I envy the man who has the opportunity to be the target of such a filing by such as the former Mrs. Ryan.

If she's reading this, I'm available and would be completely satistied with non-public sex, so you know, think it over.

Not so sure this is lucky for Obama. He was already up over 20 points, and now his victory in a race he would almost surely have won on the merits will always be associated with (this latest) Ryan's fall.

I hate to sound like a drooling fanboy -- but I feel sorry for any heterosexual male who can't get attraced to the former Mrs. Ryan without having to go to these "sex clubs"

Daily Kos has further analysis (of the political race, not of Jeri Ryan): The person who'll be most helped by this is Melissa Bean, running against a vulnerable incumbent in Illinois' 8th Congressional District. Obama was already cruising to an easy Senate win, but if Ryan implodes and drags down the entire ticket it could tip the balance in this and other House races.

Keep in mind also that George W. Bush is having difficulty getting onto the ballot in Illinois, thanks to the decision to hold the GOP convention in September. Illinois law currently requires that parties certify their candidate by Aug. 30th.

Though I support Obama, the allegations against Ryan are too far-fetched to accept without confirmation. Politically, he's sunk, but I don't believe these tales. Allegations are not always true, especially those made in an angry divorce filing. I actually feel sorry for the guy.

I'd like to know how much time Dan puts in to coming up with the best pictures to post. He always seems to come up with just the right amount of sexiness!

I see nothing illegal or immoral in those accusations. It's a shame most Americans are so prudish that they would be disinclined to vote for a guy simply because he goes to S&M clubs. It all sounds pretty harmless to me. I've seen this story mentioned a number of places, and it seems that just about everyone agrees that if Ryan actually did what he was accused of, it would be wrong. I don't see why. This may be a little more exotic than most sex scandals, but I don't see how it's any worse.

These likely true allegations doom the chances of the GOP in Illinois. Jack Ryan doesn’t deserve to win. I am not a prude, but I still refuse to vote for someone visiting sex clubs. We must demand a minimal standard of behavior for our elected officials. I said that about Bill Clinton. Why should I change my mind now?

Still, politicians of every stripe must be burning with envy, marveling at Obama's run of good luck.

Well, as I note at "my
blog," "Barack" does mean "blessed by God," so perhaps it shouldn't be too surprising.

Readers are invited to submit other politicians who have similarly benefited from this kind of self-destructive behavior by opponents during a campaign.

Jim Thompson won two elections against Adlai Stevenson. If I recall correctly, in the first election, Stevenson failed to plug the other members of his slate sufficiently, with the result that two LaRouchies won in the Democratic primary, including for Lieutenant Governor. This made Stevenson look like an idiot, and Thompson beat him.

In the second election campaign, again if I recall correctly, Stevenson mysteriously announced "I am not a wimp." This startled everyone, since Thompson had not called him one. Again, this made Stevenson look goofy. Thompson won by just 5,000 votes. If not for his strange "wimp" remark, Stevenson probably would have won.

Another great example of political suicide was that goofball in Texas who lost to Ann Richards (not Dubya, who alas beat her). He was some rich fellow who had a strange name, which I forget -- "Cootie" or something odd like that was his first name. He was leading in the polls until a few weeks before the election, when he brilliantly announced that if a woman was being raped, and couldn't do anything about it, "she should just lie back and enjoy it." Apparently the women of Texas weren't amused . . . .

“Another great example of political suicide was that goofball in Texas who lost to Ann Richards (not Dubya, who alas beat her). He was some rich fellow who had a strange name, which I forget -- "Cootie" or something odd like that was his first name. He was leading in the polls until a few weeks before the election, when he brilliantly announced that if a woman was being raped, and couldn't do anything about it, "she should just lie back and enjoy it." Apparently the women of Texas weren't amused . . . .”

The name you are searching for is the late Clayton Williams. He was a stark raving madman. Williams was so goofy that I removed his bumper sticker off my car---and replaced it with Ann Richards'! It was one of the few times in my life when I voted Democrat. Richards even received a small donation from me. I literally worried about William’s damaging Texas’ economy. He turned out to a total embarrassment.

Clayton Williams is a harsh reminder that a candidate should not be allowed to play the stealth game (as John Kerry is essentially doing today). He campaigned under the radar screen and we Republicans have no one else to blame but ourselves. Oh well, we did much better the next time around. I am proud that George W. Bush is from Texas. He is truly a great leader.

See, aren't these kind of the marriages that need protecting from letting us gays marry? Sheesh, first Rush gets divorce #3 and now this...quick time for yet another hearing in Congress!

*sigh*

I'm not writing off this election yet. Obama has already flipped on a key position since winning the Democratic nomination. His supporters that I have spoken too didn't know he changed his position. Obama ran in the primary with the "John Kerry" stance on gay marriage. He wasn't for same sex marriage, but he wasn't in favor of a constitutional amendment to define it between a man and a woman. However, to court the politically charged, active and fundraising of the homosexual lobby he has changed his position to support same sex marriage.

Considering that his base in rooted in the South Side Democratic stronghold, he now must contend with Southern Baptist ministers that campaigned for Obama on issues of social justice. Suddenly, the ministers, assuming that the media will actually report Obama's new view, must convince the voters that Obama is still the right man even if his same sex marriage position collides with the teachings of the faith.

Obama is clearly an intelligent and politically adept person. He's the politician with all the Vernon Jordan like qualities. Smooth, smart, gathered and known among Democratic circles.

I do think Ryan will stay in the race. The only way I see him dropping out is if the Republican Party can convince Jim Edgar to run. Edgar remains one of the most popular politicians in Illinois. He governed more to the center than to the right and for that retained plenty of support to win the governors races.

Don't expect the White House or the Congressional Republicans to play much of a role in the Illinois senate race. This is likely a seat they expect to give and Fitzgerald doesn't hold any many seats on any Senate committees. On the other hand, the Republicans have a real chance to defeat Tom Daschle. They have a real chance to pick up a seat in North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana. Illinois went to Gore in 2000 at a 53-40 clip. This state is moving to the democrats, just not the kind of Democrats that Democrats need for the future of the party.

I wont touch the details of this, but as a Chicagoan let me just mention how depressing it is to have the most clueless, lunkheaded republican party in the country. Worst of all they cant seem to find a candidate for any office not named Ryan (former Governor George Ryan was plagued with graft and corruption). Newsflash GOP, many voters dont bother to see what a guys first name is, if a Ryan keeps showing up on ballots every couple of years, a significant number of semi-apathetic voters will check the opposite column just out of habit. Idiots.

Xavier: I see nothing illegal or immoral in those accusations.

Well, good for you, but Jack Ryan himself might have disagreed, if this weren't about him:

The breakdown of the family over the past 35 years is one of the root causes of some of our society’s most intractable social problems - criminal activity, illegitimacy, and the cyclical nature of poverty.

This is from Jack Ryan on the Defense of Marriage on his campaign web site, where he eloquently points out that homosexuals should not be allowed to divorce, err, I mean to marry.

Jack Ryan is yet another "conservative" hypocrite. George "draft-dodger"-"drunk-driver" Bush is another. Dick "same-stuff!" Cheney is yet another. One can certainly debate whether the private lives of these and other conservatives should matter, but it's them who say that these kinds of things do matter, and people don't seem to care about the hypocrisy. That amazes me.

I can't get you to write about Jack!'s stance on NATO, but you pick up this? ;)

gw:

I understand your point on hypocracy, gw. Are all the "good Catholic" Democrats who nonetheless support a right to choose drinking from the same well of rank hypocracy? (See, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle AND John Kerry.)

Personally, I'd like to see a divorce from religion and politics altogether. Religious concepts of social justice and simple respect for "Thou shalt not kill" do not support the GOP, and religious concepts of personal morality and responsibility do not tend to support the Democrats. Which makes all the alleged Godliness floating around in politics these days pretty offensive. I do not think there is a single politician who embodies a position that is consistent with new teatament teachings. (Rather frighteningly, Dennis Kucinich is probably the one who comes closest.)

gw said "One can certainly debate whether the private lives of these and other conservatives should matter, but it's them who say that these kinds of things do matter, and people don't seem to care about the hypocrisy. That amazes me."

If that amazes you then you are a stupid, ignorant, sorry, pathetic offspring of human nature. Or, on the other hand, your just like 40% of the registered voters in the country that can never find the right candidate like they can never find the right guy or girl.

Honestly, a politician that does what they say, means what they say and practices what they preach is about as likely as a Soviet Submarine is to emerge from the Mississippi river using seismic weapons to cause massive midwest flooding. I'll wager that this extends even farther. The more informed, the more knowledgeable, the more the voter is wired into politics, the less likely they are to vote.

College students, for example, are nearly all required to take at least one political science course for at least one venture into the nature that runs the modern world. However, even with a fresh look, implanted if nothing more than a trend, could be responsible for college voter apathy. They're informed, they're plugged in and they think Bill Maher is a good political barometer but instead treat him like a spiritual guide. Thus, when he says he's not going to vote because the right candidate isn't out there then the college voter doesn't vote.

I really think I'm too soft here.

The last thing voters want is the kind of politician they claim to want. If they did theyd stop electing the guy that can bring them the highway project. We get the politicians we deserve.

The 1990 MN Gov race came down to longtime DFL incumbent Rudy Perpich and GOP challenger Jon Grundseth. Voters were tired of Perpich, so with only 2 weeks remaining, Grundseth held an insurmountable lead.

But headlines the next morning charged that Jon had been skinny-dipping with two underage cheerleaders at a pool party he hosted for his daughter. Jon couldn't successfully deny the charges.

Last minute GOP write-in candidate Arne "Lucky" Carlson won easily.

Well, good for you, but Jack Ryan himself might have disagreed, if this weren't about him:

The breakdown of the family over the past 35 years is one of the root causes of some of our society’s most intractable social problems - criminal activity, illegitimacy, and the cyclical nature of poverty.

This is from Jack Ryan on the Defense of Marriage on his campaign web site, where he eloquently points out that homosexuals should not be allowed to divorce, err, I mean to marry.

Non-sequitur alert!

What the hell does gay marriage have to do with Ryan's private sex life?

Is it something like: married people simetimes have sex, therefore anyone who has a position on gay marriage ought to have their sex life examined? WTF?

The gay marriage issue has to do with whether the state should confer certain benefits on gays. It has nothing to do with privacy. Sheesh.

Al:

Think gw's point was Mr. Ryan's divorce, which is kind of an illustration of the breakdown of family.

Appalled Moderate: That still doesn't defend same sex marriage unless you are arguing the breakdown of the family is because of heterosexuality.

From metafilter:

While Ryan's sexual interests may be of some interest to the more prudish of the Republican party, I don't think it matters that much to most voters. At least I hope it doesn't.

What *should* matter, however, is his insistence that the records remain sealed in an effort to protect his son. He knew that running for office would bring about tremendous scrutiny of his divorce proceedings. By playing the "protect my children" card, he hoped to dodge that scrutiny.

He hid behind his son, a child who suffers from a developmental disability, in an effort to foster political gain. That's truly disgusting.

The name you are searching for is the late Clayton Williams. He was a stark raving madman. Williams was so goofy that I removed his bumper sticker off my car---and replaced it with Ann Richards'!

Posted by David Thomson at June 23, 2004 04:13

Wait...no I don't.

Brennan:

Yeah, let's just face it. Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, and they just should not live in the same house together. When they do, everybody argues all the time, and half the time they just get divorced. So, yeah, I'd say that simple heterosexuality is a factor in the break-up of families. Hey. If people weren't heterosexual, they wouldn't be having families in the first place.

Hrumph...think I'll just go watch Bill Maher now and forget to vote...

Appalled Moderate: I like my idea better. Let's lower divorce rates and bring in the same sex couples by removing 'marriage' from government altogether. Unless there is some factor that benefits the country through these cohabitative partnerships then what interest does government have in recognizing them?

But what I want to know is *which* clubs? Do the club people remember seeing Jack and Jeri Ryan?

Are there really cubicles?

Inquiring minds!
- H

"Unless there is some factor that benefits the country through these cohabitative partnerships then what interest does government have in recognizing them?"

'The good of the children', the argument used for every hideous law ever made. By that standard nothing is sacrosanct. i dont have kids because i dont want to live a G rated life at this point, but there are plenty of people in this country that want to force me to do just that, to protect other peoples children. Believe me, despite what they claim its not for the good of anyones children. Its to stoke the egos of those who enjoy making others do what they want. In a word, power.

Brennan:

Under your framework, the care and feeding of children will become a very big deal. As will discarded mates. Guess the government will have to take care of them in some fashion.

Looks like I just came up with a compelling governmental interest in marriage.

I know you can come up with frameworks where all this is handled, and the frameworks might even work in the real world. The question would be -- why? We have a system that currently handles these needs.

Appalled Moderate: Are all the "good Catholic" Democrats who nonetheless support a right to choose drinking from the same well of rank hypocracy?

I fully agree with your point that religion and politics should be completely separated.

But what is your point here? Are you saying these politicians ought to leave the Catholic Church in order to reconcile their political and religious beliefs?

Wouldn't that be just the opposite of separating religion and politics? Shouldn't that separation go both ways?

As you went on to point out yourself, pretty much every politician who is religious could be accused of hypocrisy.

I think that shouldn't prevent us from pointing out other kinds of hypocrisy.

gw:

My point is these guys feel they get some mileage out of proclaiming themselves to be good Catholics,even though they oppose the Church on an issue the Church takes very seriously. I find that VERY hypocritical, but only reported in the context of the decisions of some Bishops to withhold communion from those politicians. (Don't agree with that decision, by the way, though I empathize with the Bishop's frustration.)

Meanwhile, the sexcapades of assorted GOP folk gets reported and reported and reported under the guise of, horrors, hypocracy. You aren't the media -- so it's not your fault -- but I am a bit weary of it. But, the only Democrat in post-Clinton years to get his sex life seriously trashed is Gary Condit, who had the misfortune of being a murder suspect. Methinks there is a double standard going on here -- which is also rather hypocritical.

(PS, of course a story that ties in Illinois, S&M, GOP, star-trek, Paris and sex clubs may be too much to pass up. If only for the google searches it will generate.)

Under your framework, the care and feeding of children will become a very big deal. As will discarded mates. Guess the government will have to take care of them in some fashion.

Looks like I just came up with a compelling governmental interest in marriage.

No you didn't. Marriage and children are not exclusive. The government may grant more privelages to a married couple that has children, but that's no more reasonable than to grant privelages to same sex couples. Though, why grant privelages to either? What's the compelling government interest?

The interest, in your opinion, is the "care and feeding of children" and "discarded mates". In other words, our government exists to feed and provide a proper mate for its citizens? I suppose the "living constitution" argument could generate a rational defense of that, but the same "living constitution" argument could rationalize against it.

If I have things straight we are currently in a period where the government can decide who can get married; decide who cannot care for their child; decide who is legally insane; decide who can raise money for paramilitary groups. I'm down for the "living constitution". Lets begin by killing the powers of government starting with the elimination of marriage as a government institution.

You later said Meanwhile, the sexcapades of assorted GOP folk gets reported and reported and reported under the guise of, horrors, hypocracy.

Do I have this wrong or is the present media commentary based on the allegations of the Ryan divorce or his statements misleading Republican Party officials, voters and the press in thinking there wasn't anything embarassing in the court documents?

Appalled Moderate: My point is these guys feel they get some mileage out of proclaiming themselves to be good Catholics

But did they actually do this?

There is a pretty interesting article here:

Kerry, Bush, and religious double standards

[...] Kerry has not made his religiosity an issue in this campaign. He has not presented himself to the voters and said, "You should support me because I am a good Christian, a good Catholic man."

Another thought: Who defines what constitutes a "good Catholic", anyway? To me personally, a pro-choice Catholic is a much better Catholic than an anti-abortion Catholic. I do realize that this is not how the Catholic Church would like "good Catholic" to be defined.

But I really don't see the parallel in hypocrisy here. On the one hand you have politicians who have made it perfectly clear that they disagree with the Catholic Church, of which they happen to be a member, on abortion; on the other hand, you have politicians who preach family values, yet engage in behavior that's not in line with those family values.

brennan:

Comment 2:

Key word is "assorted". In other words, the issue is not whether politician a deserves what he gets, but whether all equally deserving politicians are getting it. My feel is that the GOP is still suffering press revenge from l'affaire Lewinski, and I am tired of it. Have I made a study of the matter. No.

Comment 1:

Your sort of straw man argument could be appplied to traffic lights, interstate highways, Hoover Dam, Medicare, or your local school system. (I can see all those 19th century Jacksonians scoffing at such Whig-ian "internal improvements".) Obviously, our concept as a society of what government has an interest in has changed since the 1780s, without us having to state each and every change in the constitution. Funny,though, I bet that those 1780s types would argue that government DID have a stake in the legal status of marriage.

"This is from Jack Ryan on the Defense of Marriage on his campaign web site, where he eloquently points out that homosexuals should not be allowed to divorce, err, I mean to marry."

If gays were allowed to marry, then they would intrude on the sacred institutions of marriage, such as dragging your wife along to sex clubs and bonking publicly.

We must fight to preserve decency in marriage. Why can't you liberals understand?

The more i think about this quasi-scandal, the creepier the whole thing feels. First of all we're talking about a custody issue in a messy divorce, so lawyers are encouraging this woman to find some mud that can be cast into the worst light. Im not saying Jerri Ryan is lying, but is there anyone that would want intimate details of a wrecked relationship splashed across the newspapers? Soley from the other party's pov no less?
I guess my question is, is there anyone here that hasnt made a suggestion to their spouse or lover they wouldnt want to see on the front page?

Well, Mark, there are many people like that. If they're Republicans, they should either make sure they remain on good terms with their spouse or forego becoming candidates for public office.

For Democrats it doesn't matter so much, but most Republican voters prefer their candidates not to be creeps or cads.

I can see this starting to turn into a celebration of the victimhood of poor Republican politicians who are unfairly held to a higher standard by the "liberal media".

Sorry, but: bullshit.

Appalled Moderate, with all due respect, and perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but your memory of the Lewinsky affair appears to be hazy - it proves quite the opposite point which you seem to be getting at. Clinton was not spared by the media, he was vigorously pursued by them, even to the extent that baseless accusations were reported as likely facts with minimal or no serious sourcing. Read the chapter on Clinton in Alterman's "What Liberal Media?" for a well-researched account of what happened.

If Jack Ryan had declared that people's marriages and sex lives are their own business, nobody should be digging into his private affairs with his former wife right now. But since he is campaigning on family values and the "protection of marriage", the media have every right to expose the hypocrite.

“Another great example of political suicide was that goofball in Texas who lost to Ann Richards (not Dubya, who alas beat her). He was some rich fellow who had a strange name, which I forget -- "Cootie" or something odd like that was his first name. He was leading in the polls until a few weeks before the election, when he brilliantly announced that if a woman was being raped, and couldn't do anything about it, "she should just lie back and enjoy it." Apparently the women of Texas weren't amused . . . .”

Not to pick too fine a nit here, but I think that rape quote comes from Indiana's brilliant b-ball coach and idiotic quotesmith Bob Knight. I was living in Indiana at the time he said that, and it caused quite a stir (he must have immediately realized he had said something idiotic, as he followed up by saying something like, "I don't mean rape per se..." What I recall about the Texas governor campaign was that Williams refused to shake Richards' hand at a debate, and, from what I read at the time, that made a difference to Texans. I think there were also some shenanigans about Williams' campaign accusing Richards of being a dope user, or something.

Knight, of course, now coaches in Lubbock. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

gw:

No question the press badgered Clinton on l'affaire Monica. (And, still are...I do notice the notes that Bill "changed his story" in his memoirs.) Really, the best way to have dealt with Clinton was to suspend him for two weeks without pay -- because what he did merited some kind of employment-based discipline, but certain not the endless self-indulgent national crisis delivered to us by Newt and his buddies.

But, I think, as a result of l'affaire Monica,the press -- or its tackier elements-- now feels honor bound to smoke out the hypocracy in every "family values" Republican who has the effrontry to seek office, because such Republicans forced this Monica business on them in the first place. So we get snarky Vanity Fair articles on the many divorces of certain GOP members. Maybe that's fine. But every time a Democrat trots out his happy family to sell himself or parts of his agenda, and that same Democrat is off doing the nasty nastily on the side, that Democrat is indulging in similar hypocracy. (I'll get to the Catholic argument when I have some time to be more thoughtful). But I don't see the rush to expose those individuals.

Personally, I would like to return to the day when politicians private lives stayed private, except when said politico is found, in the words of the legendary Edwin Edwards, "in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." I don't see my wish being granted.

Democrats play the family value card just as often as republicans. How often did Clinton trot out Hillary and Chelsea during the impeachment for 'spontaneous' photo ops? I suppose you could make the argument that everybody knows they're going through the motions so nobody bothers to bust them out. Better a phony than a hypocrite?

Its just incrediably funny to me that a guy who took his wife to a sex club is being blackballed from an institution who's highest members include a drunk who drowned a hooker, a former majority leader who publicly lamented Strom Thurmond losing the presidency, and a former clansman in line for presidential succession. More ironically the seat he is seeking was formerly held by a woman who had an affair with a brutal African dictator. What a country! Looks to me like Ryan is leadership material.

I'm with Buehner and Stout on this one. If we expect morality from our leaders beyond the bounds of prohibiting violence, we expect I think a little too much since who being innocent should throw the first stone? Moreover would we want people like these "innocents" actually in power?

Abstaining from weird sex doesn't seem to have made Ashcroft an Attourney General I feel comfortable with prosecuting the WoT.

The government probably should move to a contractual system of mate pairing and enforce legal and biological obligations for child care. However that being said, I don't see that happening for a while.

As for the hypocrisy factor, I think it would be refreshing if some politicians didn't bother to hide their sex kinks. Sort of yes, I love dating lots of women and I'm proud of it. Or "I'm into open marriages". Or "doesn't everyone want to have an affair with a brutal African dictator?"

You might vote against them, you might vote for them, but there would never ever be a question of hypocrisy. ;-)

Err, Mark, you are using Moseley Braun's alleged Abacha affair as an example to bail out Ryan? Moseley Braun lost her Illinois Senate seat in 1996 partly because of this affair. So it was quite ok then for Republicans to use this against her? But now, because of it, Republican Ryan should be shielded from attacks?

Incidentally, Cheney had some interesting dealings with Abacha, too: Dick Cheney’s Nigerian nightmare. Why don't we hear more about those?

Oh, and "a former majority leader who publicly lamented Strom Thurmond losing the presidency" - that was Trent Lott, right? So perhaps by "institution" you meant not the Democratic Party (that kind of seemed to be implied by the first paragraph), but the Senate in general?

I also took it as the Senate in general. And the list goes well beyond Mark's examples.

The simple fact that it was his wife Ryan sought to have sex with immediatly puts him above the vast majority of our congress, and im not exaggerating.

Wonkette was on "Scarborough Country" last night. Joe asked her what were people talking about coming out of the special screening of "Farenhiet 911". She said they weren't talking about the movie. They were talking about Jack Ryan because he's a "babe".

Double standard?

http://www.drudgereport.com/kerryt.htm