AP wonders: In hindsight, wasn’t it hypocritical of Letterman to mock politicians for infidelity?
posted at 9:49 pm on October 2, 2009 by Allahpundit
Why … yes. Yes, I suppose it was.
Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards and Larry Craig came in for their share of abuse, as did the governor of South Carolina. “Gov. Mark Sanford didn’t really enjoy this year’s Fourth of July. He left his favorite firecracker in Argentina,” Letterman wisecracked…
Not that Letterman falls into quite the same category of unfaithful officials who hypocritically spouted family values. After all, comedy — not moral guidance — is Letterman’s aim. And he is not facing re-election, though he did briefly fret on the air about keeping his job.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who had a run-in with Letterman over jokes made at the expense of her teenage daughter, declined through a spokeswoman to comment on his admissions. But visitors to Palin’s Facebook page did not hold back.
One Palin supporter who posted under the name Linda Aragona wrote: “Amen! God said you will reap what you sow. Letterman tried to destroy Sarah personally and professionally. Looks like that wagging finger was turned right back on him. Who’s laughing now Dave?!!!”
Being blackmailed by an avaricious scumbag is God’s revenge on Dave? Hmmmm. In any case, Verum Serum was way ahead of this meme last night, chronicling some of Letterman’s greatest side-splitting hits at the expense of Larry Craig, David Vitter, Eliot Spitzer and others. I’m assuming he’ll skate on the hypocrisy unless the mysterious “creepy things” that he did turn out to be even creepier than what those turds were charged with doing, in which case this’ll be a source of content for months on end. Are you looking forward to post after post about Letterman’s skeevy behavior? Me neither.
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Well, since you asked, I’m not so keen on his willingness to apologize when no apology is needed. I’d much prefer that he stood his ground instead of allowing the Palin Squad to bully him into apologizing for his Palin jokes, for example.
mr_B on October 2, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Yeah, Republicans are so moral. They never have affairs. Uh huh.
Proud Rino on October 2, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Point missed. Again. But, you do it on purpose, to be contrary/provoke.
Again. If a Republican/conservative does it – it’s news.
If a Democrat/liberal does it – “everybody does it.” “Republicans do it too.” “It’s only about sex.”
massrighty on October 2, 2009 at 11:24 PM
That’s interesting – David Letterman has confessed to it and it sure seems to be news.
Proud Rino on October 2, 2009 at 11:25 PM
I think you just contradicted yourself.
fogw on October 2, 2009 at 11:26 PM
I think you just misread me. When I say that not everything is funny, I mean that not all attempts at humor hit their mark, not that some things are inherently “unfunny.”
mr_B on October 2, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Hmmm guess you did not hear the audience’s reaction or Mr B’s
CWforFreedom on October 2, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Well, since you chose to make hyperbole of my statement
you only serve to make yourself look foolish. I offered it up as a nothing more than an impression to be upheld or struck down in this case. So, I think I’ll do a little more research now…starting with Culture of Corruption and moving on.
Fighton03 on October 2, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Ted Kennedy
CWforFreedom on October 2, 2009 at 11:28 PM
I see, so David Letterman’s audience for one night and famed internet commenter “mr_B” are the arbiters of what is news and what is not? Great. You’re doing great, pal.
Proud Rino on October 2, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Did he, or did he not lie before the grand jury?
The answer is yes.
fogw on October 2, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Downside: Letterman keeps his job.
Upside: He has to be very careful how [and who] he snarks on. A quick-witted guest could issue a verbal counter-punch that would really leave a mark.
Mockers rarely enjoy the taste of their own medicine.
My bet: he retires within a year of this moment [two at the most].
CPT. Charles on October 2, 2009 at 11:31 PM
The extortion is big news. His confession, not so much.
Ronnie on October 2, 2009 at 11:31 PM
It is just the tip of the iceberg. You are quite limited in your thinking. Your vote for Obama says a lot. Completely laughable and simplistic you are.
CWforFreedom on October 2, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Seriously, dude, please actually research something important if you’re going to bother with that.
My point is not that Democrats somehow have the moral high ground here. The point is that both Republicans and Democrats have affairs, and the reaction of their party as to how they manage that affair has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with political convenience.
Proud Rino on October 2, 2009 at 11:32 PM
BTW mr dim…most of the coverage is about the extortion plot. read up .
CWforFreedom on October 2, 2009 at 11:33 PM
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is skuttlebutt running rampant across the decks of
the U.S.S.Hot Air!
Be on the lookout for possible,I repeat possible,that
their are RINO’s running around masqaurading and imitating
Republicans!
Keep a real sharp eye,be alert and ever vigil!
That is all,back to your commeting stations!
And you RINOS know who you are!
That is all!——-(Snark).
canopfor on October 2, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Reading minds I see
CWforFreedom on October 2, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Whatever you say, Yoda.
Proud Rino on October 2, 2009 at 11:34 PM
You sound like a person that doesn’t have daughters and don’t have a clue if your son is out knocking up some “dumb girl”. Conscientious parents can give their children all the tools, guidance and experience it takes to live a successful, productive and independent life, but the children have to be willing to accept that which is given to them. Sometimes it just doesn’t work out the way parents strive for, children begin to think of themselves as adults earlier than they can deal with the consequences of choices and they make poor choices. Parents can’t make every choice for their children and children do make choices beyond their parents control.
BTW, Letterman was NEVER funny, he has always been crude and obnoxious.
belad on October 2, 2009 at 11:34 PM
No I didn’t. Your reasoning gets more twisted with each response. When you tap dance all of the time, eventually you slip and fall.
fogw on October 2, 2009 at 11:34 PM
I believe that the judge ruled that he lied, but that the case was dismissed for lack of standing (since slick wasn’t jones boss it couldn’t be considered sexual harassment so the case was dimissed) but also found that clinton deliberately misled the court and held him contempt(?). Since it wasn’t a valid case, he couldn’t be convicted of lying about a material fact in the case.
I guess it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.
Fighton03 on October 2, 2009 at 11:34 PM
When you spin this hard to make a point, how do you keep from drilling a hole where you’re standing?
massrighty on October 2, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Ya think????
ladyingray on October 2, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Then you will be taken much more seriously if you can list your points without the venom. However, you have seriously piqued my interest and I will do some digging. A significant portion of my feeling comes from recollections of either a HA or MM series of articles doing a running tally over time of “scandals” and their outcome. I’m going to have to find that again.
Fighton03 on October 2, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Especially if he was pillowing one of his joke writers.
desertdweller on October 2, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Yeah, see, it’s so annoying, but with the law the words and stuff are really, like, precise. So even though someone may have technically misled, if they don’t satisfy all the elements of perjury, then they haven’t committed that crime. If you have a problem with it, go start your own country or move somewhere where the laws are just whatever the King says or something.
Proud Rino on October 2, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Which leads, in a round about way, to the letterman issue. Not illegal, but right? Does “No controlling legal authority” excuse the action?
Fighton03 on October 2, 2009 at 11:41 PM
1. No, I won’t. Not here. I used to be nicer, but get a couple of “I hope you die in a wreck on your way home from work” posts and your attitude changes a little.
2. Don’t make stupid comments and I won’t criticize them.
Yeah, and liberals have their own websites with all the GOP scandals too. Look – there are a lot of scumbag politicians out there. I think most of them on both sides of the aisle are nice people. God, research something meaningful. Who cares which side has more cheaters? What difference does it make?
Proud Rino on October 2, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Go check out a Sanford thread. Plenty of people calling him an idiot and calling for him to step down.
thevastlane on October 2, 2009 at 11:44 PM
If this had been Glenn Beck instead of Dave Letterman, the NEWS WOULD BE IN 500 POINT TYPE ON THE FIRST PAGE OF EVERY NEWSPAPER FOR WEEKS!!! and SCREAMED!!! ABOUT, 24/7, ON EVERY MEDIA OUTLET with even a hint of a slant toward Obama.
Beck would have been DESTROYED!
Coldly.
Calculatedly
Consciously.
And Completely.
Dave gets a little bemused ribbing and some nonchalant news references, and the story will be STUDIOUSLY faded out and INCURIOUSLY forgotten and ORDERED gone in a day or two.
(Unless one of Mr.Zipperslipper’s employees has slime and an urge to sue.)
The MSM protects its greasy tools (like Letterman) which are useful for damaging their political opponents (like Palin).
Saving their canned RAGE! for anyone effective ~on the other side of the aisle~ who so much as mis-steps.
profitsbeard on October 2, 2009 at 11:44 PM
It’s actually quite common view that God uses the wicked to punish the wicked. IE: If you sin, then God won’t protect you when some other sinner makes you a target.
We who are religious don’t believe that person being used as a tool of God makes that person moral. Anymore than a screwdriver is moral or immoral. (Or a gun, if you want to think about 2nd Amendment issues- maybe that’s why gun rights and conservative religion goes together so easily- no confusion about blaming the tool for the actor’s behavior).
This has Biblical support from the numerous times God used the Assyrians, or Egyptians, or the Babylonians, or whoever to punish the backsliding Israelites. So what if they were pagans and heathens- why shouldn’t God use them if it suits His purposes?
Sackett on October 2, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Well, the legal issue here is the extortion issue, not Letterman’s messing around.
I think infidelity is immoral, but I think fidelity can have different meanings in different relationships. If his wife doesn’t care that he messes around and there are no kids involved, then who really cares? If that’s what keeps couples together and happy, then I’m certainly not one to judge. I got married VERY young and I am still happily married (and I’ve never strayed) but I’m very lucky – different stuff works for different people.
Proud Rino on October 2, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Okay, so why did he lose his law license?
I’m quite sure it wasn’t for the crime of “technical misleading.”
massrighty on October 2, 2009 at 11:49 PM
I’m assuming it had something to do with him being deliberately deceptive in the Paula Jones hearing. Still doesn’t make it perjury. Supposedly, officers of the court are held to a higher standard than regular citizens.
Proud Rino on October 2, 2009 at 11:51 PM
This guy is a scummy, green, slimy oozing hypocrite. He sits and interviews Dan Rather (or some news guy…what’s the difference, they are all the same!) during the election and condemns Sarah Palin’s mothering skills because her 17 year old daughter got pregnant (and didn’t get an abortion). While he is sitting on his stinky little throne having knocked up his girlfriend and the idiot is over 50 years old. Now this!?!?! And he has the audacity to call Sarah Palin a slut? Are you kidding me? Look up “creep” in the dictionary and you know what name you will find there.
kelbow1600 on October 2, 2009 at 11:56 PM
The real issue here is if his behavior met the legal definition of sexual harassment for the state of New York. My guess is that he gets a pass from the media and the government based on his political support; i.e. he’d already be unemployed if he were a conservative. Anyone who wants to file complaints can be bought off much like in the Polanski case.
There are enough others out there to take his place on the late night scene so I don’t think money is the primary factor.
mad scientist on October 2, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Proud Rino on October 2, 2009 at 11:48 PM
If this were “only” infidelity there wouldn’t be workplace subordinates involved. Many professional organizations consider this behavior grounds for immediate dismissal; failing to do so exposes the organization to liability from any number of employees who wish to file harassment suits.
mad scientist on October 3, 2009 at 12:02 AM
It’s not that Letterman makes fun of “fallen” people, it’s that he amps his “attacks” to 11 when that person is not a liberal.
Hypocrisy is inevitable (and understandable), but mean spiritedness and unfairness are unacceptable.
mockmook on October 3, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Dear God in heaven – please, please, please don’t let a sex tape of this surface.
Rayhummel on October 3, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Who is Vera Baker?
Fortunata on October 3, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Okay, so you don’t want to answer why he couldn’t practice law for 5 years:
We’ll let the former presidents own words speak for him:
“I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false,” Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House.
Now, when you give “responses…[that are false] in a legal proceeding, or in front of a grand jury, that would be perjury. Especially if you admitted it, in a public statement.
Are those the pesky words with specific meanings you were prattling about earlier?
massrighty on October 3, 2009 at 12:24 AM
Oh hell yes!!!
Letterman is a bully and he deserves all the derision he receives. When you make a living out of focusing on other’s human weaknesses you better live an exemplary life.
Bill C on October 3, 2009 at 12:38 AM
Bill Clinton
1. perjured himself
2. obstructed justice and
3. obstructed something else with a cigar
Geochelone on October 3, 2009 at 12:40 AM
I must say it’s unbecoming of conservatives to gloat over Dave’s promiscuity. Are we really going to make fun of him, after complainign at his jokes in our direction? Better to take the high road, in the hope that he learns a bit about how to treat his fellow man.
hawksruleva on October 3, 2009 at 12:41 AM
They forgot about A-Rod too.
Wonder if Dave will mind if someone makes a joke about sleeping with 14 year olds.
What makes Dave worse than these POLs is that theres a good chance he was using his position for the sex, with a high chance he was trading promotions/ money for it.
The producer who released the info is apparently living with a girl Letterman use to have come on TV all the time for the “Know Your Current Events” Segment and a few others. Each time a person appears on air they are required to be paid a certain amount, thats directly out of Dave’s mouth as he use to bring a woman on all the time that worked for him since she was having a baby and he thought it would be nice for her to get the extra money since she was going to leave”
Rbastid on October 3, 2009 at 12:42 AM
Gee, ya think?
mojo on October 3, 2009 at 12:42 AM
That’s going to leave a mark.
Baxter Greene on October 3, 2009 at 12:48 AM
This is more about being able to say “I defend Clinton against the right-wing” that discussing anything as an adult, ain’t it?
Chris_Balsz on October 3, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Actually it does both…liberals honor infidelity, and sexual misconduct…conservatives attack people who do.
Liberals have:
Kennedy…abusing and murder of women
Frank…running a gay prostitution ring from his apartment
Clinton…multiple rapes
Mayors that get re-elected after partaking in drugs and hookers
Senators having affairs and illicit children
Reverends doing the same
Senators that were heading up the KKK
Now show me the equivalent conservatives that have been so honored.
Conservatives purge….liberals promote…
right2bright on October 3, 2009 at 1:54 AM
Proud Rino, ain’t so proud…good job at straightening him out…he won’t recognize it, but the rest of us are laughing at him.
right2bright on October 3, 2009 at 1:57 AM
Where did he get THAT from? Oh… I guess Allahpundit is saying if there is a God, and He created justice, it’s because God enjoys vengeance. So typical of the hate-filled atheist mind…
Danzo on October 3, 2009 at 3:11 AM
It’s not the AP’s job to wonder about anything…just report the news from the news wire in a palatable form and shut up about your feelings.
Given the attitude over Polansky’s crimes, Letterman’s ratings will probably shoot up.
Always fun to watch atheists get the benefit of Christian forgiveness when they’re exposed.
Dr. ZhivBlago on October 3, 2009 at 4:35 AM
Sounds like a “come to Jesus” moment for the AP. Is that a pig I see flying outside my window?
NoLeftTurn on October 3, 2009 at 4:38 AM
Why call it blackmail, he was just guaranteed the story exclusive. If he gave it to some news source for the same money it would have been ok , right?
the_nile on October 3, 2009 at 4:49 AM
Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. And I’ll believe almost anything (is possible).
Okay, so it’s a late night comedy show (well it really isn’t — it’s a talk show, not quite a variety show — but let’s concede that there’s a comedic base to the thing).
Who knows that better than the man who hosts the show?
It’s not sweet Dave’s fault that the audience yucked it up? He couldn’t have stopped that instantly with a raised hand or maybe the semblance of a serious face?
This star worship thing is totally gone. We’ve lost our collective minds. From excusing anything a celebrity does, from OJ to Polanski to Letterman. We “know” the name — Letterman. We bond with him, vicariously through our TV. We come to think we know him. We call him “Dave” as if he’s a golfing buddy or a shopping girlfriend. If he saw us, he’d call us Liz for sure, knowing our nickname, or Buddy, rather than Theodore. He’s just a regular guy. And our liking him brings us that much closer to being him. Or at least being his friend. Good old Dave. Yuck, yuck, what a card he is!!!!
Are you kidding me?
It’s all the audience’s fault. Dave’s so misunderstood. Already the fact of the principal story — that he’s been having sex with his staffers (let’s assume for the moment we’re not talking about one — otherwise it would have been an “affair” — sounds like a trip through the buffet in this case) — has been totally lost. Now it’s all about how he chose to announce the fact (that it’s all true, by the way). And the reaction of the audience.
Can a celebrity simply do no wrong (unless they dump their boyfriend/girlfriend whom we like SOOOoooo much better than them)? Are we so afraid of losing our imaginary friends that we must come to their delusional defense no matter what?
“I know. He had what “looked” like blood on his hands but I’m guessing he was just painting his kids’ swing set and they got that photo — or that photo was doctored — or that murdered person was just jealous of him — or they ran into the… gun… no wait, you mean it wasn’t a knife? Well, he was probably grilling some flounder for his grandmother — the one with cancer of the knuckle — and he had a knife but then a squirrel probably ran by — everybody knows what a pest a squirrel can be — and he probably had a gun out there for that and just accidentally shot that person. I mean, if they hadn’t been standing in front of the bullet, they would not have been hit.”
And if those women hadn’t been working there on that Late Night Show in the first place, they never would have even been in a place where Dave could have sexed them up. It wasn’t his fault they jumped in front of his penis like that.
It could happen to anybody. The media is so biased.
IndieDogg on October 3, 2009 at 5:07 AM
What a great day yesterday!
Jennings, Obama and Letterman, that smug SOB.
Karma.
It’s the other white meat.
drjohn on October 3, 2009 at 6:38 AM
One wonders how many of these affairs included underage women.
drjohn on October 3, 2009 at 6:42 AM
CBS is on the verge of bankruptcy.
David Letterman is a arrogant, disgusting person. He will never learn that lesson because he, like his fellow leftard travelers, think their behavior is perfectly OK and when they get kicked in the butt for it they start tossing The Victim Card(TM) like ninja throwing stars.
Nahanni on October 3, 2009 at 6:46 AM
Letterman is such a jerk, I can’t believe I ever liked this guy.
Terrye on October 3, 2009 at 7:01 AM
Isn`t there a link between celebrities and who they are making fun of and what they are doing in their own lives?
Who better to know how to joke about cheating on one`s spouse (or drug use or other problem area) than someone who is currently doing it?
So next time you see a celebrity or news person joking about someone else cheating on their wife, odds are the celebrity is doing the same now or in the recent past.
albill on October 3, 2009 at 7:18 AM
Old powerful, rich, guy has sex with young women in workplace.
Whole different story than just sex.
Sexual harassment……….there are many women, and I hope many law suits……..the beating he gave conservatives and Sarah Palin and her family, I hope each and every one of them come forward and get millions of dollars from the island owning A….H….
Good day…..no nolympics and now letterman’s demise.
nondhimmie on October 3, 2009 at 7:22 AM
“Reaping what you sow” isn’t God’s revenge. It’s the natural consequences of the choices we make, both good and bad.
vcferlita on October 3, 2009 at 7:24 AM
George Allen says “macaca” — see ya sucker
Ted Kennedy lets a woman die.— Hey Ted why don’t you be a lifelong senator with a ton of power?
/
CWforFreedom on October 3, 2009 at 7:30 AM
Nah– his core audience thought it was funny
sick
CWforFreedom on October 3, 2009 at 7:31 AM
George Allen lost re-election. Ted Kennedy won. The people that get elected stay in power.
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 7:55 AM
Take a number, hon; there’s a long line for that comment;)
Now serving #823…#823…next!
Laura in Maryland on October 3, 2009 at 7:56 AM
HYpocritical? It is the necessary default mode of those people who have thrown absolute truth away. Truth is but a realtive weapon to be used when convenient and to be denied when inconvenient. Truth is merely what they say it is, when they say it is,and if they say it is.
With liberals;the end always justifies the means and they reserve the right, to “change” either the ends or the means on the spot.
They deem themselves incapable of doing wrong. When they are caught in what every honest person recognizes to be hypocritical -they shift to attack those who point it out.
Liberals,progressives,Marxists,Democrats,can never really be accused of being hypocrites – just deceitful, dishonest, immoral, self asorbed,self-absolving, narcissistic, wretched people.
Don L on October 3, 2009 at 7:59 AM
All men are dogs.Some Dogs eat sh!# and bark at the moon.Thats Lettermans problem.I bet Letterman’s at home looking at the moon with a sh!# in one hand the other one around his dick.
Denniscat on October 3, 2009 at 8:00 AM
No, in fact, those aren’t the words with specific meanings I was talking about earlier. Read the perjury statutes. 18 USC 1621 and 1623. You’re not going to understand it anyway, but at least use the right definition.
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 8:06 AM
It is ignorant comments like that which preclude you from getting any substantive discussion from most people around here.
csdeven on October 3, 2009 at 8:15 AM
I’m sorry,but I’ve never understood people thinking he’s funny. Slightly better is Leno,but both are very pale imitations of Johnny. Not even in the same universe.
Even Jack Paar was much funnier than these two today.
Jeff from WI on October 3, 2009 at 8:39 AM
-
Sometimes God pits the evil guys against each other I guess… He did create hell and put the first truly evil-doer in charge… of torturing those that would pick up the mantle of being… EVIL.
-
I’m beginning to hate seeing Sarah and ¿Who’sthatdespicabletalkshowguy mentioned in the same paragraph… ‘Let Me be clear’… they are opposites and in no way should she continue to be saddled with this connection. He made it, it is evil.
-
What he said about her daughter exposed him as a vile old pervert… Nothing surprising about the latest dirt of his.
-
RalphyBoy on October 3, 2009 at 8:49 AM
David Zipperman and the producer trying to extort the money have the same thing in common:
Both are serial cheats on their wives, carelessly playing “hide the balony” with anyone that walks by.
CBS won’t do it, but Zipperman should be fired for creating a hostile working environment.
The producer is simply screwed, and I don’t have an ounce of sympathy for him.
Cleveland Steamer on October 3, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Poetic justice for Zipperman would be a nasty case of Herpes.
Cleveland Steamer on October 3, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Someone extorts money from Letterman for an affair with a subordinate. Letterman extorts money from CBS to tell Palin child rape jokes. Sounds about the same to me.
Jeff from WI on October 3, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Now there is a punch line!!
hillbilly on October 3, 2009 at 9:39 AM
yeah, I think there’s more to come- Letterman got right out there with the “creepy things” which seemed a little suspicious in light of being blackmailed….personally I hope he crashes and burns.
anniekc on October 3, 2009 at 9:56 AM
I’m really hoping this is the dumbest thing you’ve ever said, Jeff. Because if it isn’t…wow.
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Dave sounds just like a serial rapists. He’s probably been doing this for years and finally got caught. Hope all the women have good lawyers cause he and CBS have deep pockets.
Kissmygrits on October 3, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Isn’t “being deliberately deceptive” another way of saying that he lied? And wouldn’t that be perjury?
Tonus on October 3, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Matter of opinion. I don’t expect a lefty to understand the gravity of child rape, after all it’s Lefty Hollywood that supports it (Polanski), and clowns like Letterman that can crack jokes about sex with little girls for the amusement of, evidently, people like you.
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Jeff from WI on October 3, 2009 at 10:15 AM
That’s right, that’s what the world needs – lawsuits for adults having consensual sex. That’s just what our overburdened court system needs too. Great! He has deep pockets! Soak the rich, huh? How “conservative” of you.
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 10:16 AM
He lied under oath. And no, the same laws and standards apply to everyone.
Blake on October 3, 2009 at 10:17 AM
I don’t think the joke was funny or appropriate. But David Letterman has a contract. He gets paid the same regardless of the jokes he tells. He’s not saying, “CBS have to give me more money or else I will reveal embarrassing information so I can tell jokes.”
I’m sorry, do you know what extortion is? Do you know what words mean? Any of them?
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Lying under oath does not automatically make something perjury.
I mentioned the “officers of the court” deal because Clinton had his license suspended. I’m sure it was related to the testimony in the Jones case, but even if it wasn’t perjury, they could still disbar him because he was being deliberately deceptive, because state bars hold lawyers to higher standards than just “technically not breaking the law.”
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Your opinion makes me think you’ve never been sexually harrassed by your boss. I have several in my past that I’d love to soak- it’s only the recent past that some men have cleaned up their act for fear of being sued. I think there’s a big difference between suing McDonalds for hot coffee, and suing a corporation when they employ lechers that can determine the path of your career based on how willing you are to “play ball”.
anniekc on October 3, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Well, of course, if there was a quid pro quo element – “You have to have sex with me or you will lose your job,” then that’s sexual harassment. No one with any actual knowledge of what happened has alleged Letterman has done any of that. Having sex with subordinates is not automatically sexual harassment.
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 10:28 AM
I think women will, in particular, not be so shy about their reactions to Letterman’s jokes from now on. We do definitely know the type. We know what he’s all about. The charm is gone.
And, he’s now entering that hideous stage of dirty old man.
As for being a political statement on political blogs? Nah* Nobody is going to go that far.
But everytime he flirts with a female guest, making her uncomfortable on stage, every woman who gets it in the audience is going to be irritated, not entertained, by him.
He’s turned a corner in his career.
AnninCA on October 3, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Don’t be an idiot, I know it wasn’t extortion by Letterman to CBS. He has a contract. But his contract doesn’t force him to tell any particular type of joke, like those involving child rape or pedophilia. Evidently, like an extortionist, he think HE CONTROLS the network, and considering he’s stil;l on the air, there’s only two logical reasons.
1. CBS thinks attacking a little girl is OK because her last name is Palin.
2. Like an extortionist, Letterman is such a big deal to CBS that he can do/say just about anything he wants, (which is probably true considering the sexual harassment situation he’s put CBS in), because HE has the power over CBS.
Jeff from WI on October 3, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Boy 10:29 Jeff, you really need to straighten out 9:16 Jeff!
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Letterman gave her on-air time and several other obvious perks. He did, in fact, create what is called a “hostile working environment.”
That is when the boss gives favors to the mistress, thus making others unable to compete based on job skills. They obviously can’t compete with the honey bunny in the office.
That is definitely grounds for a lawsuit.
In reality, most women I know who work in that industry complain constantly about the overt sexism and hostility toward women. I doubt they will file charges.
But as a poster on another blog pointed out, it just takes one.
And there’s always one who won’t necessarily go along to get along.
AnninCA on October 3, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Haha, no.
http://www.fcc.gov/owd/understanding-harassment.html
HTH.
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Oh, who are we kidding, Ann? That’s not going to help at all! Anyway, keep trying.
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 10:36 AM
I won’t bother to explain a sarcastic, analogous, statement to you, it’s above your pay grade.
Jeff from WI on October 3, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Do not kid yourself. Letterman went out there and took a big bullet to try and offset the wave that was coming. I imagine there have been multiple pay offs prior to his pitiful mea culpa. He’s admitted to the least he can in order to stay afloat. Slimey pig.
anniekc on October 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Exactly. Because it was, in fact, a hostile work environment.
Oh, btw, the other women’s names are now floating up. More to come!
AnninCA on October 3, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Well, there absolutely have been “payoffs” – he paid for one girl’s law school. That’s not necessarily illegal either, nor is that harassment.
Well, *maybe*, but based on the facts as we understand them now (he had affairs with multiple women on his staff), that’s not sexual harassment. It does not necessarily create a hostile work environment (although it could, but no one has alleged that thus far).
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 10:56 AM
And maybe he admitted to “the least he can” in order to stay afloat – or maybe he just basically spilled the beans so he could get out in front of the story before someone else reported on it.
Remember – Letterman is the guy who went to the police. If he was really sexually harassing everyone or bribing people or extorting CBS so he could tell more of his beloved rape jokes or whatever (thanks Jeff, for making the dumbest comment I’ve read all day), I imagine he probably would have just paid the bribe.
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 10:58 AM
This demonstrates perjury can’t hold up against Clinton…how?
Chris_Balsz on October 3, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »