When They Listen To Kevin Dujan, They Are! More Than You Ever Wanted To Know About the Cook County "Sex Scandal," Because Someone Asked

Chicago Deep Dish

"Anonymous" has written in to ask, regarding the "Prophet Making" Post,

"Then Huffpo is crazy?" (Immediate, visceral response: always!)

Anonymous then links to Will Guzzardi's (of the Huffpo Chicago "Bureau!") piece of July 28th, about the resignation of the young (23) executive director of the Cook County GOP, aka, in the overheated rhetorical stylings of Kevin Dujan, "The Prophet."

Bearing in mind that Snarkopolitan is run by a New York liberal with as much interest in the slimy underside of Illinois Republican politics as she has in the lineup of the Chicago Bears (less!), and no journalistic experience whatsoever, anything I write should be taken accordingly (that is, well-salted). With that proviso, let's wade into the goo:

There are two camps at each other's throats, as Anonymous surely knows better than I: the Lee Roupas camp and the Eloise Gerson camp. The "Prophet," aka Jeremy Rose, is a Roupassard, and Stephen Boulton, General Counsel for the Chicago GOP, is a Gersonian.

The Huffpo article, by Will Guzzardi (of the Huffpo Chicago "bureau!") clearly favors the Gersonians. Writing about how a complaint against Rose that was a year old, and had been settled to the satisfaction of the complainant, got brought up again, Guzzardi says,

"And when a whistleblower came forward about the complaint, Roupas organized a concerted effort to remove that person from her elected position within the party."

Well, that's how Eloise Gerson, the "whistleblower," would characterize it. But if you read this article by Michael Volpe, it looks like a giant, messy power struggle, with Gersonians accusing Roupassards of secret Democratism, and Roupassards accusing Gerson of being a just plain crummy Chairwoman whose fundraising promises were unmet. Gerson's counsel Boulton has a special dislike for Rose for "insulting him" in unspecified ways, and everybody was pretty much angling to oust everybody else, and treating any moves by the other faction as outrageous, ought to be illegal, never in my 32 years as a Republican have I seen, etc. There are meetings without Ms. Gerson (condolences on her cat. And on the in-laws coming to town), and meetings with Ms. Gerson, and Rashomonic accounts from the opposing camps of all of them, which I am not going to try to untangle.

But according to T. Mannis, a conservative blogger who operates Chicago News Bench, this power struggle was at least 18 months old, and so predates the Cubby Bear Unhappy Hour, subsequent unpleasant encounter, complaint, and resolution of the complaint to the satisfaction of the complainant.

So Gerson has an axe to grind, which the Huffpo writer should have discovered and noted, and didn't.(BTW, a bio of Mr. Guzzardi shows him to be the founder of a pretty great-looking online magazine called Wag's Revue. I've nothing against Mr. Guzzardi at all, except that he seems to have taken a few too many people at face value.

He didn't have the advantage I did in being tipped to Kevin Dujan's propensity for concocting lunatic, baroque scenarios, not having been the innocent target of one. Even so, when he links to Hillbuzz repeatedly, he doesn't question certain things that really ought to stand out to a humor writer, like the similarity in tone (ridiculous/ridiculous) between "Roxy Vanilla" and Hillbuzz.

He writes,

"HillBuzz had in fact received a copy of the complaint against Rose more than a year ago; due to a HillBuzz blogger's personal connections to the story, it was not published. But when the Roxy Vanilla email implicated Roupas in covering up the allegations, HillBuzz spoke out--and has been closely following the story since.

"The root of the scandal is something that should have warranted jail time for [Rose]...but he has been protected and helped, apparently, by the likes of Roupas ... all this time," the blogger wroteon July 12."

How brave of Hillbuzz to "speak out!" And how less than objective a way to phrase it. But if"Hillbuzz" (whom we now know is just plain old Kevin) believes that what Rose did "is something that should have warranted jail time," then why did Hillbuzz also suppress this complaint, for an entire year? Instead, because of "personal connections," Hillbuzz sat on a story that could have spared young women the ordeal of being pursued by the Prophet,

"swimming the YR waters like a shark, hunting for seals in this ample rookery. "

And the "personal connections?

For over a year now, we’ve been aware of an explosive scandal that’s been rocking the Chicago Young Republicans, but because we know all parties involved in this personally, we have not spoken of it. One of the people involved has a romantic link to one of us here, so the whole thing is messy on so many levels.

A romantic link---to the shark, in fact! That is messy. If Mr. Guzzardi had just googled "Dujan," he would have discovered what best buds Rose and Dujan used to be. Since there has been so much messiness since the Huffpo article was written, the Timeout Chicago feature doesn't come up unless you Google their names together. But a year ago, it would have popped up on the first or second page, as it did for me and other people writing about Dujan in the time of our own travails.

Nobody can blame Mr. Guzzardi for not wading through all the bubbling pits of adjectives and bile that constitute the Hillbuzz Scandal-birthing Swamp to find the aformentioned description of "the Prophet" on July 16, a week before the Huffpo piece appeared:

Unbalanced, vainglorious, and vindictive, yet exceedingly charming and bisexually attractive,

Projection much, Kevin? But "bisexually attractive," combined with "a romantic link," ought to have set off an alarm bell somewhere. Well, that and the fact that in the comments of that same piece, the Shark turns into "Mr. Blondy Sleepy Needs His Coffee Bear."

T. Mannis had the advantage of getting one of the Roxy Vanilla emails from the wrong email address. "theswordandtherose," another dubious adventure in rococo nomenclature. Mannis recognised that the email shared the same distinctive voice as Roxy Vanilla, but was signed differently: "Concerned CYRs," But over on Hillbuzz, the selfsame text was touted as THE LATEST EMAIL! coming straight from Roxy Vanilla. Whoops!

Mannis's reaction:

"If Hillbuzz would forward the email he claims to be from Roxy Vanilla to me, I'll be satisfied. I don't know if Hillbuzz even reads this blog, but if he reads this post he'll probably laugh this off and shout "F--- you, Mannis, you bug!" at his computer screen. Of course, he won't be able to hear you or me shouting "Prove it, Hillbuzz!" at our keyboards."

I would never want to minimize the seriousness of sexual harassment. But Hillbuzz turns the "sexual harassment" charge, which was settled to the satisfaction of the complainant, into "attempted date-rape," which actually does minimize the seriousness of date-rape:

• A young woman met a young man at a social function held in a bar.
• Walked, in the company of other people, to his apartment, despite being unsettled by his putting his hands on, according to her complaint, her neck, and her waist (outside the apartment) and her thigh (inside the apartment). They were still in the company of other people.
• Where, when she wanted to go, he sat on her lap and took her cell phone, which she found threatening.
• The other woman who was there didn't like this at all, grabbed her, and got her out of there.
• The young woman complained to Rose's higher-ups.
• Rose issued an apology.
• The young woman accepted, and considered the matter closed, according to the Huffpo article: This issue was dealt with in the manner that I requested it to be dealt with and I consider it to be done and over with," she said in a recent email.

No mention is made of any clothes coming off, or private parts being touched, or a struggle of any sort. A larger, stronger guy sat in a smaller, weaker, woman's lap, after a boozy evening, in the presence of other people. This makes him a creep, undoubtedly, but is this the "explosive sexual scandal?"

The rest of the allegations are squishy, vague, anonymous of course, and treat young women (and men, Kevin reminds us) as if they were entirely helpless naifs, or seal pups, or something similarly uncomprehending and without volition. But if any other complaints of even slightly coercive behavior were made, nobody, not Hillbuzz or Roxy Vanilla or Eloise Gerson, mentions it. All we get is that the "Prophet" trolls CYR for bed partners, and finds them. Which Gerson (billed inHillbuzz's snappy graphics as " TRUTHTELLER") finds "shocking."

Guzzardi did interview Roupas, and says he was "frequently evasive in an interview," but gives no details of when, where, or how. Roupas claimed "not to know enough of the allegations to believe them," according to the Huffpo writer. Gerson's counsel, Steve Boulton, helpfully signed a statement saying that he'd told Roupas about the allegations in a phone call, but did not email him. The complainant had expressed her wish that the entire issue be handled internally, so as not to hurt the image of the Chicago Young Republicans, so Boulton seems here to be going against her wishes himself in taking the matter up with Cook County Republicans.

Since Snarkopolitan has no position or care in the world about who wins the title of Least Mud-Encrusted in the Illinois GOP Scuzz-Ball Invitational, I'm not going to join the fray on whether or not Lee Roupas should have hired Jeremy Rose, covered up his knowledge of the complaint or didn't think it serious enough to warrant attention, or which people should be forced out of where. If you want to see somebody who really enjoys a good mire-wallowing, with sides of muck-throwing, sliming, cheap moralizing, and double-dealing, you know where to find him.

Brought to you as always by Mrs. Polly of Snarkopolitan, the undead blog, who reminds you, she didn't pick this subject, this subject picked her!

Meet Mike Doogan, another of Alaska's proud Public Servants. He used to be a journalist. Perhaps that is why Alaska's premier political blogger, AK Muckraker of Mudflats, infuriated him so much that he outed her.

After the Democratic representative was taken to task by Mudflats for sending rude emails to his constituents, he spent some state time digging, before using state resources to publish an article in his newsletter:

"Anonymous Blogger Anonymous No More
The identity of the person who writes the liberal Democratic Mudflats blog has been secret since the blog began, protected by the Anchorage Daily News, among others. My own theory about the public process is you can say what you want, as long as you are willing to stand behind it using your real name. So I was interested to learn that the woman who writes the blog is Anchorage resident ______.
Best wishes,
[signed]

I'm not linking to the newsletter, because it contains the blogger's name, and though almost all the toothpaste is out of the tube, there might still be enough in there for a couple of bicuspids.


Yes, actually, Mr. Doogan, a private citizen should be able to publish anything but actionable libel about a politician. You took on the burden of being a public figure when you ran for office. The woman who incurred your wrath has a right to her privacy, especially on the Internet, which can be a dangerous place. Moreover, she took you to the woodshed for your own stupidity and rudeness, but it's hardly reason to stalk and expose her.

Why are you even spending time on this narcissistic self-indulgence when your state is such a mess? You have remote villages with no sanitary facilities and makeshift schools, you have a volcano whoopsing on your oil tanks, and you waste your time on this?


That was part of an email I sent to this third-rate Jimmy Breslin, along with a promise that the minute he was primaried, I'd be sending a check to his opponent.

Should anybody wish to support Mudflats' creator, here you go:
Ph: (907) 465-4998 Or (800) 689-4998 Fax: (907) 465-4419
AK State Capitol Rm #112 Juneau, AK 99801
doogan@akdemocrats.org

Goddam Weasel

So now he's doing schtick?

He does have a degree in sacred music, but does that qualify him to do stand-up? Bits of Chris Rock, Richard Pryor and Bill Cosby all mashed up with liberation theology and some really bad impersonation (that British accent, yeesh).

I only caught one act of the Reverend's traveling Bitter Medicine Show. It isn't a crime to defend oneself, especially against the bland repetitive stupidity of the 24 hour looping cable heads, but the Reverend certainly seemed to be enjoying himself overmuch.

And then he plugged his book.

And then he plugged Farrakhan.

And then ----

There is a famous Goya painting of Chronos eating his children that I could have parodied, but three and a half people would have been amused, and the other half person (comprising in total 95% of my devoted readers) would have been befuddled.

Chronos was one of the Titans, the precursors to the Greek Gods. He thought he'd be cute and ingest the competition---his children---because of a prophesy that the Titans would be slain by them. But Zeuss lived to do just that. I'll have to go back to my Edith Hamilton and firm up the story.

Also, in the Goya painting, Chronos was about to snack on a little naked figure, and I wasn't about to do Obama nude.

So here is Obama as Saint Sebastian instead. Enjoy, three and a half readers.

Off With Her Mike

Again with the Lewinsky question to Chelsea. How has her mother's credibility been affected by the Lewinsky scandal?

If we look closely at this question, we can see that it's become divorced from the avowed original reason for asking it and now exists disembodied, like the Cheshire Cat's smile, or perhaps the other end of the Cheshire Cat. Because she's refused to answer it, Chelsea can expect it to materialize wherever she goes in public now.

Assuming for the moment the best of original questioner Evan Strange, he wanted to help. He says he wanted to give Chelsea a chance to expound on her mother's strength and resilience. Even under the best of circumstances, then, he wasn't asking because he didn't know, and wanted to know the answer; he wished to draw out what he thought he knew. One reason why the question was a non-question.

Another reason it was a non-question: we already know the answer. We know that Hillary's sticking by Bill annoyed people disposed to be annoyed by Hillary and Bill, and pleased people disposed to support her and Bill. How many people changed their minds about Hillary? Why would Chelsea, 17 when the scandal broke, have special insight into how the public perceived her mother? Unless she had a polling firm of her own, she wouldn't. She would only have special insight into her own feelings. Feelings which anybody with more than two brain cells could surmise.

So it's not a question Chelsea is better able to answer than anyone else. Quite the opposite; it's safe to suppose that mentioning the name "Lewinsky" is painful to Chelsea, and that she doesn't have a better answer to the question than any of the talking heads who are more than happy to expound on it, a decade after the fact.

But here we run into the well-nourished constant resentment against her parents: how dare those arrogant Clintons? Now the resentment is splashing over onto Chelsea. She's no longer a child, her detractors say. If she's choosing to campaign for her mother, she should be ready to answer for her mother. And her mother should answer for her husband. And the husband should answer for the the trauma the nation went through when he was impeached, a matter of public record. Therefore, Chelsea is refusing to talk about a matter of public record.

There are weak links in this chain, chief among them the notion that Hillary and Chelsea should have to justify their decision to stick by Bill. No. They were the innocent, injured parties. They did nothing wrong. He caused them greater trauma than he did any member of the public. Whether they forgave him does not affect the public.

Another weak link is the notion that Bill Clinton dragged the public through the trauma and expense of impeachment, so the public has the right to ask him and his family about it, forever. This link is broken, too. It wasn't Bill's idea to be impeached; it was the Republicans' pet project, even though they knew the impeachment would be unsuccessful because the votes weren't there. Any time a group knowingly puts on a show at public expense, the onus should be laid on them.

Another illogical assertion is that because she is now an adult, having chosen to campaign for her mother, Chelsea should have to talk about every aspect of her parents' life, infidelity included. Has any other son or daughter of a politician been held to such a standard? Are the press and public going to hound the Spitzer children if their mother runs for office? Perhaps so. Perhaps this new low will endure. Actually, of course it will! New lows always endure!

But the question has now been transmuted into Chelsea-as-a-Clinton denying the Public's Right to Know. That means that she can be asked the question, over and over, and the questioners can consider themselves heroic for confronting her about her refusal to satisfy the Public's Right. At the same time, they get the secret, mean little thrill that comes when an obscure person makes a famous one flinch. And nourish their own sense of injury when she tells them off.

And get themselves on T.V. Guaranteed. The only problem now is how to get to the mike and ask the question before someone else grabs the glory.

Finally, to get back to the question itself, it isn't a question of any substance; it's the sort of nebulous question 24 hour cable news networks need to chew over during the long winter evenings. The phraseology is pure News Network drivel: is so-and-so's credibility affected? What does that mean, exactly? It doesn't exactly mean anything. It's a stew of "do they trust him/her? Are the 24/7 chattering classes going to be able to milk this? Will he/she make a speech or do some sort of televiseable damage control?"

DRAWN IN HASTE Repented at Leisure: Diane Dixon, Covergirl

Q: What does an axe murderer do?
A: Sells newspapers.


One day. Just one damn day. Couldn't we have had just one day to honeymoon with our cuddly new governor?

Of course not.


Note the New York Post's GIRLS! GIRLS! GIRLS! PATERSON GAL'S TAPE SHOCKER--"Olympics babe bares recording & job 'he got me'" turns out to be nothing but baloney: an evidently attention-hungry former track and field medalist e-mailed the Post that she'd secretly taped Paterson on the phone--tapes she now says she's going to destroy. Has the post heard any tapes? No. What are they of? "Conversations," she e-mailed back with a smiley face. Has she claimed the Gov slept with her? No. She says she's a single mother who's grateful to him for helping her get a job as a Family Advocate with the Board of Ed--a job she's yet to start, if it exists. The Board of Ed has no record of her. Even smut peddler Larry Flynt peddles genuine smut.



Perhaps Rupert Murdoch sees an easy path to another Republican-led era if he can get Bruno in. But Bruno has so many troubles that he'd likely soon follow Paterson. The governorship would start resembling Billy Rose's Aquacade: diving in formation.

Journalists, or, rather, the news media, like to say that among their faults is "pack journalism."

They flatter themselves. "Herd journalism" is more accurate, and "Coop journalism" more accurate still, for cud-chewers are gentler and less damaging then the old hens in Albany.

Ruminants don't write good front-page material.

Had enough of the shallow smugness with which TV reporters face into the camera and recite their 90 seconds of unimaginably intimate and surreal gossip? You're one of the few, then. Peoplemeters say the audience is eating it up. TV reporters are our modern, unthinking, brainless Furies. Pursuing sexual wrongdoers is incidental, impersonal. It's good for ratings. It gets circulation up, you could say.

Will Eliot Spitzer's resignation destroy David Paterson? I hope not. I think not. Paterson's a different number entirely: he's never been a hypocrite, he has support in Albany, and the legislators all know there's plenty of dirt to go around.

We need our governor to govern. Time for him to tell the press the subject of his sex life is closed.