Congressman (for now) Anthony Weiner never heard or perhaps forgot this important lesson of politics. But he didn’t just try cover-up the scandal by lying in one written statement. He lied to everyone, the press, the public, everyone. And, he did it continuously for a week.

And, of course, he lied to his wife.

The sex aspect of Congressman Anthony Weiner’s downfall does bother me a bit. It makes him a dick of husband (had to say it), and while it seems like the other women were adults, it’s unclear how many of them were asking to see the Full Weiner.

He lied about all of it in full-on John Edwards-style: looking at the press and the people dead in the eye and proclaiming his innocence. This is what bothers me.

The reason why so many liberals liked Weiner was because of impassioned and forthright speeches like this one.

He talked about “courage” and “cowardly” things like “providing cover” “instead of doing the right thing.”

He was talking about being truthful.

Weiner should have listened to his own advice. His passionate voice on so many issues now rings hollow.

One might think that when it came to governing, the public might actually like the idea of someone who portrays himself as rational, deliberate, attentive to opposing points of view — a conciliator rather than a head-banger. But Americans have always thought of themselves as tough and uncompromising — able to beat their problems or enemies into submission. Older white men, a key part of the Republican Party base, seem particularly to want their politicians to be heroic and full of bluster — just like Schwarzenegger.

Not coincidentally, this is also the very thing that Americans, again especially men, have always loved about their movie heroes. Our most popular films are predicated on a bold individual who, usually without much outside assistance or much internal reflection, vanquishes everything before him. Our heroes get the job done, whatever it takes.

And again, not incidentally, they also get the woman, who swoons in the cloud of his testosterone. We all know that female subjugation is one component of the American male power fantasy.

It is no wonder, then, that our movies and politics would become conflated, especially in California, home of the motion picture industry. Schwarzenegger’s appeal in the gubernatorial race was that he came on like a hero, the un-Gray Davis, California’s then-governor, who seemed aptly named. Davis appeared wimpy. Arnold seemed … like Arnold. He was everything that a movie hero and a governor ought to be: a real man’s man.

But that sense of untrammeled masculine power is also embedded, in politics as in the movies, with a certain attitude toward women. Our film heroes aren’t gauzy romantics. They are sexual swashbucklers who often have little use for women — or, more accurately, have one use for women.

Though he had tempered his public misogyny since his bodybuilding days, Schwarzenegger wasn’t elected in spite of his disregard for women. Insofar as it informed his machismo and demonstrated his masculine power, he was elected because of it.

This goes back to what I wrote last year about politicians who insult their opponents by saying they should “man up.” The phrase implies that manliness and machismo are requirements to hold elective office. It’s not a big leap between that attitude and the lack of female elected officials in this country compared to the rest of the world.

Gabler analysis of how voters feel about politicians gives insight into how some voters feel about women and their role in politics. Macho heroes in films, he writes, don’t have any use for women except one. The implication is that one reason is sex. The female character can’t do anything else for the macho hero – not help him, not work with him, not take the lead as the hero. If sex is the only thing the macho hero needs from women, and voters look at their political candidates and movie heroes in similar ways, is sex the only thing those macho-loving voters expect from women?

This is more than just what voters want from their candidates. It’s about the public’s expectations for women.

Gabler takes an odd turn at the end. He surprisingly – and wrongly – excuses Schwarzenegger’s actions:

But you can’t really blame Schwarzenegger for hitting on women, even his own housekeeper. He was simply acting out the male fantasy that men had already imposed on him.

Schwarzenegger is a grown man with free will. He made bad choices and needs to own them. Don’t blame society. Giving Schwarzenegger and other politicians a pass is what allows sexism in politics and everywhere else to continue.

Read Gabler’s entire piece here.

UPDATE:

I just found the following bite from a January article in the New York Times Magazine. I set it aside for a post I was trying to write earlier this year that never came together (which just proves it’s a good idea to save those unfinished ideas and occasionally go back to them!).

In the Times piece, Rebecca Traister, who authored “Big Girls Don’t Cry: The Election That Changed Everything for American Women” about the 2008 presidential election, wrote:

The mythos of our founding revolves entirely around fathers, save for the seamstress Betsy Ross and the querulous spouse Abigail Adams.

What we do have, to serve as the foundational fantasy of female strength and individualism we’ve agreed upon as embodying American power, are cowgirls: Annie Oakley, Calamity Jane, the outlaws, frontier women and pioneers who pushed West, shot sharp, talked tough and sometimes drew blood. Frontier womanhood has emerged as one of the only historically American models of aspirational femininity available to girls — passive princesses and graceful ballerinas not being native to this land — and one of the only blueprints for commanding female comportment in which they are regularly encouraged to invest or to mimic.

Compared to male leaders, Traister wrote in the piece, “We have made considerably less imaginative space for ways in which women can persuade us of their ability to lead.”

So, women must have that macho swagger for elective office, too. But if they made the same sexual transgressions as some male politicians have, I don’t think the public would be as forgiving of them and as forgetful of the sexual wrongdoing.

See Also:
Man Up And Cry

Photo Credit: NOVAOnline/Flickr

Let’s connect on Twitter and Facebook.

But what got my attention was the part about employment and income. Kerner cites a study that indicates a high-salary job correlates to increased likelihood of cheating:

While there aren’t any hard statistics on female infidelity, most experts agree that it’s on the rise, especially among women who have their own careers and a degree of financial independence. A University of Washington study found that people who earned $75,000 or more per year were 1.5 times more likely to have had extramarital sex than those earning less than $30,000. And with so many women in the workplace, it’s no surprise that among the spouses who cheated, 46 percent of women and 62 percent of men did so with someone they met through work.

I’m not suggesting that women – or men, for that matter – with high paying jobs aren’t marriage material because they’re going to cheat. The University of Washington study makes sense, though. If someone has a job and is able to support themselves financially, but is in a bad marriage and has the opportunity to meet someone who makes them happy, it makes sense that person will be more likely to cheat, or at least get out of that unhappy marriage.

It doesn’t make cheating right, but it makes sense.

Do you think female infidelity is on the rise because, as the post suggests, more women are in higher positions in the workforce?

As the number of women in the workforce catches up with the number of men – along with their salaries – will infidelity rates between the men and women begin to equal out as well?

Photo credit: Rushell070/Flickr

See also:
If Wives Make More, Could They Cheat More?
Wives Make More.. More Often

Follow me on Twitter and let’s connect on Facebook.

Apparently, Newt Gingrich isn’t like most politicians.

The former House Speaker and possible 2012 presidential candidate sat for an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network in which he talked about “God’s forgiveness” relating to “personal issues” in the past. He said:

There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.

Here’s some background on those things “that were not appropriate:” Newt proposed to his second wife, Marianne, in 1980 while his first wife, Jackie, was in the hospital fighting uterine cancer. Newt hadn’t asked Jackie for a divorce before he proposed to Marianne. After Marianne was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1999, Newt dumped her for Callista Bisek, with whom he was already having an affair and who became Newt’s third wife in 2000. Ironically, Newt was having the affair with Callista while pushing for President Bill Clinton’s impeachment over lying about sex with Monica Lewinsky.

So those “personal issues” – as the question was posed to Gingrich in the CBN interview – were caused by how hard he worked for America?

Well, if a guy’s going to run for president, and he has to justify leaving two wives while both were battling life-threatening illnesses, he’d better have a very good reason. Especially if during one of those affairs, the guy was trying to get a president impeached for lying about sex. What better reason than his passion for America that made him do it? He may have cheated on his wives, but it was because he loves America so much. He’s passionate about it to a fault. And by the way, that’s why he’s qualified to be president.

The excuse doesn’t fly, of course. But some politicians never miss an opportunity to wrap themselves in the American flag – even for the most absurd reasons.

Here’s the full question and answer from CBN:

h/t: Mediaite

Follow me on Twitter and connect with me on Facebook.

Representative Chris Lee (R-N.Y.) resigned from the House of Representatives this week following an email flirtation with a woman he met after responding to an ad in the “Women Seeking Men” section of Craigslist. Sadly for him, the woman also knows how to use Google to look up people’s names, and how to send emails to Gawker.

See the Gawker reporter who broke the story.

And while it’s remarkable what 24 hours can do to damage the life of a politician with high libido, low impulse control and a camera phone, I want to – instead – look at one particular sentence that the Washington Post wrote in their article covering the incident:

“The familiar cycles of a Washington sex scandal were compressed into a blur of tweets and news alerts.”

This sentence is remarkable to me in so many ways.  Take the first part: “The familiar cycles of a Washington sex scandal…” Can you feel the fatigue in that sentence? The implied “here we go again” sigh? The list of scandals pepper the headlines of the past: The obvious Clinton-Lewinsky saga, Newt Gingrich’s affair with aide Callista Bisek, Elliot Spitzer’s foray into, well, whatever it was. And just recently, new allegations about Speaker John Boehner having multiple affairs (reported by The Enquirer, but possibly coming closer to being printed in a more reputable news source soon.)

But even the San Francisco Chronicle’s online version of Lee’s recent misbehaviors asks of the many scandals, “Is anyone keeping count?”  The answer is, yes. We are. The same way we keep track of celebs who are dragged to rehab time after time. There’s an equal mixture of distain and train-wreck-curiosity that simultaneously makes us want more juicy details (Are there more photos? More women?) while also claiming we’re above it all.

Let’s also take the second part of the Post’s sentence: “…compressed into a blur of tweets and news alerts.” Within hours, the man’s dalliances were posted on thousands of websites, and tweeted relentlessly (not without some humor, mind you: “cellphone camera is the worst thing to happen to men with bad impulse control”). The story broke at noon, and by 3pm, he had resigned. That is astounding to me. Pre-Internet news, this would have taken weeks to formulate and resolve itself. Now, a man’s career is over in 3 hours (barring any further revelations, which I have an inkling might be lurking somewhere in Rep. Lee’s email box.)

So, as another politician’s sex scandal flashes through the headlines, this time it’s not the weeks-long-affair (no pun intended) of news days gone by. Within hours, it’s published, denied and verified. Capitulations are made, leading to the astoundingly rapid resignation of a rising politician. The news cycle gets faster and faster, thanks to emailed photos, online news distribution, fast-forward Twittering, email tracking, Google, and Gawker. This was the 3-hour flash scandal. Do I hear 3 minutes?

Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t over.  The former Rep. Lee will definitely write a book, possibly get a divorce, and may even be offered a talk show on a cable news network depending on his level of charisma. He may even make his lie come true and become – as he stated in his emails – a lobbyist.

Then again, maybe it’s better if he just disappears. The statement on his website,“I have made profound mistakes,” leaves me – and undoubtedly a thousand tabloid reporters – asking one question: Why is the word “mistakes” plural?

You can follow Beth on her blog and on Twitter.

The London Sun reported that the terms of Elin Nordegren’s divorce from Woods are final. The paper said she will get $750 million along with full physical custody of their kids and several pieces real estate. Nordegren also can’t talk publicly about Tiger, ever. A source who claims to be a friend of Nordegren is quoted as saying, “The price of the huge sum is her silence: no interviews, tell-all books, or TV appearances about this for the rest of her life – even if Tiger dies first – or she’ll lose the lot.”

Forbes disputes that three-quareters of billion dollar figure saying Tiger doesn’t even have a net worth of $750 million. They put his net worth at $600 million, but half of that is still a lot of money.

It must be extremely devastating and painful to have the entire world know your husband cheated with umpteen cocktail waitresses, strippers and porn stars. Three hundred million or three-quarters of a billion dollars, though, would definitely soothe some of that pain, and is, apparently, the price to make sure the public never knows about it.

I was at the gym when coverage of the Masters was wrapping up on TV. When watching TV on mute (or close to mute), the images can speak to the viewer more than when the sound is turned up. At the gym, I was watching pictures and video of this year’s winner, Phil Mickelson, hugging his wife, Amy, who is battling cancer. (Mickelson’s mother also has cancer.) For someone who doesn’t follow golf and wouldn’t have been able to point out Mickelson if he passed me on the street, I was touched sitting there in the gym resting between my sets.

It was great video for the folks at the Masters and CBS, who broadcasted the event. The warm, fuzzy moment was great TV. After all the speculation about how Tiger might perform because of the scandal and the scandal itself looming over coverage of the tournament, it was a guy with a backstory that pulls at the heartstrings who won the weekend.

It would’ve been odd if Tiger won. The win would’ve been great for his career and a step towards the comeback of his image. A win is a win. In light of the sex scandal, though, Woods would’ve looked like an ass if he celebrated exuberantly with his trademark fist-pumping. His wife Elin wasn’t at the tournament. Even if she were, I don’t think there would have been a warm embrace.

All of this, of course, has little to do with actually playing golf. But how viewers feel about winners can impact how they feel about a sport. On Sunday, the golf world could put the scandal behind them – maybe even let out a sigh of relief – and have a feel-good moment.

..until Tiger plays again.

Famous people who cheat always get the public’s attention. Lately, though, it seems that we’re bombarded with stories about the rich and powerful who are unfaithful.

The latest, of course, is the allegation that Sandra Bullock’s husband, Jesse James, cheated on her. We’re still in the midst of the whole Tiger Woods saga – he’ll make his professional comeback at the Masters this week – and the John Edwards story has been a slow drip of revelations for about two years now. While the three might seem the same – famous people who cheat – the fame and income dynamics of James and Bullock’s relationship is the opposite of Edwards, Woods and their wives. Even though James is famous (well, semi-famous, perhaps infamous) and presumably makes a good living on his own, Bullock is an A-list superstar and surely makes more money than he does.

So, why do men cheat? There have been a ton of recent stories trying to answer that question. (Don’t be fooled, though. Women cheat too. Yes, men cheat more than women, but not by a huge margin.) On Saturday, “Larry King Live” had a show to discuss try to answer the question and get into what causes cheating. I won’t tell you the entire motley crew of guests. All you need to know is that addiction expert Dr. Drew Pinsky, comedian Adam Carolla, “Survivor” host and LKL guest-host Jeff Probst, and Dr. Daniel Amen, a psychiatrist and brain imaging expert, (as I said, a motley crew) got into an exchange about whether driven and high-powered people might cheat more:

CAROLLA: I have a question for Dr. Drew. I’m going to don the Larry suspenders for one second. Celebrities, athletes, people that are driven, already focus and motivated, a higher percentage of cheating or is it just opportunity?

PINSKY: A higher percentage of trauma, and thereby a much higher percentage of the kinds of things Dr. Amen is talking about in their brains.

PROBST: Dr. Amen, when you — I think a lot of people look at someone like Tiger Woods, so controlled. That’s what he was known for, the calm golfer. And then all this chaos in the other part of his life. Does that show up, or is there an explanation based on the brain?

AMEN: You know, what I would say is people who are celebrities, who are very successful, well, they’re always getting the pleasure center of their brain stimulated. So it’s stimulated repeatedly. You know, you win a Masters. You win another tournament. People talk about how wonderful you are. You get tens of millions dollars of contracts.

Well, pretty soon, the pleasure center in your brain starts to get warn out. And it takes more and more and more excitement in order to feel anything at all. So I think that’s one of the things that celebrities have to worry about.

While drive and success is only one factor in determining who will cheat, could wives be more likely to cheat on their husbands now compared to in the past? A recent Pew Research study showed more women were more educated and making more money than their husbands in 2007 compared to 1970. So, could there be an up-tick in the percentage of women who cheat on their husbands?

Or will insecurity about their wives’ success and bigger income cause even more husbands to cheat?

Leave your thoughts below.

The resurrection of the Tiger Woods Brand began Friday with his televised apology. Woods seemed sincere, but the mea culpa to his fans, sponsors and the general public is secondary to something else.

He must win at golf.

The most important part of Tiger’s brand is being a golfer who wins. Yes, his image as wholesome family man helped him be a pitchman, inspiration to kids and known as an all-around good guy. All of that, though, was based on him being a golf champion.

His apology was a good first step to bring reality in sync with what his image was before seemingly countless women came forward to say they slept with Tiger. The biggest step, though, will be when Tiger competes. If he can dominate on the golf course, then he will be “back.” If he can’t, The Tiger Woods Brand will be a contrite face on the memory of a once-great golfing career.