Monday, June 26, 2006

Bush Condoleeza Rice Affair Refuted (Another Karl Rove story)

I was standing in line at Safeway at ten PM with about twenty other people when the computer system went down and the registers were frozen.  That means I either had to reshelve whatever I’d stuck in the cart and drive over to Albertson’s and hope that their computers weren’t down too or read tabloids.  In the old days, if the power went out, they’d check you out by hand.  Now they use the checkout system to do inventory and to track every aspect of every transaction you’ve ever had with Safeway, so they’d rather have you stuck in line for fifteen minutes.  I looked up at the tabloids and quickly realized that Albertson’s was out of the question.  People Magazine chronicled Katharine Mcphee’s battle with bulimia which was next to a photo of Mischa Barton in a bikini and a story about Kirstie Alley losing 71 pounds.  The Weekly Globe had a cover story about the president’s affair with his Secretary of State.  I stayed.

As much as a womanizer as Bill Clinton was supposed to be, no tabloid ever accused him of having an affair with Madeleine Albright, his second Secretary of State.  As with many tabloid articles,  I’m not even sure Ken Starr would have thought there was much in the way of proof. The meat of the story was pictures of W and his Secretary of State together coupled with speculation from some psychologist about the significance of their body language.  This was juxtaposed to a reference to Laura Bush spending nights at the Mayflower Hotel in a fit of jealousy over George’s relationship with Condy.  IIRC, the Mayflower was also one of the places Judith Miller would meet Scooter Libby for breakfast.

The Globe has been an equal opportunity breaker of political sex scandals.  In the past, they published the first pictures of Gary Hart and Donna Rice, had the exclusive to Gennifer Flowers’ tales of Bill Clinton, and published a story about Jesse Jackson having an illegitimate child.  I don’t necessarily believe that the President has been sexually involved with Secretary Rice.  For one, the Victor Ashe ambassador to Poland, rumors are more entertaining.  Second, the Secretary of State once referred to the President as “her husband” (she’s never been married) which isn’t the sort of gaffe that the former head of the NSA would publicly make if she really were having an affair with the guy.  
Third, the only other man whom Condoleeza Rice has ever been linked with romantically was Denver Broncos wide receiver/kick returner Rick Upchurch.  

I know that Mia Farrow married both Frank Sinatra and Woody Allen so some women can find something appealing in very different men.  Still, I just don’t see anyone in this administration say going duck hunting with a woman who’s not his wife for a weekend.  The President and the Secretary of State are both professed Christians which means that neither would kill, bear false witness, or worship false idols (even the Cleveland Browns and Rice’s long time favorite player Jim Brown) much less commit adultery.  The one thing they have in common is that Condoleeza Rice has talked about wanting to be the commissioner of the NFL after Paul Tagliabue retires and the President once wanted to be the commissioner of major league baseball.  

Okay, I did take a look at the adultery commandment and technically, if you go back to the original, many argue that it’s not necessarily a symmetrical proposition.  Biblical adultery may be when you sleep with (covet) someone else’s wife link to Hebrew definition of adultery.  Since Secretary Rice is not and never has been married, it’s arguably okay for the President to be sleeping with her even if they are having sex.  It’s a bit like Karl Rove not having outed any CIA agent “knowingly”.  

This is one smart President.  Think about this, Harriet Miers, Condoleeza Rice, and Ann Coulter have all never been married despite all that family values talk.  Should anything come of the story in the Globe, I’m sure Tony Snow will help clarify these distinctions.  Fwiw, a number of individuals in public life have already seemed to figure out this commandment loophole.  If you remember, Monica wasn’t married either.  Also, for those of you concerned about Condoleeza Rice in 2008, the ten commandments may not forbid a woman to sleep with someone else’s husband.

It does seem to me that Congress, if it wants to take on the whole homosexuality issue directly,  should really forget about amending the constitution and pass a commandment instead.  It seems that when God did his ten simple rules for not being smitten, homosexuality didn’t make the top ten ahead of say voting for Ayla Brown instead of Taylor Hicks (worshipping false Idols).  Some would argue that the tenth commandment which forbids one to covet thy neighbor’s house does include the servants, his wife, and thy neighbor’s ass, but I don’t think God meant it quite that way.  On the other hand, I haven’t looked up the traditional Hebrew definition of the term. This suggests that the whole homosexuality thing would have to be in some sort of "penumbra" of commandments otherwise reserved to the non-deities.   

In any case, the simple fact that the sexual pairing of George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice seems to raise no eyebrows is a genuine sign of how far we’ve come as a culture in 2006.  Rice, after all, was a Democrat until 1982.  

Even if the Globe story were true, (as happened with the Gennifer Flowers stuff printed in the Globe) it’s obvious to me that there is no scandal here.  Besides, it’s clear to me that even the President’s personal life deserves some measure of privacy.  I’m sure any good conservative would agree with me.  I’m also sure that the President and the First Lady will do whatever is necessary to defend the institution of marriage.  

See what happens when you check out for more than a few minutes at a time?  I take my work with the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy so seriously, I haven’t even billed Karl Rove for helping them out on this one.

(next thoughts on Katharine Mcphee and bulimia)
Chancelucky: Katharine McPhee Tells All and Learning to Listen(American Idol)

More Chancelucky's stories of Karl Rove



At 6/27/2006 02:41:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait til he starts talking about giraffes' gaffes.

CL, I throw my total endorsement behind the Congress getting after commandments rather than amendments. As long as there's vexing, rebuking, cursing, and brimstone as punishments for transgressions.

In my town they now have water fountains labeled Christians and The Rest of You. Has that hit your town yet?

At 6/27/2006 03:14:00 PM, Blogger Chancelucky said...

Plain Jane,
thanks, I think. If you like the word that much, you could get into the movies and work as or with a "gaffer", they use the word all the time, though I think if it's a guy, they're just gaffs...

Mr. Pogblog,
I suppose if those water fountains started gushing wine spontaneously, then maybe there'd be something to this Rapture Fountain idea.

At 7/02/2006 04:00:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CL, think of how many problems will be solved when The Rapture transpires? In one Fell Swoop (one presumes) all the aging crocks who are antiJustAboutEverything will be taken to some thankfully sterile place of unerring folk all in (presumably) heavenly accord (maybe even with accordion music?) They'l be happy there without us to vex them.

And we can get about the hard work of construction and equality -- of equal worth -- without worrying whether one is correctly stamped and sealed by JC or whomever. If we could get past Religious branding, we could all exhale and get to tending to each other as if each person mattered as much as the next. (A novel idea in practice if not in rhetoric.)

At 7/06/2006 04:53:00 PM, Blogger Chancelucky said...

Does the rapture take all Christians or just the righteous? I've never been able to make sense of Revelations, so wasn't completely sure.

At 7/21/2006 06:29:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rapture will lift only the Christians who are practicing their faith. Of course there will be no faithful Jews, Muslums, Hindus, and so forth. It would take someone very narcissistic or perhaps delusional to believe that only the good souls that belong to their religion will be saved. The remaining sinners get worts, snakes and disease. Funny how fear can make people embrace religion. How does this work? Does the religion with the most awful fantasy get the most members?

At 7/21/2006 06:46:00 PM, Blogger Chancelucky said...

thanks for reading and commenting. I too find it strange. I think there've been many splits in the Christian Church over the centuries but one of the earlier ones I think happened with Paul. There were a lot of early Christians who believed in the primacy of acts to determine the sincerity of one's Christianity, Paul argued for the primacy of faith or professions of faith.

One result is the recent emphasis on Revelations which talks about "identifying" as Christian among contemporary American fundamentalist Christians. Even thirty years ago, I remember much more emphasis on the New Testament itself, particularly the story of the good Samaritan.
The trouble with the emphasis on "belief" over acts is that I do think it leads to a less tolerant view of the world, though I guess one of the revolutionary things about Paul was his belief that anyone (non-jews) could become Christians which I suppose is potentially tolerant in one sense.


Post a Comment

<< Home