Redstate

After all, they're the ones who tend to rail against "Moralists" and the like

By Jeff Emanuel Posted in David Paterson | Democrats | New York | Paying for Sex — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Our own Gordon Taylor has already been doing a great job keeping tabs on the Sexploits of new NY Governor David Paterson. Here's another story to add to the growing pile: the New York Times reported Saturday that, last week (finally), Gov-by-default Paterson "reimbursed his campaign committee...for two stays at a Manhattan hotel that he has acknowledged using to carry on an extramarital affair." Nice of him to pay back the kind folks who donated to his Tryst Fund.

Further, "Henry T. Berger, an election lawyer for Mr. Paterson, also told reporters that the governor used his campaign credit card to buy furniture and men’s clothing in 2004," though the lawyer said that is was pretty much OK because Paterson "reimbursed the committee at the time for the $2,138 in spending."

Having now addressed this, the Governor's representatives are moving on to doing what Democrats do in situations like this: accusing those who dare shed light on their wrongdoing of being [fill-in-the-blank here]-ist.

Read on.

"In some cases, the inquiries have bordered on being sexist by suggesting that many of the women involved in campaign work for the senator, women doing legitimate work, were somehow romantically linked to the senator," said the governor’s spokesman, Errol Cockfield.

According to the Times:

Mr. Paterson...has struggled to answer questions about whether he improperly used campaign money in the relationships he said he had with other women during a troubled time in his marriage.

He has given conflicting accounts, alternately denying and then saying it was possible that he inadvertently used his campaign credit card for personal expenses. He stressed that if he had used the card for personal expenses, he would have repaid the committee.

Mr. Berger also provided a new explanation for a $500 campaign payment to a state employee with whom Mr. Paterson had an affair, one that conflicted with the version of events that the governor offered earlier in the week. In his recollection of the payment, Mr. Paterson had said that it was made to reimburse her for a contribution she made on his behalf to the 2002 gubernatorial campaign of H. Carl McCall, a Democratic former state comptroller.

Such an expenditure would have been illegal, since campaign contributors cannot be reimbursed by someone else, and state election records showed no donation from the woman to Mr. McCall. On Friday, Mr. Berger said that Mr. Paterson’s recollection was wrong, and that the $500 was actually payment for her work updating the campaign committee’s donor database.

Mr. Cockfield also responded to questions about another woman, who campaign records show was paid $1,000 in 2002 for staff work. The New York Post reported Friday that the woman denied having worked for the campaign, but Mr. Cockfield discounted that, saying she either did not remember it or was simply trying to avoid being dragged into the story.

“That woman did, in fact, do work for the campaign staff and was paid for it,” he said.

So basically, folks who spoke of Paterson's proclivity for sexual relationships with female campaign workers -- or for putting women with whom he had affairs on "paid staff" as a reward of some sort -- weren't just throwing around "sexist" accusations, but were, in fact, correct. Hm. Ah well, better not let that get in the way of doing what an accused D does best: calling the accusers names. After all, while it's the "seriousness of the accusation" that matters when it's an R involved, with the Ds, it's all about turning it around on the rest of the world -- preferably with a pointed finger, and a denial of ever having done anything at all with "that woman" (however many "that woman"s there may be).