Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

ADULTEROUS POLITICIANS

Sunday, June 21st, 2009

ADULTEROUS  POLITICIANS
(I don’t have time to provide references, so you will have to Google.)

Politician                                                      “Offense”

President Warren G. Harding         had mistress living in the White House. Evidently they sent her on a long trip to the Orient during the presidential campaign.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt     several long term mistresses (mitigating factor: Eleanor)

Pres. candidate Wendell Willkie     living with mistress before running for president

President Dwight Eisenhower                     Had an affair with (female) driver during WWII.   General George  Marshall wouldn’t let him divorce  Mamie.

President John F. Kennedy         Sex maniac. Multiple affairs and one night stands.  At one point he shared a mistress with Mafia Don Sam  Giancana.
President Lyndon Johnson              Played around

Pres. candidate Nelson Rockefeller  Multiple affairs, including Angie Dickenson.  Second wife, “Happy”, gave birth to their child one day before 1964 California primary. Bad timing!  Nelson died en flagrante in 1979.

Pres. candidate Robert Kennedy     Multiple affairs, including one with Marilyn Monroe.   (There is some question about what involvement, if any, he and JFK had with Monroe’s death by accidental drug overdose in August, 1962.)

President Richard Nixon                 No affairs that I know of. Rather, he screwed the  entire country.

President Ronald Reagan                Active sex life after divorce from Jane Wyman and  before marrying Nancy.  (Said he often didn’t remember the name of the woman he woke up in bed with. )  Their daughter Patti was born eight months after their wedding.

President George H. W. Bush          Supposedly had affair with State Dept. staffer named Jennifer. Never confirmed.

Senator Bob Packwood (R-OR)        Multiple shenanigans with staff members and others. Forced to resign in 1993.

Pres. candidate Bob Dole                  Divorced first wife in 1975. Shortly thereafter married Elizabeth Hanford.

President Bill Clinton               Sexual predator. Possible rapes and sexual assaults. Getting blow job in Oval Office besmirched the presidency, but it was not an impeachable offense.

Vice Pres. candidate Joe Lieberman    Divorced first wife in 1981. Met his second wife,  Hadassah Tucker, in 1982.

Pres, candidate Al Gore                 No offense, Tipper.

Pres. candidate John Kerry          Divorced first wife. Second wife Theresa is widow of  Senator John Heinz, a fact she doesn’t let anyone  forget.

Pres. candidate John Edwards        Had affair with staffer, which produced a baby.  She  snared him by saying “You’re so hot!”

Pres. candidate John McCain       Divorced first wife after returning from Vietnam, where he was a POW.  Then married beer distributor heiress Cindy Hensley.

Pres. candidate Rudy Giuliani     Peccadilloes too numerous to mention, including  shopping while dressed in drag.  Announced divorce  from wife Donna Hanover at press conference.  She  later pitched him out of Gracie Mansion, and he stayed with some gay friends.

Pres. hopeful Newt Gingrich         Multiple infidelities.  Served first wife with divorce  papers in hospital room where she was being treated for cancer.  Had affair with future third wife while married to the second, (and during Clinton  impeachment proceedings.)  Recently converted to  Catholicism.

Congressman Henry Hyde (R-IL)   Busted up first marriage of his second wife at age 41.  He called it a “youthful indiscretion.”

Senator David Vitter (R-La)         Relationship with hooker while in the House. An “adult entertainer” may challenge him for his senate seat.

Senator Larry Craig (R-ID).            anonymous gay sex in public restrooms.

Senator John Ensign (R-NV)          Affair with staffer whose husband was also on his staff.

Gov. Elliot Spitzer  (D-NY)            Relationship with hooker.

So did (or does) any of the above affect these politicians’ ability to govern or serve?

JFK: Who was watching the “nuclear button”?
Clinton:  Could have been subject to blackmail (by the Israelis?) Fighting impeachment was a great distraction.

In general, the answer is “no”, except when they are breaking the law, or the hypocrisy factor.  (Family values, fighting prostitution, my wife is an integral part of my campaign, etc.)

Barack Obama benefited from two marital scandals while running for the US  Senate in 2004, one during the Democratic primary and one which removed his probable Republican opponent. So, such scandals can sometimes have a very positive effect!

So why aren’t there any women on my list?

Eleanor Roosevelt.  Some say she was a lesbian.  (Especially lesbians!)
Nancy Reagan and Frank Sinatra?  Only on Saturday Night ,Live.
Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster?  She certainly was justified.

Well, enough of this salacious political gossip.  After all, it’s Fathers  day

Update (6/27):  Now you can add Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) to the list. He wants to stay on as governor to set a good example to his sons.  A strange reason!  Anyway, it won’t cancel out his bad example. His wife is great! (Born and raised in the Chicago area.)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in politics | 7 Comments »

We Should Have A “Which” Hunt Instead of A Witch-Hunt

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

 

 

I told you so. One has to be selective about whom at AIG to direct our “bonus anger”. As “Exhibit A” I give you the resignation letter of Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of AIG’s Financial Products unit, to AIG president Edward Liddy, which appears as an op-ed in today’s New York Times. Quoting from his letter:

“I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.”

And later:

“… I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.”

It’s clear from his letter that he’s not headed toward the poor house, but it’s also clear – if you believe him, and I do – that he had nothing to do with the generation of toxic assets within his division.

As for the title of this post, we have to be careful about which people to be angry at. A lot of people made a lot of money in the Financial Services Industry. No doubt too much. However, that does not mean they were all in the driver’s seat, or able to apply the brakes, as our economy went off a cliff. According to the (London) Times Online, the hunt is now focusing on executives in the London AIG-FP office, some of whom have been called to testify in Hartford, Conn. tomorrow. Will they wear masks or what?

As I’ve said before, we should be more concerned about which companies are being paid off by AIG at taxpayers’ expense, especially those in foreign countries.*

*See for example a recent article in the WSJ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in politics | 1 Comment »

President Obama’s Time Better Spent Wheedling Rather Than Weeding

Sunday, March 22nd, 2009

Washington’s Not So Secret Garden” is the title of a “Room for Debate” article in today’s New York Times. Here is the comment I posted.

Why should President Obama have to spend any of his time weeding? They may be just another American family, but the South Lawn of the White House is not just another American lawn. Obama is entitled to spend his spare time as he sees fit. I doubt that includes weeding, unless one means wheedling things out of Congress.
(end of comment)

Maureen Dowd, in her column today, “Toxic R Us“, writes:

“The tableau of Michelle Obama hoisting a pitchfork on Friday with her sinewy arms and warning that the commander in chief would be commandeered into yard work left me wondering if the wrong Obama is in the Oval.
It’s a time in America’s history where we need less smooth jazz and more martial brass.”

Give me a break! Have we lost the ability to distinguish symbolism from substance? Admittedly, George W. Bush tried to merge them whenever possible. President Obama has to do the “heavy lifting” for the country, but this does not mean he has to wield a pitchfork.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in politics | No Comments »

The Merrill-Lynch-Mob

Friday, March 20th, 2009

Welcome to mob rule, as orchestrated by the House of Representatives, who yesterday created a “bonus tax bracket” of 90% on bonuses paid by certain companies receiving Federal Bailout money.

Forget about contracts, the rule of law, the fact that Eliot Spitzer engineered the departure of longtime AIG chief Maurice Greenberg by threatening a lawsuit he never brought, etc. Let’s just stick it to AIG employees, anyone we can find, regardless of what division of the company they work at and what their position is (was).

“Open Season” has been declared on employees at AIG, Merrill-Lynch (now part of Bank of America), Citigroup, and the like. This is not only irrational, but counterproductive as well. And don’t forget, many little people work at banks and other financial institutions.

We should focus on more serious issues, such as the firms that AIG is paying with the bailout money, but hey (hay?), it’s hard to stick a pitchfork into that!

 

NYT article

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in politics | 5 Comments »

The Kerfuffle Over The Mangled Oath

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

“Oaf of Office” is the title of a funny column by Steven Pinker in the Jan. 22nd NY Times about how the oath of office for President Obama got mangled. An excerpt:

“On Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Flubber Hall of Fame when he administered the presidential oath of office apparently without notes. Instead of having Barack Obama “solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States,” Chief Justice Roberts had him “solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully.” When Mr. Obama paused after “execute,” the chief justice prompted him to continue with “faithfully the office of president of the United States.” (To ensure that the president was properly sworn in, the chief justice re-administered the oath Wednesday evening.)

How could a famous stickler for grammar have bungled that 35-word passage, among the best-known words in the Constitution? Conspiracy theorists and connoisseurs of Freudian slips have surmised that it was unconscious retaliation for Senator Obama’s vote against the chief justice’s confirmation in 2005. But a simpler explanation is that the wayward adverb in the passage is blowback from Chief Justice Roberts’s habit of grammatical niggling.”

Pinker then goes on to discuss the opposition of many grammarians to the “split verb”, of which “will faithfully execute” is an example.

On the “conspiracy theory” side, there is the Tom Toles cartoon in yesterday’s Washington Post.

toles2

I have an even more simple explanation than Pinker’s. True, Chief Justice Roberts was not wearing an overcoat, which may have affected his (epileptic) brain function, as he was reciting the oath from memory. For me, though, the best explanation is one of the following two choices.

a) He was so overcome by the historic moment of the first African-American being sworn in as president, and the gigantic crowd, that he flubbed his lines.

b) He had a casual attitude toward the whole proceedings, due to the lack of “grandeur” of Barack Obama, the interloper who waylaid first Hillary Clinton and then John McCain.

Given that Roberts had no notes, my preference is for b)

PS.  Bear in mind. The oath may be “among the best-known words in the Constitution”,

but this was the first time Chief Justice Roberts had administered it.

Update:(6/27): Neither a) nor b) was correct. See a recent article by Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker (May 25th).  Roberts did prepare as best he could. The problem had to do with where the “breaks” were (switching back and forth).

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in politics | No Comments »

Joe Lieberman Retains his Senate Chairmanship, and Bernie Sanders Is a Political Idiot (Revised)

Tuesday, November 25th, 2008

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Nov. 18th.

According to an article in the November 18th (online) New York Times,

“Sen. Joe Lieberman will keep his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee despite hard feelings over his support for GOP nominee John McCain during the presidential campaign.
The Connecticut independent will lose a minor panel post as punishment for criticizing Obama this fall.
Lieberman’s colleagues in the Democratic caucus voted 42-13 Tuesday on a resolution condemning statements made by Lieberman during the campaign but allowing him to keep the Homeland Security Committee gavel. He loses an Environment and Public Works panel subcommittee chairmanship, however.”

(Actually, he gave up his position on the Environmental and Public Works Committee altogether. However, Lieberman is also on the Armed Services Committee, where he chairs an important subcommittee.)

The article concludes with a statement made Friday by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who opposed the move.

“To reward Senator Lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of Americans who worked tirelessly for Barack Obama and who want to see real change in our country. Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not ‘change we can believe in.”‘

Sanders is a self-described Democratic Socialist who caucuses with the Democrats, as does Lieberman. As usual, Bernie oversimplified things. Lieberman did not “[lead] the opposition to everything we are fighting for.” And Lieberman was not “appointed” as chairman, rather he was allowed to retain a position which he already held.

I discussed Lieberman’s situation in my new blog, Keep Joe Lieberman, which has now achieved its purpose. By their actions, the Senate Democrats have shown that there’s hope for them yet!

It is also important to note that Lieberman caucused with the Democrats as an Independent Democrat, so he was not obliged by this to support Obama, just as Bernie Sanders could have supported Norman Thomas, if he were still alive and running for President on the Socialist Party ticket.

I still admire Joe Lieberman and wish him well. Admittedly he’s an egomaniac, as are most politicians. And for sure, he sticks to his guns. Since being re-elected as an Independent in 2006, Lieberman has voted with the Democrats on most issues, even procedural ones. And people seem to forget that he voted against the confirmation of Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. He may often walk like a Republican, and talk like a Republican, but he is still at heart an (admittedly hawkish) Democrat.

I’m glad that Obama seeks to govern rather than to seek revenge. Too bad there are so many “Democrazies” out there who aren’t getting the message.

Subscribe in a reader

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in politics | No Comments »

I Told You So, Al. Or at least I tried to.

Wednesday, November 5th, 2008

Despite Barack Obama’s historic victory, and by a decisive margin at that, Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman appears to have won his race against Al Franken by a razor thin margin and retained his Senate seat.

Not to gloat, but here is a portion of my post last July, “My Message to Al Franken”

Quoting from a post by Jake Tapper, “Jesse Ventura To Run for Senate?” to the ABC News blog, “Political Punch”:

“[Former Governor Jesse] Ventura called Franken an opportunist and a carpetbagger. ‘He hasn’t lived here in 30 years, and he’s only coming back to Minnesota for the convenience of his own political agenda. Why didn’t he run in the states he was living in?
Clearly, for being a Harvard graduate, he’s not too smart on taxes, is he? Everybody laughs, saying I came from wrestling. But at least I knew when I wrestled in 40 states, I had to pay taxes in those 40 states. You just have to do the paperwork. I find it unbelievable that someone who could go to Harvard didn’t know that or let it slip. Blaming his accountant is worse, because now he’s turning into a politician. He’s not accepting responsibility for his actions.’”

Ventura’s reference to taxes concerned the fact that Franken didn’t file taxes in the states where he earned money from his appearances, as he should have.

I am a longtime fan of Franken and I have supported his Senate campaign, as in sending money. I have been getting mostly upbeat emails and phone calls. Here is my reply to the latest email.

“What have you guys been smoking? What about Jesse Ventura? What about the tax mess? What about your losing in the polls? I have tried to get through to Al Franken for years, but I have never succeeded. My opinion is that he is just too conceited to get elected. He only listens to those who feed his over-sized ego. I wish things were otherwise. If Al Franken really cared about the mess this country is in, he would drop out in favor of someone with less baggage.”

Comedians tend to be vain and mean, and Al Franken is no exception. I enjoyed his Air America radio show, although I could never get through. Only hate e-mails got quoted. His producer there, Andy Barr, is now his campaign manager. Franken has his heart in the right place. The problem is with his mouth. A generic Democratic opponent would defeat Coleman. Unfortunately, Franken is a brand name.” (end of excerpt)

In the end, Ventura did not get into the race, but Dean Barkley of his Independence Party did. I don’t know whether this cost Franken or Coleman more votes.

I did what I could for Al, contributing over $200. For a retired mathematician like me, who is now a blogger with two followers, this is a lot of money. (Someone on his staff once asked me if I wanted a yard sign. I replied that I didn’t think it would have much impact here in Michigan.)

Since Coleman’s winning margin over Franken was about .03% (roughly 750 votes out of 2.5 million), we can pray that a recount will reverse the outcome. Sad to say, this story is no joke; one to which not even Al Franken can supply a suitable punch line.

Subscribe in a reader

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in politics | No Comments »

I Come Out as a “Red-Diaper Baby”

Tuesday, November 4th, 2008

Ben Sen made a favorable comment on Open Salon about my previous post, “Former (London) Times Editor Smears U.S. Media…” At the end he wrote:

“Thank you for this piece. The only thing I can’t figure is the reference to Wallace in your bio. Your writing doesn’t portray a right wing ideologue, which is what makes it peculiar. You’d think it would be something a man today would hide–or explain as a youthful indiscretion. What statement are you making?”

I responded with the following comment:

“Thank you for your comments. In answer to your “Wallace” question, that was HENRY Wallace, candidate of the Progressive Party in 1948, which was to the left of the Democratic party and supported by Communists, among others. Henry Wallace had been FDR’s VP in his third term, and he was something of a yo-yo. I was a “red-diaper baby”; both my parents were members of the Communist Party at one time, though not openly so. Although only seven years old in 1948, I was politically precocious and could spout the “party line.” I guess the age of seven is too young, even for a “youthful indiscretion”.”

The reference he had in mind was that I “Campaigned for Henry Wallace for President at the age of seven.” He must have thought “George Wallace.” This being the 40th anniversary (plus two days) of that historic election, I think it only fitting that I come out and admit that I was indeed a ”red-diaper baby”. (“red” as in “Communist”) My father was a member of the Communist Party until the day he died in 1954. My mother was a member of the Party until she quit in 1950. And my first stepfather, D.M.B, was also a member. I don’t know when he quit, as eventually almost everyone did. None of the three was an open member.

So there you have it!

Subscribe in a reader

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in politics | No Comments »

Abuse of the Holocaust

Saturday, August 16th, 2008

“Lieberman praises McCain at Holocaust center” is the title of the following article in Thursday’s Detroit Free Press

Stumping for Sen. John McCain at the Holocaust Memorial Center in Farmington
Hills, Sen. Joseph Lieberman touted the Republican candidate’s values and strong
views on foreign policy as the reason why voters should choose him as the next president.
Touching on the birth of Israel and other world events, Lieberman said McCain would make national security decisions that were based on American and Judeo-Christian values.
“That’s what we elect presidents for — in that moment of crisis … which we can’t foresee, to make the right decision for our country and values,” Lieberman said to a largely Jewish audience inside the center Wednesday night. “The man I want to sit behind the big desk and make those decisions in the Oval Office is John McCain.”
Up to 500 people packed a hall inside the center to hear the Connecticut senator, a
former Democrat who is now an independent. In previous presidential elections,
Jewish voters have generally voted Democratic. But some who attended said that
they will be voting for McCain this time.
“McCain has been strong on national security,” said Mark Segel, an insurance agent from West Bloomfield. “He will confront Iran.” Lieberman also spoke about the threat of Iran and said McCain will be a president “our enemies will respect and fear.” Lieberman added that McCain believes “the enemies of Israel are our enemies” and has said that “I will never allow a second Holocaust to occur in my lifetime.”

My reaction:

Since when is the Holocaust Memorial Center to be used for political events?
I have been interested in the Holocaust for 40 years, long before it became
“fashionable”. I think it is shameless the way it has been exploited and
devalued, with all sorts of things being compared to it that are not in the same
league. And now the Center is deemed suitable for partisan activities. I have
great respect for Joe Lieberman, but he should have given his speech elsewhere.

What’s next? Holocaust Memorial soap?

Subscribe in a reader

Tags: , ,
Posted in politics | No Comments »

The New Yorker cover for July 21st, and Invoking Rush Limbaugh

Tuesday, July 15th, 2008

As a longtime New Yorker subscriber, I’m used to the occasional cover which readers consider to be in bad taste. This one is so slapstick, it looks like it belongs in Mad Magazine. As for being offensive, I’m sure Cheney supporters were more offended to see him depicted as the Halloween pumpkin. The people in this country have different grasps on reality, but surely they can all take, if not appreciate, a joke.
Gary Kamiya has a great column on this in salon.com . The only problem I have is with the title and his invoking of Rush Limbaugh:
“Rush Limbaugh Was Right. The blogosphere’s reaction to the New Yorker cover proves that the Bush era has killed a lot of liberals’ sense of humor. And that’s not funny.”
Here are excerpts from the beginning of the column.

It’s official: The Bush era has made liberals so terrified of right-wing smears it has caused them to completely lose their sense of humor.
Much as I hate to repeat one of Rush Limbaugh’s flat, stale and unprofitable applause lines, that’s the only conclusion I can draw after witnessing the left-wing blogosphere’s bizarre reaction to the New Yorker cover [pictured above]
depicting Barfack Obama …. . To judge from the reaction of much of the left,
you’d think that New Yorker editor David Remnick had morphed into some kind of
hideous hybrid of Roger Ailes and Roland Barthes and was waging an insidious
Semiotic War against Obama.

Here is the letter I sent to salon.com
Rush Limbaugh Is Not Right

I thought Gary Kamiya’s article was great, except for the inappropriate title. Rush Limbaugh hates liberals. He denigrates them on a daily basis. He doesn’t think they were ever capable of having a sense of humor, so how could they lose one? And when he attacks liberals, it is not meant as a joke.

Limbaugh dissembles about his past statements on a regular basis. He constantly attacks the “drive-by media,” but then quotes them when he agrees with something they say. He has a legion of followers who hang on his every word, oblivious to his reworking of the truth, his rewriting of history and his logical inconsistencies. True, he is clever and funny, but he is also diabolical.

People on the left are always going after Fox News, but that organization is diverse, albeit slanted to the right. I am more worried about the legion of dittoheads Rush continues to nurture and amuse with his often hateful commentary. They constitute the Limbaugh cult, and I don’t think their cult leader, “El Rushbo” as he likes to call himself, is entitled to be given any credibility as a serious and thoughtful commentator. The dittoheads may buy into all this, but why should anyone else?

Here is the Cheney cover and a Tom Toles cartoon from today’s Washington Post.

Added Insight (7/17): I’ve figured out the “problem” with the Toles cartoon. The pictures on the covers are taken out of context. One must also consider the names of the magazines. The New Yorker, as is their usual practice, did not include the title of the picture, “The Politics of Fear”, on their cover, so the irony was not readily apparent. I think that their “laid-back” style has backfired in this case, and that they have outsmarted themselves with possibly disastrous consequences.

Subscribe in a reader

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in politics | No Comments »