Telling it like it is. What smart looks like?

So, New York's new governor, David Paterson, has not been in office a full week yet, and already there are revelations about his private life. But, thankfully, I think, he is "coming clean" about extramarital affairs (see report), and not to be outdone his wife has similarly "confessed publicly" for having her bit on the side too during a very rocky period during their marriage. Now that is "standing by your man" I can understand (see New York Times report). Moreover, Mr. Paterson did his "thang" at a Days Inn (cheaper than The Mayflower, and very fiscally responsible--tick). One of the "several women" was a state employee at the time (not a good use of tax payers money--cross). Enough details for now.

My friend Brian and I had a long discussion the other evening about the newsworthiness of revelations about public figures. El Dorado had set the stage and then we were warding off dinner's post-parandial stupor, and this "match" was a draw in my books. He felt that the news could remain "unknown" if other major events were happening at the time. My view is that anything distasteful about, or showing in a bad light, a notable public figure will become big news sometime once it sees the light of day. It may not hit front pages and TV news immediately, but it will get there. In the extreme, after a lifetime of cover up, it may have to wait until the memoirs or biography, but when it comes out it will be a splash. The "damage" to the public figure may be less depending on when the news hits the public, but views of the person will always be changed afterwards. His descendants may have to shoulder the shame. "He seemed such a nice man. Who would have believed...?" comments may come out, of course. But you will go down as a fraud. Someone like Eliot Spitzer must get their comeuppance not least for having hogged the podium on the moral high ground. People can hardly wait to find out what a woman whose "services" cost $1,000 an hour did and for what the Governor paid to generate a $4,000 bill, and what else caused him to run up a tally near $80,000, if the figures are correct. We've seen the money, and we want the pictures, we want the tapes. Put them on YouTube!

I remain intrigued by how people in high office, especially those with seemingly hug intellects and great education, and surrounded by all the state can muster to find out information about citizens, seem to waltz around as if they don't inhabit the same world. Maybe that's it. They don't. They think they are untouchable because usually they are. But, people are fallible and cannot keep secrets for ever. Did the "love Gov" not consider blackmail? Did he not consider possible disasters, such as a fire in The Mayflower? Did he not think that there might be CCTV in the hotel? Did he have that sociopathic wish to be caught? Had he not heard about secret FBI wiretaps? Did he think he had no enemies who might want to expose him? For someone who made a political career on being ruthless against financial corruption what was he thinking? Mr. Spitzer had become increasingly public in blaming the Bush administration for the current financial and economic disaster in the US. If you go public with remarks about the President being the "predator lenders' partner in crime" don't you feel that you should be standing with your halo safely tucked into your top pocket? Was he thinking or being a "typical man" incapable of doing two things at the same time? Curiouser and curiouser. Time to take another glance at the looking glass.