Normally, I try to stay away from judging other people’s decisions. But when they use their money and position to attempt to cement their judgment of other’s decisions and actions into binding legislation, I think they’re fair game.
Enter state Rep. Paul Scott, who has called himself the Tiger Woods of the GOP.
Turns out the two have more in common than a good smile.
Scott announced yesterday that he is expecting a child with a former staffer, Mandy Grove. He calls impending fatherhood “the greatest thing that’s ever happened to me.”
I might wonder about a man who didn’t bother making it public that he was having a child out of wedlock with his former staffer, until she had announced his paternity at the baby shower, which is allegedly what prompted Scott to issue a statement.
I might also wonder about the timing of said former staffer’s move from the state payroll to the campaign payroll. Campaign expenditure record show the Paul Scott for Secretary Representative campaign cut Ms. Grove a check for $3,000 on June 1 – puzzlingly, when Scott was campaigning for the Secretary of State position, not for re-election to the House. (Records show Ms. Grove was paid about $10,000 from the House and SoS campaign funds, with the last substantial payment coming in September.)
I might do a little math, and knowing that average gestation is about 40 weeks, and that the next Tiger Woods of the GOP is due in a few (read: 3) weeks, deduce that the date of conception was in the middle of May and that discovery of impending parenthood precipitated the move from state-paid staffer to campaign-paid staffer.
But whatever prompted the move, and whatever Rep. Scott’s constituents are to make of the fact that their elected official impregnated his employee, the fact is that he was paying his pregnant employee from his campaign, during his campaign.
Let’s remember that this is the same man who showcased palpable anger at the very notion that middle-schoolers be taught about using condoms to prevent, ahem, unintended pregnancy.
Let’s remember this is the same man who, in 2008, was vehement that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman – only. Because anything else would erode the primary building block of America: the family.
Let’s recall that despite Scott’s claims that the two are in a “strong relationship,” it appears that no one knew about any of this until early Tuesday morning.
It all begs the question: if marriage is between a man and a woman, and if the only reason to have sex is to produce a child (hence no need for condoms, or abortion, as there would be no such thing as unintended pregnancy), and if it is so important to preserve the family unit, then why, pray tell, isn’t Mr. Scott marrying this young woman?
There’s a whiff of Tiger Woods in the shady way this is all playing out, and one can’t help but feel sympathetic for the young woman, Ms. Grove, who will now be the recipient of phone calls and questions and innuendo.
For her sake, I hope the evidence to the contrary is circumstantial, and that Scott really is a devoted, supportive partner. But as we saw with the real Tiger Woods, press statements are often times incongruous with reality.