by hilzoy
Oh, for the days of yore, when men were men and scandals had sex in them! Who can forget the glorious moment when Wilbur Mills was stopped for speeding, and his companion, "a stripper who went by the stage-name of Fanne Foxe, the "Argentine Firecracker"", leapt into the Tidal Basin? Or Bob Packwood writing about his bridge companion: "God, was she a good player. I was so fascinated in watching her bid and play that I could hardly concentrate on her breasts." Or Robert Bauman, scourge of threats to our nation's moral fiber, being arrested for soliciting sex from a sixteen year old male prostitute? Or this classic from scandals past:
"For nearly two years, Rep. Wayne L. Hays (D-Ohio), powerful chairman of the House Administration Committee, has kept a woman on his staff who says she is paid $14,000 a year in public money to serve as his mistress.Hays denies this, saying "Hell's fire! I'm a very happily married man."
"I can't type, I can't file, I can't even answer the phone," says Elizabeth Ray, 27, who began working for Hays in April 1974 as a clerk. Since then, Ray says she has not been asked to do any Congress-related work and appears at her Capitol Hill office once or twice a week for a few hours.
Currently, she is closeted in a luxuriously appointed office in the Longworth House Office Building behind a blank door. "Supposedly," she says, "I'm on the oversight committee. But I call it the Out-of-Sight Committee.""
Now we have an enormous interconnected mass of scandals -- Abramoff, DeLay, Cunningham, Ney, Coingate, Ralph Reed, and so on and so forth -- but until now, alas, no sex! According to the Wall Street Journal, however, that might be about to change:
"Federal prosecutors are investigating whether two contractors implicated in the bribery of former Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham supplied him with prostitutes and free use of a limousine and hotel suites, pursuing evidence that could broaden their long-running inquiry.Besides scrutinizing the prostitution scheme for evidence that might implicate contractor Brent Wilkes, investigators are focusing on whether any other members of Congress, or their staffs, may also have used the same free services, though it isn't clear whether investigators have turned up anything to implicate others.
In recent weeks, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents have fanned out across Washington, interviewing women from escort services, potential witnesses and others who may have been involved in the arrangement. (...)
Mr. Wade in February pleaded guilty to giving bribes of more than $1 million to Mr. Cunningham, including cash, antiques and payment for yachts. Mr. Wade, who hasn't been sentenced yet, is cooperating with prosecutors. According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Mr. Wade told investigators that Mr. Cunningham periodically phoned him to request a prostitute, and that Mr. Wade then helped to arrange for one. A limousine driver then picked up the prostitute as well as Mr. Cunningham, and drove them to one of the hotel suites, originally at the Watergate Hotel, and subsequently at the Westin Grand.
Mr. Wade told investigators that all the arrangements for these services had been made by Mr. Wilkes and two employees of Mr. Wilkes's company, according to people with knowledge of his debriefing. He said Mr. Wilkes had rented the hotel suites and found the limousine driver, who had "relationships" with several escort services. Mr. Wade told prosecutors that sometimes Mr. Cunningham would contact him to request these services, and he would pass on the request to Mr. Wilkes or his employees, who then made the actual arrangement. Mr. Wade said that other times Mr. Cunningham called Mr. Wilkes directly to make the requests."
And Ken Silverstein at Harpers (h/t TPM Muckraker) adds:
"I've learned from a well-connected source that those under intense scrutiny by the FBI are current and former lawmakers on Defense and Intelligence comittees—including one person who now holds a powerful intelligence post. I've also been able to learn the name of the limousine service that was used to ferry the guests and other attendees to the parties: Shirlington Limousine and Transportation of Arlington, Virginia. Wilkes, I've learned, even hired Shirlington as his personal limousine service.It gets even more interesting: the man who has been identified as the CEO of Shirlington has a 62-page rap sheet (I recently obtained a copy) that runs from at least 1979 through 1989 and lists charges of petit larceny, robbery, receiving stolen goods, assault, and more. Curiously—or perhaps not so curiously given the company's connections—Shirlington Limousine is also a Department of Homeland Security contractor; according to the Washington Post, last fall it won a $21.2 million contract for shuttle services and transportation support. (I tried to contact Shirlington but was unable to get past their answering service.)
As to the festivities themselves, I hear that party nights began early with poker games and degenerated into what the source described as a "frat party" scene—real bacchanals. Apparently photographs were taken, and investigators are anxiously procuring copies."
A former lawmaker "who now holds a powerful intelligence post". It rings a bell, but I just can't place it ....
Nah. Mr. "Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation"? That would be too perfect for this flawed and halting world.
***
Note: last night, when I wrote this, I forgot the h/t to TPM Muckraker for the Harper's link, which I added this morning (4/28)
If there are good pictures, I might change my prediction about the midterms.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | April 28, 2006 at 04:50 AM
Sex Pistols
Billmon, pausing the hilarity and schadenfruede, notes a serious possibility:
"But, if it turns out to be true, the implications really will take us into Clancy and Ludlum territory. The blackmail potential alone is worth a chapter in anyone's paranoid conspiracy thriller.
Who else might have known about Porter's semi-alleged extracurricular activities, and what price would they have been in a position to charge for that information? And how would that price have been paid? The Cheneyites obviously put Goss at the agency because they believed he would be their loyal henchman (and he's certainly proved them right) but did they have the added security of knowing where, and with whom, their boy was spending his Saturday nights?"
Posted by: bob mcmanus | April 28, 2006 at 04:57 AM
Bottom line, I've never trusted this generation of Republican officeholders because they seemed incorruptible in all of the usual fun ways. They've always seemed to look down on the time-tested human frailties normal men and women have used to relieve stress.
They had bigger fish to fry and were damned earnest about it. Unlike Bill Clinton, who could read a pizza joint menu AND govern effectively and simultaneously, these new prigs seemed intent on saving their virginity
until after they destroyed the financial standing of the United States Government, wrecked FEMA, melted the polar ice caps, and bogarted Baghdad.
The thought of Ralph Reed caught in mid-satyrism in a photograph renews my faith in human nature. And who is that squat, hairy guy there in the corner, wearing only a concealed holster? That couldn't be Grover Norquist? If you turn the photograph sideways that creature he is with is still a little difficult to sex. They like goats, too?!. Yay! And Yech!
Porter Goss' possible involvement adds a frisson of British spy scandal to the entire spectacle. God, I hope it's true.
As the Jack Nicholson character said to the Shirley MacLaine character in "Terms of Endearment": "I think you need a drink."
"Why?, she asks.
Nicholson: eyebrows flying out the window "To kill that bug you have up your ass!"
I can think of a conservative blogger or two out there who should have six drinks right now, so I can respect their humanity.
May many vaginas begin to chatter as the F.B.I fans outs among the underfunded monuments in Washington D.C.
Posted by: John Thullen | April 28, 2006 at 09:37 AM
At last!
Some potential for eye candy in the scandals!
I mean, they've kept running the same photos of Valerie Plame over and over again. She's a handsome woman, but sometimes the news consumer needs something a bit less classy and more trashy.
There must be champagne glasses clinking all around Langley as right now, as agency staffers celebrate hearing about their boss's manly potency.
Posted by: Urinated State of America | April 28, 2006 at 09:50 AM
All I've got to say about this is that I don't regard cheating on one's spouse as one of those time-honored means of relieving stress. It's not for me, regardless of who else is doing it. Other people may have different arrangements, or more comfortable with covertly violating the trust of the person they've chosen as their mate.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 28, 2006 at 10:57 AM
"God, was she a good player. I was so fascinated in watching her bid and play that I could hardly concentrate on her breasts."
I had never heard this one. Way to throw in the bridge humor! Where did I put my bridge article?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | April 28, 2006 at 11:06 AM
Seb: I have always loved that quote; it's sort of the Platonic form of a certain kind of awfulness.
Posted by: hilzoy | April 28, 2006 at 11:23 AM
Slart:
Hey, me too!
I guess it must be the haughty, public disdain for the human spectacle while covertly having more fun than the two of us ("fun" being things bad boys do that we good boys try our best to avoid) and giving the country a good rogering in the bargain.
Besides, liberal, non-judgmental, relativist me would find covert fooling around in a marriage a resume bullet point for a guy like Goss who heads up a bunch of sneaky-Petes like the CIA. The fact that he may have been caught (if you can't sneak into the house at 3 am without alarming the wife and waking up all of the neighbor's pets, how do you expect to find those WMD?) doing the former doesn't give me much confidence that he can function effectively at the latter. If he's on film at the Watergate, was he in Saddam's movie collection?
In other words, what McManus said in the first entry in the thread.
My comments are better salted.
What is the emoticon for "grain of salt"? 8I
Posted by: John Thullen | April 28, 2006 at 11:40 AM
I might finally get to play some tonight; I'll try to remember the phrasing correctly.
Posted by: Jackmormon | April 28, 2006 at 11:40 AM
Since the last post was about Crony Fairies, how about the one that picked Shirlington Limousine and Transportation for $21,000,000 in Homeland Security contracts?
Isn't great that the limousine company for Wade's prostitutes is also on the inside track for such business?
Posted by: dmbeaster | April 28, 2006 at 12:05 PM
I would add that Joe Wilson's loyalty to HIS wife is the way I try to conduct my life.
Red Staters, (not Slart) however, are so hung up on slinging around the "traitor" and "cheater" charges at 49% of the electorate that they forgot to notice their trousers down around their ankles and their skirts over their heads.
O.K. I'm done for the day.
Posted by: John Thullen | April 28, 2006 at 12:40 PM
OK, it's funny. But I wouldn't want the FBI looking into my personal life. Not that it's so different from anyone else's. But every one of us has something to hide somewhere.
Posted by: Brian Klaus | April 28, 2006 at 06:11 PM
Sorry, I am compelled to pass on this link to Colbert's interview of Kristol.
And also this
I'm not suggesting that Kristol or Rushbo are into prostitutes, but the end of that Colbert interview sort of confirms my feeling that what is going to happen is that all these conservatives are going to fall into a bed of their own making, and we liberals are going to say 'well, gee, that's just human frailty' and help them up. I really despair (and this is in opposition to all my personal feelings and the way I try to conduct my life) that the left side is going to pull up at the last minute and say 'we understand, all is forgiven'. That's how I would like to conduct my personal life, but given the state of current politics, I don't think we should stop. I hesitate to use any historical metaphors (heads on pikes, a long line of crucified along the Appian Way, never taken down) lest they be interpreted as calls for violence, but I'm not sure how to express 'absolutely no possibility of any kind of rehabilitation whatsoever' without using those kinds of terms.
Great that we are getting some sex in this though...
Posted by: liberaljaponicus | April 28, 2006 at 06:59 PM
lj: I'm fine with forgiving people, as long as we remember that forgiving someone and allowing them to occupy a position of trust in the foreseeable future are two entirely different things.
Posted by: hilzoy | April 28, 2006 at 08:03 PM
"...lest they be interpreted as calls for violence"
An opening! A little local f-word ...Ann Coulter incites a crowd. I do not exaggerate. And with the Malkin/Santa Cruz incident, I sense a pattern. The Brownshirts were useful precisely because the mass and top of the movement could avoid responsibility. And I am sure Coulter and Malkin represent none of the posters and commenters around here.
But ya know, if Ann is feeling that kind of confident and frisky, maybe it is time to get serious.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | April 28, 2006 at 08:37 PM
Hey Hil,
not to pick a nit, but doesn't the concept of forgiveness necessarily imply a second chance? And, following the McManus thesis™, what seems to distinguish the current crop of conservatives from previous iterations is that ability to never forgive and never forget.
Smileys all around with that observation, mind you.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | April 28, 2006 at 08:51 PM
Am fascinated...what the hell is "Oral Sodomy"??? Lipstick round the pucker'd ring?...gaaaaarrrrgh... too much information...too much information...
Posted by: GreginOz | April 28, 2006 at 11:35 PM
lj: it might involve a willingness to give them a second chance at being a decent human being. But I can't imagine it involves giving them a second chance at exercising a position of power or trust. Thus, I might forgive my financial manager for embezzlement, but that would not mean I had to hire her again.
Likewise here. Though for myself, I tend to think some evidence of having recognized one's faults is important to being forgiven, and such evidence hasn't been forthcoming yet.
But really I just meant: forgiving is a matter of my attitude towards someone; what matters is not our attitudes, but our never ever ever electing them to public office again. If we send them off into retirement, then as far as I'm concerned we can just overflow with good feelings -- as long as we don't let them un-retire.
Posted by: hilzoy | April 28, 2006 at 11:42 PM
"...then as far as I'm concerned we can just overflow with good feelings -- as long as we don't let them un-retire."
Oh, hilzoy, after about my fifth round with these guys or guys like them, this just makes me inexpressibly sad. I did an 8th grade paper on Nixon and HUAC.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | April 29, 2006 at 12:04 AM
The question now isn't Cheney or Rumsfeld or Rove. There are litte functionaries down in the bowels of the Pentagon, and interns at the Capital, and young law clerks at SCOTUS and these kids are watching and learning and picking up tips and lessons. These are the people I worry about, though they may yet have done nothing wrong. I believe it is possible to save them, to instruct the young with kindness and responsibility.
For Cheney and Rumsfeld were once those young petty bureaucrats who watched Watergate and Iran-Contra and learned lessons. But very obviously they learned the wrong lessons.
Where did we go wrong in the early 70s and late 80s? We must learn from our previous mistakes, for the sake of the children.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | April 29, 2006 at 01:09 AM
No sex? So what were "Bulldog" Gannon's White House sleepovers? Chopped liver?
(That brings up a mental image I *don't* want to deal with ... :-)
Posted by: lightning | April 30, 2006 at 10:33 AM
If you want sex scandal in politics, you can always rely on the British:
Prescott a 'serial groper'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2158097,00.html
Posted by: Robd | April 30, 2006 at 02:24 PM
I'd just like to say that Helen Gahagan Douglas, and Jerry Voorhis, were household names in my house.
Of course, my mother was, in the Thirties, a card-carrying member of the Communist Party of America, and someone who forbade me until the Seventies to ever hint at such to anyone, for fear of losing her jobs for the NYC Board of Education, at which she retired after years as Chair of the Reading Department at Erasamus High School in Brooklyn.
Which is also why I grew up learning about the actual evils of Communism, and what anti-Communist liberalism was about, in fact, unlike those unfamiliar with actual Communism, who seemed to think it was simply some sort of extra-strong liberalism, rather than tyranny and a horror and Gulags (and that's without getting into Maoism, or my acquaintanceship with members of the RCP, and the Revolutionary Youth Brigades, or into Pol Pot, and so on).
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 30, 2006 at 02:44 PM
"Which is also why I grew up learning about the actual evils of Communism, and what anti-Communist liberalism was about,"
Hmm. I'd always thought of the US as having a very strong strain of anti-communism in its left tradition (Sidney Hook, Irving Howe, 'Partisan Review'. etc.), as the CP was even weaker in the US than in the UK (where although the CP was nowhere electorally, it did have influence in the Trade Unions).
Posted by: Urinated State of America | May 01, 2006 at 10:41 AM
Glad you explained it. I thought it was a plate of dogshit.
Posted by: rocky | May 06, 2006 at 08:38 PM
"Glad you explained it. I thought it was a plate of dogsh*t."
Although I have no idea what your point is, I'm quite sure you violated the posting rules.
A twofer. Offensive *and* boring.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 06, 2006 at 09:11 PM
The neat thing is, I'd almost forgotten this comment. And so had everyone else. Thanks to "rocky" for calling attention to it! Woo!
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 06, 2006 at 09:15 PM