The Seattle Times has recently reported on the close ties between Sen. Maria Cantwell and former boyfriend, boss and campaign consultant, lobbyist Ron Dotzauer. Begging explanation is a $15,000-$50,000 personal loan to Dotzauer reported in Cantwell's financial disclosures since 2001. (See Times articles here, here and here).
The loan was apparently extended to help Dotzauer through messy divorce litigation. The Times didn't mention that the court file, oddly, was entirely sealed. I had the file unsealed last Thursday. Cantwell is identified as the "other woman".
Ron Dotzauer's brief marriage to Angela appeared to be tempestuous. The record shows at least two separations and mutual accusations of excessive drinking and minor physical abuse (their marriage counselor indicated in testimony that neither the drinking nor the abuse was as significant as the accusations suggested). Dotzauer first filed for divorce after 13 months of marriage when their daughter was 1 month old. They reconciled and he filed again a few years later. The wrangling over parenting and financial support went on for 10 years, during which period Dotzauer was cited for contempt (by my count) on 4 occasions, and jailed once, for failure to pay his obligations to his ex-wife and their daughter. Cantwell reportedly loaned him the money in 1999, when Dotzauer was under serious financial pressure from the litigation.
It was in some sense only fair, as the court file shows that Cantwell contributed to the failure of the marriage. Angela stated in an affidavit that "an affair that [Ron] had with another woman a week prior to our wedding" had "caused problems with my relationship with my husband". The deposition of marriage counselor Dr. Early recounted Dotzauer's admission of the affair. Early identified the other woman as "a former lady friend" of Dotzauer's named "Maria", who also had a professional relationship with Dotzauer's company. Early declined to mention Maria's last name, but sources familiar with the events confirmed to me that it was indeed Maria Cantwell. (If you doubt my claim of a confidential source, note that it's already been reported that Cantwell and Dotzauer were an item prior to his marriage to Angela and that they had a business relationship. Unless Dotzauer had an additional girlfriend/business associate named Maria during the same timeframe, it's almost certainly Cantwell. The fact that Cantwell was a sitting Congresswoman at the time of the deposition would explain why Early might have been reluctant to drop her last name. The fact that Angela insisted on deposing then Senator-elect Cantwell in late 2000, but didn't attempt to depose other garnishee defendants, is also notable).
The following is the timeline of the Cantwell/Dotzauer relationship I pieced together from court records, news reports and other sources. (Neither Cantwell, Dotzauer or Angela responded to my requests for comment).
| 1983 | Cantwell (age 25) meets Dotzauer (37).
"She had ambition and was interested in politics, and he was a guy who had been involved [with politics] for quite some time. They became good friends and maintained a friendship throughout." |
| May 1984 | Dotzauer separates from Ann, his wife of 16 years. The couple has two sons, 7 and 12 |
| 1985 | Ann petitions for divorce from Dotzauer on January 18th. Divorce is granted on May 24th. |
| 1985 | Cantwell goes to work for Dotzauer. The two "begin dating". |
| Nov 1986 | Cantwell elected to first of three terms in state House of Representatives |
| Fall 1988 | Cantwell re-elected to state House; Dotzauer meets Angela |
| Apr 1989 | Dotzauer marries Angela. Dotzauer has sexual encounter with "Maria" the week before the wedding. [see entry for Dec. 1993] |
| Dec 1989 | Dotzauer tells Angela about the pre-wedding encounter with "Maria". Couple enters marriage counseling with Dr. Ronald Early |
| Apr 1990 | Daughter born to Ron and Angela Dotzauer |
| May 1990 | Dotzauer petitions for divorce from Angela |
| Nov 1990 | Cantwell re-elected to state House. |
| Spring 1991 | Dotzauer and Angela reconcile, divorce petition dismissed. |
| Nov 1992 | Cantwell elected to U.S. House of Representatives |
| Nov 20, 1993 | Dotzauer and Angela have altercation; Angela arrested for assault, Dotzauer charged with assault. |
| Nov 22, 1993 | Angela petitions for a restraining order against Dotzauer on the grounds that he hit her. Petition is granted, uncontested. |
| Nov 23, 1993 | Dotzauer petitions for divorce |
| Dec 1993 | Marriage counselor Dr. Early gives deposition, recounts Dotzauer's admission of pre-wedding sexual encounter with "Maria". Declines to state Maria's last name for record. (at the time of deposition, Cantwell was sitting Congresswoman). [see Early deposition, esp. pp. 14-16, 28, 46-48] |
| Jan 1994 | Angela files declaration, cites Early deposition, blames Dotzauer's affair with other woman as factor in breakdown of marriage. |
| Mar 18, 1994 | Dotzauer ordered by court to pay arrearages in financial support to Angela, daughter |
| Mar 18, 1994 | Dotzauer divorce case file is sealed by court |
| Nov 1994 | Cantwell loses re-election bid for U.S. House; |
| Jan 1995 | Dotzauer divorce is granted. |
| Jun 5, 1995 | Dissolution decree amended, Dotzauer ordered to pay Angela $82,000 plus ongoing support. |
| Sep 8, 1995 | DSHS reports that Dotzauer is in arrears on child support |
| Sep 21, 1995 | Court orders Dotzauer to contribute to Angela's mortgage payments. |
| Feb 9, 1996 | Dotzauer found in contempt for failure to make mortgage payments. |
| Mar 5, 1996 | Dotzauer found in contempt for failure to make mortgage payments. |
| Jun 7, 1996 | Dotzauer found in contempt for failure to make mortgage payments. |
| Nov 1996 | Dotzauer jailed for contempt, failure to prevent foreclosure of Angela's home. Released after Booth Gardner wrote check for $50,000 to stop foreclosure. |
| Jul 1998 | Dotzauer's wages garnisheed to pay $1,374 consumer debt. |
| Jul 1999 | Dotzauer's wages garnisheed to pay $8,980 debt to divorce lawyer. |
| 1999 | Cantwell forms exploratory committee for Senate run; The Seattle Times reported that Cantwell loaned Dotzauer the $15,000-$50,000 in 1999. |
| 2000 | Dotzauer works on Cantwell for Senate campaign |
| Sep 2000 | Dotzauer's earnings from Cantwell campaign garnisheed to pay debt to Angela. |
| Nov 2000 | Cantwell elected to U.S. Senate |
| Dec 2000 | Angela subpoenas Cantwell's deposition |
| Jan 2001 | Dotzauer's motion for protective order to prohibit Cantwell deposition is denied. [deposition transcript not yet located] |
| Jan 2003 | Angela grants Dotzauer "Satisfaction of Judgment". |
I only had access to the court records for a limited amount of time, and it's a huge body of documents (14 volumes) and there may be even more in there about Cantwell that I didn't manage to look at.
CORRECTION The original version of the post indicated that there was no record of any repayment of the loan. That is not correct. Cantwell's financial disclosure for 2000 [p. 7] reports an interest payment in the $2,501-$5,000 range. Subsequent annual disclosures show that if any interest was paid (and not clear if any was) it would have been less than $201. The amount of interest paid in 2000 would suggest that the original loan amount was at the upper end of the reported $15,000-$50,000 range. In any case, the lack of any sizable interest payments since 2000 suggests that Cantwell might be granting her debtor more favorable terms than would be customary in an arms-length transaction.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 02, 2006
10:29 AM | Email This
Sounds like mud slinging to me...I thought McGavick was making this sort of thing the centerpoint of his campaign for change?
Posted by: CougarMom on October 2, 2006 10:24 AMthe g.o.p.---hypocrisy is a b**ch....
Posted by: dinesh on October 2, 2006 10:29 AMPostman was the first to point out that his paper covered the "Cantwell/Dotzauer" affair [pun] before the AP. But as I said at the time--they didn't dig far enough, and I don't think it's a problem of lazy reporting. Nope, in fact it's beginning to look an awful lot like blatant bias.
Posted by: Patrick on October 2, 2006 10:39 AMMore trailer trash drama. But, I guess it is par for the course. This was all glorified and perfected by the Clinton activities in the 1990s.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 2, 2006 10:52 AMhttp://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=dotzauersidebar4m&date=20060904&query=dotzauer
She was a home wrecker to a wifebeater. Does this make her a victim by association to DV? Like Gregoire- she can now say she's a domestic violence survivor.
Posted by: Andy on October 2, 2006 11:09 AMI presume the Libertarian candidate might stand a shot at winning :-).
Posted by: SVC Alumnus Blogger on October 2, 2006 11:10 AMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 2, 2006 11:26 AMJeff B. - sleaze? Puhleeeezze...
Posted by: Jimmy Blue on October 2, 2006 11:38 AM1. Foley is not running for the U.S. Senate in the state of Washington; and
2. Cantwell is still a member of Congress, and is running for re-election.
Keep your focus on this issue unless there's a reason you'd like to change the subject.
Posted by: jimg on October 2, 2006 11:41 AMA good candidate for the address that is scrawled over:
572e Keystone Pl N.
Posted by: Jimmy Blue on October 2, 2006 11:45 AMNow you'll excuse me while I go shower to wash my hands of this filth (and mud).
C'mon, people (and Stefan). we're better than this! Let's stick the the merits of the loan issue and stick to the high-road.
Posted by: Andrew on October 2, 2006 11:46 AMWhat do you call a guy who has sex with another women one week before his wedding? A "loving" husband?
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 2, 2006 11:46 AMIt's not so much the mess, that being bad enough.
It's the coverup...
Posted by: Jimmy Blue on October 2, 2006 11:48 AMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 2, 2006 11:49 AMI recall how upset you all were when Goldy published reports about David Irons. This is sinking even lower, given that the alleged incident is even older and what Cantwell allegedly did isn't illegal. I suppose if you are an Ellen Craswell-style social conservative, you think Cantwell is a "scarlet woman" if she had sex outside of marriage. However, to the rest of us, who live in the 21st century, not the 17th, this is just the desperate tactic of someone who sees his candidate sinking slowly into the Nethercutt swamps and wants to make a difference. If anything, this is going to bounce back on McGavick. I wouldn't be surprised if Mike! says some uncomplimentary things about Stefan as he tries to distance himself from this.
Now Mark Foley is another matter. That thing has some legs.
Posted by: wayne on October 2, 2006 11:51 AMJimmy Blue--are you saying that Cantwell jumped out of a cake at his bachelor party? LOL.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 2, 2006 11:56 AMWe can examine some of GWB's and his father's pardons if you like..
Anyone ever see a skateboard fly through a window?
Posted by: Jimmy Blue on October 2, 2006 11:58 AMSince you brought up sleazy behaviour, let's review the record:
*Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) in the slammer for bribery.
*Bob Ney (R-OH) plead guilty to conspiracy and falsifying financial disclosure forms. Withdrew from re-election bid.
*Bob Livingston (D-LA) had extra-marital affair and lost bid for Speaker. Resigned from House.
*Mark Foley (R-FL) resigned in disgrace from Congress, faces criminal investigation.
*Dan Crane (R-IL) had sex with an underage female page, lost bid for re-election.
*Ted Kennedrunk (D-Chivas Regal) kicked out of Harvard for cheating. Drove his car of a bridge and the coward left a woman to drown. Concocted alabi. Re-elected to Senate several times, called the liberal lion of the Senate.
*Gerry Studds (D-MA) had affair with underage male page, censured at same time as Dan Crane. As the House read its censure of him, Studds turned his back and ignored his colleagues. Re-elected to House several times.
*Barney Frank (D-MA) allowed male prostitute to work out of his basement. Re-elected to House several times.
*Alcee Hastings (D-FL) impeached and removed from office as a US District Court judge for corruption and perjury. Elected to House of Representatives several times. Touted as chair or the House Intelligence Committee if Dems take control of the House.
*Bill Clinton (D-Horn Dog) credibly accused of rape. Had affair with subordinate. Lied under oath, lost law license and disbarred by US Supreme Court. Sexually assaulted Kathleen Willey the same day her husband killed himself. Pardoned felons in exchange for cash donations. Beatified by Democratic Party.
*Maria Cantwell (D-WA) had affair with married man, and a tryst with him a few days before his wedding. Loaned him large sum of cash to keep his silence. Lied about motive of loan, has not been paid back. Will probably be re-elected.
So there's the different, dinesh. Republicans prosecute their felons and perverts and throw them out of office. Democrats admire and re-elect their sleazeballs, perverts, and felons.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on October 2, 2006 11:59 AMJeff B. knows what I'm saying, if he's any less dishonest than you.
Posted by: Jimmy Blue on October 2, 2006 12:03 PMThe Federalist Society!!
Posted by: Jimmy Blue on October 2, 2006 12:07 PMThe only good that will come out of your irresponsible coverage will be to mock McGavick's pledge to avoid personal attacks, further reducing his chances of a comeback.
Posted by: Bruce on October 2, 2006 12:08 PMThough unsavory, I could care less about Maria's actions years ago. However, now that more of the story is known, it is harder to accept that Maria was telling the truth when she said she couldn't recall the reasons for the loan. So, when she promises to do something for us - which promise is a lie, and which ones can we believe?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 2, 2006 12:09 PMExcept when a Democrat with means (Mahoney) has an excellent chance of taking a swing district.
Posted by: Jimmy Blue on October 2, 2006 12:13 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 2, 2006 12:15 PMLet this be a lesson to all who find themselves on a similar precipice of being tempted to mess up somebody else's marriage: it seems fun for a time but it eventually comes back to bite.
Posted by: Misty on October 2, 2006 12:20 PM1) The DUI records are for Mike McGavick, who is running for office. The divorce records are for Ron Dotzauer, who is not.
2) DUI is a criminal matter, illegal, and often fatal to innocent people. Divorce is a civil matter, legal, and, while very unfortunate, not a matter of life and death.
And that's why this issue will backfire on McGavick.
Posted by: Bruce on October 2, 2006 12:27 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 2, 2006 12:27 PMIf Cantwell can't prove it was a loan with an agreement to repay and some evidence that repayment occurred in any way, and it turns out that it was actually a gift, wouldn't she be guilty of breaking some laws in failing to report this gift to her former lover and lobbiest whose clients she has directed millions in taxpayer appropriations?
What are the chances that Cantwell, who was floating in millions at the time, created a fake loan to cover-up what was actually an unreported gift and avoid both the tax consequence and the record of the gift in her personal tax filings that could be made public?
Martha Stewart went to jail for little more.
I'm thinking that Dotzauer's alleged records in storage may need to be released that show that the loan was repaid and that Cantwell wasn't trying to avoid tax laws with a massive gift to a former lover charading as a loan.
Posted by: MJC on October 2, 2006 12:35 PMA personal loan of cash to an old friend who needs it is just that. Who the heck cares if he needed it for a divorce settlement?
You guys are really grasping for straws, aren't ya?
Posted by: James on October 2, 2006 12:40 PMBeen nice chatting with everyone, but I need to sign off for awhile.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 2, 2006 12:41 PMYou sling around a lot of allegations that aren't correct. Please note that Dotzauer was NOT married at the time he slept with Cantwell.
There is no evidence the loan was a cover-up or hush money, just baseless speculation. And it was Dotzauer or his ex who sealed the court file. Cantwell wasn't a party.
Posted by: wayne on October 2, 2006 12:44 PMOne could only hope that this latest foray would count as his first x in the win column.
Posted by: Jimmy Blue on October 2, 2006 12:46 PMNo, I've never been to a bachelor party where the groom thought it appropriate to have sex with another woman. I have been to and understand a stripper at a bachelor party. But really, if you don't find anything wrong with someone who's about to get married sleeping with someone else besides their intended spouse, well then I guess that about sums your Democrat moral-equivalence mindset. If that's the attitude, why even get married? Perhaps that's why Dotzauer has been through two divorces already.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 2, 2006 12:47 PMI also believe Cantwell has "OPENED THE DOOR" on this whole ugly, sordid affair by saying she did not remember why she loaned Ron the dough. The fact that she was also deposed even more so condemns Cantwell as a flat-out LIAR!!!!!
Of course she knew why she paid the money.
Cantwell should have said "it's a personal issue that I do not care to discuss".
Rather, Cantwell said the LIE " I DON'T KNOW"!!!
She is now fair-game on this issue and every ugly detail connected with it.
Shame on you Maria.
Didn't you learn from Clinton?
Don't lie Maria!!!
"I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky", remember Maria???
Kudo's to Stefan for his research.
The issue is not the disgusting act of being porked by a soon to be married man....
THE ISSUE IS THE LIE saying she did not remember what the loan was for.
LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!
Shame on you Maria Cantwell.
To be fair and accurate, that's basically what Cantwell (through a spokesman) did say when asked. See the Times articles linked at the top of the story. Dotzauer, on the other hand, claimed that he didn't remember what the money was for. That stretches credulity.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on October 2, 2006 12:55 PMHmmm. Are those eyes up there at the top of your nose?
Posted by: Jimmy Blue on October 2, 2006 12:56 PMI'm hoping that one of them puts up an interesting argument, but that takes originality and originality is conspicuously absent in Dhimmicrats...
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 2, 2006 01:01 PMAs far as your other statements, as of the latest report on Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball web page Mahoney had less than $600K on hand, compared to over $2.9M for Foley. Foley won re-election in 2004 with 68 percent of the vote.
Candidate with means? Swing district? You Dems sure have odd definitions.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on October 2, 2006 01:07 PMWell, well, it seems that's no longer the case.
Curious that there seems to be an odd air of disappointment in this thread.
Posted by: Jimmy Blue on October 2, 2006 01:11 PMIf I'm McGavick, I refuse to discuss it thought.
It ain't his little red wagon.
It's Maria's cross to bear.
Will be interesting to see the P-I spin on this vs. the Seattle Times.
And the columnists like Westneat, Robert Jameson and of course the rotund, blabber-mouth named Cornholey or something like that.
I find your arguments unpersuasive.
The issue here is Cantwell's judgment (or lack thereof), as evidenced by her handling of the loan to Dotzauer. The issue is not whether she is a "home-wrecker" (though I would point out that your blithe characterization that "Cantwell slept with a former boyfriend while he was STILL SINGLE" rather misses the mark, given that it occurred in the week before his wedding).
In the light of initial reports (that Dotzauer was just an old friend), the loan might be seen as nothing more than a good-hearted effort to help a friend, aside from the peculiarity that it remains on the books after so many years.
However, seen in the light of subsequent reports (that Cantwell and Dotzauer are much more than old friends, in fact are lovers, even soul-mates), Cantwell's handling of the loan, and the subsequent questions about it, is troubling.
The right way to handle the matter would have been to lay out all of the circumstances, and trust the voters to put it in the proper perspective.
That Cantwell chose to obfuscate and conceal the facts relating to the loan suggests that she felt she had something to hide, and that she didn't trust us, the people she wanted to represent, with the whole story.
Posted by: ewaggin on October 2, 2006 01:16 PMIt contradicts itself.
Posted by: Jimmy Blue on October 2, 2006 01:17 PMRemember that Maria Cantwell self-financed most of her 2000 campaign. It would have made no financial difference to Cantwell whether or not she paid for Dotzauer's services through a regular consulting payment, or through the subterfuge of a "loan".
But there would be several advantages to Dotzauer receiving a "loan", instead of business revenue as a political consultant:
1. Loan would not be taxable income at the time it was made -- no federal income tax, no state B&O tax
2. Loan not subject to social security self-employment tax -- which is 15.3% including FICA and Medicare
3. Loan would not be counted as income for figuring his child support obligations to Angela
I would like to know the amount of every single payment (including so-called "loans") made by Cantwell and/or her campaign committee to Dotzauer and his companies to date. There may or may not be more than this, but I think Cantwell owes the duties of full disclosure.
Posted by: Richard Pope on October 2, 2006 01:24 PMYou mean the one about the House leadership who knew of Foley's "problem" long before it was exposed and did nothing?
Posted by: Jimmy Blue on October 2, 2006 01:26 PMI've been to a ton of bachelor parties in my many years, and do not know of a single instance where the Groom has had sex with the entertainment. (Maybe I'm going to the wrong parties.) I've never even seen a reason to believe it might be the case.
If we divorce the sleeze from this event, we still wind up with a senator that "doesn't recall" a big exchange of money with a lobbyist that she has been intimate with.
I don't know a positive way to spin something like that, but I'm sure Brodeur, the PI editors and just about all the democrat apologists in the local news media will find a way to do it.
I never said a word about Maria sealing the court records.
It's true that my comment about the purpose of the loan is speculation, but if I'm wrong, why can't Maria remember? Here's a quote from her:
When asked about the amount and terms of the loan, Dotzauer thought for a moment, then laughed. "I actually don't remember, to be honest with you. I don't even know, I'm trying to remember why it's there. I think it's just because in six, seven years, we haven't dealt with it. I haven't had one conversation, except now."
Cantwell wouldn't talk about the issue. About the loan, Cantwell's aide, Michael Meehan, said simply: "In 2000, Ron was going through a personal circumstance."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003242630_dotzauersidebar4m.html
A "loan" that hasn't been paid or serviced in six or seven years is very likely to be considered a gift by the IRS, and Maria owes gift taxes, possible penalties and interest.
What about the conflict of interest, as others have pointed out, a US Senator directing millions of our tax dollars to a former lover, friend, and lobbyist with whom she has a financial dealing and personal interest in seeing the loan repaid?
That's the same conflict of interest that has Senator Menendez (D-NJ) under a federal investigation and forced Rep. Mollohan (D-WV) to resign from the House Ethics Committee.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on October 2, 2006 01:47 PMThe bigger problem would be if the payment was actually an advance or payment for political consulting for Cantwell's 2000 campaign, but instead was disguised as a "loan". See my post # 60 above.
Posted by: Richard Pope on October 2, 2006 01:54 PMNo laws were broken.
Posted by: H Moul on October 2, 2006 02:00 PMIn the past, MC wrote a check to her campaign, calling it a loan, but her campaign still has not paid it off. She used the loan as election leverage to show her not beholden to special interests. Then, upon taking office, started having fundraisers with special interests to pay herself back.
She more recently has taken to either hiring potential rivals or attempting to do so.
And now we find out that she helped bail out her swamped paramour.
It's a case of chronic serial check writing, as opposed to problem solving by conventional means.
This is perfectly consistent with the fundamental tenets of the Democratic faith.
Is there anything wrong with someone writing a check to help out a friend? Of course not. But there is something wrong with either mischaracterizing a transaction or playing loose with the facts for political gain.
Political stances aside, I do not feel to be well represented by someone with such a tenuous grasp of ethics and morals. I would vote against her if given the opportunity simply for her votes while in office, but this sort of thing can't really be taken care of with simple soap and water.
Mark Foley should resign and has. If he had not, Republicans would have forced him out.
On the other hand, Rep. Gary Studds, Democrat MA, actually "DATED" a 16 year old male page, got him drunk and molested him --and when he was caught, he stood before congress and said he did nothing wrong! Democrats in Massachussetts overwhelmingly re-elected him.
Barney Frank had a gay prostitution ring running out of his own home, and was caught performing illegal political favors for his gay prostitute friend--he is now among the Democratic leadership and will chair a major committee if Democrats win control of congress.
Robert Byrd was a KKK grand dragon and has been caught still using the word "nigger" as recently as the late 1990's. He is the most senior Democrat in the Senate and Democrats call him "the conscience of the Senate."
Bill Clinton molested an intern ON the job in the oval office, and has numerous credible rape allegations against him (allegations his furious, unhinged perfromance on FOX News sunday only lends credibility to)--hes the hero of the Democratic party, their standard bearer, one of the lefts largest and most popular special interests MoveOn.org was formed precisely to defend his indefensible behavior.
Ted Kennedy crashed his car drunk driving and left his female passenger to drown while he fled the scene to cover his own ass while Mary jo Kopechne was still alive, in the process of drowning, and even after that horrendous scandal has probably never worked a sober day in his life, democrats overwhelmingly re-elect him every 6 years
...and on and on and on and on. (Do you want me to go on? Believe me, I can)
Thats the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Both parties have some scoundrels and sleazeballs--Democrats far more than their share--but Republicans force them to resign, and Democrats re-elect them, promote them, and hold them up as examples.
(Oh and not to mention the "tolerant, inclusive" left is always the first to use homosexuality as a slur. Thats the left for you.)
http://boards.moby.com/viewtopic.php?p=82472&sid=cadfc5120cb9723cddc649e40b1ec361
Posted by: JDH on October 2, 2006 02:08 PM Well congratulations you have sunk to new low.
This is why a lot of good people don't run for office. I remember back in 2004 Jack Ryan was
the republican nominee for US senate in illinois.
The Chicago tribune and chicago sun times both
sued to have Mr Ryan's divorce record unsealed.
They won there lawsuit and it forced Jack Ryan
out of the race.This kind of stuff is supposed
to be private. Have you know shame at all. The man
has children for crying out loud.
This is the kind of crap I get accused of digging
up all the time.
The difference is I have never done it nor will
I.
It's private until it involves influence peddling, conflicts of interest, possible extortion, or directing of millions of taxpayer dollars to a favored lobbyist and his clients. And this is entirely different than exploiting an ex-wife's angry allegations against her husband in a divorce.
If Dotzauer has a hold on our United States Senator it is not just a curiosity, but a necessity that any improper connection be exposed and terminated.
Any Cantwell supporter that is so blinded by partisan loyalty that they can't see the dangers in relationships between politicians and lobbyists like this needs to take a good hard look at themselves in a mirror. For Cantwell to do the peoples' business by directing tax dollars to clients of a former lover and lobbyist she has personally loaned/given money to stinks to high heaven.
The hypocrisy of the left is truly amazing!
Posted by: MJC on October 2, 2006 03:12 PMIs it any wonder we can't get politicians to support something to support stronger family values when there doesn't appear to be any family values in their lives.
Posted by: Jab on October 2, 2006 03:16 PMAfter reading post 70 a number of times, I think, but cant really tell, that Phil's gal Susan must have some ethical/moral lapses and Phil is indignant that such issues matter in a Senate race?
But then again, who knows.......
Let's see...Mike drinks, Maria sleeps around, Susan ??.........Phil careens.....
sounds like Days of Our Lives
Pass the popcorn...
Posted by: Hank on October 2, 2006 03:19 PMThis is why a lot of good people don't run for office.
I'd hardly consider the people - and how they've conducted themselves in this episode - to be 'good' people. Revealing who and how 'the other woman' (who just happens to be a sitting US Senator) possibly destroyed a marriage before it even started, 'loaned' a substantial amount of money to a friend (who just happened to become a DC lobbyist) and now nobody can recall any of these details is exactly the type of story which should be run during a campaign cycle. If 'good' people are declining to run for office because they've conducted themselves in similar fashion, then we're one step closer to a better crop of politicians.
The man has children for crying out loud.
So? That makes him and his actions immune from scrutiny? Because he has kids? Maybe he ought to be as concerned about how his actions impact his kids as much as you are.
This is the kind of crap I get accused of digging up all the time. The difference is I have never done it nor will I.
Well, I have no idea what you're talking about and I doubt anybody else does, either. But if being the perceived victim somehow allows you to play the part of the sanctimonious do-gooder, knock yourself out.
If you find the content on this site to be so offensive, so beneath you, so shameful, I suggest you leave and never return. Trust me. You won't be missed.
No one is perfect if Susan has these moral
or ethical lapses I'm not aware of them.She
isn't running so please leave her out this.
This has to do with whats right and whats
wrong.Digging into someone's divorce record
is wrong.I am not a Cantwell supporter
nor have I ever been.
That some of you think this is okay is downright scary.
Posted by: phil spackman on October 2, 2006 03:29 PMI agree with Hank after also re-reading your post several times Phil. You have something that is causing you to take this "don't ask, don't tell" position.
Get it off your chest Phil.
Public Records are just that. PUBLIC!
Stefan has done the work both newspapers should have done long ago under the circumstances.
Should have been done in the 2000 Election.
Gorton would have won easily.
Phil-
The Truth Shall Set You Free!"
When I read about the $50K loan was "she is careless with her own money. Is she also careless with our tax dollars? does she track them or just let them go?"
Now it appears there's a lot more to this than she's let on. To most people $50K is a lot of money, not something to lose track of.
Posted by: Good People on October 2, 2006 03:45 PMGee, suppose ol'Ron might pull a Steve Martin SNL line: "I forgot" ??
If I were the IRS, I would be checking Maria's public financial disclosures/tax returns to make sure Ronnie Boy ultimately reports his windfall.....yea sure.....
This just may be a 6 yr statute of limitation matter for Ron, not just three. Like a bad penny, Ron......
Dont worry, rules like these are only for the law abiding peons........
Posted by: Hank on October 2, 2006 03:48 PMwonder why you guys haven't spent any time posting about the abramhoff tax/accounting/lobbying rules? remember abramahoff....the guy that helped duke and bob ney confess to felonies. you know, the guy that bush "can't recall" meeting.....
please, the sanctimony is dripping from this thread (and it's wearing a little american flag on its lapel)....
Posted by: dinesh on October 2, 2006 04:20 PMStefan, you and the others make me embarrassed to be a republican. How easy it is for the unhonorable to get lost in sensationalism and ignore real politics. Attacking someones personal life is the lowest of lows, especially when it has nothing to do with the false guise you try and pass it under: politics.
Posted by: JTcrew82 on October 2, 2006 04:33 PMYou shouldn't say things like that about Senator Slutwell.
Posted by: David Lee Roth on October 2, 2006 04:56 PMYour song was the inspiration.
Posted by: Tyler Durden on October 2, 2006 05:07 PM
Well, well, we are discussing probable US Senate ethics violations, income tax evasion, gift tax violations/evasion, incredibly bad judgement involving lobbyists-oops-likely illegal lobbyist financial transactions, unbelievably bad judgement, endangering children, enabling spousal abuse, possible US Senate disclosure misstatements.
Oh, excuse me, all SOP for Democrats.........
Posted by: Hank on October 2, 2006 05:12 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 2, 2006 05:19 PMHmmm. I had it the other way around:
1985 Cantwell goes to work for Dotzauer. The two "begin dating".
Earning those paychecks, day and night.
Posted by: TB on October 2, 2006 05:44 PMNot the best way to campaign. McGavick needs help at this time - the latest poll shows him down by 10 %.
Posted by: KS on October 2, 2006 07:05 PM
sorry just had too.
And isn't this the kind of dirty politics that Mike McGavick says he's running against?
Posted by: thor on October 2, 2006 08:51 PMYou guys on the left are just outraged because a Republican pulled it on you for a change. This dirt probably makes some difference, as it reflects on the character of Maria Cant-votewell and that's the bottom line !
Posted by: KS on October 2, 2006 08:59 PMKeep the headlines coming! We can't count on any of the local press corps to pick this up--they've already been scooped. Ouch!
Posted by: Patrick on October 2, 2006 09:17 PMAnother of the bloggers decries the revelations as irrelevant dirt having nothing to do with her character? Oh really? Even if this didn't reinforce the umpteen million "Maria is a wild narcassist" stories that have been circulating for years among former and present RealNetworks employees and former campaign workers (anyone remember the Stranger article by a former staffer -- Maria looks to in the mirror to see the only person responsible for her win == was one memorable line, paraphrased of course). Even a garden variety Hillary is a Genius Democrat can grasp that making wild monkey love with another woman's fiance the week of the other woman's wedding is an itsy bitsy bit narcicisstic. But, alas, I fear the Democrats have become so enamored of nacassistic personalities, be it Al Franken or Bill Clinton, they hardly notice the trait anymore, even when it screams at them -- or they no longer consider it a character flaw.
But, what makes me madder than anything is the double standard all you Democrats are showing Maria over me! Where were all of you when I was railroaded out of Congress just because some former squeeze decided to disappear. The cops exonerated me but did that make a difference? No, it didn't. I never even directed earmarks to Chandra and she wasn't a federal lobbyist. Next time I only mess around with people who have their own clients.
And I know I'm not the only one who is miffed. What about poor Jack Ryan. He didn't do anything except run for office with an R next to his name. Heck, he took his wife with him when he was testing out his sexual boundaries. . . Yet the Chicago papers went after him like lions on a wildebeast.
But really folks. I'm disappointed that you've all missed the true victims of Stefan's research. It is, of course, that estimable institution, the Seattle daily papers. Imagine, if you can, the agony those poor reporters, editors and publishers at the major dailies are going through now. You spend a career pushing your left leaning political opinions in the guise of news, expending your time and energies exposing scandal and sleaze whenever a Republican is involved and you somehow miss the big story when a D member of Congress is involved. In fact, you might even employ the old trick of reporting on the wrong angle (anyone remember the "is Maria being corrupted" story line?). Sure, if you used even a scintilla of wit you would have immediately recognized the Cantwell story for the hush money payoff that it is. But hey. . . you didn't get into this business to help Republicans get elected, did you?
Anyway, just when you think you have successfully ignored the most blatent hush money story of modern times, along comes some pest like Stefan to spill the beans and make you look bad. What, pray tell, do you do now. Actually act like a reporter and expose Cantwell? Ha, get real. . . There remain many ways to sweep this story under the rug, just you wait and see.
Posted by: Gary Condit on October 2, 2006 09:35 PMKeep the headlines coming! We can't count on any of the local press corps to pick this up--they've already been scooped. Ouch!
Posted by: Patrick on October 2, 2006 09:43 PMIt's not typically news when someone has sex with their ex-boyfriend. What IS news is that what Steffy himself did was totally inappropriate, and immoral, by the opinion of many, including McGavick, and myself.
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/10/03/100loc_b1file001.cfm
McGavick has been through a divorce. So have half of all adults in this country. These matters are private, and this file was sealed for privacy reasons, and you, Steffy, knowingly violated this privacy. And for what? So your buddies here can make up juvenile headlines about Cantwell and sex?
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 3, 2006 07:25 AMSo when the Dem's dig through Mikes Divorce File, and DUI file of 13 years ago, when he didn't even loan anyone MONEY, that is OK?
This is about the connection of persons whom millions of TAX dollars funnel. Lizzy, you are such a righteous soul, don't you care about your TAX dollars?
BTW....Ron's shouldn't be angry, for his memory is not that long, he has most certainly forgotten his marriage and divorce by now.......
Posted by: Chris on October 3, 2006 07:33 AMYou state that is it ok to have sex with an Ex-boyfriend. Lizzy, did you sleep with your ex-boyfriend the week prior to HIS marriage?
What kind of person would do such a thing. If Ron was too drunk to say NO, then Maria should have used good judgement and drove him home to his Wife-to-be-in-a-week.
That would have proven good moral judgement. But she didn't.
BTW....Stefan wasn't the ONLY person wanting a look at the records. Just because he suceceeded, doesn't make him as "guilty" as all the rest of the persons whom YOU think are morally inept.
They correctly state that Stefan did not find a reason for the loan, but bent over backwards to avoid mentioning cantdowell doing the dirty deed with dotzauer a week before his wedding...
Posted by: rbb on October 3, 2006 08:12 AMThis Democrat is no robot. I am voting for McGavick.
Posted by: Democrat on October 3, 2006 09:23 AMI suppose Cantwell can now be part of the "deadbeat" dad syndrome. Someone hid their income from the courts to get lesser support payments. Cantwell was part of it.
Unless, of course, there is another reason.
I agree with McGavick that this stuff shouldn't be in the public light, but that is the only way the Dems can get some traction. The had the MSM salivating and nit-picking McGavick's own records. And wasn't it Cornball that got the McGavick arrest records, first? Talk about partisanship. And then to nitpick citation and arrest when the guy mea culpa'ed? Come on Cornball.
Thanks!
Posted by: Smokie on October 3, 2006 09:40 AMif one says character does not count, fine-your opinion--but it DOES for me for this reason--politicians, local and national are running and micromanaging many facets of our lives with the great powers we LEND to them & trust with them--that alone should make all concerned anxious and watchful.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 3, 2006 10:47 AMIt's sad, sad, sad that some of you people honestly feel it is your business or my business that a Senator or anyone else had adult consensual sex with an unmarried ex 15 years ago. It's more than sad - it is sick. What is more sad are some of these posts that make reference to Cantwell being some sort of promiscuous slut because of it. WTF??? Who are you to cast stones?
I guess SP isn't exactly trying to offer a place here for moderate republicans to engage in discussion, but nonetheless, this doesn't seem to be the place for us to participate.
Posted by: James on October 3, 2006 12:18 PMYou embarass yourself, your party and have severely limited the goodwill you have heretofore established by writing this garbage.
A quick apology for this tabloid, disgusting, in the gutter article as soon as possible is certainly called for.
You would ask the same of other bloggers doing a similar thing on a candidate you support. Time to do the right thing. Please...for the benefit of all the good you do.
Jim
Posted by: Jim Thompson on October 3, 2006 01:51 PMIt is time to display the Dhimmicrats in all of their degenerate and disgusting "glory". If we are to fail, it won't be because the electorate wasn't informed as to the true status of the choices available.
Keep it up!
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 3, 2006 02:03 PMWhat part of 'loaning money for an indeterminate amount of time without repayment schedule or otherwise calling it a gift and taxing it as such is illegal' don't you guys understand?
No mudslinging going on here, just investigative reporting that the Seattle MSM is ignoring. Search for "Dotzauer Loan" and the last piece in the Slimes was Sept. 9th, and Sept. 12th for the Past-Intelligencer.
The reason for the payment is intrigueing, perhaps disgusting, but superfluous. Inquiring minds want to know.
Said a million times: If a Republican had done this, it would be daily TOP OF THE FOLD!
Posted by: It's the loan, stupid on October 3, 2006 02:52 PMWhy yes, as a matter of fact, I do (especially when the "names" I'm calling are accurate and true).
I didn't make it this way and it isn't my first preference, but it is what it is. When attacked I respond. This is bloodsport. If you "can't take the heat...."
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 3, 2006 04:08 PMSo I conducted a poll, and here are the results. Click below to hear comments from people who wouldn't mind their fiancée having sex with someone else.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on October 3, 2006 10:44 PMWhat you say? All she did was sleep with a married or about-to-be married man?
Ah, man. Get oughta my face. . . When were you born? Yesterday?
Posted by: skagit on October 4, 2006 09:20 PMi'm trusting these politicians and wannabees with my taxes, my legislative power and my protection. the so-called "dirt" dug up goes into my total picture of a person. can i trust them? if not, why not? do they have character weaknesses that are important or minor that will/won't affect their job i'm asking them to do?
many of you Stefan-bashers make exactly the same "total picture" decision when you consider & hire a job candidate or a friend--are they honest? are they up front? any red flags? politics is no different. would you hire the job candidate with a felony without some digging or background check? would you put the blinders on? how about a smelly, sloppily dressed candidate? how about one that you felt was wierd or potentially dangerous?
this is ENTIRELY about trust and character--nobody is perfect, but let's not ignore the total record (picture) on a candidate--it DOES matter.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 5, 2006 11:25 AM