is great for catharthis, but not a great way of life. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from others while working at a prison, it’s that self-control is the biggest helper or hindrance to a happier life.
So Amanda, do you think it is impossible for a woman to be critical of any of your opinions? You were awfully quick to jump to conculsions that were not warranted by anything I actually wrote.
As a woman whose face has that same frowny look when I’m concentrating- that is not a deer in the headlights look. If you watch her eyes, she is making sure that he sticks to the script and only the script. He is consciously not looking at her but his whole stance indicates that he is painfully aware of her presence. Spitzer is due for some serious hard times even if she does stand by him. The woman with the shocked look is Paterson’s wife at the swearing in.
“Can we just accept that alpha males fuck a lot? ”
And that’s the excuse for breaking multiple laws, destroying credibility, humilating a family and harrassing sex workers, huh?
goodness, that’s a low opinion of men you have.
***
“You were awfully quick to jump to conculsions that were not warranted by anything I actually wrote”
Nice try, but “the vapors” is a well known sexist slur.
As a woman whose face has that same frowny look when I’m concentrating- that is not a deer in the headlights look. If you watch her eyes, she is making sure that he sticks to the script and only the script. He is consciously not looking at her but his whole stance indicates that he is painfully aware of her presence. Spitzer is due for some serious hard times even if she does stand by him. The woman with the shocked look is Paterson’s wife at the swearing in.
(if this double posts, sorry)
Maybe she’d just had it at that point, and given that he was a lame duck in 1998, her assistance wasn’t required (because who could imagine he’d be impeached over it?). I know she’s reputed to be unprecedentedly calculating and ambitious among presidential candidates (because no one seeking the White House has *ever* been calculating or ambitious), but c’mon.
In any event, it’s not like it helped her that much, either. The fact that she stayed with him has been used against her, as would her leaving him had that been the result. Those are the rules in a patriarchy: no matter what you do, you’re to blame, and your failed marriage is your fault and will be used as evidence of your low character.
Tisse,
OK, then, I take exception to the idea of “losing sympathy” for Ms. Spitzer based on her failure to live up to the way you think she should react. Whether you call that “passing judgment” or not is beside the point. The point is that there is no “right” or “wrong” way to handle a situation in which someone near and dear to you has wronged you — as long as your response does not break the law.
And really… “victims”? Talk about destroying women’s power: automatically labeling women as helpless–assuming they have no control or played no part but the hapless victim in their marriages. I really take exception to THAT.
Calling someone a victim is not the same thing as labeling her as “helpless.” If someone steals from me, I am a victim. If someone breaks a vow to me, I am a victim. If someone hits me (except in self-defense), I am a victim. That doesn’t mean I am helpless or powerless or stupid. It just means that someone has wronged me in some way.
I strongly believe that VICTIMS should take power and control — including the right to decide for themselves how to react to their victimization (within the bounds of the law).
Jon,
I fully sympathize with wanting to hit someone who has hurt you. I have felt the same way myself. I think it’s normal to feel that way. The important thing is that you did not act on it. As soon as we accept that it’s appropriate to hit someone in response to wrongdoing, then we are all vulnerable to physical abuse (perhaps women more than men, but even the strongest men get old, sick or disabled).
I am sorry for what you went through.
Excuse me, Margaret, how did I judge her?
Uh, the same way you did just two sentences after this: by declaring that “she” is “losing” your sympathy. Of course that’s passing judgment - you’ve just stated that you’re judging her for standing next to him, even as more time has passed.
I think Margaret @ 23 and 28 and SarahMC at 29 basically summed up the way I feel about it.
And for everyone presuming that she knew - you have no way of knowing whether she knew. Neither do I. None of us know what was going on in her head or in their marriage, and it doesn’t serve us well to act like we do.
It did happen to Billie Jean King at the height of her tennis career, when she was sued by her female hairdresser for palimony. King’s husband, and parents, appeared with her at the press conference and she admitted to having the lesbian affair. The press was less aggressive then, but the Kings handled it about as well as it could be handled. A documentary on King is out (I saw it earlier this week on HBO) which showed part of the presser.
Gawd, I never said, or implied, there is a right or wrong way. And considering that I don’t even know how I think she should react, I think it’s pretty freakin amazing you think you know, that you’ve deduced it from the vague commentary I’ve made on this.
But ok, I get it, I am not allowed to have an opinion or to feel out my own feelings regarding Ms Spitzer? Because that is all I was doing - and doing, by the way, without declaring what she SHOULD do. I was not one of the people saying she should leave. (though I wouldn’t criticize them for having a reaction, either, regardless of if it’s the same reaction as mine or not.) I don’t even have my own feelings about what she should do… I just don’t get standing there for the public spectacle. Sorry, but I don’t. And, as Amanda was addressing, if it’s for the political theater aspect, it ain’t working, so why do it? And my “losing sympathy” was from the original perspective of being confused as to why a woman would choose this publically humiliating path but understanding in the early moments after a scandel is revealed they might be in a bit of a haze, but choosing to do it days later at the very least starts to take the edge off that explanation.
And on the victim front you are STILL making assumptions… assumptions that happen to be placing these wronged wives in question in a weaker position in their marriage. How do you know they are victims? To assume and correlate it with being robbed or someone hitting you is ridiculous! Who knows what went on inside those marriages. Maybe these wives made informed decisions regarding their husbands fidelity. Or whatever. The point is that to ASSUME they are in any way victims of these men is pretty offensive in my book.
jon@25 - that’s a shitty row to hoe. I’ve had a somewhat similar experience, and suffice to say louise@14 is waaaay off. The “fog” lasted weeks, it comes and goes, and it’s not obvious when it’s present - kind of a catch-22 situation: if you’re clear headed enough to realize you’re in a fog, you’re too clear headed to be in a fog, and vice versa.
and P.S. I was not saying she’s losing my sympathy are a human being for chrissake! Just in regards to the subject of this post: standing by her man for the politics and why do wives do that.
It’s one thing immediately after to be caught up in the moment and devestation and having political handlers and the like shuffle you on stage - which Amanda was speculating might be the case; but when you’ve had time to collect yourself and then on your own decide to stand there, I’m sorry but then my sympathy for people maybe bullying you into a role you’d rather not take, starts to wane. That’s all. Jesus.
Margaret,
Thank you. And no, I don’t think I or anyone should get a pat on the back for not doing what seems a natural reaction, but self-control really is difficult. And that’s not an excuse for lashing out or for acting numb. I was left and felt numb. Then things were explained and I forgave my wife before I even got angry. I was numb. Then I wanted to take back the forgiveness so I could indulge in anger. Then I wanted to be understanding again. And then I was numb. Then I was angry again. Now I’m just numb about the whole thing. And that’s been the past year and a half.
There’s no right way or wrong way to go through all that. I think judging her is indulging in negativity that should be redirected at the shit who did the wrong thing. She’ll get the help she needs as she needs it. Hopefully he’ll get the hell he deserves whether he needs it or not.
He was going to prostitutes and NOT USING CONDOMS. Even if she was o.k. with infidelity, I find it hard to believe that she was o.k. with that, or knew about that.
And to assume that they were complicit is pretty offensive in my book.
Punditus Maximus made the point I was looking for - maybe she just loves him.
It’s even sadder to think that these men exploit their wives’ genuine love for political gain, instead of giving them a small break.
Maybe that’s true, kate, but when this line of conversation started it was about these political wives in general, not just this one instance of infidelity.
And besides, were you in the hotel room? Sure, it looks like he was asking for bareback, but have we not learned that often times the more salacious details of these dramas prove to be made up or exaggerated?
@ 32: Bored now. You didn’t even bother to read the post, did you? It’s actual analysis of a genuine political strategy, not me hitting the fainting couch and saying, “Oh bless my weak, vaporish girl heart!” But go ahead and feel superior, even on thin evidence. We got to get our self esteem from somewhere.
Of course to assume they were complicit would be offensive, kate. Who is doing that?
There was also another big difference between the Clinton scandal situations in 1992 and 1998. In the first, Bill was adamant that the claim was a lie, and Hillary said she believed him (whether it was a lie, and whether she actually believed him are both certainly up for debate). If that’s their stance — that none of the accusations of cheating are true — why wouldn’t she “stand by her man”? In 1998, by contrast, there was no denying the DNA evidence, no way to publicly denounce the accusations, and as I understand, no spousal talking for a few months between the two of them. I don’t know, maybe I’ve got my facts wrong, but for me, there’s a big difference between publicly saying you believe in your spouse’s innocence and standing by them knowing that they cheated on you and took advantage of power-sex politics.
I know she’s reputed to be unprecedentedly calculating and ambitious among presidential candidates (because no one seeking the White House has *ever* been calculating or ambitious), but c’mon.
Considering that she started her run in less than two years, I don’t actually think that’s an extraordinary amount of time to think it over. I’d be honestly shocked if she didn’t put some time and thought into running for Senate. I don’t think it’s cold and calculating to know a couple years ahead of time where you’re planning to take your career. It’s common sense. I realized she gets dinged for having common sense, but that would be true no matter what she did. So, no, I think assuming that Clinton behaves like an ordinary, unremarkable, middle-of-the-road politician in her planning is not sexist. It would be weird to think she rolled out of bed one morning and ran for Senate on a lark.
I’ve had men do unforgiveable things to me in relationships and it always takes me a little while to adjust to the new reality and dump their asses. I think the initial shock can last quite a while. Right now she may be thinking, “Partner, man I love, father of my children” without having yet acknowledged that he’s also a dishonest man who endangered her life and threatened the future of her family.
Tisse, Your overall attitude seems to be that either these women knew damn well what was going on, or they were weak.
How is being betrayed by someone who you ought to have been able to trust being weak? I find this really offensive.
You comments seem very judgemental to me. I am not the only one who is having that reaction. Perhaps you should chose your words more carefully.
“@ 32: Bored now.”
REALLY bored now.
Two days running of “Sex wants to be free, man!” vs. “But there are real women involved!” vs. “But it’s just like getting a hamburger!” vs. “She’s a cold, calculating bitch!” vs. “Why is everybody SO mean to me?”, etc., etc., etc…
…but maybe I’m the only one…
Really kate, that’s my attitude… based on what that I’ve said, exactly? Cuz I just reread all my comments and I fail to see even a hint of that, let alone such a sure sense of attitude. I don’t see how my initial comments were judgmental at all. My later comments were judgmental, yes, I suppose, but more of the other comments being directed at me!
My comments have a judgmental tone? Really, because I see a huge difference when it comes to judgmental tone between “these women are VICTIMS” and my suggestion that “Maybe these wives made informed decisions regarding their husbands fidelity.” See that “maybe.” I’m just wondering out loud, NOT making an assumption either way.
And the “weaker” comment really only addressed that one simple aspect: that to assume they had no say in the rules or their marriage assumed they were weaker. If I need to spell it out, no, I did not mean or say that I think they are weak because they got cheated on. Duh.
It’s even sadder to think that these men exploit their wives’ genuine love for political gain, instead of giving them a small break.
I don’t think it’s for political gain — Spitzer’s political career is pretty much over. He’s a punchline now. I believe that it is possible that he wanted some support, even from a person he hurt very much, while he got in front of the nation and confessed his humiliations.
I also think that everything else is going on, too. I just . . . the inside of a marriage is a very private place. I don’t like to assume I know what’s going on in there.
Amanda:
As someone who has been married longer than you’ve been alive, let me suggest that ALL happy marriages are a set of compromises.
I am interested in what these scandals tell us about the power relationships between men and women, but otherwise could not care less about the sex lives of politicians. Spitzer was one of the few politicians who stood up for the little guy (at least on Wall Street) and the rich are cheering today.
David Vitter is a United States congressman, and champion of family values. Where are the calls for his resignation?
It has become clear that shaping the outrage through a compliant and lazy press corps is a major tool for Republicans to manipulate the American people. There should have been an immediate pushback on this, with, at the least, the name Vitter uttered every time the name Spitzer was uttered.
Spitzer was mainly a champion of transparency and fairness on Wall Street.
Vitter was a champion of family values.
Who is the hypocrite here?
Yes, they should absolutely stand up there alone without dragging their wives into it. Whether she leaves him or not is her business, but let the poor woman grieve in private at least.
louise: “I can understand shock, but you’ve got an hour to consider your options and yet you STILL stand beside the cheating fuck? AN HOUR???”
Wow, I can smell the sisterhood clear from the West Coast.
calliopejane: “She’s not in as good a position to “just leave” as she may have been some years ago.”
Cry me a fucking river: my sympathy is everything it should be for a high-end lawyer.
second-guessing her decisions and telling us all what she should think and do, when you don’t know what the particulars of their relationship are?
That’s a key point. Nobody ever knows anything about anybody else’s marriage. Hell, a lot of people don’t really know shit about their own marriages. So all this “she should do X, Y and Z” stuff rests on the assumption that the public image of any marriage is an accurate representation of what happens in private.
@38. I have to say, I agree kinda with that idea. But for me it’s not a defense of that sort of mindset, just an additional condemnation of it. But there are women out there (and men, vice versa) who that is what they are attracted to. And I’m guessing that a good portion of those people (especially when their alpha partners are opening doors for them), probably couldn’t care less about the actual fidelity in and of itself.
As much as I find it distasteful, to each their own I guess.
The thing I don’t understand about this strategy is that the Beleaguered Wife at these press conferences always looks so miserable. I see the words “looking like she’s about to kill him” or something like used in descriptions of these photos frequently. Which makes me wonder, why bother? The point is clearly to project stability and normalcy, “look, even the wife’s still standing there”, but all it does is amplify whatever sense in which things seem wrong and disastrous about the entire scenario. In other words, this doesn’t even work as PR.
Even if Ms. Spitzer does legitimately support her husband through all this, it really doesn’t come across that way in any of these photos. Why drag her up on stage if all that doing so is going to do is make everything even more uncomfortable than it already is?
I don’t judge the wives for doing it. But I sure as Hell judge the husbands for asking them.
Just a little naive: why don’t any reporters ask the spouse some questions? If they’re there on the effing podium, they’ve obviously taken some kind of position.
I just feel a kind of visceral fear when I see those “stand by your man” moments, cause what I feel I am looking at is a frog who just realized holy crap! this water I’ve been hanging out in has slowly risen to boiling! And then I think, uh-oh, I’m a frog too! Wonder what temperature my water is?
By which I mean, you’re always making compromises in a patriarchy, some of them moderately okay and some of them not okay and I think the political wife walks on stage with her dirtbag husband on those occasions because just gradually, over the years, responding to increasingly abnormal requests has been her life until “press conference about your involvement with an escort service? I should wear my blue suit with the pearls?” is initially met with: “um, okay, what time?”
And only later with, WTF???!!!???!!!
SarahMC @ 29
Spot on. No matter what a wife in this situation does, someone will always ready to declare her wrong.
I also hear that Hillary Clinton called McGreavy’s (Governor I am a Lying Fucker American) wife the night after their press conference and advised her that what she needed to do first was get her own advisors. Like, the pol is surrounded by strategists and the wife has NO ONE looking out for her. It made me (an Obama supporter) suddenly like HRC a lot more. First, what sensible advice. Second, how kind to call and give it. Third, I kind of think her major political ambitions began once she did exactly that –got her own strategists, changed her boiling water — not sooner.
Sorry, eric- what? Just because we’re both women I’m supposed to be in some sort of sisterhood and support her? That is ridiculous…
I just expressed my opinion. Man cheats on me- I’m outta there and never looking back. Others wouldn’t and don’t share that view; that’s certainly their choice to make.
Thank you, I was about to point that out as well. A lot of the responses were sounding so similar to the blame the victim responses you get when talking about domestic violence and why she didn’t just leave.
paul, I think it would be cruel to ask the wife a question. Just as no matter what she does, she will be criticized, no matter what she says, she’ll be criticized. Even if the intent is to embarass her husband for dragging her out there, it puts her in an even worse position.
David Vitter is a United States congressman, and champion of family values. Where are the calls for his resignation?
Sean Hannity called for Vitter’s resignation on Fox News. Follow the link below to the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQu0–L-o7o
“Sean Hannity called for Vitter’s resignation on Fox News.”
…okay. So where were the voices of the OTHER 7,541 wingnut-welfare-receiving Reichwing mouthpieces?
I thought so.
So one guy gets the talking points wrong. That don’t mean there isn’t a stark contrast between the standard the Democrat is held to, and the way the Republican just gets away with it…
I’ve seen a lot of comments along the lines of, “Oh, but what if they had an UNDERSTANDING? You can’t just assume!”
In our current society, the wronged wife is pressured to stand silently by her man at his press conference. These comments suggest to me that in a more “sex-positive” but no less sexist society, the pressure would be for her to give her own press conference where she tells everyone that she’s totally cool with him having unprotected sex with younger women and we just need to stop being so puritanical. Probably not an improvement.
Yeah, it’s not like they’re human or anything. Judging people by their perceived income and their occupation is the right and proper way of things. Your Republican Party membership card will be in the mail shortly, Eric.
And re #74, word. You hear the EXACT same shit. Why doesn’t she just leave, a woman in her position could pack up overnight, if a man hit ME you can be I’d be gone in a minute and not standing there with him…..
MikeEss - There were others, I am not going to find all of them for you. And for heaven’s sake, get a grip.
One of the things to bear in mind is that, when someone in a marriage decides to run for office, and especially if both partners have their own careers, this is almost invariably a joint decision and both parties have a lot staked on it. It’s certain that in HRC’s case and almost certain in Silda Spitzer’s case that she would feel she has a stake in her husband’s career. The decision to stand there and try to help him salvage it, I’d wager, has less to do with not wanting to smack him or leave, or even with whether or not she loves him, and with various political calculations, probably reached over many angry kitchen table conversations, about how they could both weather the storm that his actions have brought on both of them.
And before people get all in my face, there’s nothing wrong with anyone calculating the odds in the face of adversity, even if they’re a woman. It’s politics, and I’m sure she understands that as well as he does.
I honestly don’t care what Silda Spitzer does in terms of standing by her man. I think that is totally her own business.
That said, however, I thought of the perfect slogan for the Spitzer affair from the perspective of Martha Stewart, whom Spitzer prosecuted on trumped up charges as a stepping stone to his step off the cliff:
“It’s a GOOD thing!”
Never forget that she has three children AND that if her baby daddy goes to jail, it’s not going to be good for the family finances or her kids’ future well-being. On top of everything else, she has to be motivated to keep him out of the clink, and part of the legal strategy is standing by him now. Look for her all the way through the jury verdict if there is one.
“There were others, I am not going to find all of them for you.”
…translates to “No there weren’t any others, but STFU Mike, we’re not supposed to acknowledge that…”
“And for heaven’s sake, get a grip.”
…which translates to:
“Mike, Mike, Mike!
Just surrender and accept our version of ‘reality’. Much easier, less painful, less stressful.
Besides, we know where your daughter goes to school…”
Bismarck = The Nurse Ratched of Pandagon…
bmc90: I am confused. How would Spitzer’s legal chances be effected by whether or not his wife is present at press conferences?
Have given the “pop to the jaw” part of my earlier comments ALOT of thought. No, it’s not the right thing to do and I would NOT do it, or destroy his possessions, or any other spiteful, stupid act. Margaret et al are right…
I do wonder which is harder: standing beside your husband and listening to him admit what he did and step down, or listening to your spouse lie that he is completely innocent of all of these false accusations…
There are two things that I could never forgive of a cheating partner:
1. An emotional betrayal.
2. Public humiliation.
Obviously, the first doesn’t apply in Spitzer’s case, unless he’s weird enough to go to prostitutes for his emotional needs.
MikeEss - Do you feel better now?
I know it’s current an en vogue phrase, but he’s not a “baby daddy”- he’s a husband.
McDuff, she probably found out the details about the same time as we all did–and maybe not even then. It’s comforting to think that she’s cold and calculating enough that she’s thinking with an absolutely clear head and toting up costs and benefits to every move she makes. It’s pretty fucking callous, though.
Silda Spitzer did nothing wrong. I can’t believe how eager everyone is to dissect what she’s supposedly thinking and planning. No, actually I can. But still.
“MikeEss - Do you feel better now?”
No, but I’ll tell you what.
Get this country to restore the Constitution as the law of the land. Get us out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan, and leave Iran alone. Bring war crimes charges against the entire Cheney/Bush Administration. Slash the Defense Department, put money into alternative energy, work on Global Warming, and give all Americans access to medical care. Work on racism, sexism, and reducing bigotry against LGBT people, disabled people, and reduce religious bigotry.
Then, I’m pretty sure I’ll start to feel a lot better. And there will probably be several billion other people on earth who will feel better too…
Bismarck:
What Hannity says doesn’t matter. We had assemblymen in Albany threatening IMPEACHMENT if Spitzer didn’t resign! Where were the DEMOCRATS pushing back? Nowhere.
One of the few men in public office who seemed intent on bringing integrity to our failing failing failing financial markets is brought down my an illegally outed indictment?
And blogs like this contribute to the Republican talking points by tsk tsking over the bad Mr. Spitzer. Politics is not personal.
Boy I hope Obama shows more guts than Spitzer did when they wiretap him and find some bogus shocker.
So far the most cogent Republican attacks have been, Obama has a funny name and wears funny clothes when abroad.
And Mrs. Vitter was clearly drugged during her stand-by-your man moment. Xanax 2 mg. is my guess.
Bismarck:
What Hannity says doesn’t matter. We had assemblymen in Albany threatening IMPEACHMENT if Spitzer didn’t resign! Where were the DEMOCRATS pushing back? Nowhere.
One of the few men in public office who seemed intent on bringing integrity to our failing failing failing financial markets is brought down my an illegally outed indictment?
And blogs like this contribute to the Republican talking points by tsk tsking over the bad Mr. Spitzer. Politics is not personal.
Boy I hope Obama shows more guts than Spitzer did when the wiretap him and find some bogus shocker.
So far the most cogent Republican attacks have been, Obama has a funny name and wears funny clothes when abroad.
And Mrs. Vitter was clearly drugged during her stand-by-your man moment. Xanax 2 mg. is my guess.
Bismarck:
You are missing the point, Republicans are attacking Spitzer threatening another impeachment over sex. Why aren’t th Democrats attacking Vitter like that?
And why don’t they strike back claiming it was an illegal investigation, politically inspired, etc, etc, just as the Republicans do when the shoe is on the other foot.
The corrupt wealthy wanted this man gone. Mission Accomplished.
“You are missing the point, Republicans are attacking Spitzer threatening another impeachment over sex. Why aren’t th Democrats attacking Vitter like that?”
The Democrats think they are being courteous, respectful, and mannerly when they take the high ground. They don’t seem to realize there is no high ground anymore.
The Reichwing long ago dragged us all into the gutter with them. We either recognize the fight has been, is, and will be dirty, or just pack it in…
Good Lord. Will someone please ban MikeEss from every posting again? He’s such a fucking idiot and he posts so painfully often that he ruins every thread with his moronic presence.
How does someone post 900 times a week and never have an original thought?
Get a life, or a job, or some friends to spend some time with. This blog would be so much better off without you constantly fucking it up.
“Will someone please ban MikeEss from every posting again? He’s such a fucking idiot and he posts so painfully often that he ruins every thread with his moronic presence.”
seroj, no need to be so jealous…
See, I knew as soon as I said “calculating” that someone would put “cold” in front of it. And I even put a disclaimer in. Well done for responding to things I didn’t say.
The points again, for those unclear on the concept.
1) Silda Spitzer is a smart and intelligent woman;
2) She has a stake in her husband’s career;
3) She had the option, upon discovering this, of “taking the kids and leaving” or screaming at him or doing all the rest of the stuff that people said she should. She also had the option of just staying away and not standing behind the Governor.
4) It’s neither “cold” nor “callous” to assume that she made a decision based on what she rationally thought was best for the pair of them, rather than just on her initial emotional reaction (or, I suppose, on being rolled by her husband’s advisors).
5) Doing so doesn’t make her a cold, emotionless, shrewish harpy or whatever people liked to throw at HRC. It makes her a rational human being.
I offer this as an answer to both “why didn’t she hit/stab/run away from Gov Spitzer rather than stand there?” and “it’s because she just loves him and is a dutiful wife.” She may well love him, but I don’t think that would make me stand out there behind someone I was fucked off with. An agreement to get his back in public while reserving the right to be privately very, very angry would, though.
To assume anything other than cold calculation on the parts of the people involved in these events, is to engage in a big whopper of magical thinking that Democratic politicans on the national level really give a shit about these principles beyond what will get them political power in the forseeable future.
Ladies and Gentlemen …. TAMMY WYNETTE!
C’mon everybody … sing along!
I renounce and denounce and expunge the previous commenter. He might be following up my comments with some similar words but he’s not making the same point.
[ /Obama ]
Vitter and Craig = Idiots from Podunk states likely to not elect their sorry asses again
Spitzer = Governor of one of the most populous states in the US, a state with a storied history of vice corruption.
Notice how quickly Congressman Textmessage got the boot? That’s because he was from a much more consequential state.
Any questions?
No, McDuff, I actually responded to what you did say, which is your “wager” that her actions had less to do with her feelings than about “various political calculations”. And basing it on “well that’s what *I* would do” is patently ridiculous, as well as bordering on victim-blaming.
Good Lord. Will someone please ban MikeEss from every posting again? He’s such a fucking idiot and he posts so painfully often that he ruins every thread with his moronic presence.
Ohhhh somebody’s got a crush on Mike! The sexual tension is sooo obvious even from under the bridge!
Well, MikeEss is awfully cute… who can blame the trolls, ms kate?
If you ladies only knew!…
…you’d probably never speak to me again…
:)
More Singing along with Tammy!
Gosh, I just reckon I’m in a country mood tonight - with wonderful songs from a female perspective but written by men!
Ms Kate, I’ll see you your Tammy Wynette and raise you a Loretta Lynn…
Aw, louise, you made my day (on the violence issue). I am a big fan of swearing at people who do you wrong and imagining that you’re kicking them where it counts!
You (and others) had a very good point, Margaret, and while I can be an ass, I try to be honest. It’s far better to walk away than to do something one might later regret- to cut your losses and retain your self of dignity and pride in yourself.
Another from the jukebox; this time Patsy Cline. G’night, y’all!
Well, as Spitzer said in his statement, he has to hold himself to the same standard he holds others to.
Also, he’s not terribly popular right now, and the republican impeachment threat probably carries some weight.
One piece of evidence:
Close aides to the governor suggested on Tuesday that the mood in the Spitzer home was tense, with the governor’s wife, Silda Wall Spitzer, recommending that he not step down
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/nyregion/12spitzer.html?_r=2&ex=1363060800&en=2de09c8d0fda3b59&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=login&oref=slogin
Seems like she’s either decided to support him out of political calculation, or maybe, just maybe, she still loves the cheating asshole. Part of love is accepting your partner’s flaws, accepting that they will hurt you sometimes… because all or at least most of us are very imperfect. Spitzer’s obviously not entitled to anything here, certainly not to her public support, but I’m not sure I can fault her for swift forgiveness.
@Dorothy:
I’d say it wasn’t our business if Spitzer hadn’t been in the business of getting people locked up for doing what he did. As it is, with his record of prosecutions, and signing that tougher sentences law, he’s made it a public issue. (Even the failure to support legalization would be sufficient.) That said, in cases where the issue is just cheating and nothing else, I’d agree with you.
Mythago
I’m seriously not following. Why is it ridiculous to say that she’d think about it rather than just acting on emotion? Why is it ridiculous to say that she’d take everything into consideration, including her feelings, but that I seriously doubt that she’s up there standing behind him because she’s just desperate to show the world her solidarity and love for the man who cheated on her and endangered her health? For fuck’s sake, she looked so damn angry with him I’m amazed she did do the standing behind him thing.
You seem to be labouring under some kind of misapprehension about “political calculations” being some kind of negative thing, despite my saying that they’re not, and despite the obvious fact that people “calculate” things all the damn time, especially in politics.
I’m not doing anything except assuming she’s got a mind of her own. I’m not blaming her for anything. The worst I can be accused of saying about her is that I think she’s acting in what she thinks is her own self interest, which is one of the least scandalous things you can say about anyone, I think.
The alternatives are that she’s either just been rushed out there and the situation hasn’t sunk in yet, which is plausible but, I think, not really giving crediting her with the intelligence her career seems to indicate she has, or that she’s deliberately acting against her own self interest, which would be bizarre.
I hope you’re not just latching onto that word because you’re associating it with Hillary bashing.
Seroj, everything you post makes so much more sense if the reader assumes you’re speaking about yourself. If you call someone a loser, that means you are a loser. A waste of space, then you’re speaking about yourself. You have like grade-A narcissism, where every comment is about yourself, but you don’t even get that.
Actually, McDuff, “the alternatives” are that she’s probably trying to sort out her emotions and her future while under the glare of the national spotlight and millions of people second-guessing her and trying to predict and lecture as to what she ’should’ do. Smart people can still feel emotion.
This isn’t about Hillary-bashing (uh, what?), it’s about the silliness of trying to read another person’s mind by guessing “well that’s what I’d do” about somebody who isn’t you and you don’t even know. Jesus. Aren’t there real bad guys to pick on?
Dude. For fuck’s sake. I’m not saying she’s the bad guy. Are you even reading what I’m saying?
The reason I asked about the Clinton thing is because you seemed to be responding to another person saying something that was the complete opposite of what I was talking about, and I thought you might have been latching onto random words in the post and just extrapolating something out of them in a crazy word association game. That’s pretty much the only way I can even make your responses make sense.
For God’s sake, of course the woman has emotions. Which is probably why she looked like she wanted to kill the bastard. The thread was full of idle speculation, I added something to it. I’m terribly fucking sorry if in saying “hey, maybe she just thought it was the best thing to do at the time,” but using the words “political calculation” in there that I’ve somehow slandered the poor woman. I promise never to do it again.
Jesus fuck my eye Christ.
“But it’s just like getting a hamburger!”
Well, I sure hope I don’t end up sitting next to any of those folks when I go out to eat . . . .
(Should read some Carol Adams now . . . )
“Amanda Marcotte [writes]
@ 32: Bored now.”
ooh, ooh! Evil vampire Amanda! Cool.
“Jesus fuck my eye Christ.”
That’ll cost extra.
“Everybody else was being an asshole too! Why are you picking on me?”
Mythago, you’re out to see the worst in, well, maybe not everyone, but at least in me. So have at, what the fuck. I thought I was being pretty inoffensive, but frankly I doubt you’d be happy whatever I said right now. Go nuts, I’m sure you’re getting a kick out of it.
In case anyone who can read is interested, by the way (because you may be watching this love-in, it being the internet and out in public and all), I don’t think Silda Spitzer is an emotionless harpy with no emotions who is emotionless. Apparently, I really *can’t* say this enough.
Also, “Jesus Fuck My Eye Christ” has a noble lineage in the circles of professional blasphemers and I’ll trust you not to belittle it.
Also, it is an utterly cool thing to say in a crisis. Try it, the first time is royalty free.
No, you’re just quite sure that you know exactly what’s going through her head because that’s absolutely what you know YOU would do in her situation. Because you’re just that much of a people person.
Throw a fucking tantrum about your hurt fee-fees and run to The Rest Of The Internet for validation if it makes you feel better, but fercrissakes, don’t say something idiotic and then act bewildered.
From Greg Palast email
The $200 billion bail-out for predator banks and Spitzer charges are intimately linked
By Greg Palast
Reporting for Air America Radio’s Clout
Listen to Palast on Clout at www.GregPalast.com
While New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was paying an ‘escort’ $4,300 in a hotel room in Washington, just down the road, George Bush’s new Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Ben Bernanke, was secretly handing over $200 billion in a tryst with mortgage bank industry speculators.
Both acts were wanton, wicked and lewd. But there’s a BIG difference. The Governor was using his own checkbook. Bush’s man Bernanke was using ours.
This week, Bernanke’s Fed, for the first time in its history, loaned a selected coterie of banks one-fifth of a trillion dollars to guarantee these banks’ mortgage-backed junk bonds. The deluge of public loot was an eye-popping windfall to the very banking predators who have brought two million families to the brink of foreclosure.
Up until Wednesday, there was one single, lonely politician who stood in the way of this creepy little assignation at the bankers’ bordello: Eliot Spitzer.
Who are they kidding? Spitzer’s lynching and the bankers’ enriching are intimately tied.
How? Follow the money.
The press has swallowed Wall Street’s line that millions of US families are about to lose their homes because they bought homes they couldn’t afford or took loans too big for their wallets. Ba-LON-ey. That’s blaming the victim.
Here’s what happened. Since the Bush regime came to power, a new species of loan became the norm, the ‘sub-prime’ mortgage and it’s variants including loans with teeny “introductory” interest rates. From out of nowhere, a company called ‘Countrywide’ became America’s top mortgage lender, accounting for one in five home loans, a large chuck of these ‘sub-prime.’
Here’s how it worked: The Grinning Family, with US average household income, gets a $200,000 mortgage at 4% for two years. Their $955 a month payment is 25% of their income. No problem. Their banker promises them a new mortgage, again at the cheap rate, in two years. But in two years, the promise ain’t worth a can of spam and the Grinnings are told to scram - because their house is now worth less than the mortgage. Now, the mortgage hits 9% or $1,609 plus fees to recover the “discount” they had for two years. Suddenly, payments equal 42% to 50% of pre-tax income. Grinnings move into their Toyota.
Now, what kind of American is ‘sub-prime.’ Guess. No peeking. Here’s a hint: 73% of HIGH INCOME Black and Hispanic borrowers were given sub-prime loans versus 17% of similar-income Whites. Dark-skinned borrowers aren’t stupid – they had no choice. They were ‘steered’ as it’s called in the mortgage sharking business.
‘Steering,’ sub-prime loans with usurious kickers, fake inducements to over-borrow, called ‘fraudulent conveyance’ or ‘predatory lending’ under US law, were almost completely forbidden in the olden days (Clinton Administration and earlier) by federal regulators and state laws as nothing more than fancy loan-sharking.
But when the Bush regime took over, Countrywide and its banking brethren were told to party hardy – it was OK now to steer’m, fake’m, charge’m and take’m.
But there was this annoying party-pooper. The Attorney General of New York, Eliot Spitzer, who sued these guys to a fare-thee-well. Or tried to.
Instead of regulating the banks that had run amok, Bush’s regulators went on the warpath against Spitzer and states attempting to stop predatory practices. Making an unprecedented use of the legal power of “federal pre-emption,” Bush-bots ordered the states to NOT enforce their consumer protection laws.
Indeed, the feds actually filed a lawsuit to block Spitzer’s investigation of ugly racial mortgage steering. Bush’s banking buddies were especially steamed that Spitzer hammered bank practices across the nation using New York State laws.
Spitzer not only took on Countrywide, he took on their predatory enablers in the investment banking community. Behind Countrywide was the Mother Shark, its funder and now owner, Bank of America. Others joined the sharkfest: Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup’s Citibank made mortgage usury their major profit centers. They did this through a bit of financial legerdemain called “securitization.”
What that means is that they took a bunch of junk mortgages, like the Grinnings, loans about to go down the toilet and re-packaged them into “tranches” of bonds which were stamped “AAA” - top grade - by bond rating agencies. These gold-painted turds were sold as sparkling safe investments to US school district pension funds and town governments in Finland (really).
When the housing bubble burst and the paint flaked off, investors were left with the poop and the bankers were left with bonuses. Countrywide’s top man, Angelo Mozilo, will ‘earn’ a $77 million buy-out bonus this year on top of the $656 million - over half a billion dollars – he pulled in from 1998 through 2007.
But there were rumblings that the party would soon be over. Angry regulators, burned investors and the weight of millions of homes about to be boarded up were causing the sharks to sink. Countrywide’s stock was down 50%, and Citigroup was off 38%, not pleasing to the Gulf sheiks who now control its biggest share blocks.
Then, on Wednesday of this week, the unthinkable happened. Carlyle Capital went bankrupt. Who? That’s Carlyle as in Carlyle Group. James Baker, Senior Counsel. Notable partners, former and past: George Bush, the Bin Laden family and more dictators, potentates, pirates and presidents than you can count.
The Fed had to act. Bernanke opened the vault and dumped $200 billion on the poor little suffering bankers. They got the public treasure – and got to keep the Grinning’s house. There was no ‘quid’ of a foreclosure moratorium for the ‘pro quo’ of public bail-out. Not one family was saved – but not one banker was left behind.
Every mortgage sharking operation shot up in value. Mozilo’s Countrywide stock rose 17% in one day. The Citi sheiks saw their company’s stock rise $10 billion in an afternoon.
And that very same day the bail-out was decided – what a coinkydink! – the man called, ‘The Sheriff of Wall Street’ was cuffed. Spitzer was silenced.
Do I believe the banks called Justice and said, “Take him down today!” Naw, that’s not how the system works. But the big players knew that unless Spitzer was taken out, he would create enough ruckus to spoil the party. Headlines in the financial press – one was “Wall Street Declares War on Spitzer” - made clear to Bush’s enforcers at Justice who their number one target should be. And it wasn’t Bin Laden.
It was the night of February 13 when Spitzer made the bone-headed choice to order take-out in his Washington Hotel room. He had just finished signing these words for the Washington Post about predatory loans:
“Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which he federal government was turning a blind eye.”
Bush, said Spitzer right in the headline, was the “Predator Lenders’ Partner in Crime.” The President, said Spitzer, was a fugitive from justice. And Spitzer was in Washington to launch a campaign to take on the Bush regime and the biggest financial powers on the planet.
Spitzer wrote, “When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners the Bush administration will not be judged favorably.”
But now, the Administration can rest assured that this love story – of Bush and his bankers - will not be told by history at all – now that the Sheriff of Wall Street has fallen on his own gun.
A note on “Prosecutorial Indiscretion.”
Back in the day when I was an investigator of racketeers for government, the federal prosecutor I was assisting was deciding whether to launch a case based on his negotiations for airtime with 60 Minutes. I’m not allowed to tell you the prosecutor’s name, but I want to mention he was recently seen shouting, “Florida is Rudi country! Florida is Rudi country!”
Not all crimes lead to federal bust or even public exposure. It’s up to something called “prosecutorial discretion.”
Funny thing, this ‘discretion.’ For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him.
Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer – rarely done in these cases - was made at the ‘discretion’ of Bush’s Justice Department.
Or maybe we should say, ‘indiscretion.’
************
Greg Palast, former investigator of financial fraud, is the author of the New York Times bestsellers Armed Madhouse and The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.
Hear The Palast Report weekly on Air America Radio’s Clout.
And next Wednesday March 19, join Palast and Clout host Richard Greene on a dinner cruise on the Potomac River. For more information click here.
And this Sunday, at noon, on WABC-TV New York, catch Amy Goodman, Les Payne and Greg Palast on Like It Is with Gil Noble.
Crap. Aren’t we all supposed to get at least a kiss when we get fucked?
Kaching!!!!
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/3/eliot_spitzer_s_ashley_alexandra_dupre_cashes_in
Eliot Spitzer’s Ashley Alexandra Dupre Cashes In
A star was born earlier this week, and she was fortunate enough to already have decent-quality products available on the Internet. The price of Ashley Alexandra Dupre’s Amie Street songs instantly soared from pennies to $0.98, and now, according to the Post, has settled around $0.68. And that just the beginning for this very physical digital entrepreneur.
Highlights from the Post:
* $200,000+ from song sales so far (300,000+ downloads)
* $1 million offer from Hustler magazine
* Offers from Penthouse, et al
* $1 million offer from Kick Ass Pictures for a starring role
* Expected $1 million offer for a book deal.
* Hypothetical “Client No. 9″ perfume deal
* “Six figure” offer from Georgi Vodka to star in their butts-on-buses campaign (”She’s probably got the most popular butt in America right now,” a Georgi executive says). Georgi also wants to create a new product around her called “Vodka No. 9.”
* Commercials, tabloid-TV shows, a sexy clothing line, and more.
The Post’s expert estimates that Ashley could coin $2.5 to $5 million off this publicity bonanza and calculates that she “would have to service Spitzer 581 to 1,162 times at her going rate of $4,300 for four hours to earn the same amount of money.”
The downside: Her new business success will make her ineligible for further representation by her public defender. Also, the 22-year old will be besieged by reps, managers, advisors, acquaintances, and agents of all types, some of whom will no doubt persuade her that she can’t afford not to pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. In the moment, this will seem like pennies, but if her career trajectory follows that of other instant web stars, will soon leave her penniless again.