Sex and Politics: Putting "Monkey Business" in the Right Perspective

So Mark Sanford (pictured), Governor of South Carolina and a Republican Presidential hopeful for 2012, has fallen, if not by the wayside, for the wiles of a shady lady from Argentina.

It seems like no time at all since New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, another Republican presidential contender, got stung, this time trading cash for lady’s favours in the time-honoured way of "the oldest profession". Even though Tony Blair’s Ministers, even “Lord Cashpoint” (Lord Levy) of cash-for-honours infamy, was never accused of this, the Sanford case leads me to question our fascination, both in America and Britain, with the ability of our political leaders to remain faithful to their wives and partners.

On this side of the pond, the corridors of Parliament could be lined with names of famous and infamous men caught with “something in the cookie jar”: Profumo, Lambton, Parkinson, Mellor, Amos, Yeo, and Brown, to name only a few Tories, lead a long cast. And in case you think I’m anti-Conservative, let us not forget Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown and Labour's Welshman, Ron Davies.

The Profumo scandal was treated very seriously by the press and the establishment. Questions in the House and the Denning Enquiry followed, but what people remember more than anything was the remark by call girl Mandy Rice-Davies, “Well he would, wouldn’t he?” By the time we reached the 1990s antics of Conservative minister David Mellor, pithy sayings had been replaced by Chelsea football shirts and ridicule.

Sadly, adultery can result in tragedy. During Prime Minister John Major’s time, the Earl of Caithness’s affair resulted in the suicide of his wife. However, most of the time, my fellow-citizens can’t wait to read The News of the World on Sunday mornings to see what the politicians have been up to. When the news of Major’s extra-marital affair with Edwina Currie broke, it was met with, “How could he do it with her?” Having met the lady in question, who remains both attractive and vivacious, I am tempted to ask, “How could she do it with him?” But then I met “him” a few months ago and now fully understand the attraction. He is tall, fit and retains huge magnetism. He is not a grey man at all.

I remember well the morning that Margaret Thatcher's key advisor and Minister, Cecil Parkinson, was outed by Sarah Keays. That day, I had to attend a meeting with the Minister of Tourism of a small African country. During lunch, Parkinson’s name was mentioned. The minister asked what had happened. When given the facts, his attitude was most refreshing: “This man sires a child and he is expected to resign? In my country, everyone would congratulate him!”

Over here, the English Channel separates us from the likes of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who conducted an affair with his present wife during an election campaign. As for the antics of the current Italian leader, Silvio Berlusconi, with numerous ladies of the night, it brings a whole new meaning to “when in Rome”. Clearly continentals view the actions of their politicians differently to us in Britain. Their private lives are irrelevant...well, unless they are women.

As for our American friends, the most infamous infidelity of recent years is Bill Clinton’s. Even at this distance of time, I am still flabbergasted that a little bit of unwise and improper behaviour became the subject of an impeachment trial. However, the infidelity that I admired, yes, admired, for its sheer brazenness was that of Gary Hart. Remember him, the Colorado Senator better known as “Where’s the Beef?” He allowed himself to be photographed in flagrante with his lady friend on board a yacht whose name was clearly visible: “Monkey Business.” End of political career.

At the risk of being flattened by my wife’s frying pan or by any of the fairer sex when next I walk through the University of Birmingham campus, I regard the sex lives of politicians as private and no business of the voter. Yes, I’m sure it is preferable for a politico to be faithful and a good family man (or woman) but, in terms of conduct, it is not on the Richter Scale compared with MPs treatment of expenses or, heaven forefend, the ability to do the job. Surely it is the latter that is important.

I would have forgiven almost anything done by George W. Bush had he been a good leader. It seems that since he became born-again, Mr Bush has behaved impeccably in his private life; pity the same can’t be said for his stewardship of the States. Warren Harding gave the American voter the worst of both worlds. He got a woman pregnant in a cupboard in the White House whilst he failed the country in the Teapot Dome scandal and most other matters of state. For me, Franklin Roosevelt got it the right way round, unless you were part of his family. What a leader he was, even as he was unfaithful to Eleanor for years.

Maybe I’m too old and jaded, maybe I’ve reached the age of pure cynicism but give me a politician any time who can get the investment banks to behave properly and lawfully, who can reduce loutish behaviour so we can walk city centres at night, who can find ways to reduce teenage pregnancies and who, if an American, can get guns off the streets. Find him or her and he or she can have as many affairs as he or she wants.

The Latest from Iran: Marches, Deaths, and Politics (16 June)

NEW The Latest from Iran (17 June): Uncovering the News on Attacks, Protests, and the Supreme Leader

Iran: Four Scenarios for the Vote Recount
Iran: Video and Transcript of President Obama’s Remarks (15 June)
Related Post: The Latest from Iran: Demonstrations and An Appeal to the Guardian Council (15 June)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED




2220 GMT: Politically, the evening highlight appears to be the Supreme Leader's meeting with representatives of the four Presidential campaigns, calling for them to join together for "national unity". The move seems to be more of an attempt to buy some more political time while the Guardian Council tries to sort out its options --- all candidates will have been told of the necessity to keep demonstrations non-violent and non-threatening to the regime.

Elsewhere, chatter about gatherings has died down (it is, after all, 3 a.m. in Iran), so the hope is that there will be none of the violence that was feared earlier today.

Thanks to all for working with us today. We'll see you about 0530 GMT --- until then, our thoughts are with friends and colleagues in Iran.

2115 GMT: Breaking News On, citing the Wall Street Journal, says gunmen have seriously injured at least one person after opening fire on Mousavi supporters in Tehran. We're unable to find the specific information on the WSJ's site at this time. [Posted by Mike]

2100 GMT: Barack Obama has told CNBC that the outcome of events in Iran will make little difference to US policy towards Iran, and that Iranian hostility towards the US would remain:

"I think it's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference in actual policies between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised," he said. "I think it's important to understand that either way we are going to be dealing with a regime in Iran that is hostile to the US. We have long term interests in not having them with nuclear power and funding terrorism."

[Posted by Mike]

1845 GMT: I am on a break for a couple of hours. Please keep items coming in for our late evening update --- we are following stories of a possible large march tomorrow and a statement by Ayatollah Montazeri.

1825 GMT: Reuters, citing British newspaper correspondent, says loud cries of "Allah-o-Akbar" from Tehran rooftops.

Reports that former President Rafsanjani and his daughter were amongst demonstrators marching from Vanak Square today.

1755 GMT: Twitter sources say Presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi was at the rally in front of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting complex and spoke to the demonstrators.

1750 GMT: Has the BBC, normally cautious about showing any political opinion in a conflict, tilted toward the Iranian oppositions? The Beeb's homepage has turned from its usual Red to Green.

1630 GMT: Press TV still focuses on pro-Ahmadinejad rally but adds, "Pro-Mousavi rallies surround the venue" (possibly a coded reference to demonstrating outside the main Iranian broadcasting complex), and says Mousavi is among the crowd.

1535 GMT: Twitter references to "tens of thousands" of opposition demonstrators in front of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting complex are complemented by witness reports to BBC of "a mass rally in northern Tehran".

1530 GMT: Press TV English's "News in Brief" highlights pro-Ahmadinejad rally noting, "This square was supposed to be the venue of a rally for Mousavi supporters but Ahmadinejad supporters decided to show up in the same location earlier."

1520 GMT: The pro-Ahmadinejad rally has proceeded peacefully while, after the cancellation of the main opposition rally earlier today, smaller demonstrations have been occurring across Tehran. There are stories of more attacks by security forces and paramilitary Basiji at universities, including Shiraz and Mashaad. The BBC has reported the story, which circulated yesterday, that 120 faculty resigned at Tehran University.

A note on the media coverage: it became painfully apparent this afternoon that Al Jazeera's correspondent was reported from the confines of his (badly set up for sound) office. When the programme's host mentioned this, the correspondent replied that he was free to move around Tehran but, in a convoluted explanation, added that he was restricting himself "for his own safety". I suspect Government monitors were either nearby or watching intently from a Ministry. Other international media have also been effectively blinded by teh restrictions on movement.

1255 GMT: I am off to appear on Al Jazeera English's "Inside Story" considering the politics and protests in Iran. The programme will air at 1730 GMT. Full updates will resume in about two hours.

1240 GMT: Almost three hours after it began, the pro-Ahmadinejad rally is finally receiving coverage, albeit from Press TV English. Camera shots show that Vali-e Asr Square is filled with demonstrators waving Iranian flags, while correspondent Homa Lezgee is estimating there are "thousands" in the square and giving a basic summary of their arguments that Ahmadinejad won a clear majority in an election in which almost 40 million votes were cast. Lezgee is vague on who might speak to the rally, although she says it is likely to last "several hours".

Lezgee says Mousavi supporters were in Vali-e Asr Square but have moved to Vanak Square and she has had no reports of clashes.

1205 GMT: BBC correspondent John Lyon in Tehran says that, after a loosening of restrictions on international media yesterday, reporters are now confined to their offices unless they have official permission for movement. He speculates that this indicates a power struggle within the Iranian system and, from his office, says that this situation "must remind Iranians of 1979".

1115 GMT: News services are reporting that the Mousavi campaign has called off this afternoon's rally because of fear of violence.

An extraordinary interview on Al Jazeera: Professor Sadegh Zibakalam, head of Iranian Studies at Tehran University, is saying the Guardian Council's decision to review the vote is "too little, too late" to satisfy public opinion: "Nothing short of declaring the election null and void will stop the protest of the people." Even more surprisingly, Zibakalam criticised the Supreme Leader's failure to heed the pre-election warnings, in a letter from former President Rafsanjani, of Government manipulation of the vote.

1105 GMT: We've just posted an outstanding analysis by Chris Emery of the possible outcomes of the Guardian Council's recount of Friday's vote.

1035 GMT: Echoing yesterday's developments, there is confusion as to whether the Mousavi campaign is withdrawing its support for a rally. Today's tension is heightened by the overlap of the 5 p.m. rally with the earlier pro-Ahmadinejad demonstration.

1030 GMT: The Guardian Council has rejected the appeal of the Mousavi campaign for a new election: ""Based on the law, the demand of those candidates for the cancellation of the vote, this cannot be considered."

0945 GMT: The Guardian of London has posted a handy spreadsheet of the "official" vote on Friday, broken down province-by-province.

0900 GMT: According to Saeed Ahmed, the Mousavi campaign has rejected the recount proposal and insisted on a new election. It believe a "recount will provide more opportunity for fraud".

0825 GMT: CNN's Saeed Ahmed reports that the Guardian Council told the Islamic Republic News Agency that it met with the three opposition candidates, "asked them to specify what areas they want recount, and agreed to do so". That would indicate a wide-range rather than narrow reconsideration of the vote.

In turn, this opens up the possibility that the Guardian Council may overturn Friday's result. That, however, raises the further question: would it go as far as to order a re-run election or even declare Mousavi the victor?

A possible way out would be for the Guardian Council to declare Ahmadinejad's "revised" figures at below 50 percent (vs. the 63-64 percent he supposedly received). That would lead to a second-round contest between the President and Mousavi. Such a "solution" would still be politically tricky: a scapegoat (for example, the pro-Ahmadinejad Minister of Interior) would have to be found for last Friday's unfortunate events. It would mean, however, that the Council would not have to make the choice between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi.

It is notable that all of this is occurring while Ahmadinejad is in Moscow. Yesterday, the rumour was that he had cancelled the trip. Now the rumour is that he was encouraged to leave Iran as these political manoeuvres took place.

0813 GMT: Press TV English confirms news that Guardian Council "ready to recount disputed ballot boxes".

0810 GMT: According to CNN's International Desk, Press TV in Iran is reporting that the Guardian Council will recount votes from some of the provinces in Friday's election.

0740 GMT: Concerns about possible confrontations have been raised by the announcement that there will be a pro-Ahmadinejad rally in Vali-e Asr Square at 3 p.m. local time today. Demonstrators protesting the election gather in the same location two hours later.

Press TV, reporting on both planned rallies, is emphasising Mir Hossein Mousavi's call on his supporters "to keep calm...to act peacefully and to avoid falling into the trap of street violence". Mousavi's headquarters says he is not attending the 5 p.m. rally.

0645 GMT: The office of leading politician Mohammad Ali Abtahi, an ally of Presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi, says that he has been arrested.

Morning Update 0530 GMT: State-run Press TV is reporting that seven people were killed in the "illegal rally" at Azadi Square in Tehran yesterday. There was no direct reference to the probable source of the gunfire, members of the paramilitary Basiji militia.

Instead, Press TV's initial reference, "As protesters were beginning to disperse at sundown unidentified gunmen fired shots into the crowd," has been replaced by this morning's assertion of an "attack on a military post" by demonstrators "reportedly trying to loot weapons and vandalise public and Government property". At the same time, Press TV continues to emphasize that this "was a peaceful rally up until [that] moment."

The media line, while less enthusiastic than the coverage of yesterday afternoon's rally (see 15 June updates), indicates that the Iranian Government, including the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is trying to maintain some room for compromise with opposition.

That impression is supported by events on the political front. the optimism of yesterday afternoon has been replaced by a downbeat caution amongst opposition leaders. Mir Hossein Mousavi, writing his followers last night about his appeal to the Guardian Council over vote fraud, said, ""I don't have any hope in them."

However, in a sign that compromise might be sought, the Guardian Council are now calling the electoral outcome “provisional” and are meeting with all three opposition candidates today. The meetings occur as President Ahmadinejad is out of the country, having left for a Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Russia last night. Ahmadinejad, in a statement to the press as he departed, made no reference to yesterday's marches.

Other international media such as CNN, restricted in their movements, are following Press TV on the report of casualties.

In Washington, President Obama was asked about Iran during his press conference with Italian President Silvio Berlusconi. He replied,"[I am] deeply troubled by the violence I've been seeing on television....I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected."

At the same time, Obama emphasized that his Administration would not intervene to influence the internal developments: ""We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran."

Iran: Video and Transcript of President Obama's Remarks (15 June)

The Latest from Iran: Marches, Deaths, and Politics (16 June)

The response of President Obama to the first question in the press conference after his meeting with Italian leader Silvio Berlusconi. Note the balance between his concern over the aftermath of the election and his continued pursuit of engagement with Iran: "We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we'll see where it takes us."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSpXxdO74vs[/youtube]

QUESTION: Mr. President, on Iran, does the disputed election results affect -- there's been violence in the street -- in any way change your willingness to meet with Mr. Ahmadinejad without preconditions?  And also, do you have anything to say, any message to send to people who are on the streets protesting, who believe their votes were stolen and who are being attacked violently?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran.  And I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football -- or discussions with the United States.

Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television.  I think that the democratic process -- free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected.  And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they're, rightfully, troubled.

My understanding is, is that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place.  We weren’t on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can't state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election.  But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed.  And I think it's important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.

Now, with respect to the United States and our interactions with Iran, I've always believed that as odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad's statements, as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on a range of core issues, that the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy -- diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries -- is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests, specifically, making sure that we are not seeing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East triggered by Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon; making sure that Iran is not exporting terrorist activity.  Those are core interests not just to the United States but I think to a peaceful world in general.

We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we'll see where it takes us.  But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen on the television over the last few days.  And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was.  And they should know that the world is watching.

And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected.