NJ Governor resigns over gay affair! (Picture of Accuser on Pg. 1)

[jrydberg]

As I understand it, he wasn't exactly a popular governor before all this broke.

 

[The--Doc]

Rumours say he had close ties with an Irish terrorist group !!!

 

[mep319]

I initially felt bad when I thought he was resigning b/c of the 'gay' incident. I thought .... You would think we would be past that in this day. But sometimes I feel like we have taken 2 steps back recently. That being said from what I have read in the Inquirer and Daily News is that he meant this guy in Isreal, had an affair while there...then brought him back to NJ and set him up with the homeland security job.....that is just wrong. The affair and such is nobodies business but he and his wife...when you give you unqualified lover a political appointment...especially a high profile appointment in an importart state that is a large suburb of the most horrific attack in US history...and he isn't a US citizen.....um that is asking for problems. And this guy...what a jerk to black mail him like that. They should send him back home.

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

I feel sorry for the kids. I think his wife (wives?) knew the story before she married him. I suspect he said he was gay because its more acceptable than saying "I'm bisexual"...a statement like that would lead to condemnation of his wife as well.

He needs to resign because his tenure has been plagued with problems with this last one being the most ridiculous. Didn't he have any supporters who could have hired this schmuck into a cushy job? Why'd he have to do it on the state payroll...on a scale of $110,000??? It wouldn't have been so bad if it were a $30,000 toll collectors job.

However evading the special election is just fine in my book.

 

[TDC Nala]

None of the story is really anybody else's business except for McGreevey making it a main goal of his governorship to come up with high paying, high profile state jobs for Mr. Cipel, a noncitizen who had no obvious qualifications for those jobs, and who apparently was the kind of guy who'd repay such generosity by saying "Gimme 20 million dollars or I'll sue you for harassment."

I wouldn't want a governor in my state who had shown that kind of judgment in selecting people to work in important administration positions.

 

[WillyJ]

I'mnot familiar with every detail of this situation, but from what I know I tend to agree with the previous two posters. . (TDC Nala & Doubletrouble).

If he was being forced out of office because he is gay or because of maratial infidelity then I would see that as wrong and unacceptable. . .


But for a public offical to put an unqualified person in an important position that pays over $100,00 a year just because they are sleeping with them is an outragous abuse of his position and he should not only resign bu he should be subject to criminal penalties.


It's too bad the man's sexuality gives some people what they see as a legit opportunity to spew their bigotry, it's not. But on the other hand to excuse McGreevy's conduct because of his sexuality isn't right either.

He's not a victim- his kids and the taxpayers of New Jersey are. . .

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by danacara
4. This I vehemently disagree with. I don't think an increased risk of blackmail is a reason I've ever heard cited for discriminating against gays in security or in the military? That's a stretch, I don't think gays have cause for concern on that front. All of us are in a position to be blackmailed, for something that may or may not even be true. If you were a public figure, and someone threatened to say that you and your female best friend were lesbian lovers, could you really refute it? Could you prove that you weren't? No way. We're all at risk of being blackmailed.

Sexual orientation actually is a factor in jobs that require high security clearances--I think it's a mischaracterization to call it discrimination. All sorts of things can comprise what makes a person a security risk. Financial problems and drug use are on par--but you wouldn't say someone has been discriminated against because they have financial problems or use drugs.

Yes, we all could be blackmailed for one reason or another--the question is, to what lengths would we go to keep that information from getting out there? Would you steal classified documents and pass them on to a terrorist group because they're threatening to say you and your best friend are lesbian lovers? Not likely, I'm guessing.

When you take a polygraph for security clearances, it can last a day or two--they'll ask extensive and detailed questions about everything. They don't care if you're gay. They care if you're trying to hide it.

The issue will be less and less of a problem, fortunately, as many more people are open about their sexual orientation. I didn't get the impression for a second that the governor was resigning because he's gay, though I thought that he might be trying to portray it that way to get a little sympathy or support. I do get the impression that it's beyond the lawsuit and beyond the cushy job, since it was already out there that he's gay and he gave the guy a cushy job.

I do think that if the lawsuit is the extent of it, the governor should be given credit for ending it and recognizing that his political career is not worth going deeper and deeper into illegal means to try to cover it up. If the lawsuit is the extent of it, he should have called the guy's bluff, told the people of his state what was going on, and not resigned--I think a lot of people would support him for standing up to the schmuck blackmailer. But I wonder if there's more to it since he didn't do that. Guess we'll see.

 

[currycook]

This entire thing is sad.

I think we will still find out more and we need to withhold judgement until then.

 

[The--Doc]

Maybe this other reason !!!!!!!!!!


http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=6335287&BRD=1697&PAG=461&dept_id=44551&rfi=6

 

[AlexandNessa]

The Doc, I remember this incident well. All too well. This extragavant family reunion to Ireland, done under the guise of "improving trade relations with Ireland," was just after we received mailings stating that although the NJ budget was under tough times, he did everything he could to scrape together some semblance of our property tax rebate. My rebate was half of what it had been the year before, and he was crying budget shortfalls. Obviously, the budget had allowed for his big trip to Ireland for him and his family. Only after all the taxpayer outcry did the Democratic Committee pick up some of the tab. Hope all the democrats that contributed to the Democratic Committee thought their money was well spent paying for McGreevey's family reunion in Ireland!

His resignation has nothing to do with him being gay. Everyone knew he was gay anyway before the "shocking news." It wasn't shocking to anyone in NJ. I think he'd hoped it would be shocking enough for us to forget about all the other scandal that has plagued his administration, the family reunion in Ireland being one of them. His sweet labor union deals being another.

I feel sorry for his kids. I think his wife knew what was up, and she's old enough to know better. His little ones are another story, and they continue to be in my prayers.

 

[mep319]

To suggest sexual orientation is in the same ball park as drug use and/or financial mismangement is obsurd. Those things are choices, sexual orientation is not. It is not a

mischaracterization

Under no circumstance should it ever factor into a decision in regards to a job...high security or not. It is completely ridiculous to suggest that it should!

 

[brettborowski]

Originally posted by kbeverina
Sexual orientation actually is a factor in jobs that require high security clearances--I think it's a mischaracterization to call it discrimination. All sorts of things can comprise what makes a person a security risk. Financial problems and drug use are on par--but you wouldn't say someone has been discriminated against because they have financial problems or use drugs.

...

When you take a polygraph for security clearances, it can last a day or two--they'll ask extensive and detailed questions about everything. They don't care if you're gay. They care if you're trying to hide it.

This is slightly contradictory....so I'll put in my 2 cents.

Orientation is *not* factor and cannot be discriminated against. Hidden orientation, however, is a risk for compromise and that is why it's lumped in with financial problems and drug use. (Drug use has as much to do with it being a potential for blackmail as with its other side effects.)

Brett

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by mep319
To suggest sexual orientation is in the same ball park as drug use and/or financial mismangement is obsurd. Those things are choices, sexual orientation is not. It is not a Under no circumstance should it ever factor into a decision in regards to a job...high security or not. It is completely ridiculous to suggest that it should!

I think you're misreading what I said.

I'm not suggesting anything, whether it should or shouldn't. It's a fact that it does.

You seem to be implying that I'm making some kind of judgment--that these are "bad" behaviors. That has nothing to do with it. What they have in common is that they're things people are likely or have been likely in the past to hide--so much so that they would go to any lengths to hide them or solve the problem, as the case with financial difficulties.

It has nothing to do with discrimination. If a heterosexual attempted to hide something in his/her sexual history, it would be the same red flag.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by brettborowski
This is slightly contradictory....so I'll put in my 2 cents.

Orientation is *not* factor and cannot be discriminated against. Hidden orientation, however, is a risk for compromise and that is why it's lumped in with financial problems and drug use. (Drug use has as much to do with it being a potential for blackmail as with its other side effects.)

Brett

I've read this over and over and I honestly can't understand why they're contradictory.

My first point was to disagree with the basic premise that it's discriminatory. I explained why--it's not an issue of being gay. That would be discriminatory. But it is something that will be asked on a polygraph and will be considered a red flag if the person is trying to hide it.

 

[goofygirl]

I don't mean to make light of this whole situation, but I just saw a commercial with McGreevey. At the end he says, "Come out.....and see what's new in New Jersey".

I saw that! Is that the one where he's standing next to his wife and kid?

My feeling is that being gay and having the affair is not the crime, what is the problem is hired this guy whom he was sleeping with. That's against SOME kind of rule and may even be an impeachable act.

Like Clinton and Monica- the crime was not the affair, the crime was that he lied about it under oath.

The moral of all these situations: we need to elect people who will keep it zipped. Affairs seem to lead to bigger crimes and scandals. There was once a Saturday Night Live skit where a guy was running for office, and the ad was something like the candidate saying "I had my (male private part) burned off in an accident, so vote for me!"
Not a bad idea!

 

[brettborowski]

Originally posted by kbeverina
I've read this over and over and I honestly can't understand why they're contradictory.

My first point was to disagree with the basic premise that it's discriminatory. I explained why--it's not an issue of being gay. That would be discriminatory. But it is something that will be asked on a polygraph and will be considered a red flag if the person is trying to hide it.

I was probably splitting hairs....I just wanted to clarify (as you also did) that being gay is not the issue--it's hiding one's orientation that makes one a risk for compromise.

Given that at least one person inferred from your original post that being gay was the issue, I thought it was a worthwhile hair to split.

I still stand by my assertion that "Sexual orientation actually is a factor in jobs that require high security clearances" and "They don't care if you're gay" are slightly contradictory.

Brett

 

[Ronda93]

</lurk off>
He's not resigning because he's gay, he's resigning because of an enormously stupid decision to place someone with whom he'd had a sexual affair in a cushy state job. What, no one would notice an unqualified foreigner as a dept head in state government?

I'd heard rumors about him all the way out here in the sticks! I also resent him using, yes, using the gay issue to his benefit. If this can be about him being gay it draws the attention away from his tin ear for political appointments.

It sounds like his administration was plagued by ineptness and this is simply the grand finale... the part about the broken leg is delicious... Make sure they don't have to meet at the airstrip - ha!

As for her humiliation. It's humiliating to stand in support of any kind of idiot spouse who's making a wreck of your marriage and life. That's all he is, an idiot. So when he wants to cover being stupid by taking refuge in being gay, it shouldn't be surprising that he's starting to get flack from gay groups and pundits, too.

What a moron... jeez... muttering as I go around the corner.... I mean really, in this day and age... what was he thinking... better to be gay than stupid, that's progress for you.

</lurk on>