ArchPundit

Leader Reinvents Reality

ArchPundit June 24, 2004 No Comments

Jilll Stanek appears to be attacking Rod McCulloch for his pointing out the file existed with embarrassing material.

And she embarrasses herself. She shouldn’t let Proft put her up to such stupid things.

Here are McCulloch?s four lies.

1. ?Recently I was shown what I was told and believe to be records from Jack Ryan?s divorce that were obtained before the records were sealed.?

Sorry, the custody records have always been sealed, until Monday, June 21. Also contrary to another rumor, there are no unredacted versions out there.

I?d like to know who showed McCulloch these so-called records, and I?d like to see the exact documents McCulloch claims he saw. I wonder if Patrick Fitzgerald would as well.

The level of idiocy is amazing here. No, the files weren’t sealed until one year after the divorce was finalized. Jack! wanted them sealed, Jeri didn’t. Then when Jeri had a dangerous stalker, she joined in asking to have them sealed.

Claiming there are no unredacted versions out there is nothing, but her insisting it is true. Rod McCulloch told he me he saw them and while he declined to answer who gave them to him, he clearly knew some specific information regarding the file–Paris, New York and New Orleans is kind of specific.

I have no idea why Patrick Fitzgerald would care. Being in possession of public records isn’t illegal.

2. “Among other allegations, she specifically alleges that [h]er husband, Jack Ryan, had a romantic affair with his Executive Secretary.”

On the contrary, nowhere in the unsealed documents did Jeri accuse Jack of infidelity, and they wouldn’t be in the sealed portion either. Otherwise Jeri lied Monday when she said in her public statement, “?nor to my knowledge was [Jack] ever unfaithful to me.” Rather, it was Jeri who admitted in the documents to having the wandering eye: “I told him I was in love with another man.”

Well, we don’t know do we. The Unsealed documents are all we have, not the full version. McCulloch maintains this allegation was in the full file. I can’t explain Jeri’s comments so saying McCulloch is lying given the information we have now is a bit extreme. McCulloch could be mistaken or lying, but I’d put my bet on him at this point.

3. “[S]he specifically alleges that? he forced (her word) her to have sexual relations with him against her will.”

And again, we don’t know. We do know that six paragraphs were stricken right before their release that contained very graphic descriptions. The Judge refuses to characterize them any further.

Force could also well be used in relation to psychological coercion which would be consistent with her comments about his personality. These are only allegations by Jeri Ryan, so we don’t know anything about veracity, but we don’t know what is in the rest of the file.

That would be rape, an extremely serious charge of a criminally prosecutable offense.

Psychological coercion wouldn’t be. Maybe a poor choice of words if it is in the files by Jeri, but not necessarily rape. It isn’t a very flattering way to describe Ryan though and if true would go to character.

4. “[S]he specifically alleges that? he took her to various sex clubs, specifically in New York, New Orleans, and Paris and coerced her to have sex in front of other people.”

?Coerce? means, “to bring about by force or threat.” Again, rape, and this time public rape, an extremely serious charge of a criminally prosecutable offense.

But it didn?t happen. The worst Jeri alleged was Jack took her to these clubs, requested the aforementioned, yet complied with her refusal. Big difference.

And he got the three cities right as well as the claim that he was emotionally demeaning to her–the crying line. We don’t know if Jeri is telling the truth or Jack! is or if it lies somewhere inbetween, but I think Rod McCulloch’s description on this count is reasonable given that he was writing from memory and probably a fairly quick look.

So on two, Rod is definitely correct. On two, we don’t know for sure. Not much of an indictment against him. For a guy who took enough flack over this, maybe people should back off of him. It isn’t his fault Jack Ryan tried to hide behind his son and lied to Party Leaders, the Press and the People of Illinois.

The Leader is an opinion journal and fighting for your view isn’t a bad thing. Making up garbage like the first supposed lie is either laziness or a lie itself.

Replacement Watch

ArchPundit June 24, 2004 3 Comments

Unfortunately, this thing got big enough that Jack! will probably leave the ticket. Some counter views in comments and that would be great for Democrats all over the ballot, but I’m guessing not. With Dillard and others shooting for him, Jack! is going to quickly figure out, not only is the establishment out to get him, but the establishment has the ties to the GOTV operation.

Who will the Republicans choose to replace him? Here is a list of potentials with some brief thoughts

Edgar—he won’t get in unless the national promises money. The NRSC probably won’t.

Topinka—looking for 2006

Jim Thompson–just kind of doubt it–see Edgar as well

Wood–LOL–Social Conservatives for Obama

Gidwitz—yeah, sure. Placeholder.

Rauschenberger–Doubt he’d take it. It’s a fools errand for most and he’s not a fool. Says nice things about it, but many ways to avoid that behind the scenes.

Jim Ryan–LOL–ummm…already did his service for a losing cause

Any of the Congressional Delegation? Nope–have to give up the seat and no one wants to take on Obama without more preparation.

Oberweis–Only in my dreams. Apparently the Prez hates him according to McCulloch. Can’t blame him.

McKenna–will ignite a civil war between social conservatives and social conservatives—LaHood’s guy after all and LaHood is not popular with social conservatives right now.

Peter Fitzgerald—over the Speaker’s dead body

It doesn’t look good. The GOP doesn’t care if the candidate wins–it wants to avoid a disaster down ballot. I’m not sure Oberweis or Gidwitz can avoid that sort of disaster–Gidwitz isn’t a bad guy, just a nobody to the public.

Topinka/Edgar/Thompson/Wood may actually have fewer full blown conservatives show up as well given the right wings’ anger at the party.

It’s going to make for a fun retreat over the weekend for the GOP.

Jack Ryan Deathwatch–Day 1

ArchPundit June 24, 2004 5 Comments

Not a literal one, but one like Tim Noah runs at Slate–when will he bow out? Put it in comments. And what will the speech be like?

Why It is Hypocritical?

ArchPundit June 24, 2004 6 Comments

Thinking through this, Kevin Murphy made some good points in comments about whether Ryan was hypocritical or not–he saying not. But I think I can find an example that does show Ryan’s hypocrisy—meeting with Concerned Women of America.

Kevin’s view is that most conservatives say, hey, you’re maried–go have wild monkey sex together and I think that fits for many. But others would frown on behavior like going to a sex club and engaging in sex with your partner and CWA is one of those organizations. Ryan courted them.

This also seems interesting from the perspective of if he is running and attracting support from CWA, there’s a disconnect somewhere between what he thinks is acceptable behavior and those he is courting.

So What About these Political Ambitions

ArchPundit June 24, 2004 No Comments

From the inbox one person pointed out that Jack!’s political ambitions have been long held and at least since he married Jeri Ryan according to his response.

Does that make him just a guy who used teaching to burnish his resume? A teacher friend brought up the same point recently and suggested teaching was all for show.

Here, I’ll defend him. While my first reaction is the same, I still believe that public office is an important service to your community. Teaching is another way to be an important contributor. So while ambition and plotting may be involved, I’ll assume the best of Ryan in this case–that both are extensions of a desire to serve.

Naive on my part? Maybe, but so what?

Barack probably had thought of running for office when he went to work as a community organizer. Do I fault him for that? No.

I certainly see where the notion comes from, and don’t think it is absurd, but ultimately, there are worse things than political ambitions and I don’t want to try and interpret their ‘soul’.

Is it a Meta-Sin?

ArchPundit June 24, 2004 2 Comments

Christopher Hayes has a thoughtful argument in The New Republic arguing that the scandal is based on a meta-sin. One thing that is troubling about the story is that in-itself is that his sex life is his business. But what I think the author misses is in the last paragraph:

The point is not that a candidate’s private life is sacrosanct; it’s fine for the press to inform us of the personal moral failings of our potential elected officials. The point is that Ryan shouldn’t be taken to task by scolds for mishandling embarrassing allegations when it is these same scolds who incorrectly define the allegations as embarrassing in the first place.

I think it would be embarrassing that you take your wife to a swing club on three different occasions and in one she ends up crying because to which you respond, crying doesn’t turn you on. Disqualifying no. Embarrassing yes. Bombshell–not quite, but Wycliff agrees that was a poor headline.

Often embarrassing sex information is buried pretty quickly if you disclose it. We know about John McCain’s dalliances in his first marriage and no one cares. Other politicians have other issues as well. Ryan played a game of chicken in which the allegations aren’t that great, but he made a huge effort to conceal them magnifying the entire issue.

The second thing is that while going to a club with your wife isn’t the worst thing in the world, it is embarrassing to many. Suburban women and downstaters simply don’t understand the reason one would go to a sex club. It’s just out there to them. And it appears to be embarrassing to Jack Ryan who tried to have the file sealed to avoid such a disclosure. If there is nothing embarrassing in the file, than why was it sealed? One part for his child, but much of it because of the political damage it might due–he even says Jeri’s accusations are made to hurt his potential ambitions in the file.

What led to the media frenzy is that Ryan denied there was anything there. This creates two problems. First, he lied. Second, it gave people something to blackmail him with. So say he wants to appoint a strong, independent US Attorney, the Illinois GOP had a trump card on him.

So, not a meta-sin. But an allegation about a fairly minor incident that by hiding he made seem a lot worse than they probably are. If it is a meta-sin the start to tearing down the views about sex lives is to be honest about them and not act like the “scolds” Christopher laments.

I do think it is a good article and an important one in checking ourselves and how we react to ‘sex scandals’.

UPDATE: Eric Zorn has a different take on it. While I generally agree with Zorn’s logic, I don’t think Chris’ point is a bad point in thinking about the scandals.

Zorn has the Roundup

ArchPundit June 24, 2004 No Comments

Over at the Notebook.

Any bets on how Kevin McCullough tries to blame this all on Zorn?