Knowing how these things work, I just don't think he just found out yesterday. I think she's had at least a few days to process this.
You all do make some good points though about how she might not be thinking clearly. He is a coward for a lot of reasons and I guess having his wife by his side is just another example of this.

I wouldn't be surprised if his wife has known or suspected for awhile now.
It does seem to be the trend to have the wife stand by her man in situations like this (McGreevey,Craig,Clinton etc.) I don't doubt that some PR person says it's helpful to the adulterer to have his spouse and family stand up there showing their support........but, I would be more inclined to think he was repentant and humbled if he faced the music all by himself and insisted his family be protected from more humiliation due to HIS bad behavior.

As much as I am for saving marriages, I am happy that Villaraigosa's wife left him, and became an exception to this general rule.

AGG

Hm. I'm surprised people on this board are so cavalier about the choices people make in this situation. If you're lucky you don't get to practice for this stuff. Down the road it's possible Spitzer will regret agreeing to have Silda join him on the dais. It's also possible that some day she'll be glad she was up there.

This "stand by your man" talk is actually shocking to me. If my spouse was a public figure and was caught cheating, and she was contrite, and I wanted to try to protect the marriage, I have no doubt at all that I'd be up there next to the podium too, if asked.

This "stand by your man" talk is actually shocking to me. If my spouse was a public figure and was caught cheating, and she was contrite, and I wanted to try to protect the marriage, I have no doubt at all that I'd be up there next to the podium too, if asked.

***********************************
interesting....I see it differently.
I suppose I can understand this IF you truly felt your spouse was contrite or if there was some prior agreement.....I don't really know about politicians (or their spouses) motives.

I come from the perspective that *I* think he would have looked MORE contrite if he had made it a point to NOT have her stand up there w/ him.....to not have asked or expected that of her but to be considerate enough to insist she didn't have to endure more public humiliation.

If it had been me, I would never expect my spouse to endure such public humiliation for MY benefit.

Exactly. The point is, it was still all about him. His wife looked miserable and in shock. If she wants to stay in the marriage, that's up to her, but he should have protected her and gone out there to face the music alone.

Having the wives up there just reinforces the idea that "it's only the families who are hurt, so let them figure it out. The rest of us weren't hurt, so why should we care?"

What a pig this man is. In the clips, his wife looked young and happy. Yesterday she looked like a very old woman.

On the news they keep showing her face while standing up there and saying, "I wonder what's going through her mind?"

I can tell you.

She was thinking, "He used to be my hero. He used to be so very special to me. Now he's just another lying, cheating pig."

That's what she was thinking.
Mulan

Me too nia. I would never ask her to stand up there. But none of us know how that decision happened and it is wrong to assume.

I think I'm stepping out of this thread. It's all just a lot of gossip, isn't it?

But what if SHE CHOSE to stand up there with him...We can't ASSUME that's not the case...

She MAY have known about this for awhile...

I wouldn't have liked for my H to FORBID me from going if that's what I wanted to do...

He's the ONE that should be ASHAMED..

Why should she stay home?

I LIVED this BTW, my H WAS in LOCAL POLITICS...

He had a VERY PUBLIC..FALL FROM GRACE...

People still STARE at me in WONDER...

YUCK!!

****************************

You are very right......we do not know and i am not assuming one way or the other.
It just *felt* wrong to me..... politics often does. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

I wouldn't have liked for my H to FORBID me from going if that's what I wanted to do...

He's the ONE that should be ASHAMED..

Why should she stay home?
******************************

very good point mimi....It could certainly have been that way.
I never said FORBID and I surely don't think any Wayward has the right to forbid his spouse whatever might help them heal.


In McGreevey's case, I believe his wife knew for a long time and they may have discussed what they were going to do if his "secrets' were discovered. It could have been that way w/ this guys wife...there are lots of possibilities....

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer with his wife, Silda

Shannon Stapleton, Reuters
Snag this module or subscribe to feed.
Governor's Wife
Stands by Her Man

Would You Do the Same Thing?
Political Machine: Spitzer Scandal
***********************

Just saw this new headline.
LOL

Any thoughts or comments on Dr. Laura's take on the scandal du jour? I'm not real impressed with her assessment in terms of being SUSCEPTIBLE. That removes personal responsiblity, doesn't it?

No, I think she is right...and I think she is in line with the thinking of the Harley's as far as that goes. I don't think it takes away HIS responsibility for what he has done...I see it more as trying to explain the state of the marriage pre-affair.

She largely has it right.

While his wife is not to blame for his choices, she may (or may not) be to blame for creating an environment where he thought his best chance to get his emotional needs met was through prostitution.

We don't know the truth. However, if a spouse withholds an emotional need from another, they are fully responsible for creating an environment where the other is not having his/her needs met.

SF is the hardest, because we believe that it is ONLY legitimately met in marriage. If a spouse refuses to meet this need, they do so at great potential peril.

We really don't know what his wife did or did not do. But Dr Laura is largely consistent with Dr Harley's teaching on this topic.

I think her assessment in a general sense is in keeping with the harley's point of view..but there are many other factors to consider in this case...It's all speculation because we really don't know the state of their marriage, and for all we know, his wife could be familiar with the importance of meeting her husband's needs and she may have been aware of what his most important needs are... she could have been doing that...we can't know for sure... Hypothetically speaking, If his wife was meeting all of his needs and he just happens to think because he is a powerful politician with money and power at his fingertips and a sense of entitlement to boot with the intention of having a "secret life"..he would probably make the choice to have an affair anyway.. just because he can. There are those that would have an affair because its a chosen lifestyle rather than because there needs aren't being met...no matter how small of a percentage, those types DO exist..What we DO know is that he made the choice to step outside of his marriage and that responsibility is his to own.

The guy’s a scumbag, all the way through. It’s not just sex; it’s also money, as usual.

--------
Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

After a report that Gov. Eliot Spitzer had patronized a prostitution ring, officials in Albany greeted the news with shock, and some on Wall Street, a frequent target of his investigations as attorney general, were unsympathetic.

The rendezvous that established Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s involvement with high-priced prostitutes occurred last month in one of Washington’s grandest hotels, but the criminal investigation that discovered the tryst began last year in a nondescript office building opposite a Dunkin’ Donuts on Long Island, according to law enforcement officials.

There, in the Hauppauge offices of the Internal Revenue Service, investigators conducting a routine examination of suspicious financial transactions reported to them by banks found several unusual movements of cash involving the governor of New York, several officials said.

The investigators working out of the three-story office building, which faces Veterans Highway, typically review such reports, the officials said. But this was not typical: transactions by a governor who appeared to be trying to conceal the source, destination or purpose of the movement of thousands of dollars in cash, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The money ended up in the bank accounts of what appeared to be shell companies, corporations that essentially had no real business.

The transactions, officials said, suggested possible financial crimes — maybe bribery, political corruption, or something inappropriate involving campaign finance. Prostitution, they said, was the furthest thing from the minds of the investigators.

Soon, the I.R.S. agents, from the agency’s Criminal Investigation Division, were working with F.B.I. agents and federal prosecutors from Manhattan who specialize in political corruption.

The inquiry, like many such investigations, was a delicate one. Because the focus was a high-ranking government official, prosecutors were required to seek the approval of the United States attorney general to proceed. Once they secured that permission, the investigation moved forward.

At the outset, one official said, it seemed like a bread-and-butter inquiry into political corruption, the kind of case the F.B.I. squad, known internally by the designation C14, frequently pursues.

But before long, the investigators learned that the money was being moved to pay for sex and that the transactions were being manipulated to conceal Mr. Spitzer’s connection to payments for meetings with prostitutes, the official said.

Then, with the assistance of a confidential informant, a young woman who had worked previously as a prostitute for the Emperor’s Club V.I.P., the escort service that Mr. Spitzer was believed to be using, the investigators were able to get a judge to approve wiretaps on the cellphones of some of those suspected of involvement in the escort service.

The wiretaps, along with the records of bank accounts held in the names of the shell companies, revealed a world of prostitutes catering to wealthy men. At the center was the Emperor’s Club, which arranged “dates” with more than 50 beautiful young women in New York, Paris, London, Miami and Washington.

But its finances moved through the shell companies — the QAT Consulting Group, QAT International and Protech Consulting — which held bank accounts into which clients wired their payments, according to court papers in the case.

One of the booking agents, a woman named Temeka Rachelle Lewis, 32, told a client that wiring his payments to QAT Consulting was safe because it would show up “like as a business transaction,” according to an affidavit filed in federal court the case.
But the transactions proved to be anything but safe for Mr. Spitzer, who, aides said on Monday, was weighing possible resignation.

Last week, Ms. Lewis was one of four people charged by federal prosecutors in Manhattan with operating the prostitution ring. Also arrested were Mark Brener, 62, who is accused of heading the operation; Cecil Suwal, 23, who is said to have managed it day to day; and Tanya Hollander, 36, who worked part time as a booker.

The affidavit, which was unsealed on Thursday when the four were arrested, details the secretly recorded conversations that officials said captured Mr. Spitzer’s efforts to arrange a Washington meeting with a prostitute on Feb. 13. It also describes the young woman’s report to the booking agent on her encounter with the governor.

Anyone who actually wants a political office should be automatically disqualified…

------
What sex scandals say about politics
By Carol M. Ostrom Seattle Times health reporter

When a married politician resigns after allegations that he had sex with a young man in an out-of-town hotel room — particularly when he tips off the cops himself — the obvious question is: "What was he thinking?"

In the case of state Rep. Richard Curtis, a 48-year-old Republican from La Center, Clark County, no one knows — yet. Curtis, who resigned Wednesday, has declined to elaborate, on the advice of his lawyer.

But because cases like his are becoming so familiar, experts in politics, risk-taking behavior and psychology have plenty to say. They recall the indiscretions of former President Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton; former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey, who announced on live television in 2004 that he was a "gay American"; and the late Spokane Mayor Jim West, who last year was ousted from office after a scandal involving alleged gay sex.

On Monday, Curtis insisted to The Columbian in Vancouver, Wash., that he was not gay and that sex was not involved in what he said was an extortion attempt.

But in police reports released Tuesday, Curtis said he was being extorted by a man he'd had sex with in a Spokane hotel room. The other man contends Curtis reneged on a promise to pay $1,000 for sex.

What's going on when politicians risk everything for a quickie? Do they have some innate need to take risks — a sort of Evel Knievel-like urge to juggle chainsaws at the top of a ladder? Or are they just clueless, like the guy who lights up while pouring gas into his lawn mower?

Is the power of a closeted sex drive so strong that it just can't be resisted for long? And why would someone repressing sexual urges become a Republican politician instead of finding a job with a private company where no one would care?

"There really is a pattern here," says John Gastil, a University of Washington professor who studies communications in politics.

Curtis' encounter allegedly also included his appearance at a porn shop in women's lacy lingerie. Even so, it only qualifies as a "medium-grade sex scandal," says Brian Gladue, a behavioral biologist at the University of North Texas Health Science Center who has studied sexual behavior.

"What's his excuse?" asks Gladue. "That will tell you an enormous amount about how they're going to do their own risk management."

Oddly or admirably, Curtis, who told police he had spent his career in risk management, apparently was candid when they interviewed him. Although he told police he gave the young man money "for gas," he admitted to the sex, according to the police report.

He didn't say he was sleepwalking, Gladue notes. He didn't say the whole thing was a setup by Democrats out to get him. He didn't say the lacy lingerie was just a Halloween costume he was "test-driving." He didn't say he had a compulsion he couldn't control and offer to enter rehab.

He has insisted that he was a victim, however. "I am not the criminal here," he told an editor at the Columbian.

At 48, Curtis — like McGreevey — now faces the sudden destruction of the life he's built.
Why would any politician take such risks?

For the answer to that, start with the notion that people who go into politics are more likely than others to be risk-takers, say experts in the field. To a large extent, they're people who are comfortable inviting scrutiny because that's what politicians do to get elected.

"Politics tends to attract risk-takers," says Frank Farley, a Temple University psychologist who has studied risk-taking, politics and human motivation. "It's an uncertain job, you live at the whim of the electorate, there's no tenure. It's often short-term — you're in for two or four years, and you're out. Then you have to start all over again in some field."

Often, successful politicians got there largely because of that personal chutzpah, a risk-taking predilection honed and encouraged by success. For those who come from modest circumstances or small towns, risk-taking is often the only ticket out, as it was for Bill Clinton, who fueled his brainpower with nerve to overcome a childhood broken home and financial hardship.

"Often one of the ways to get ahead is to take risks, be bold; if you don't, the world is going to pass you by, because you don't have anything besides your psychology — no wealth, you're not a Bush, not born into money," Farley says.

Such risk-takers are likely more prone to do things others consider unsafe, says Gladue. "It's not that they're brain-damaged and they can't evaluate the dangers; they just have a higher threshold for risk than most people. [To them] it's not risky."

Everyone finds a level of risk they're comfortable with, Gladue says. They'll hike but not climb. Or they'll climb Mount Rainier, but only in the summer. Or they'll climb Mount Rainier in all seasons, but not Mount Everest.

Some people just keep "pushing the limits," Gladue says. "Everybody knows somebody like that. You just don't want to be in a car with them, because they're not managing risk as well as you'd like them to be."

There's plenty of research indicating that such sensation-seeking personalities are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior as well, Gladue says. "This is part of who they are. Their temperament gets a little watered down as they get older, but it doesn't go away."

Some evolutionary biologists have argued that politicians, as the modern-day equivalent of the "alpha male" gorilla, are even more tempted than others by the lure of sexual conquests, almost as a right of office. After all, they say, in nature it's the alpha male who gets the sexual access.Of course, these days such "evolutionary" urges are generally tempered by pragmatism, they add.

For some people, hiding an inner life that's in direct conflict with an outer life becomes intolerable, says Farley. "You want to bring some alignment, some freedom, from that continual, conflictual stress."

At some point, the pain of the conflict itself may become a powerful motivator to resolve the differences, Farley says.

McGreevey, in his tell-all book, "The Confession," wrote that "the closet starves a man and when he gets a chance, he gorges 'til it sickens him."

Curtis, like many who have found themselves in this situation, has a wife and children. He ran for office as a conservative Republican.

Farley says that, too, is understandable."You're creating a cover for your behavior so you're beyond reproach. You figure you will get away with what you're doing; you've covered it with those strong positions, so nobody thinks of you as gay."

Farley, who has studied heroes, says such "untidy" lives don't necessarily undo a leader's popularity. Look at Clinton, or at the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was said to have "wrestled in his own soul" over infidelity, Farley says.

But these days, covering up is so old-school, he says."It's simply becoming so much more acceptable to state your sexual orientation," says Farley. In the 21st-century, "people are more upset about covering up something, living a lie, than being gay," he says. "Saying one thing and doing another — that's one of the things Americans don't like."

In the long run, says David Domke, who studies political communications at the UW, the Curtis scandal hurts not only Republicans, but politicians of every stripe.

"I think the public is going to eventually say, 'We don't trust politicians — we're going to stop listening to you,' " he says. "Most people are saying, 'Either deal with this in your private life or get out of office, because we've got more important issues to deal with.' "

I agree that she is in line with the Harleys thoughts on the state of the marriage pre-affair



Maybe, for me, it is Dr. Laura's approach that makes me bristly. I've read her and listened to her enough, and agree with much of what she iterates regarding marriage and caring for your husband. I didn't TOSS out my husband, though I made mistakes, and would have liked to repair them BEFORE it led to an affair (or multiple affairs, in my case). The way in which she expresses her viewpoint may be at the root of how I perceive her. It sounds like she's BLAMING the wife for the state of the marriage, as if her husband has nothing to contribute, except being there.

I too have a problem with this quote.