New York Governor: Yup, I’ve Had Affairs
Well, this is just awesome. It must make New Yorkers incredibly proud to know that not only their old Governor (Eliot Spitzer) was cheating on his wife, but their new Governor (David Paterson) admitted in an interview yesterday that he had an extramarital affair as well, albeit several years ago; from 1999 to 2001.
Paterson said that the affair with another women happened “during a rocky period in their marriage several years ago.” As if that’s not enough, his wife Michelle admitted that she also had an affair. But then with another man. Sorry, can’t spice this story up.
Paterson explained: “This was a marriage that appeared to be going sour at one point.” “But I went to counseling and we decided we wanted to make it work. Michelle is well aware of what went on.”
Michelle: “Like most marriages, you go through certain difficult periods. What’s important is for your kids to see you worked them out.”
I don’t think that this will hurt Paterson tremendously. New Yorkers are probably fed up with the scandal as it is, and besides; the scandal involving Eliot Spitzer is much… juicier. His wife didn’t seem to have known that he cheated on her, but Paterson’s wife did know. O, and she cheated on him as well. Also: Spitzer paid for sex whereas Paterson probably was in love with the woman he had an affair with. Lastly, they didn’t break any laws, whereas Spitzer most certainly did.
No, it won’t hurt him, and I think that they have decided to take the honest and open approach. It’s smart. This way, they can focus on politics, which is what really matters for the voters of course. The affair won’t be yet another controversy now, whereas if he and his wife kept silent about it, the media would find out about it sooner or later and Paterson too would be forced to resign.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
I still think that cheating on your wife (or husband) should garner you a divorce, but not a resignation. I understand the hypocrisy argument in the Spitzer case though, if you endorse policy that goes after things you engage in (like him with prostitution, or Sen Craig with gays) then you make a good case against yourself.
Still I think that more than the hookers, the thing that makes me think of Spitzer as a dirtbag is dragging his wife in front of the camera like a human shield. Just once I’d like to see a politician go to the press conference alone and say "No, my wife is not with me, she’s going through enough as it is, don’t you think?"
Claudia: but this is different I think. Both had affairs. And they decided not to divorce, for the children and themselves – seemingly they still loved each other. In such a case, I don’t see why they should have gotten a divorce.
Michael, of course that’s up to the individual couple. My point is that punishment, if any, for an affair, is a private family matter and is NOT something CNN should be privy to.
Ya, I agree with that. Except for when the law is broken of course. Then again, why in the world is it illegal to have sex with a prostitute for money, but not for free?
I could frankly care less about the sexual history of this dude or Spitzer for that matter. There are more important things to worry about.
I was watching some news show that had a wife of a politician who had the similar happen. She stated she did it because she felt it would have been easier on her to go through it and be there – rather than trying to duck the cameras for countless days.