Another Day Older and Deeper In Debt
Carla Axtman
(With all love to Tennessee Ernie Ford)
All Dan Benjamin wants is his money.Benjamin, a contractor who owns Sundance Contracting, did some work in 2006 and 2007 for Michelle Wu, wife of Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.) and then an interior decorator on Capitol Hill.
Benjamin, who has done work for CNN’s Paul Steinhauser, D.C. Superior Court Judge Noel Johnson and D.C. City Councilman Tommy Wells’s chief of staff, was named one of the best contractors in D.C. in 2009 by the Washington City Paper’s readers.
He says Wu approached him to do “substantial renovation” in her residence, as well as some carpentry in her office and some work for a mutual client. The work for Wu, Benjamin says, was about $12,000.
“She bounced checks to me,” Benjamin tells Shenanigans. “She promised to pay me back, and she never did. I [had to] take her to court to get a judgment, and I still have not gotten paid,” he says.
The D.C. Superior Court ruled that Wu — who didn’t show up — owes Benjamin $10,652.45, according to a copy of the judgment. That’s $9,263.00 plus $1,389.45 for late fees.
(He’s willing to cut his losses on the remainder.)
The story goes on to say that Mrs. Wu has bounced checks and told the contractor repeatedly that she's "working on it". Despite a certified letter sent to the Congressman's office, the debt remains.
I just spoke with Julia Krahe, Congressman Wu's press secretary who said, "We're not commenting on that at this time."
Ouch.
(H/T: Nothstine)
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Dec 11, '09
Wu undoubtedly spent the money on phasers to fight the Klingons in the White House.
Dec 11, '09
Would republicans EVER bring up such an issue about one of their own? Never in a million years. That's part of why I like being a progressive and a Democrat: We tell them when we think they are right and we sure let them know our opinion when we think they are wrong.
It's;"Hey Wu, what's up with that? Why aren't you paying this hard working American what you owe him?"
Dec 11, '09
It doesn't matter if a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent brought up what Wu did.
It's the basic hypocrisy with politicians that we have supported who do not have the ethics or common sense to stand true to values they supposedly represent and we support.
Let's take Obama for instance. Wants to cut taxes on business to create jobs while we promote raising taxes on businesses. Wants to escalate in Afghanistan while we want to bring the troops home. Refuses to investigate and potentially prosecute members of the Bush administration for committing torture. Promises to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, which he hasn't done, while opposing the right to marry.
Yeah, we tell them they're wrong but we continue to contribute to them and vote for them. That makes us hypocrites, too. You'll tell them your opinion, but you'll do everything you can to overlook their unethical behavior and outright lies in order to support them during elections.
It's no wonder people are leaving both the Democratic Party and the Republican party.
Dec 11, '09
I really really really detest people who bring private disputes - regardless of the nature of the dispute - into the public arena. Sending a "Certified Letter" to Wu regarding a debt allegedly owed by his wife, and then taking the issue to the media, is chicken shit. If you have a legitimate legal claim, hire an attorney (and may God Bless all of us) and go to court. Leave the self-help publicity pressure BS to Oprah.
5:09 p.m.
Dec 11, '09
Um Greg? What part of "The D.C. Superior Court ruled that Wu... owes Benjamin" did you not understand? This is for work done in 2006 and 2007. There's no "allegedly" about it. And characterizing Benjamin as having gone from sending a certified letter to whoring the issue to the media omits what appear to be substantial matters of fact, not to mention a fair chunk of time.
Dec 11, '09
Hmm, I wonder if the labor issues at Nancy Bass Wyden's --- Ron Wyden's wife --- Strands' Bookstore in NYC merits similar further investigation by Ms. Axtman?
Struggle At The Strand http://www.nypress.com/article-18225-struggle-at-the-strand.html
This Week: The Strand bookstore employees (and others) tell us http://www.nypress.com/article-18259-mailbox.html
If found this particularly interesting, given Wyden's supposed advocacy for health care reform:
The young Strand employee was pregnant. She needed to leave her post in the rare books department more often than usual, to visit the doctor more for pre-natal care. But according to employee warning records provided to the Press, Strand management continued to cite her for missing work regardless of the need for medical appointments.
But the real trouble for Buchanan began after she missed work for a doctor’s appointment in May 2007. She said she had asked in advance, in compliance with the new March 13 rules, and that management had approved it. But when she returned to work, she learned that he had been suspended for three days. She recalled that her supervisor told her she should have called the day of her appointment again to remind them of it. Buchanan said that was impossible, because her appointment was at 7 a.m.
Dec 12, '09
Posted by: Ricky | Dec 11, 2009 4:34:23 PM
It doesn't matter if a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent brought up what Wu did.
Usually I'd agree and have my standard criticism of posts like this, but Wu... He's a viper, and not being a snake handler, I'll leave it to the pros.
I still have the same question I did when he ran, day 1. He's never heard a word out of the AMA he disagrees with. They fly in the face of most Oregon progressivism. How did you ever trust him as a progressive? Why was that a troll's question, until the last few months? Steve, as memory serves, was the first to lambast the question as trollish non-sense. Does this post make Carla one of the "Purity Troll Brigade"?
Of course we all know the answer. There's a new wind blowing, and our political weather vanes have spun around to show another side.
All that aside...great post!
Dec 12, '09
And here is another one. It matters not the stripe or party affiliation, politicians just seem to consistently place themsleves and their needs above we, the unwashed governed. From the Seattle Times:
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., gave the director of his state office a nearly $14,000 raise as they were becoming romantically involved last year, a spokesman for the senator said Friday. Baucus spokesman Ty Matsdorf said Melodee Hanes' raise was the same amount received by the senator's legislative director and less than the raise given to his chief of staff.
Hanes, 53, was paid $126,541 from Oct. 1, 2007, to Sept. 30, 2008, congressional records show.
and let us not forget SC Gov Sanford.
12:34 p.m.
Dec 12, '09
How did you ever trust him as a progressive?
This assumes that most here did. I can only speak for myself but I've only voted for him once - in 2004. At every other opportunity (I live in the district) I have voted for someone else and it's fairly likely that I'll do so again in the future.
Why was that a troll's question, until the last few months?
Criticism of Wu was considered "a troll's question" around here "until the last few months"???
This is where you really leave me scratching my head wondering if you've either not been reading here very long or just haven't been paying attention. Wu has been criticized widely around here for a hell of a lot longer than just the last few months, including by Carla. In fact I would venture that he's been the one Dem member of the Oregon delegation most frequently criticized here over the last several YEARS.
Dec 12, '09
Several commenters here prove exactly why Carla's post was a gratuitous cheap shot. Some other commenters will have to pipe up and indicate whether or not that is representative of her character and the commenters.
Carla's post was about Wu's WIFE, not Wu. Except for the paternalistic misogynists here, it seems to me that her business is her business and this particular case has little to do with him and his service as an elected Congressperson. And last I checked, nobody voted for her. I'm also struck by the utter dishonest hypocrisy of those, including Carla, who have nothing to say about Wyden's wife's publicized conduct in HER business, if that is Carla's and yours' standards for evaluating and criticizing elected leaders.
Now if Carla can prove Wu benefited or played a direct role in his wife's business, exactly what is her purpose here?
"Disclaimer": Don't know Wu, don't live in his district, never voted for him, and am generally disgusted by what the Oregon Democratic Party has become. So suck on that.
7:26 p.m.
Dec 12, '09
Jane:
I post and comment using my name--you don't. So while we're discussing gratuitous swipes..the ones you take at me from behind your fake name might be fun for you..but they're cowardly.
So you'll understand why I could give a shit about your attempt at moral high ground. It's looking an awful lot like quicksand.
It's a newsworthy story whether you like it or not.
8:23 p.m.
Dec 12, '09
While "Jane Doe" claims this post is a "gratuitous cheap shot" because it's "about Wu's WIFE, not Wu," that protest rings hollow.
He/she seems more miffed that his/her proffered piece about Wyden's WIFE isn't getting the kind of traction he/she wants. The end result (thus far) being a hissy fit from behind pseudonymity.
Dec 12, '09
Carla's petulant outburst in an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that in this case you are just a common gossip, not credibly reporting "a story", speaks volumes. As does here failure to speak up to other commenters who have tried to make this about Congressperson Wu, when the story is about his wife.
And what is the story? For as much as we can objectively determine ourselves, at least online, is to go to https://www.dccourts.gov/pa/, select "Search By Name" on the left, then enter "Sundance Contracting" in the "Company" box. Click on the case "2008 CA 004471 C" in the right column of the only case returned. That will bring up the docket for this case. Unfortunately, none of the evidence filed in this case appears to be online, only the docket.
There are lots of little interesting things in the docket someone who was actually reporting a story might notice and conclude there is more than has been "reported" (if you even can call what gossip rags like right-wing Politico blog and Carla do as "report").
The most important thing we can determine is that the defendants in this case are Michelle Wu and her LLC, "Capital Hill Design Studios". Not Congressperson Wu. So why was the plaintiff even contacting a non-party to the matter? And what should we make of the fact that Carla, despite remaining silent when others went off point to try to make it about him, petulantly lashed out (in just 24 minutes) when all that was pointed out?
And Kevin, the published facts are the facts and repeating them is just repeating them. Your attempt to deflect like the way a child does rather than offer any facts relevant to the issues just like Carla does pretty much says it all. For some of us, it is just about the issues.
9:17 p.m.
Dec 12, '09
And Kevin, the published facts are the facts and repeating them is just repeating them.
LOL - right... but apparently only when you do it. When Carla does it it becomes a "gratuitous cheap shot."
Your credibility wad was shot the moment you bitched about the post being about the unelected WIFE after having tried to push your own story about another unelected WIFE.
All of which reminds me of my favorite H. L. Mencken quote:
“The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots”
9:57 p.m.
Dec 12, '09
Carla's petulant outburst in an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that in this case you are just a common gossip, not credibly reporting "a story", speaks volumes. As does here failure to speak up to other commenters who have tried to make this about Congressperson Wu, when the story is about his wife.
Common gossip? The Superior Court of DC has ruled that Wu owes over $10K to this contractor. But because you can't find it on an online docket..somehow it's not good enough? If that's your idea of "common gossip"..you've got quite a threshold.
If you've evidence that the contractor is lying or that the court ruling as reported by Politico is incorrect, by all means--show it. I suspect you don't--and thus this story is legit and newsworthy.
And if petulant is what gets your knickers in a bunch...your own pseudononmous petulance deserves a long, hard look in the mirror. Glass houses being what they are and all.
Dec 12, '09
@ Carla
Why don't you turn the ability to comment off on your postings since allowing "anonymous" people to respond to them seems to upset you so much? Or, you can continue to be the biggest freaking flamer and whiner on BO.
Dec 12, '09
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Dec 12, 2009 7:26:16 PM
Jane:
I post and comment using my name--you don't. So while we're discussing gratuitous swipes..the ones you take at me from behind your fake name might be fun for you..but they're cowardly.
Bull fucking shit! Refusing to use validated IDs and refusing to manage trolls and spam means that many face little other choice. If BO would clean up their act it would be less necessary. Deleted the personal data/spam on the Minnis thread yet? No. Too busy proving you can get your way.
Yeah. "Petulant" is a very charitable way of putting it.
Hey, Kev, with your man on the street aside... How about a (Full disclosure: Carla got this job writing for my blog)?
Dec 13, '09
Common gossip? The Superior Court of DC has ruled that Wu owes over $10K to this contractor. ... If you've evidence that the contractor is lying or that the court ruling as reported by Politico is incorrect, by all means--show it.
The reality is that one can repeat only facts, and still just be gossiping. One online Random House dictionary defines "gossip" (verb) as "to talk idly, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others".
Of course, all that has been said was to cite the actual evidence of the case, to show how this thread Carla decided to start is little more than gossip:
The evidence is that Michelle Wu and her LLC owe the money to the contractor, not her husband Congressperson David Wu. (And as commented, only paternalistic misogynists would fall back on claiming a husband is responsible for his wife's business debts.)
The evidence is that Carla had nothing to say to all the people who launched after Congressperson Wu, even though the court docket shows he is not involved.
The evidence is that Carla's hypocrisy in this is demonstrable, since the story about Wyden's wife was pointed out only after Carla to that point has stood idly by in this irresponsible way. (Kevin's confusion about this not so subtle point would be funny if it wasn't kind of sad.)
The evidence is that Carla (and Kevin) then lashed out in response when the hypocrisy was pointed out explicitly.
The evidence is that Carla with her last comment quoted above once again is trying to deflect attention from the actual evidence since the court docket and the facts therein were accepted at face value. The court docket was actually proffered specifically because the facts therein demonstrate this case does not involve Congressman Wu.
The evidence speaks for itself.
7:58 a.m.
Dec 13, '09
@Ricky..not my call.
@Dr John Smith: You're excuse for posting anonymously is trolls and a lack of name ID verification? Uh...somehow I doubt it.
@Jane: It's a legitimate and valid story. Your definition of "idle gossip" not withstanding. Not only does this story stay and I hope lots of people read it and, you've now prompted me to look more closely at the Wu's to see what else is out there about both of them.
Dec 13, '09
Most husbands and wives are a team. When something benefits one it benefits the other.
10:24 a.m.
Dec 13, '09
The evidence is that Carla's hypocrisy in this is demonstrable, since the story about Wyden's wife was pointed out only after Carla to that point has stood idly by in this irresponsible way. (Kevin's confusion about this not so subtle point would be funny if it wasn't kind of sad.)
If you'd just mentioned the story about Wyden's wife and perhaps included the URL (to demonstrate that you weren't just making it up) then your explanation here for why you injected it into the thread might be believable. Because of course that would have been enough to make the comparison point without wading into gratuitous cheap shot gossiping yourself.
But that's not what you did and the evidence is there for everyone to see.
You gratuitously quoted several paragraphs from the story - which is 100% about the unelected WIFE and the inclussion of which was 100% unnecessary to make your alleged point. So then after waiting nearly 22 hours to see if your proffered hit piece on Wyden's wife would gain traction, you then turned around and, blatently reinventing the self-evident point of your own initial comment, hypocritically bitched about Carla's post being about the unelected WIFE.
I don't see how anyone would fail conclude from the available chronological evidence from this thread that you are just venting your spleen because your proffered story about Wyden's wife didn't get the traction you wanted it to.
And all the while your gratuitously-included paragraphs of the juicy details/allegations about Wyden's wife sit there upthread putting the lie to your petulant protestations and rhetorical contortions down here.
10:44 a.m.
Dec 13, '09
Hey, Kev, with your man on the street aside... How about a (Full disclosure: Carla got this job writing for my blog)?
LOL - I wish! But your infantile attempt to besmirch my ethics ignores the copious Oregon-centric work she did at L.O. which then put her in a position to have the two main Dem Senate hopefuls vying for her to join their respective campaigns, all of which was far more relevant to the self-evident Oregon-centric point of Blue Oregon than whatever P.K brings to the table.
I'll take some small credit for helping to set her up for the L.O. gig. But everything after that had nothing whatever to do with me or my blog.
Furthermore, I'll happily venture out on what appears to be an exceptionally sturdy limb and suggest that if you polled Oregon politicos from across the spectrum and political writers in the local media that they'd cite L.O. as a substantive part of Carla's resume while drawing a complete blank if you asked them about P.K.'s role.
So... nice try but you've only made yourself look foolishly ignorant.
Dec 13, '09
The lawyers are using the media to obtain results for their clients because the defendants' spouses are public figures. Unless Wu or Wyden are involved in the management of their spouses' businesses, none of this is relevant to the congressman or senator.
As for the Wu staff person, Jane Doe, shame on "her" and the Wu office for trying to deflect by pulling Wyden into it. Those types of obscure NY stories don't just magically spring to mind - the Wu office clearly had time to strategize for the BlueOregon story. Something tells me that the icy relationship between Wyden and Wu just got cooler by a few more degrees.
3:45 p.m.
Dec 13, '09
From the available evidence I would argue that while the story about Wyden's wife has nothing directly to do with Wyden himself, the same can't be said for the story about Wu's wife.
Because whereas the piece about Wyden's wife is restricted to her business, the story about Wu's wife clearly states that "substantial renovation" was done on/in the Wu family home - meaning that Wu himself directly benefitted from it. That is unless someone can show that Wu doesn't live in the Wu family home and therefore didn't benefit from said "substantial renovation" of it.
Dec 13, '09
As for the Wu staff person, Jane Doe, shame on "her" and the Wu office for trying to deflect by pulling Wyden into it.
Bradley, you should be careful about making accusations you can't prove. If it were ever to matter you might find you are easily shown to be a fool.
Because whereas the piece about Wyden's wife is restricted to her business, the story about Wu's wife clearly states that "substantial renovation" was done on/in the Wu family home - meaning that Wu himself directly benefitted from it.
Kevin, you've demonstrated you're a stupid person who depends on falsely reading things into comments and spinning to make a point you can't make anyway else. In Wyden's case, your whine about just citing a URL is what you HOPE people will believe, since your entire argument rests on convincing and distracting people with that. Frequently people make the mistake, as you seem to here, of thinking others are as easily duped as they are.
In this case, you are also intellectually dishonest in that what the quote actually says is that the contractor CLAIMS he was approached to do some things at HER residence. Once again, your argument rests on claiming convincing people of something that you have no way of knowing to be true. Furthermore, as the docket shows, he sued her company and her, rather than both of them, which he certainly could have done. And it shows he sued for an unknown amount, but the first entry in the docket "Complaint for Collection > 25,000 Filed Receipt: 107264 Date: 06/20/2008" seems to indicate it could have been for more than $25K.
So we don't know what work he may have actually done, or what his initial claim was. All we do know for certain is that the court only granted about $9K and that she and her company were the only defendants.
And since to make your point about Wu and defending Carla you go beyond what is in the record or facts you can substantiate that you have put in the record here, do you know one way or the other if Wyden receives any benefit from the income his wife generates?
You two want to actually prove you are doing otherwise than just being common gossips, get the court filings referenced in the docket, and then make whatever case you want to make that the evidence supports. That's why one of us at least went to the DC Superior Court website to find out what facts were available in the docket and if any of the filings were available before making any claims that couldn't be substantiated, or not stating any more than can be substantiated.
Dec 13, '09
Jane, you are correct that I am making an assumption, albeit an educated one. For starters, no one who isn't getting compensated by Wu cares enough about him to comment repeatedly and viciously in his defense. DeFazio, Blumenauer, Wyden, and Merkley all have their slavish followings. Wu? Not so much.
7:00 p.m.
Dec 13, '09
Jane, you are correct that I am making an assumption, albeit an educated one. For starters, no one who isn't getting compensated by Wu cares enough about him to comment repeatedly and viciously in his defense.
I'm one of Wu's constituents..and if "Jane Doe" is being paid by Wu, that would be not only fascinating as a blogger, but as someone who has the ability to vote in his race.
7:34 p.m.
Dec 13, '09
"And if petulant is what gets your knickers in a bunch...your own pseudononmous petulance deserves a long, hard look in the mirror. Glass houses being what they are and all."
You tell em, Carla Ryan!
8:16 p.m.
Dec 13, '09
Really?
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." — Socrates
Dec 14, '09
Kevin, look up the definition of stupid and slander. (Stupid: lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.) The problem with your quote is that it is not relevant in this situation when your behavior of making arguments resting solely on spin and assertions untethered from any facts anyone has placed in evidence, has been accurately described. And of course we see this in your consistent failure to acknowledge exactly what the facts we have and don't have at this moment tell us about this matter. As I said, just get the evidence filed in the case, put it on the record here, and then the whole debate MAY change.
Remember, this all started with Carla just repeating a story about a Congressperson's wife and her business without adding anything to it, standing by silently (intentionally?) as others turned this into an attack on the Congressperson, even as another example was provided to test what she was up to in this matter, and then lashing out (along with you) only when the questionable integrity and hypocrisy of this behavior was highlighted.
Be careful what you quote in a foggy-minded, incautious way, Kevin, the truth may be that you are unknowingly disparaging yourself. And to Bradley and Carla's last little spin into making arguments that rest solely on imputing the only, necessary motives someone could possibly have for criticizing what so far has not risen above tawdry gossip, in a forum that purports to be more than just another gossip circle, and the obviously "profound" implications of that.
8:48 a.m.
Dec 14, '09
Jane:
You've dug such a deep hole for yourself here...seriously. You'd have been better off just stopping after Bradley's last comment.
Dec 14, '09
Out of a modicum of decency, I caution Bradley, Carla, (and Kevin if he decides in his confusion they somehow make sense), to be very careful about making such accusations, even against a public figure:
We all will be treated to a public lesson in what slander actually is if they continue with that kind of accusation (against Wu, not me), and particularly because of how they base it on the dazzling display of reasoning skills we've seen so far.
8:58 a.m.
Dec 14, '09
Jane: You might want to actually bone up on 'slander' laws. Not only am I unconcerned about the legalities--the PR for me would be FANTASTIC. Can you imagine? A Congressman and his flack go after a blogger for re-posting a legitimate news story? It would raise my profile in a HUGE way. So when you chat with Wu next...please, encourage him to file. I'd love it!
I've got to hand it to you..few people can motivate me to dig deeper on what a politician is doing wrong simply by commenting on a blog. You've managed it, tho. I'm now desperately curious at what else the Congressman might be up to that's not above board.
11:48 a.m.
Dec 14, '09
"Jane Doe": And of course we see this in your consistent failure to acknowledge exactly what the facts we have and don't have at this moment tell us about this matter.
Yes, facts such as:
The fact that you hypocritically complained about Carla's post being about the unelected WIFE, but only after you had first floated your own story about another unelected WIFE, in a transparent attempt to divert attention away from Wu, and it failed to gain any traction.
Here's a definition for you:
Dec 14, '09
Wow, you guys have way too much time on your hands.
11:06 a.m.
Dec 15, '09
Jane Doe's hypocrisy aside, there does appear to be a basic point of fairness here. The constant use of "Wu" in this piece - always seeming to drop the Michelle - seems just a tad too confusing for my taste. I certainly hope this conflation was not as deliberately intentional as it appears.
Yes, husbands and wives do (when a marriage is good) work together as a team. But let me point something else out, Carla: this is not the 1950s anymore. Wives are not merely appendages of their husbands. They have their own lives, can have their own accomplishments, run their own businesses, and (in this difficult economic environment) get into their own financial troubles.
Trying to splatter mud on a Congressman because his wife has a life, Carla, will simply reward candidates who have limpid, weak, Nancy-Reaganesque wives, who have no other life other than to sit silently in adoration, as their husbands make speeches.
That's a good model for Republicans. But not a good one for Democrats.
Dec 15, '09
Steve,
In most states spouses share economic wealth and responsibility. That has not changed.
1:19 p.m.
Dec 15, '09
Steve: As I said to "Jane Doe", it's a legitimate news story. And frankly, it appears based on the story that work was done at the Wu residence. While it may have been billed to Mrs. Wu's business, that certainly appears to be a mutual personal expense for their family.
Even if it's written off as a "business expense", spouses (as has already been pointed out) generally share in the expenses and wealth of one another.
2:27 p.m.
Dec 15, '09
So the "legitimate news story" here (from right-wing Politico) is that a Democratic Congressman's wife bounced some checks while paying her bills for her D.C. office, a residence, and a "mutual friend".
The news element being that the Congressman hasn't come in yet to pick the little woman up, dust her off, and send her packing back to the kitchen with a little affectionate fanny slap, while the man takes care of the bills. Women! And bills! Sigh. Oh what can you do! Time to take away her credit card, probably.
Gotcha.
2:47 p.m.
Dec 15, '09
The news element being that the Congressman hasn't come in yet to pick the little woman up, dust her off, and send her packing back to the kitchen with a little affectionate fanny slap, while the man takes care of the bills. Women! And bills!
If it were a female Congressperson whose male spouse had done the same thing as Mrs Wu, would it THEN be a story, Steve? Is it really the gender thing that's bugging you?
Or is it that you think I'm a self-loathing, Stepford babe who sees the male as always the dominant force who must keep the dithering little woman at bay? Cuz really, if that's it--you haven't been paying attention.
Or is it that you're willing to give Wu a pass--simply because he's a Dem?
3:26 p.m.
Dec 15, '09
Actually, Carla, that exactly is my point.
Had Paul Pelosi gotten in a little issue with a bill with one of his apartments, or bounced a check, I really can't see this ever would have seen the light of day. That's because in our culture, people still don't expect the wife to be the adult coming to the rescue of their childish husbands. (Even though that is often what happens.) Flip it around here though, and "news item" is clearly that the Congressman is not taking care of his wife like he should.
Insofar as your motivations, Carla, I have no way of really knowing. I suspect that what really happened is that you didn't pick up on the implicit sexism of this charge because you don't like the Congressman. I'm not going to try to make you like the Congressman (there are plenty of legitimate reasons why people may or may not like him), but as a friend, I feel it's my responsibility to point out that the charge Politico is pushing here does have a strong whiff of sexism attached to it.
3:40 p.m.
Dec 15, '09
Had Paul Pelosi gotten in a little issue with a bill with one of his apartments, or bounced a check, I really can't see this ever would have seen the light of day.
Of course it would have. Just like stuff has on Dianne Feinstein's husband: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/
As far as Paul Pelosi goes, I suspect a lot of the reason he's stayed out of trouble is by design: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/01/MNG83NB37E1.DTL
Although a rent dispute with Pelosi did surface and was talked about.
4:30 p.m.
Dec 15, '09
That attack in the Moonie Times wasn't about Feinstein's husband doing anything wrong. It was an attack on Feinstein herself for (supposedly) steering contracts to her husband's firm.
While it didn't go anywhere (because there was nothing to the charge), the basic question posed by the article was legitimate one.
See the difference?
Similarly, the Paul Pelosi piece was a backgrounder. Again, I'm not saying that reporters should keep entirely away from spouses - they're not children after all. But there is nothing in anything you pointed to that has the same kind of overtones. Why it is the business of the "Congressman's Office" for example, about this issue with his wife.
4:51 p.m.
Dec 15, '09
Steve:
I think you're projecting the overtones, frankly. I don't see the whole "the man has to run in and save the little woman" thing, whatsoever.
What I see is a news story showing the spouse of a Congressman not paying the bill for renovations on their house.
Dec 15, '09
Steve, Is dinner ready yet??? I am starved. Oh and thank you for paying the credit card bills today.
Don't forget to empty the dishwasher. I am off to a fundraiser....
Happy Holidays Carla!
PS. My husband's opinions are his own. If you don't like his opinions call me, I will fix them :) HAHAHAHA
Dec 15, '09
I can't believe you all are really expecting to get something on this from Madame La Snarque! When you get ahead of Steve's sensibilities you've gone beyond the Pale! I won't repeat his obviously valid, though inconsequential argument.