Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's it take to be governor in NY or NJ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What's it take to be governor in NY or NJ?

    1. Money
    2. Political connections
    3. And apparently, a very active libido.

    .................................................. .........
    THE MCGREEVEYS' SECRET

    March 16, 2008 -- A former driver and aide for former N.J. Gov. Jim McGreevey says Dina Matos McGreevey must have always known her husband was gay - because he was the other man in bed with them.

    In an explosive interview with The Post, the McGreeveys' longtime man-in-the-middle, Teddy Pedersen, recounted explicit details of alleged, titillating, three-way sex romps he had with the now-divorcing duo, starting during their courtship and continuing into the marriage.

    Pedersen - who said he has already spilled the beans on the steamy ménage a trios arrangement under oath in a deposition for the couple's divorce battle - hinted that he thinks his presence was required to get Jim's motor running for Dina.

    Matos McGreevey's basic claim in her divorce war with the former Garden State gov is her argument that he covered up his homosexuality and tricked her into a loveless marriage.

    Pedersen - who is named in Matos McGreevey's court papers - agreed to talk about the reputed unconventional relationship after Dina repeatedly sounded off to the media last week about Eliot Spitzer's sex scandal and blasted the fallen pol as a hypocrite.

    "It's frustrating to hear her call Gov. Spitzer a hypocrite while she's out there being as dishonest as anyone could be about her own life," said Pedersen, 29.

    "She's framed herself as a victim - yet she was a willing participant, she had complete control over what happened in her relationship," he said.

    "She was there, she knew what was happening, she made the moves. We all did. It's disgusting to watch her play the victim card."

    The trio's trysts started after Pedersen was hired as a campaign driver when McGreevey was mayor of Woodbridge, NJ, the former chauffeur said.

    "We called it the Friday Night Special," Pedersen said. The "intense" end-of-the-work-week escapades, he said, usually began with a "couple of drinks" at a local T.G.I. Fridays and culminated in "a hard-core consensual sex orgy" among the three of them at McGreevey's Woodbridge condo.

    He said the action also spilled over to out-of-town business trips, where Pedersen, a handsome, clean-cut Rutgers grad, would share a single hotel suite with Jim and Dina - right under the noses of other McGreevey staffers.

    The threesomes began in the late 1990s, while Dina and Jim were dating, and continued after their October 2000 marriage but had ended by the time McGreevey was elected governor in November 2001, Pedersen said.

    "He liked watching me, and she would watch me while she was [performing sex acts] with Jim," noted Pedersen. "In my opinion, me being a part of their sexual relationship enhanced it for both of them."

    Pedersen, who lives with his girlfriend of several years, said he revealed the sexual shenanigans during the couple's divorce proceedings only because Dina's camp subpoenaed him.

    The former driver said he believes that Dina subpoenaed him as an end-run around her estranged hubby, to see what he would say if he was called on by McGreevey's side. Pedersen said he believes that Dina never expected him to talk about their trysts.

    "I would have kept my mouth shut about this forever, but she subpoenaed me, and now it's all going to come out at trial,'' Pedersen said.

    He said he expects to be called as one of the first witnesses at the trial.

    Details of the lust triangle have been quashed once before, according to a source at now-disbanded Regan Books, which published McGreevey's 2006 memoir, "The Confession."

    "There was a coy and gentle reference to a third person, but McGreevey took it out because he thought it was unnecessarily harmful," the insider said.

    Pedersen said the threesome started as an "idea" he and McGreevey tossed around during the aide's long hours behind the wheel for the Woodbridge pol.

    "We developed a good relationship - we were colleagues, but we were friends," Pedersen said, adding that, once Dina and Jim's romance bloomed, she was often in the car with them headed to various political events.

    "There was a level of comfort that evolved into, eventually, hints of pushing it into this sexual realm," Pedersen said.

    "Jim and I thought we could see if she would go for it - beyond just the hints in conversation," Pedersen said.

    "So one night we came in, I went down to the basement bathroom, and when I came up, to my shock, she was basically undressed and on the loveseat with Jim. So I sat on the couch and watched and eventually joined in.

    "And that's how it got going," he said. "We came up with this nice little formula for making it work."

    Sometimes, the trio took their show on the road. On business trips - including to the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City - they shared one room, leaving others in the entourage baffled.

    "It became almost laughable - I would never have my own hotel room," Pedersen recounted. "Everyone thought that this was weird, but we'd just brush it off."

    Pedersen's presence wasn't always welcomed by Matos McGreevey.

    In her 2007 memoir, "Silent Partner," she recounted her fury when he showed up, bags packed, to drive Jim and Dina to Montreal for the Valentine's Day weekend in 2000 during which McGreevey proposed to her.

    Matos McGreevey - who described Pederson as "a handsome college student . . . one of a crowd of guys in their 20s who always seemed to be around" - said she wasn't happy when McGreevey told her the young buck was taking them to Canada.

    "Was he kidding?" Dina wrote of McGreevey's desire to bring Pedersen along. "I'd really been looking forward to this weekend together. The two of us, not the three of us.

    "I dug my heels in," she continued, recounting that she told McGreevey, "If Teddy is going, I'm not."

    Said Pedersen, who wound up not making the trip: "I think she knew he was gonna propose, and she knew if I went, there was going to be a threesome. She had the decency to say, 'Let's make this sort of special' and just the two of them."

    But the strange relationship continued even after the McGreeveys wed in October 2000. The Friday Night Special, Pedersen said, was replaced by a more subdued Saturday morning routine.

    "I'd go to the condo, and usually they'd still be in bed," Pedersen said. "I'd sometimes go up, sit on the edge of the bed, rub Dina's legs through the comforter and go from there. Saturdays were a lot more low-key.

    "Things hit their peak before the marriage. Afterward, there was this sort of soft landing, and it eventually tapered off and ended," he said.

    Asked why it stopped, Pedersen said, "In my mind, I figured, 'Dina's married, she doesn't have to play into it any more.

    "She sealed the deal, she got what she wanted, the nice life, the governor's mansion, and she would do everything in her power to keep it."

    Neither Dina nor Jim McGreevey returned calls for comment.

    Lawyers for both said, "No comment.''

    In her written memoirs, Dina insists she never knew McGreevey was gay.

    "Not only would I not knowingly have married a gay man, but I would never have allowed a gay man to father my child," she said. The pair have a 6-year-old daughter, Jacqueline.

    Jim McGreevey resigned as governor in 2004 after admitting he was gay and had hired a boyfriend as his homeland security adviser. Last year, he filed for divorce from Matos McGreevey.

    She countered with a civil suit claiming fraud and asking for $600,000 in punitive damages - a figure she claims reflects the perks she was cheated of when Jim's early resignation forced them from the governor's mansion.

    The McGreeveys are due back in divorce court Thursday.



  • #2
    Sounds like you've got to be pretty damn twisted, too.
    -digital dean

    No "TROLLS" allowed!

    Comment


    • #3
      Apparently infidelity is a job requirement
      .................................................. ....................

      Report: New NY governor admits affair


      By VALERIE BAUMAN, Associated Press Writer

      ALBANY, N.Y. - Just hours after he received a standing ovation from lawmakers chanting his name, New York's newly sworn governor was answering questions about straying from his own marriage.

      David Paterson became the state's first black chief executive and the nation's second legally blind governor almost exactly a week after allegations first surfaced that now-former Gov. Eliot Spitzer was "Client 9" of a high-priced call girl service.

      Paterson told the Daily News of New York City that he maintained a relationship with another woman from 1999 until 2001 during a rough patch in his marriage. He and his wife eventually sought counseling and repaired their relationship.

      The couple agreed to speak publicly about their marriage in response to rumors about Paterson's personal life that have been swirling in Albany since Spitzer resigned, the Daily News reported Monday on its Web site.

      Paterson and his wife, Michelle, acknowledged to the newspaper that they each had affairs but did not go into details.

      Comment


      • #4
        These are the men leading our nation. Awesome. They're supposed to be managing our most populous states, but they can't even get a handle on their own cock. Very inspiring stuff.
        "You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial

        Comment


        • #5

          Comment


          • #6
            "You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SkinBasket
              These are the men leading our nation. Awesome. They're supposed to be managing our most populous states, but they can't even get a handle on their own cock. Very inspiring stuff.
              Perhaps we should have Access Hollywood or E! vet the love life of all candidates for higher office, give them a score for sexual fidelity and performance.

              I understand why people want to judge people by their sexual fidelity. I think its naive and foolish to attempt to apply these standards to politicians.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Harlan Huckleby
                Perhaps we should have Access Hollywood or E! vet the love life of all candidates for higher office, give them a score for sexual fidelity and performance.
                Nah.

                Just eliminate the current crapbag of a political process and let's choose our president like we do on Survivor. Stick all the candidates on a deserted island and give them access to numerous vices and have to battle each other in mental challenges. Let them all fend for themselves...and we can vote off a different one every week until we have a winner.
                My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Harlan Huckleby
                  I think its naive and foolish to attempt to apply these standards to politicians.
                  And why is it naive to think someone we trust in public office should be able to hold a promise to their spouse (or life partner as the case may be) as much as they are trusted with keeping promises to their electorate?

                  I know it's easier for you to make all these stories about sex instead of the underlying issues of trust, honesty, and integrity - not to mention common fucking sense - of elected officials, but they are politicians, not pornstars that need excuses for their poor decisions and substandard character.
                  "You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Fuck the system
                    To much of a good thing is an awesome thing

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SkinBasket
                      Originally posted by Harlan Huckleby
                      I think its naive and foolish to attempt to apply these standards to politicians.
                      And why is it naive to think someone we trust in public office should be able to hold a promise to their spouse (or life partner as the case may be) as much as they are trusted with keeping promises to their electorate?

                      I know it's easier for you to make all these stories about sex instead of the underlying issues of trust, honesty, and integrity - not to mention common fucking sense - of elected officials, but they are politicians, not pornstars that need excuses for their poor decisions and substandard character.
                      The key point you seem to be missing is that the difference between politician and porn star ain't what it used to be. We fight like hell to ignore the roles that Hollywood and mass media play in what matters most to us. But at least since Reagan, if not JFK or even before, our politicians have at a very fundamental level been actors. And bad ones at that. All of this moral indignation against Spitzer is really just anger at him for having shown us a truth we didn't want to see.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by hoosier
                        Originally posted by SkinBasket
                        Originally posted by Harlan Huckleby
                        I think its naive and foolish to attempt to apply these standards to politicians.
                        And why is it naive to think someone we trust in public office should be able to hold a promise to their spouse (or life partner as the case may be) as much as they are trusted with keeping promises to their electorate?

                        I know it's easier for you to make all these stories about sex instead of the underlying issues of trust, honesty, and integrity - not to mention common fucking sense - of elected officials, but they are politicians, not pornstars that need excuses for their poor decisions and substandard character.
                        The key point you seem to be missing is that the difference between politician and porn star ain't what it used to be. We fight like hell to ignore the roles that Hollywood and mass media play in what matters most to us. But at least since Reagan, if not JFK or even before, our politicians have at a very fundamental level been actors. And bad ones at that. All of this moral indignation against Spitzer is really just anger at him for having shown us a truth we didn't want to see.
                        I want to see the truth, and then I want politicians to get kicked in their asses repeatedly
                        To much of a good thing is an awesome thing

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by SkinBasket
                          Originally posted by Harlan Huckleby
                          I think its naive and foolish to attempt to apply these standards to politicians.
                          And why is it naive to think someone we trust in public office should be able to hold a promise to their spouse (or life partner as the case may be) as much as they are trusted with keeping promises to their electorate?

                          I know it's easier for you to make all these stories about sex instead of the underlying issues of trust, honesty, and integrity - not to mention common fucking sense - of elected officials, but they are politicians, not pornstars that need excuses for their poor decisions and substandard character.
                          There is nothing wrong with what you say in principle, just a lot of bad practical consequences:

                          1) The most successful presidents in the last century had affairs, the least successful were faithful to their wives. Really, end of argument. We can't afford to toss-out people for reasons that emperically have proven to be irrelevant at best.
                          2) Putting the focus on personal lives encourages mass hypocracy. Well, that's pretty much what we have now. Gay politicians in unhappy heterosexual marriages. Trotting-out wives to bless indescretions. On and on.
                          3) We have too much mudslinging in politics. Making love lives campaign issues just encourages dirty tricks and blackmailing. We want to move AWAY from this destructive time-wasting, not towards it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            So since this new NY gov and his wife both had friends with benefits, does that me he supports equal rights?

                            Did you see that other story where some gay gov was pulling tag teams with a friend and his wife?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MadtownPacker
                              Did you see that other story where some gay gov was pulling tag teams with a friend and his wife?
                              not bad for a republican! I'm liking republicans more and more.


                              Skinbasket, it's good to read your true feelings about sex and the politician. Reading about Spitzer's "multitude of crimes" in the previous argument was quite annoying. I'm not surprised that you are a puritan. You talk like a pervert, it's the people who talk like puritans who are the perverts.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X