Dammit, Pareene, the entire time I'm reading your article, I kept thinking "No Smithers mention yet, I'm totez gonna be the innovator with a crafty Smithers comment!" and sure enough after being 99.997% through, there it is, the last word.
Anyway, great story.. both of them are such shameless pricks.
Politico insider-y stories usually make my eyes glaze over but this article was gripping. How smarmy do you have to be to let someone like Young glom onto you like that? And how stupid do you have to be not to see the potential downsides when the relationship inevitably turns sour? I expect some level of narcissism and sleaze from all my politicians, but I also expect street smarts.
I recall that during the Kerry/Edwards campaign that Kerry had a guy like this. I don't remember his name, but he was an ivy league grad whose job requirement was to follow Kerry around and supply him with PBJ sandwiches and he also carried an inflatable rubber doughnut so that if Kerry had to sit down he could use the doughnut. Maybe it's a common status symbol for D.C. politicians to have a Smithers.
@uncle_wiggly: They ALL have guys like this -- Clinton, Ron Brown (his body guy was, unfortunately, on that plane with him), Ted Kennedy... pretty common practice.
Butt boy is common campaign lingo for what was earlier called the "body man" -- the staffer who travels closely with the candidate and tends to his/her personal needs. Not that different from what Huma did for Hillary -- every serious candidate has one. The term is intentionally crude (the job is slightly degrading, even though it's coveted for its primo access) but there is absolutely no insinuation implicit in its use.
@Peter Feld: "Butt boy" is also a common homosexual term for a man who is anally penetrated by another man. Not that different from what Scott Thorson did for Liberace. The term is likewise intentionally crude (the job can be degrading, because another man is getting prime access to your sphincter) butt there is some insinuation in its use.
"Chaste and monogamous" may sound redundant but that's only because we popularly use "monogamous" to mean "chaste," i.e., no sex outside the relationship. Here "monogamous" seems to be used in a more literal sense, i.e., no three-person marriages allowed, even if nobody involved is sleeping with someone outside the house.
While it is amusing to make fun of the wording of this resolution it is only one part of a multi layer debate going on at the ELCA church wide convention this week. The idea is that each resolution becomes progressively more controversial and more liberal.
Basically, the first few resolutions passed on sexuality were supposed to be on things that all Lutherans can agree on. Things like sexuality is a gift from God and is a good thing as opposed to a sinful thing. The big debate is going to come on Friday when the ELCA votes on whether or not individual congregations can call a pastor who is in a same-sex relationship. Right now the only way for a homosexual to be a pastor in the Lutheran church* is if s/he agrees to be chaste. This is because in the Lutheran churches ALL pastors have to promise not to have sex outside the confines of marriage. Since, at the moment, the Lutheran church doesn't recognize gay marriage a gay pastor must be chaste.
As a member of the ELCA and the daughter of the first female Lutheran pastor in the state of Florida (yippy for ground breakers) I am hoping and praying that the ELCA passes resolutions opening up the definition of marriage. This has been a long and difficult process for the church especially when you consider that our geographic strong holds are places like the midwest and North Carolina.
I hope on Friday that Gawker will be posting an article about the passage of the most progressive resolutions but only time will tell. I can tell you that if those resolutions don't pass then Lutherans like myself and my mother will continue to work bring the church to a more progressive place.
*there are different branches of the Lutheran church and I am only focusing on the ELCA. Other branches like the Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod are much more conservative and won't even ordain women.
@chica924: Thanks for the elucidation. But someone upthread seemed to take the "chaste" to mean "sex only within the primary love relationship." Do you know whether this is true? Thanks in advance from an ELCA member.
@Tara Incognita: My understanding is that the resolution means "sex only within the primary love relationship" and not celibacy. The resolution basically asks the same of homosexuals as it does heterosexuals: chastity outside of a committed lifelong relationship and fidelity within a lifelong committed relationship. This resolution passed by a 2/3 majority which is a HUGE deal because it leads me to hope that good things will come tomorrow. Two or three assemblies ago a very similar resolution failed so the fact that it passed its basically earth shaking. If you would like to see all of the resolutions that the Lutherans are considering please go to [www.elca.org]
09/30/09
Anyway, great story.. both of them are such shameless pricks.
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
10/01/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
Watch out boy, Lutheran church doctrine will chew you up.
08/20/09
Basically, the first few resolutions passed on sexuality were supposed to be on things that all Lutherans can agree on. Things like sexuality is a gift from God and is a good thing as opposed to a sinful thing. The big debate is going to come on Friday when the ELCA votes on whether or not individual congregations can call a pastor who is in a same-sex relationship. Right now the only way for a homosexual to be a pastor in the Lutheran church* is if s/he agrees to be chaste. This is because in the Lutheran churches ALL pastors have to promise not to have sex outside the confines of marriage. Since, at the moment, the Lutheran church doesn't recognize gay marriage a gay pastor must be chaste.
As a member of the ELCA and the daughter of the first female Lutheran pastor in the state of Florida (yippy for ground breakers) I am hoping and praying that the ELCA passes resolutions opening up the definition of marriage. This has been a long and difficult process for the church especially when you consider that our geographic strong holds are places like the midwest and North Carolina.
I hope on Friday that Gawker will be posting an article about the passage of the most progressive resolutions but only time will tell. I can tell you that if those resolutions don't pass then Lutherans like myself and my mother will continue to work bring the church to a more progressive place.
*there are different branches of the Lutheran church and I am only focusing on the ELCA. Other branches like the Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod are much more conservative and won't even ordain women.
08/20/09
08/20/09
[www.elca.org]
I hope this helps to clarify things.
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09