"Pulled Up" - Talking Heads
Mommy, Daddy, come and look at me now
I'm a big man in a great big town
Years ago who would believe it's true
Goes to show what a little faith can do
I was complaining, I was down in the dumps
I feel so strong now 'cause you pulled me up!
Pull me up up up up up up up up
Oh my! The right wingers are getting fucking funnier by the day. Having nearly exhausted all yucks available from the narcissist club of Sanford and Palin, Senator John Ensign reappears on the scene for more high-larity and high-jinx. This time with an assist from Tom Coburn, who illustrates the godly path to paying hush money.
Ensign got his parents to pay $96,000 in hush money to his former lover Cindy Hampton, and her husband, Doug Hampton. Even better, Ensign's parents did it in the form of individual $12,000 checks from each of them to both Hamptons and their two children so as to fall within the gift limits under federal tax law.
Evidently, Ensign pere made a fortune investing in the Mandalay Bay casino in Las Vegas. (Whenever I hear that name I envision Moe the bartender on the Simpsons yelling out "I'm looking for a Mandalay.")
According to Doug Hampton, Tom Coburn urged Ensign to pay off the Hamptons, a charge Coburn denies "categorically" -- which, in DC speak, means oh fuck yeah I did that. Coburn says he will refuse to testify in any ethics or court proceedings as he was acting as a "physician and an ordained deacon" (Coburn is a gynecologist), adding enigmatically, "y'all don't know about all the people I've counseled." No, but we'd love to see the list.
[The Heads performance is excellent by the way -- I saw them shortly thereafter, but inexplicably they did not play this song.]
Hahahahaha! Oh, how we adore you Sir C. This Heads clip is perfection.
When I heard about the Ensign reappearance and the hush money, I asked Robert if he thought a hundred large would now be the going rate to shut up a lover/rent-boy/mistress/bathroom-encounter-partner-with-hidden-videocam. And he replied that it depended on a few things, such as, where the lover/rent-boy/mistress/bathroom-encounteree lived, what sort of damning evidence he could dangle over someone's head, and of course, whether any progeny resulted from the encounter(s).
So, heads-up, philandering politicians: a hundred large may well be your entry-level hush payment.
Posted by: litbrit | July 09, 2009 at 08:08 PM
this was HUSH money? how come i've heard about it, then?
if coburn urged ensign to "for god's sake, get some professional help," it should pass as doctor-patient privileged -- but i'm choking a little on the "ordained deacon" privilege. does that mean something? legally?
Posted by: kathy a. | July 09, 2009 at 09:12 PM
"I'm looking for a Mandalay."
...
"Why you little--"
Posted by: FearItself | July 09, 2009 at 09:26 PM
Every day, the Republicans are looking a little less like a political party, and more like a comedy troupe.
I still prefer Firesign Theatre (my little rascal shares a birthday with Philip Proctor - how cool is that?), but successful self-parody has its own certain je ne sais quoi.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | July 09, 2009 at 09:41 PM
IIRC, the issue of pastoral privilege as it relates to a court of law is a bit murky. I don't think there are any laws specifically protecting conversations with a pastor or priest, but police and even courts have been reluctant to force pastors/priests to divulge what's been said to them in confidence out of courtesy and tradition, not because they can't.
Theologically, Catholic priests are the most justified in keeping confessions, even of crimes, confidential. This is because they view confession as a sacrament, which pretty much takes the whole thing out of the priests' hands and puts it into God's; God is the one hearing the confession and offering forgiveness, the priest is merely a vessel and, again this is theologically, isn't really a part of what's happening.
Southern Baptists like Coburn, of course, hardly view confession as a sacrament. In fact, they never talk about it in the way Catholics do. So he doesn't even have a theological basis for claiming that his "ordination" as a deacon means anything at all.
Speaking of Coburn, HE'S A GYNECOLOGIST, FOR FUCK'S SAKE??
Posted by: Stephen | July 09, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Sir C! How excellent! I just finished skimming the Ensign juice over at TPM, and as I was waiting for Cogitamus to boot up I was wondering whether there was a post here about Ensign, and if not how I ought to link to TPM to indicate there was a juicy story to dish!
:-)
Posted by: oddjob | July 10, 2009 at 01:16 AM
the godly path to paying hush money.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DELICIOUS TURN OF PHRASE!!!!!
Posted by: oddjob | July 10, 2009 at 01:23 AM
@ Stephen: I would be quicker to assume a senator who was also an Episcopalian Deacon had a claim to stake here than I ever would a Southern Baptist Deacon.
I'm not really familiar with the what is meant by a Southern Baptist who claims to be a deacon, but I do know that an Episcopalian can't be a deacon without specific training for the office as well as an ordination rite ordaining that Episcopalian into the Diaconate. IIRC in the Episcopal Church a deacon is regarded as a minor member of the priesthood, hence the requirement for training and consecration before entering the office of deacon.
Posted by: oddjob | July 10, 2009 at 01:49 AM
oddjob,
Coburn is a Southern Baptist, as far as I know always has been. So I'm not sure what Episcopal practice has to do with him. Other than that, you are correct except that deacons aren't very minor. All priests were first ordained as deacons, and those that choose to remain in the diaconate are technically answerable directly to the bishop and perform a lot of pastoral duties in the parish.
Posted by: Stephen | July 10, 2009 at 09:04 AM
How come the concepts of morality, decency, and obeying God's laws never seem to cross these guys' minds when they're busy schtupping (thanks, Rachel!) another man's wife (Ensign)--or another woman or man who isn't their wife (Sanford, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard)--but the moment they get caught, they suddenly go all righteous and Bible-y and begin spouting off about God like there's no tomorrow?
Did they miss that bit where Jesus flips out on the hypocrites and money-changers?
Posted by: litbrit | July 10, 2009 at 09:34 AM
litbrit, I don't know about the second part of the question. As to the first?
"The little head knows no conscience." (Ahem......)
Posted by: oddjob | July 10, 2009 at 10:55 AM
The godly path to paying hush money.
Hahahahaha! Agreed, oddjob--I think that one wins the Internets today.
Posted by: litbrit | July 10, 2009 at 11:40 AM