WTF? Alan Grayson's estranged wife is getting food stamps

[tblue37]

148. She says her former husband filed those 1994 papers, without her involvement. She also says he

arranged the divorce in 1981. It sounds to me as though she is a woman who lets her husband take care of business, including all paperwork and all legal matters, and simply signs what he tells her she needs to sign. No doubt that is also how she signed their joint tax returns.

My mom was a woman like that, as was I during my marriage (I married young).

Mrs. Grayson probably did think she was divorced when she met and married Grayson, even if her first husband did not make sure the 1981 divorce was 100% legal. I seriously doubt that she lied about it. Why on earth would she? If she actually believed her first marriage wasn't completely and legally ended, but she wanted to marry the new man in her life, who just happened to be a wealthy lawyer, all she would have to do is tell him about her doubts concerning whether the first marriage was legally dissolved. He would check into it and take care of any legal loose ends, and then they could get married as planned. It makes no sense to assume that she deliberately neglected to properly divorce her first husband and then deliberately lied to keep Grayson from finding out and easily fixing the problem so they could be sure to be legally married. There is no possible scenario in which a woman would think that is a good way to handle things, or that she would in any way benefit from doing that.

On the other hand, the way he is behaving follows a pattern that is so common that it is a cliché. He stands to benefit in a number of ways if he can disappear their 29 years of marriage, during which she provided companionship (including sex), kept house, birthed and raised his numerous children, and, one presumes, served as hostess when he entertained.

Whatever the reason for the ruin of their relationship, he is obviously furious at her. The video of the incident during which she claimed he shoved her shows no such shove, but I don't necessarily assume that just because he is on the same political side that I am on, that necessarily means he is an angel in his private life. Wealthy, powerful men do sometimes abuse their wives. I am not saying he did, but that he could have, and we have no proof either way. She could be lying about that, but without proof, we just don't know.

What I do know, though, is that his words and actions about her, the ones we do know about, are filled with anger. He is acting publicly like a man who is used to calling the shots, being in control, and having his "underlings" jump to do what he tells them to do, a man who is really pissed off that things are not going the way he thinks they are supposed to go. He is behaving punitively toward her, not at all graciously, even though he knows the whole country is getting an eyeful and earful. He cannot even put on a mask of graciousness in public, despite the damage that he has to know this ugly, ugly divorce is doing to his image and his political prospects. He is rich enough to arrange a comfortable set-up for her and for the kids. If he were not angry and determined to punish her, that is what he would do—especially after 29 years and 5 kids together! She is asking for joint custody, with her as the primary caretaker. In other words, she is not trying to keep the kids from him at all. Besides, he works a lot, so if they are not with her when he is working, they would have to be with a nanny of some sort. Obviously it is better for them to be with their own mother, unless she is proven unfit—which I don't think is even in the cards.

Though she is not trying to take the kids away from him, he is apparently trying hard to take them away from her, and it looks as though his reasons are financial (to avoid paying child support) and punitive (to make her suffer through losing her kids). This is revealing, because it suggests that controlling and punishing her is more important to him than maintaining a viable public/political persona, which for a politician as ambitious as he seems to be strikes me as a clear danger sign. Even worse, it suggests that grinding her into the ground matters more to him right now than his own kids' happiness and well-being.

He is displaying over-the-top anger, a need for control, a willingness to risk or even sacrifice his own political viability and, even worse, the happiness and well-being of his children if that's what it takes to stick it to her and make sure she gets nothing from him. And he is doing all this despite 29 years of living and raising their children together, during which time she certainly provided "services" (housekeeping, giving birth to his kids and caring for them, hostess duties, companionship and sex), even if he is determined to insist that it wasn't a marriage after all. That is nasty and creepy--and it also, I am sorry to say, sounds like the behavior of a lot of men who are abusive in personal relationships. I am not saying that he is an abuser, since I have no way of knowing whether he is or not. But he is not making any effort not to appear nasty, vindictive, controlling—and abusive.

I want to like Grayson, since he supports the political positions I support and unlike so many other Dems, he is not too wishy-washy to tell the truth about the Republicans. But I think his behavior in this divorce is absolutely appalling. Even if his wife did deliberately lie about the divorce (which I honestly doubt), that would not excuse the ugly behavior we are seeing from him.