Showing posts with label infidelity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label infidelity. Show all posts

Saturday, January 30, 2010

DECEPTION: The Lessons of John Edwards

When I think of John Edwards, I am reminded of a 1967 film, “Guide for the Married Man.” In one scene, Ed (played by Walter Matthau) tells Paul (played by Robert Morse) that if his wife ever accuses him of cheating, “Deny, deny, deny.” Denial and deception are what John Edwards is all about. This week’s John Edwards headline (there’s something new every week about this guy) is that Elizabeth met the lovechild, and finally decided she had had enough. They’re now legally separated.

This is one of the more extreme stories of our time. We’ve seen sleaze and/or really poor judgment before (Bill Clinton?), but the American public has not had the John Edwards experience until now. Edwards was running for President as Mr. America, when behind the scenes he referred to some of his constituents as “fat rednecks,” instructed an aide to “handle it” when he found out his mistress was pregnant, and later made a sex tape with her. All of this occurred just as Elizabeth Edwards was battling cancer. Somehow John Edwards convinced himself that we Americans would not see beyond the façade. We did. We do. He’s a low life.

What’s the lesson here? I think there are all kinds of messages that come through this story. For one thing, if you’re a high profile person today, and you consciously decide to do something stupid, the prolific nature of digital media is probably going to get you.The very media you depend on to market yourself to the country will be that which sends you into obscurity. This is just the story that media hungers for today. It has all of the ingredients: Politics, sex, tragedy, cheating, lying and deception. You could not make this up. Edwards underestimated the media, the risk he was taking and the collective wisdom of the American people.

But there are bigger lessons to be learned here for American voters. Edwards had the kind of movie star good looks and Clintonesque charisma that intoxicated voters. He preached a grass roots, populist-like agenda so appealing to middle America. He seemed to be ‘one of us,’ even though we knew of his $400 haircuts, 25,000-square-foot estate and multi-millionaire status. None of it mattered when we saw him announce his candidacy in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans outside of a house he was helping to restore from Hurricane Katrina. The lesson is age old: look beyond the obvious. What is behind the carefully coiffed and rehearsed image? As voters, we may have to demand a more intrusive investigation of our candidates. The new age debate about privacy may have to come to a halt at campaign time, and we may simply have to insist that we know more of a candidate’s personal life.

Had we done more digging, we would have uncovered the fact that Edwards was something of a high class ambulance chaser in his earlier life. He was a plaintiff’s attorney who represented a number of people who brought suits against doctors and hospitals after their children had been born with defects due to alleged mistakes made in the delivery room. Edwards made tens of millions of dollars with these cases, and legend has it that he was very dramatic in the courtroom. The story is told that in one of his closing arguments, he actually brought up the subject of his own son, who was killed in a car accident at age 16. There wasn’t a dry eye in the jury box. With his distinctive Southern accent and ability to deceive, Edwards was a powerhouse attorney, and one who collected one-third of each plaintiff’s favorable judgment. In some cases those judgments went as high as $25 million. You know that guy in your own community who goes on TV and says, “Hurt in a car accident? Get all you deserve and get it fast?” Essentially, that was John Edwards, and some of us might have cringed at his aggressive, manipulative courtroom tactics.

Had the media or even private citizens groups dug a bit deeper into Edwards’ personal life, we may have discovered the fact that Elizabeth Edwards was as ambitious as or more so than John. Now we know how badly she wanted to be First Lady. So badly that she stumped smilingly with Edwards on the campaign trail, never letting her image or her demeanor belie her rage about the affair she knew Edwards was having with Rielle Hunter. In the much ballyhooed, recently released book “Game Change,” authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann claim, “…that there was no one on the national stage for whom the disparity between public image and private reality was vaster or more disturbing.” Andrew Young, the aide who Edwards enlisted to pretend he was the father of Hunter’s child, paints a duplicitous picture of Elizabeth in his new book, “The Politician.” She comes off as temperamental, controlling and prone to histrionics. A recent piece in the New York Times seems to further that impression.

Does it matter to us, the voters, if Edwards cheats on his wife and lies about it, and that his wife is not what she seems? It does. We were supposed to have learned our lesson years ago from the Richard Nixon debacle. As it turns out, his own words revealed that he was racist, misogynistic and anti-Semitic. We needed to know that, but we didn’t until he was dead. These are not the John Kennedy days, when a Presidential candidate can carry on secret trysts with lots of women and the press knows about it, but does not report it. We’re in the digital age. The press owes us full disclosure, and deep investigation. And we owe ourselves the discipline to pay attention to a candidate’s behavior and character. Had the stars aligned themselves just a bit off center in 2008, John Edwards would be President of the United States right now, moral warts and all. Presumably his secret squeeze and love child would be safely ensconced in an undisclosed location. Elizabeth Edwards would likely be berating the White House staff, just as she reportedly did to her husband’s campaign staff. And who would suffer most for their personal indiscretions and personality flaws? That would be you and me.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

THE BAD, BAD BOYS OF SUMMER 2009


I have this theory about life that some of my friends and associates often find amusing. It goes like this: MEN CHEAT. As the years have gone by, I have added an addendum: POWERFUL AND/OR WEALTHY MEN CHEAT EVEN MORE. I don’t know about you, but I am beyond tired of hearing about married politicians having affairs, particularly those who have been so vocal about “family values.” Last week we were let in on Nevada Senator John Ensign’s tawdry tale, which definitely includes an affair, and possibly blackmail, payoffs and, oh well, you can pretty much write the rest, right? Today it’s South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, the married father of four who missed Father’s Day this year because he was in Argentina canoodling with his babe. Oh God, is anybody as over this as I am?

The Mark and John shows of the last couple of weeks are just more of the same in the ongoing drama that is Bill Clinton, John Edwards, et al. Oh, did I mention the most recent et al. includes a Miami priest named Father Alberto Cutie (I promise on all that’s holy that the guy’s last name is “Cutie”). Seems Fr. Cutie (below, left) was caught all cuddly on a public beach with his girlfriend. Oy. Men, in my view, like to see what they can get away with. In middle or post-middle age it gets the juices going, if you will, to have a woman who is willing to snuggle up and keep it on the down low. There is almost a script to which they adhere: First, they come up with multiple reasons to be away from home. At first, they keep their assignations very quiet and private. But as time passes, they become bolder and in some cases begin going out in public. Much more exciting that way, right? Reminder: Men like to see what they can get away with. Then, they get caught. Pretty much every time. The media, you know. Then there is the solemn, sometimes tearful press conference. Then the headlines.

I am not here to pass judgment on the sanctity or lack thereof of marriage. And I’m really not here to pass judgment on how anybody conducts his sex life. Believe me. I’m so not. But I do question the carelessness with which these guys treat their professional responsibilities. Today, it should be noted, a public watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed formal complaints with the Senate Ethics Committee and the Federal Elections Commission calling for investigations of Sen. Ensign (right).
As has been reported, the woman with whom Ensign had the affair was an employee of his. Why did her salary almost double during the period of their relationship? Her husband also worked for Ensign. It appears both were fired. Why? It has also been reported that Ensign made a handsome severance payment to the woman. That payment was never reported in his campaign finance report. Why not? Her husband received $6,000 when he separated from Ensign’s staff. It was recorded as “vacation time.” That’s quite a payment for vacation time. Some have suggested it was a payoff to get the husband out of the way. Was it?

As for Sanford, (below, left) last week he was reported missing in action. His staff did not know where he was, although they speculated he was hiking in the woods. He did not officially leave anyone in charge of the state of South Carolina while he supposedly communed with nature, but actually communed au naturale with a certain Maria of Argentina. In his absence Lieutenant Gov. Andrew Bauer said, "I cannot take lightly that his staff has not had communication with him for more than four days, and that no one, including his own family, knows his whereabouts." There is good reason for Bauer’s sentiments. Suppose there had been a natural disaster, such as major flooding while the Governor was missing. As Governor, he is in charge of the state’s National Guard. No one else has the authority to deploy the Guard to the affected areas. What would happen? As Governor, Sanford is the only individual legally authorized to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment at the last minute. Suppose his trip coincided with an execution. Then what? I could go on, but you begin to see the irresponsible behavior Sanford exhibited by not putting Bauer in charge while he clandestinely left the country.

The moral of this story goes something like this: If you make a decision to serve the public, your choice comes with certain add-ons: First, you will most likely sacrifice most or all of your privacy, and if you need a little ‘sumpin sumpin’ on the side, we will find out about it. Second, although you are in a rather dishonest business - that of government and legislative management - we are expecting you to tell the truth. And again, if you do not, we will find out about it. And finally, yes, you are being held to a higher moral standard that you might be had you decided to be a cashier at Target. And if you compromise your morality for your own self-indulgent reasons, we will find out about it.

Just ask John Edwards. Or Eliot Spitzer. Or Bill Clinton. So, what should happen? Ensign and Sanford should resign. Now. It’s not about sex. It’s about responsibility and doing the job we elected you to do. Man up and step down.