So, I think this morning was the moment when you could watch the Republican strategy shift from “Smear Morrison” to “Smear Stanley.” This morning, Morrison was a homeless, trashy crack user. By lunch, Stanely was a serial affair-haver who drinks too much and (warning, hard to take scandalous conduct about to be mentioned) charges it to lobbyists.
I will wait for you to regroup. I know many a Tennessean is unfazed by affairs, but getting drunk and making someone else pay for it? Whew, I have to fan myself here a second. How practically Democratic of him!
Anyway, I wanted to take a second to look at Woods’s post about the scuttlebutt on the Hill, about whether we should think of Morrison as victim or vamp–
Her life is back on track. But her psyche remains fragile and she is susceptible to temptation, right? Hello Paul Stanley, the lech.
That’s one way to look at it. The other way doubtlessly will appear shortly on conservative blogs across the state. McKensie Morrison’s low-down past proves what some Republicans have been suggesting from the beginning: She’s a Mata Hari who used her feminine wiles to lure the innocent senator into sin and ruination.
Because Woods suggests that they’re both to blame, both bear responsibility.
And that’s nice, isn’t it? Quite feminist of Woods, really.
But here’s the thing–it doesn’t matter if Morrison was a girl who fell on extremely troubled times after high school, and who moved to Tennessee to ably put her life together and do something with herself, who was preyed on by Stanley or if she is a brilliant evil genius who plotted late at night in her high school bed of a way to be the perfect lure–troubled young woman with shady past and bad taste in men–in order to trap some politician, any politician into ruination in order to get, um, sex and… um… embarrassment and shame for her and her family? Maybe she wasn’t such a brilliant evil genius after all. But she was young. You have to fail a few times before you hit upon the perfect plan that allows you to take over the world. Shoot, ask Bill Hobbs about that.
The reason that we should have rules in place that clearly state that legislators cannot carry on with interns is so that we don’t have to sit around and debate whether a young woman was victim or villain (madonna or whore) and whether she deserves our sympathy or our scorn.
Politicians who have sex with people who need a paycheck or a letter of recommendation from them are doing wrong, regardless of how skanky the politician’s friends can smear the intern as being. When you are the boss, you don’t have sex with your underlings. Period. You cannot be sure that they are willing. You cannot know if they feel they have to do this in order to keep your favor. You cannot know how the other people who work for you feel about it, if they feel like the undering you’re fucking is treated special by you. It creates a toxic work environment.
Now, I have been repeatedly accused of standing in the way of love, of not understanding these poor awkward men, who need to be able to awkwardly flirt with or fuck these young women, or else what will happen to true love?
Because it’s so difficult to say, “Darling intern, I am falling in love with you, but it wouldn’t be right for us to carry on. Could I see you once your internship is done?” or “Darling intern, clearly our relationship has crossed over into something serious and true and lovely, the best thing which two people can share. So, it turns out that I happen to know of another legislator who has fallen in love with his intern. Let’s talk to the intern coordinator about the two of you switching jobs so that you don’t work under me, so that I can quickly get you working under me. Wink wink nudge nudge.”?
Folks, I am not even a skeevy politician old enough to be someone’s father, and I can think of that in two second. You’re going to tell me that folks who want to sneak around and carry on can’t come up with a way of doing it that doesn’t cross clear ethical lines?
Shoot, maybe I should become a lecherous politician. I’m going to start auditioning fine-ass twenty-year-olds this afternoon. If you want to apply, leave your contact information in the comments.
Filed under: Fun with Feminism, Politics and Other Nonsense, The Conservative Soap Opera, The State of Tennessee




I’m going to start auditioning fine-ass twenty-year-olds this afternoon
ageist. :)
Woo hoo! My first ethics scandal and I’ve only been a politician for ten minutes! That’s got to be a record.
You have to fail a few times before you hit upon the perfect plan that allows you to take over the world. Shoot, ask Bill Hobbs about that.
::snerk!::
Hobbs needs a dwarf twin and a moon laser. Then I’ll take his world domination plans with the respect that they deserve.
Stanley deserves forgiveness for this. Democrats who have affairs with interns are hypocritical, immoral adulterers who are exposed for what they are. Republicans who do so are good, decent God-fearing people who simply made a mistake that should not overshadow their honorable character and strong moral convictions.
Damn . . . . that’s straight on the mark. Amen, Auntie B. A-f*cking-men!
{insert loud and raucous applause}
I’m a fine-ass 23-year old. Can I be your intern?
I’m a fine-ass 46-year-old who will take care of the paperwork and other necessities so you can properly supervise the interns.
Ahem.
As soon as I go take billp out for ice cream to celebrate the Master of Spin that he is. HAHAHAHAHAHAHEEHEEHEE gasp HAHAHAHAHAHAHEEHEEHEE whew oh my goodness.
[...] that included drugs and violence, he’s accuse of partying on lobbyists’ money (Hey, where can I get that gig?) and basically spouting off about how he was going to legislate [...]
Aunt B,
I think you’re right, except inasmuch as you are implying that Conservatives have been taking up for Stanley. I posted about the subject here, and I think your post helps me to understand the disconnect between you and me on this subject.
I could hardly have any less respect for Stanley (as a leader or elected official), but it’s not simply because he has been hypocritical. And, I would heartily support a no fraternization policy, but I don’t think that abuse of power (of this magnitude) is the worst possible sin. I thought of this as I read your facetious boys-will-be-boys post from a few days ago (which–like many of your posts, seemed to perfectly articulate what many Liberals were thinking). You were focused on the arguably legitimate issues of Abuse of Power or Republican Hypocrisy or IOKIYAR or male chauvinism, while to me this story vindicates the wisdom of living a moral life. Accordingly, the story didn’t stop at, “was the mistress an intern or not.” I don’t subscribe to the view, “oh, you know how those ambitious interns are . . .”
No, I do not think that Stanley was seduced or taken advantage of or in any way made less culpable by anything that Morrison may have done. But I guess the disconnect is that I feel an important character in this “morality play” is being left out when–for whatever reason, Democrats seem to be glossing over Morrison’s part in the story or characterizing any references to her as “smearing” or “distracting attention.”
Nedw, here’s the problem with that: If she did come on to Stanley, then it would have been HIS DUTY to report her to the internship authorities and have her removed.
The fact is, the person in the position of power (Stanley) had the duty and responsibility NOT to hit on her or fool around with her, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE WAS MARRIED OR NOT.
Why? Because he was in position to ruin her if she didn’t play along, willingly or not. Ultimately, this is about HIS behavior.
Steve,
“Ruin her”? She was only a freakin intern in the TN state legislature. Is “doing the right thing” not worth a mixed review/reference from a Paul Stanley or reassignment or giving up a piddling stipend?
And I doubt that she hit on Stanley, but I’m sorry if I’m not convinced that it wasn’t completely consensual. Regardless, please re-read my last paragraph above.
While folks from TN’s Left think they are gittin’ Conservatives for not demanding the death penalty for Stanley, I’m thinking you’re misreading the reaction. While I have no use for Stanley, I am suspicious of the need for the Left to lionize one actor and thoroughly demonize/destroy the other.
And I REALLY don’t want to get off the Stanley issue, but what position did you take with regard to Bill Clinton and his intern affair?
[...] public consumption. The decision is yours, sir, and I don’t envy you in the least. Of course, I would hope I wouldn’t have been hitting on any interns, either. UPDATE: CA and WMC-TV5 say he’s gone as of August 10. He’s on with Ferguson [...]