Obligatory Paterson infidelity post: Honesty really is the best policy

posted at 7:52 am on March 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

The ascent of David Paterson to Governor after the sex scandal of Eliot Spitzer hit a bump on the first day. Paterson admitted to having an affair for several years, and now the state has to determine whether Paterson used public or campaign funds to pay for his trysts. Paterson’s honesty and humility, though, indicates that there is less here than meets the eye:

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

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

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

As part of that relationship, Paterson said, he and the other woman sometimes stayed at an upper West Side hotel — the Days Inn at Broadway and W. 94th St.

The people of New York just can’t catch a break. Just when Albany thought they could get back to work, the new administration opened a can of worms that will likely distract them from their business for another period of time. They have to determine whether two stays at the Quality Inn, which cost around $450 and which were charged to Paterson’s campaign as “office expenses”, paid for his mistress. If it did, Paterson might have the shortest tenure of any New York governor in history.

However, if not, then this is no one’s business but David and Michelle Paterson’s. As long as it didn’t involve exploiting a staff member, then it has no relation to public interest. Paterson gets paid to legislate, not to act as a paragon of moral virtue. Until last week, he never figured on being governor, and had led a quiet political life in the background, and it appears he believed that he never would have to face the kind of scrutiny he faces now. Paterson chose immediate and full disclosure — which should lead to the conclusion that he most likely didn’t misuse public funds for his trysts.

The measure of Paterson in this instance shouldn’t be his failings, but what he did to remedy them. He and his wife patched up their marriage, which is no easy feat, and appear to have grown past their difficulties. He broke no laws and showed remarkable honesty and humility. He’s already several steps ahead of Eliot Spitzer.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If Bill had done this about Monica he would have never been impeached. Just come out and say it…

“Yeah, I did her, and after I’m done talking to you, I’m going to go do her again…”

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 18, 2008 at 7:58 AM

Democrats have no morals or shame.
Must be a genetic thing.
Adultery is just indoor sports.

old trooper on March 18, 2008 at 8:06 AM

“Like most marriages, you go through certain difficult periods,” Michelle Paterson said. “What’s important is for your kids to see you worked them out.”

Maybe. But “what’s important is for your kids to see” that you worked out certain difficult periods in front of them? This business of cheating because you can, all the while oblivious to what it means to the children with the uproar going on between the parents in front of the children, and then icing the cake with working it out in front of them is too much self-centered me-me-me-me-me. The kids learn that cheating is OK because all you have to do later on is work it out in front of everyone. Air the dirty laundry in front of the children and then in front of the public. It’s OK; the therapist told them so. After all, everyone’s doing it.

maverick muse on March 18, 2008 at 8:07 AM

I’d have an easier time believing his “honesty and humility” if he had mentioned this before he went out for the Lt. Governor spot. It’s easy to be honest and humble when you have no other choice.

JohnTant on March 18, 2008 at 8:09 AM

…then this is no one’s business but David and Michelle Paterson’s.

Yeah, except THEY were the ones who let all of us know about it. I guess the ol’ Barney Fife argument of nipping it in the bud is good policy.

SouthernGent on March 18, 2008 at 8:11 AM

I hope he realizes he just blew his chances of appearing on Dr. Phil.

pilamaye on March 18, 2008 at 8:13 AM

Yeah, except THEY were the ones who let all of us know about it. I guess the ol’ Barney Fife argument of nipping it in the bud is good policy.

SouthernGent on March 18, 2008 at 8:11 AM

I guess calling this scandel “nipping it in the bud” is a lot better than “Ridin Dirty”

William Amos on March 18, 2008 at 8:15 AM

Full disclosure on the first day: a new record?

If it was important enough to disclose after he took his hand off the Bible, then it was important enough to disclose it before he was sworn in, which he failed to do. Call me unimpressed.

Blake on March 18, 2008 at 8:16 AM

Democrats have no morals or shame.

old trooper on March 18, 2008 at 8:06 AM

Yes, Democrats are the only people who have ever had extramarital affairs. /eyesrolloffhead

I’d have an easier time believing his “honesty and humility” if he had mentioned this before he went out for the Lt. Governor spot. It’s easy to be honest and humble when you have no other choice.

JohnTant on March 18, 2008 at 8:09 AM

I don’t understand this mentality, either. Do you list every failure in your personal life in job interviews?

The honesty and humility here is that he’s not dennying it or trying to make excuses. The governor and his wife are admitting that they have made mistakes in their marriage and that they have worked to repair it. They’re clearing the air before someome tries to use the story to distract from the real work that needs to get done by the state government.

I personally find it refreshing.

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 8:18 AM

They just be animals, going with them animal instincts. All’s natural and normal in the animal kingdom.

http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=8273

Rod on March 18, 2008 at 8:18 AM

Well, I must say it is refreshing that they did not try to hide it. I also agree that there is likely little else to this story unless, he figures he will throw off their scent right away by admitting to it.

boomer on March 18, 2008 at 8:20 AM

I’m sure the people the Patersons cheated with are devastated. I’ll bet they had publicists and agents all lined up so they could leak their stories and cash in later this week. No million-dollar Hustler feature for Paterson’s gal, I’m thinking.

aero on March 18, 2008 at 8:20 AM

Right now I think the public will be satisfied with a governor who didn’t have intercourse with a cadaver.

Gerard on March 18, 2008 at 8:21 AM

Couldn’t he use the fact that he’s blind as his excuse for sleeping with the wrong woman?

Just thinking, you know.

Rod on March 18, 2008 at 8:24 AM

“Asked if he had stayed with anyone else since 2001 at the same West Side hotel, Paterson said, “From time to time I used to take Michelle to that hotel.”

How awkward is that? You take your wife to the same hotel you cheated on her in? Perhaps the same room?…This guy is like Daredevil, but instead of enhanced hearing he grew some superhero-sized balls.

watchmen on March 18, 2008 at 8:24 AM

Right now I think the public will be satisfied with a governor who didn’t have intercourse with a cadaver.

Gerard on March 18, 2008 at 8:21 AM

Im sure Id get in trouble saying something about the Clintons here.

William Amos on March 18, 2008 at 8:24 AM

Just a few thoughts from a dumb Southerner (who never cheated on his wife):

1. No hookers are involved, nor are drugs, the mob, harrassment, or rape, etc… thus not the same thing as Spitzer or Clinton.

2. They were suffering from marital problems at the time and were contemplating divorce. The affairs they both had seem to have sprung from that mindset. Not an excuse per se, but they both seemed to be looking elsewhere for love and companionship long term, not just a tryst to satisfy an itch that they could lie about later.

3. They’ve been very honest with each other and with us. They stayed together, worked it out, and seem to have a very strong marriage. I admire their willingness to admit past mistakes and hold on to their family.

4. They are still together and have broken no laws (by all accounts). 70% of men cheat on their wives at some point. How many admit their failures and then work to rebuild their families? Good for them!

Gartrip on March 18, 2008 at 8:24 AM

I don’t care about his affair.
If we got rid of every politician who had an extramarital affair, we’d have to get rid of about 90% of them. Hmmm, . . .

But really, New York has a looming budget deficit, that is what is important right now.

rbj on March 18, 2008 at 8:28 AM

Gartrip on March 18, 2008 at 8:24 AM

Bingo (as a dumb northern who is getting married in August)

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 8:29 AM

REPORTER: Wow Governor Paterson, you know a great deal about running one of the largest states in America! Do you have a doctorate in political science?

DAVID PATERSON: No, not really. But me and my mistress did stay at a Days Inn last night.

saved on March 18, 2008 at 8:30 AM

I don’t understand this mentality, either. Do you list every failure in your personal life in job interviews?

The honesty and humility here is that he’s not dennying it or trying to make excuses. The governor and his wife are admitting that they have made mistakes in their marriage and that they have worked to repair it. They’re clearing the air before someome tries to use the story to distract from the real work that needs to get done by the state government.

I personally find it refreshing.

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 8:18 AM

What I object to is applauding this guy for his “honesty and humility” and making him out to be Mr. Profiles in Courage. If he has issues that “distract from the real work that needs to get done by the state government” then maybe he isn’t the right guy for the job in the first place.

I would have been more inclined to admire his integrity if he had admitted this all before he asked NY people to vote for him. For that matter, I’d have admired his integrity if he hadn’t cheated on his wife in the first place.

As for me listing my skeletons, if anyone ever asks me to run for a public office then I will certainly list them. I think it is, however, disingenuous to make a Governor’s job morally equivalent to any other job.

JohnTant on March 18, 2008 at 8:31 AM

Good lord! What a disgusting bunch.

There appears to be some form of “dirtbag gene” that inhabits the genetic structure of politicians. In this case, it also appears to be communicable to the wife.

rplat on March 18, 2008 at 8:41 AM

Why is he itching and scratching all the time? Stayed in a Days Inn. For these types of things a Holiday Inn “Express” is more suitable. More seriously they did reconcile and are staying together. Kudos. Did anyone notice in the audience of his swearing in all the rich white people who are controlling America? Slimey Schumer and huckster Hillery side by side. What a team.

wepeople on March 18, 2008 at 8:42 AM

I would have been more inclined to admire his integrity if he had admitted this all before he asked NY people to vote for him.

JohnTant on March 18, 2008 at 8:31 AM

Exactly. And especially when you share the same moral failings that caused the man your replacing to resign.

This was a willful, calculating, and self-serving decision: Get sworn in first then let the cat out of the bag.

Rod on March 18, 2008 at 8:43 AM

Mar 18, 2008 7:52 AM by Ed Morrissey
Full disclosure on the first day: a new record?

How about an even better standard: Full disclosure on the first day of your campaign?

I.E., how about letting the voting public know the truth and judge the “content of your character” before you are elected/entrusted to hold public office? It’s a trust thing…if your spouse can’t trust you, who can?

old trooper on March 18, 2008 at 8:06 AM

Sexual immorality is an equal opportunity sin. It entices everyone, and people from both parties fall victim to it.

I’m telling you, McCain had an affair with Iseman. He has admitted as much to multiple people in the past. He spent time alone with Vicki on Paxon’s jet.

I beg Michelle, Allahpundit, or Captain Ed to have the courage to interview McCain soon and ask him the tough questions on immigration, judicial nominations, and any past scandals (Savings and Loan “Keating 5″, use of Paxon’s jet, and yes, sexual immorality…has he done anything that was “not appropriate”) that could be used by Democrats in October to paint McCain with the broad “Culture of Corruption” brush.

This matters if we care about having Republicans win in November. It doesn’t just affect the Presidency, but the House and Senate as well. If conservatives are a no-show at the November elections, we lose big time. And we would shortly thereafter lose any hope of gaining control of a fifth Supreme Court Justice seat. This election isn’t just about the next four years. It could have an impact that lasts for decades.

We need to know the truth now about everything on this page.

Red Pill on March 18, 2008 at 8:52 AM

If we don’t know who he was schupting, how do we know she wasn’t receiving political favors from Patterson?

Blake on March 18, 2008 at 8:53 AM

If public or campaign funds were not involved, no big deal. However, there apparently hotel room charges as ‘office expense’; that would make it the business of the voter and very possibly subject to criminal considerations.

That raises the question of who number 3 in line is. Or maybe it would be easiest to get the entire New York state government together and ask for a show of hands of those who have not slept around on their spouse at government or donor expense. It would save time, expense and embarrassment, though it might test how far down the chain of succession is defined.

michaelo on March 18, 2008 at 8:56 AM

I’m not sure he shares the same moral failings. Spitzer was hubristic, hypocritical, and venal. He wasn’t forced to step down because he was philandering, but because he was flouting the very laws he was charged with enforcing. Cheating on your spouse-if that’s the limit of Patterson’s indiscretions-isn’t a capital offense.

Gerard on March 18, 2008 at 8:56 AM

This is getting to be such a regular occurrence among politicians I’m beginning to think it is a requirement for office.

Paterson’s honesty and humility

In a politician? Please.

The people of New York just can’t catch a break.

You think they care?

Paterson gets paid to legislate, not to act as a paragon of moral virtue

Sorry Ed, I disagree with you on this one. Bad morals lead to bad ethics which lead to bad laws. The problem now is we dont care that we dont have moral leadership. And the state of NY and the country are all the worse off for it.

abcurtis on March 18, 2008 at 8:57 AM

Exactly. And especially when you share the same moral failings that caused the man your replacing to resign.

This was a willful, calculating, and self-serving decision: Get sworn in first then let the cat out of the bag.

Rod on March 18, 2008 at 8:43 AM

Please explain two things to me:

1- How could he explain that he had the same moral failings that would wind up causing Spitzer to fall before before he knew of Spitzer’s failing and fall?

2- and more importantly, how in the world is what Patterson (and his wife, mind you) did even close to marally equivalent to what Spitzer did?

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 8:57 AM

Sigh. I guess it’s too late to have a special election.

JammieWearingFool on March 18, 2008 at 9:02 AM

However, if not, then this is no one’s business but David and Michelle Paterson’s. As long as it didn’t involve exploiting a staff member, then it has no relation to public interest.

Why don’t you ask David and Wendy Vitter about that.

highhopes on March 18, 2008 at 9:06 AM

Democrats have no morals or shame. Must be a genetic thing.
Adultery is just indoor sports.

old trooper on March 18, 2008 at 8:06 AM

Kidding, I suppose. But for the record:

- there is no such thing as a “genetic” Democrat;

- Democrats do not have the market cornered on adultery (not by a long shot);

- adultery and marital relationship challenges are an inescapable part of the human condition; and

- let us at least stipulate to those points before declaring that there is a big difference between adultery and screwing an intern in the Oval Office, or paying a hooker when you’re the Governor.

Jaibones on March 18, 2008 at 9:11 AM

Please explain two things to me:

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 8:57 AM

My pleasure.

1 – Before you’re sworn in, before you place your hand on the Bible, you say, “Hey. I need to let you know that I’ve also committed adultry.”

2 – See # 1. It’s called “adultry”: the voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and one who is not his or her spouse.

Rod on March 18, 2008 at 9:12 AM

They were only honest because it was going to eventually come out anyway.

EnochCain on March 18, 2008 at 9:13 AM

how in the world is what Patterson (and his wife, mind you) did even close to marally equivalent to what Spitzer did?
12thman on March 18, 2008 at 8:57 AM

Patterson is the issue here, not his wife, since he’s the public servant whose integrity’s an issue for us. Both Paterson and Spitzer broke their marriage vows. That Spitzer made it worse by breaking a law (and one he relentlessly enforced) doesn’t change the failings of both of them.

I don’t understand why people don’t see this is very relevant to his office and public duties. Will repeat what I said in the other thread:

…the integrity, or lack thereof, with which you conduct your private life spills over into how you conduct your public life.

Bottom line: if you can’t keep the most solemn promise of your life, I don’t trust you to keep any others.

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM

Two thoughts:

1) The wife looks cute.
2) Can somebody buy this guy a razor?

RWLA on March 18, 2008 at 9:15 AM

Rod on March 18, 2008 at 9:12 AM

So you really believe Spitzer is out because he committed adultury?

lol

I’m sorry if you don’t understand this but Spitzer would be out of office right now even if he were single.

These two things are nowhere near equivalent.

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 9:17 AM

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM

So by your statement McCain is unfit for office?

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 9:19 AM

Paterson gets paid to legislate, not to act as a paragon of moral virtue. Until last week, he never figured on being governor, and had led a quiet political life in the background, and it appears he believed that he never would have to face the kind of scrutiny he faces now.

Dude, what is wrong with you? This was the weakest line of cr*p I’ve heard on this website. I trust this blog and it’s writers to not blow smoke up my arse.
Sad.

geckomon on March 18, 2008 at 9:20 AM

So you really believe Spitzer is out because he committed adultury?

He’s out because he broke the law, of course. But knowing this fact about Paterson and Spitzer (that they committed adultery, regardless of legality) would have been useful information for some people before the election.

Just because lots of people commit adultery doesn’t mean everyone does it. (And yes, that was one of the reasons I wouldn’t vote for Giuliani.) Can you keep your promises? Your past behavior is a good predictor of your future behavior.

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 9:21 AM

So by your statement McCain is unfit for office?

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 9:19 AM

Did he commit adultery? (That’s a real question, not a sarcastic one.)

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 9:23 AM

The thing about telling the truth is that it rarely, if ever, comes back to haunt you.

EJDolbow on March 18, 2008 at 9:28 AM

Did he commit adultery? (That’s a real question, not a sarcastic one.)

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 9:23 AM

On which wife?

I gotta say, now I know why Huckabee got so many votes. This definately falls under “private matter”.

sweeper on March 18, 2008 at 9:29 AM

They were only honest because it was going to eventually come out anyway.

EnochCain on March 18, 2008 at 9:13 AM

Honesty comes in different forms. In this case, I don’t think they had a choice because it is far better for them to tell the story under their terms NOW than to have a six-page spread in the NY Post giving all sorts of lurid details about the affairs themselves.

My only criticism is the timing. He should have either told this story when the Spitzer story broke or waited until some other occassion than his swearing in.

highhopes on March 18, 2008 at 9:30 AM

On which wife?
sweeper on March 18, 2008 at 9:29 AM

Wow. Is this true (that he cheated on his wife)? Do you have a link by any chance? If it’s true, I can’t believe I didn’t know this.

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 9:32 AM

Did he commit adultery? (That’s a real question, not a sarcastic one.)

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 9:23 AM

Yes he did, he admitted it.

His longsuffering wife held vigil for him while he was a POW. She had a car accident that left her crippled and when McCain returned from Vietnam crippled he did not want to be married to his crippled wife.

He had an affair with the present Mrs. John McCain who is 20 years younger than he and the former Mrs. John McCain.

EJDolbow on March 18, 2008 at 9:32 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_mccain

Wikipedia is not the best source but the fastest. Note when he met his current wife and when the divorce was final.

sweeper on March 18, 2008 at 9:33 AM

“Did he commit adultery? (That’s a real question, not a sarcastic one.)

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 9:23 AM”

That’s a big fat, Yes!

See here:

But it wasn’t until 2000 that McCain, possibly emboldened by Clinton’s survival of his scandals, became the first confessed adulterer to have the nerve to run. Now, just a few years after infidelity was considered a dealbreaker for a presidential candidate, the party that presents itself as the arbiter of virtue may field an unprecedented two-timing trifecta.

McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, according to The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof, “aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich.” McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife’s family money.

Or here even, for some tasty honesty.

John McCain was talking about his presidential ambitions when the question came.

“You had an affair during your first marriage,” CNN’s Bernard Shaw said to the Arizona senator. “The sitting president is being impeached for his conduct with Monica Lewinsky. Should a politician’s private acts be part of public discourse?”

“Let me say that I am responsible for the breakup of my first marriage,” McCain replied. “I will not discuss or talk about that any more than that. If someone wants to criticize me for that, that’s fine.”

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 9:34 AM

Hold on a minute.

There’s a breed of response, mostly from the left, that has two components:

(1) “it’s none of my business” and
(2) “it’s more disturbing to me that you all are obsessed with a person’s private sexual behavior.”

Now, if the real despicable characters are the ones digging up this dirt, the ones who prowl in the dark to catch people in the act of private sexual sins, then we ought to know who these immoral dirtballs are, these seekers of lust crimes, these voyeurs.

Well, we know that certain democrat candidates are notorious for relying on private detectives and FBI files for dirt on their opponents. And we know that during every election cycle, prominent republicans’ sexual sins are revealed like clockwork — indeed, individuals like Larry Flynt brazenly offer to pay citizens for lurid sexual revelations of republican politicians. Not to mention that leftist “journalists” in the mainstream media thrive on sexual scandals. And it’s quite asymmetrical. There seems to be no corresponding pattern of republican operatives systematically soliciting and marketing sexual revelations. Not like there is on the left.

So again, who are these dirtbags who commit the one crime democrats recognize as objective and universally binding — that grave sin of inquiring into other people’s private sexual behavior?

Those dirtbags seem to be overwhelmingly democrats.

jeff_from_mpls on March 18, 2008 at 9:36 AM

jeff_from_mpls on March 18, 2008 at 9:36 AM

uhm… ok. You’re not talking to anyone here, as far as I can tell.

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 9:41 AM

Actually, this is a good lesson:when people ignore/reject God’s Law, setting themselves up as THE arbiters of “Moral Authority”…they fail. They fall. They screw up. Because they always excuse their own failings while applying a tougher standard to others. That’s why it’s like water on a witch (I’m melting!) for them to be reminded of God, His Law.

Doug on March 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM

Wow, I didn’t realize there were that many here who are without sin themselves.

Ronald Reagan to a vow to stay married to his first wife for life, I guess he broke that vow and thus was unfit to be governor or president too.

rbj on March 18, 2008 at 9:43 AM

So you really believe Spitzer is out because he committed adultury?

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 9:17 AM

I can see how you might think that by my brief comments but no, I don’t believe that. And yes, he most likely would be out of office if he were single.

However, your comment that these events are “nowhere near equivalent” is incorrect. Perhaps you missed the definition of adultery? Try reading it again without making any inference as to my opinion on anything other than it’s definition.

Rod on March 18, 2008 at 9:46 AM

“Doug on March 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM”

We all fall short of His glory.

rbj on March 18, 2008 at 9:43 AM

Bingo! We have another winner.

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 9:46 AM

I swear, it seems like infidelity is a prerequisite for governorship in my state. Don’t know whether to laugh or shake my head in disgust.

irongrampa on March 18, 2008 at 9:46 AM

EJDolbow on March 18, 2008 at 9:32 AM

sweeper on March 18, 2008 at 9:33 AM

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 9:34 AM

Thank you for the info/links. I didn’t know.

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 9:47 AM

A blind man that can cheat on his wife.

That’s how easy adultery has become.

Hening on March 18, 2008 at 9:49 AM

Ronald Reagan to a vow to stay married to his first wife for life, I guess he broke that vow and thus was unfit to be governor or president too.

rbj on March 18, 2008 at 9:43 AM

Ronald Reagan’s wife LEFT HIM. What was he supposed to do, tie her up and make her stay?

EJDolbow on March 18, 2008 at 9:50 AM

Ronald Reagan’s wife LEFT HIM. What was he supposed to do, tie her up and make her stay?

EJDolbow on March 18, 2008 at 9:50 AM

Only if you’re a Muslim. Everyone else goes to jail for that.

Hening on March 18, 2008 at 9:51 AM

“Rod on March 18, 2008 at 9:46 AM”

I have no problem stating that they both comitted adultery. That isn’t what I opposed.

Look at what you said again.

Exactly. And especially when you share the same moral failings that caused the man your replacing to resign.

Rod on March 18, 2008 at 8:43 AM

I stand by my point. Paterson DOES NOT share the same moral failing that caused Spitzer to have to resign. (or at least the story doesn’t show that)

Spitzer isn’t gone because he had sex with another woman while he and his wife were going through a rough patch (and while she was schtuping someone else too).

He’s gone because he was transporting high priced prostitutes across state lines to have sex with him, while his wife thought he was away on business. Oh and because he built his career on prosecuting such “businesses.”

I didn’t infer a single thing about your opinion. I read what you said and refute it.

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 9:52 AM

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 9:47 AM

No problem. So, now that you know… Does this make him unfit for office?

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM

I didn’t infer a single thing about your opinion. I read what you said and refute it.

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Read along, put all thoughts from your mind other that what you see right here before you:

Patterson and Spitzer share the same moral failings of adultery.

Now stop right there. Nothing more. I’ve only given my opinion on adultery – nothing more or less. All the rest you have inferred. If you still feel the need to refute the above statement, the re-read the definition of adultery … slowly.

Rod on March 18, 2008 at 10:13 AM

No problem. So, now that you know… Does this make him unfit for office?

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM

I wouldn’t go that far (with Paterson or Spitzer et al either, BTW), but I sure won’t put my trust in the promises he makes. Simple as that.

Glad I voted for Romney in the primary (many reasons, Romney seemed better to me, but McCain’s temper was one of them). McCain’s looking more than ever like the lesser of two evils (Obama and Hillary are untrustworthy also, but for other reasons). :(

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM

Rod, that’s simply not true. What you originally wrote was not “same moral failings of adultery.”

What you wrote is still here in black and white.

Exactly. And especially when you share the same moral failings that caused the man your replacing to resign.

Rod on March 18, 2008 at 8:43 AM

You may have meant to say “moral failings of adultery” but that isn’t what you said.

Re-read what you wrote… slowly.

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM

Ok, I want to make sure I undersand your view here. I don’t think it makes McCain unfit either. But it is certainly one more reason I’d rather not vote for him.

If McCain had a (D) next to his name he wouldn’t even be on my short list. Mitt really was our best hope.

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 10:26 AM

His wife is hot. So, you say he’s legally blind…..?

manfriend on March 18, 2008 at 10:26 AM

Well, on the frugality side, at least Patterson was staying at the Days Inn on 94th Street. If you look at hotels.com or one of the other travel websites, it’s just about the cheapest hotel you can find in Manhattan nowadays that doesn’t have shared bathroom space. I doubt Spitzer would have settled for anything less than a $400 a night room for his trysts, even when he was still a mere Attorney General.

jon1979 on March 18, 2008 at 10:27 AM

But it is certainly one more reason I’d rather not vote for him. If McCain had a (D) next to his name he wouldn’t even be on my short list. Mitt really was our best hope.

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 10:26 AM

That about sums it up for me too. My mixed feelings about McCain just got a lot less mixed.

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 10:36 AM

12thman, I usually don’t read comments that begin with “uhm” but yours was special.

“uhm… ok. You’re not talking to anyone here, as far as I can tell.”

I couldn’t agree with you more.

This is a very different comment community than the one that used to grace Captain’s Quarters.

It took me a while to figure that out.

You guys seem to have a good thing going for you here, and I wish you all the best.

Later.

jeff_from_mpls on March 18, 2008 at 10:40 AM

Local radio guy here, channeling Patterson, about his wife’s infidelity (not his own), said: I didn’t see it coming.

hehe

urbancenturion on March 18, 2008 at 11:04 AM

*wishes Mitt had stayed in* Seriously, in this campaign, I think Romney and Huckabee were the only ones that didn’t have the stench of this stuff. I’m not sure about Huck totally, since I didn’t pay much attention to him. I do remember hearing speculation about Obama too for a little while, though I don’t know what became of it.

Is it too much to ask for our politicians to keep it zipped up, or the dress down?

Vanceone on March 18, 2008 at 11:43 AM

Like I wrote over at Ace’s, the reason these guys want socialized medicine: Free antibiotics.

Iblis on March 18, 2008 at 11:58 AM

Ronald Reagan to a vow to stay married to his first wife for life, I guess he broke that vow and thus was unfit to be governor or president too.

rbj on March 18, 2008 at 9:43 AM

As a matter of fact, Jane Wyman kicked him out! The time after she did that to him was the loneliest Reagan ever was, according to his biography.

As for Patterson, I am glad he has been honest regarding his own marital troubles. It is good to see that he and his wife worked their problems out successfully and that their marriage is stronger as a result. That’s admirable. Good for them!

Any couple who can weather the worst of storms within a marriage to make a stronger bond than there was before should be praised for it, not condemned, as some people who apparently seem to be “without sin” and too eager to cast the first stone around here seem to think.

newton on March 18, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Any couple who can weather the worst of storms within a marriage to make a stronger bond than there was before should be praised for it, not condemned, as some people who apparently seem to be “without sin” and too eager to cast the first stone around here seem to think.

newton on March 18, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Ah, the Prince of Tides method of marriage-strengthening (see last 5 minutes of movie). That’s always admirable.

Look, no one around here’s claiming to be without sin. Am sure I sin as much as the next person and am sure everyone else here complaining about these guys knows they’re a sinner too.

But. I don’t ask people to trust me if I’ve broken serious promises in the past, especially if I didn’t own up to it before I absolutely had to. Because I’ve proven by my behavior that when the going gets tough, or when the stress gets high, or when the chips are down, I don’t keep my word. We’re all sinners. But actions have consequences, among them how people perceive you from then on. This isn’t throwing stones. It’s the natural laws of human behavior.

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 12:33 PM

Something I don’t get. Why is it we never of hear of these people telling about how they did the responsible thing and got tested for STD after they had their affairs. Everyone just seems to gloss over that one. In the end we all pay for STDs. Curious, especially after the CDC says one in four teenage girls has an STD.

bloggless on March 18, 2008 at 12:50 PM

Sir Newton,
How do you know that the affair made the marriage bond stronger than before? I sincerely doubt that weathering an affair makes a marriage bond stronger than before. That sounds like a load of crap. I think that, more likely, it give something for one partner to hold over the cheater’s head for a long time and out of guilt, the cheater grovels.

bloggless on March 18, 2008 at 12:53 PM

But. I don’t ask people to trust me if I’ve broken serious promises in the past, especially if I didn’t own up to it before I absolutely had to. Because I’ve proven by my behavior that when the going gets tough, or when the stress gets high, or when the chips are down, I don’t keep my word. We’re all sinners. But actions have consequences, among them how people perceive you from then on. This isn’t throwing stones. It’s the natural laws of human behavior.

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 12:33 PM

I agree. And your comment ties in well with somethings I read written last week by Thomas Sowell about Spitzer. I think they apply here as well:

In this age, when it is considered the height of sophistication to be “non-judgmental,” one of the corollaries is that “personal” failings have no relevance to the performance of official duties.

What that amounts to, ultimately, is that character doesn’t matter. In reality, character matters enormously, more so than most things that can be seen, measured or documented.

Character is what we have to depend on when we entrust power over ourselves, our children and our society to government officials.

INC on March 18, 2008 at 12:57 PM

I cannot believe some of the smug self-righteousness here. The Patersons’ marital troubles are simply none of our business, unless he supported his ertswhile mistress from the public coffers. The only reason he had to “out” himself was because he knew what gossiping, bloodthirsty vultures make up popular culture, and he didn’t wish to be the next Drudge headline without some measure of control.

I propose now that every official from President to notary public be compelled by law to submit a complete life resume, with all peccadilloes conveniently coded in chronological order and gradient color by severity. Before lunch today, preferably.

Then ye sinless, have at ‘em.

Veritas on March 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Well, Veritas, truth and virtue matter, you know?

INC on March 18, 2008 at 1:11 PM

In Roman mythology, Veritas (meaning truth) was the goddess of truth, a daughter of Saturn and the mother of Virtue.

INC on March 18, 2008 at 1:13 PM

I cannot believe some of the smug self-righteousness here…
Then ye sinless, have at ‘em.

Veritas on March 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM

With all due respect, am truly sorry that either I and others are apparently not making ourselves clear enough about, or you can’t tell the difference between (not sure which) a) evaluating the expected honesty level of a public servant entrusted with a lot of powerand b) smugly claiming sinlessness. No one here’s done the latter. Don’t know how to make it any clearer, sorry.

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 1:14 PM

Ah, there’s definably in the Hudson river they’re all drinking.
No wonder Bill and Hill moved to this neck of the woods.
Everybody doing it… either for money or pleasure…. or just politics.

But just who is getting f’ed? The taxpayer.

Kini on March 18, 2008 at 1:32 PM

You may have meant to say “moral failings of adultery” but that isn’t what you said.

Re-read what you wrote… slowly.

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Ah, yes. I now understand your point of view. Forgive me for me not being more clear. Seeing that the topic of this thread as posted by Ed is about the infidelity of the two, I mistakenly thought that my comment would be clear – especially since it’s the only moral failure that the two in question have admitted to. My mistake. My apologies.

However, you will be pleased to note that I have learned a valuable lesson: When posting comments, always strive to be concise and clear so that the meaning can be easily comprehended. In addition, clarity in writing removes any wiggle room for those with the propensity to “read between the lines” in order to further their own agenda.

Thank you for a lesson well taught. And feel free to infer whatever you wish from the above.

Rod on March 18, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Maybe it’s just me, but describing the tenure of the affair(s) as a “rough patch” seems a little intentionally minimalist to me. It went on from 1999-2001. That’s, what, about a third of the total time they were married? To me an approximate three year period isn’t a mere “rough patch.”

JohnTant on March 18, 2008 at 3:20 PM