Arnold Schwarzenegger Admits Paternity of Child With Household Staffer

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue May 17, 2011 at 12:49:20 PM EST
Tags: Arnold Schwarzenegger (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has provided the LA Times with a statement admitting he fathered a child with a household staffer more than ten years ago.

The mother of the child worked for the family for 20 years, until January. She left on good terms. Arnold financially provided for the child since birth. [More...]

Arnie says he didn't tell his wife Maria Shriver until he left the Governor's office. Maria has released a statement asking for compassion and privacy for herself and the couple's children.

"As a mother my concern is for the children. I ask for compassion, respect and privacy as my children and I try to rebuild our lives and heal. I will have no further comment."

I think the person who needs compassion and privacy is the child of Arnie and the staffer. The staffer told the Times just yesterday that her ex-husband was the father of the child. It sounds like this child, who is older than 10, is learning today that the man he thought was his father is not. If so, it must be very traumatizing for the child.

Also significant: That the child was born before Arnold first ran for Governor in 2003. Unlike John Edwards, he was able to keep it a secret.

Schwarzenegger is hardly the first politician to have a love-child in their background. Nor will he be the last. Remember Grover Cleveland and the election of 1884?

Ma, Ma, Where's My Pa?
Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha Ha!

Update: Patrick Schwarzenegger tweets 2 hours ago:

some days you feel like sh*t, some days you want to quit and just be normal for a bit, yet i love my family till death do us apart

< More Somali Priates to Be Our "Guests" For Life | Ohio Executes Inmate With Dementia and No Memory of Crime >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Arnold Schwarzenegger Admits Paternity of Child With Household Staffer | 50 comments (50 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The one person for whom I have no (5.00 / 6) (#2)
by Anne on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:09:13 PM EST

compassion is Arnold Schwarzenegger: he betrayed his wife in one of the most hurtful ways possible, his children with Maria now know that their father is a cheating you-know-what, and they have a half-sibling who will - through no fault of the child's - always be a reminder of when everything changed, and the poor kid that resulted from this affair probably doesn't know which end is up. And won't for a long, long time.

"Inappropriate groping" appears to be the least of Arnold's flaws, but how this all managed to stay secret for this long in the atmosphere of politics and Hollywood is the real mystery to me.

Yep. The reason Edward's could not hide (none / 0) (#6)
by Buckeye on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:17:10 PM EST

his infidelity is b/c he ran for President. I guarantee you in today's media culture that if Arnold ran for President instead of Governor in a recall election, this would have come out.


I suspect (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:30:41 PM EST

"the media" wasn't responsible for finding out about Edwards. That would require investigation. The Media does not investigate, they report press releases. "The Media" was probably tipped, and if I were guessing, I'd say the tip was from the Obama campaign.

Similar story with Arnie, I'm guessing. Ms. Shriver/Kennedy certainly wasn't going to let that one pass. After all, the Kennedy dignity was at stake! She needed her revenge...but she would wait to enact it until after he left office...for the good of the State of Caleefornia....

Yeah, call me cynical but I have good reason.


: exactly (5.00 / 0) (#60)
by The Addams Family on Tue May 17, 2011 at 04:53:44 PM EST

& my previous comments on this topic allude to the obvious fact that the information was available, was not being covered by the MSM, & was thus something of a semiprivate commodity to be used by interested parties - no "conspiracy theory" needed, just politics the way she is played

: i agree w/you (none / 0) (#27)
by The Addams Family on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:36:15 PM EST

re Edwards, the media & the Obama campaign - politics ain't beanball, as somebody once said
but your theory re Ahnold & Maria does not make sense to me

I dunno, Buckeye -- the MSM (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by brodie on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:43:10 PM EST

in the past 30 yrs has had a tendency to look minutely into the current and past activities of Dems, but not so much Repubs. George W Bush famously got a pass from the major corp media during his 2000 campaign; only that tiny newspaper in Maine (?) sought to look into any prior DUI records. None, iirc, bothered until 2004 to look closely at his attendance record in the Nat'l Guard.

Certain of Reagan's pre-presidency activities were barely covered in 1980; 12 yrs later, Dem Clinton and wife had all their pre-presidency conducted closely and publicly investigated.

I doubt very much the MSM would have suddenly changed tune on Repub Arnold if he'd been eligible to run for president. It's still the case, imo, that Dems need to actually be squeaky clean, or much squeakier by comparison, than their Repub counterparts. Of course even then that doesn't inoculate against harsh MSM treatment -- as with Eagle Scout Al Gore in 2000 ...


Thinking about major newpaper publications (none / 0) (#35)
by christinep on Tue May 17, 2011 at 03:06:50 PM EST

(and, even not so major)...any idea about the political or otherwise ideological breakdown of the owners?

Harking back to certain media's concerted attack on then-President Clinton, one cannot escape the um, uh...plan/schems/plot...emanating from the Pittsburgh Scaife-Mellon crew. Didn't even Ken Starr emerge from those machinations? Then, we had the Washington Times...a lulu of a paper. In my own town of Denver, one can notice a very distinct difference in the past few years (and certainly after the Post-News merger) regarding how certain central & national issues are treated in the Denver Post...the publisher Dean Singleton has a power that he blatantly uses especially as to anything dealing with public employee unions (a forerunner of Wisconsin, indeed) where he even had posted a negative editorial on the front page a few years ago.

Just wondering about the lay of the publication land, and what--if anything--can be "publicized" about that state of affairs???


Perhaps, but Palin and members of her family (none / 0) (#37)
by Buckeye on Tue May 17, 2011 at 03:13:06 PM EST

she was picked when she was picked for the VP candidate in a way that did not happen when she ran for Governor. Arnold would have gotten a level of scruitiny if he ran for President in a way that did not happen when he ran for Governor in a recall election in California.


Let me try again :) (none / 0) (#38)
by Buckeye on Tue May 17, 2011 at 03:15:50 PM EST

Palin and members of her family got destroyed by the media personally (and professionally which was fine) when she was picked for a VP candidate in a way that did not happen when she ran for governor of a state.

I believe Arnold would have gotten a level of scrutiny if he ran for President in a way that did not happen when he ran for Governor in a recall election in California.


: Yes, heightened (none / 0) (#41)
by brodie on Tue May 17, 2011 at 03:27:47 PM EST

scrutiny at the fed level -- but would it have been adequate to the occasion and to the man? And would that sort of -- let's be generous and call it intermediate scrutiny -- would it have been quite to the demanding, fine-toothed comb strict scrutiny that the MSM traditionally (actually since Carter) applies to Dems running for prez?
I doubt it.
But moot, nonjusticiable point as to Arnie since he's Constitutionally ineligible to run for that office.
I grant you, re Palin, a little more negative media attention there than normally they have brought to GOP VP candidates, but still the question might be, was even that as much as it should have been? And regardless, the MSM largely whooped it up with the McCain campaign as she got 10 days or so of largely criticism-free MSM coverage from the convention and over the next week as the media story was all the enthusiasm she was whipping up and her apparent boost to the ticket in the polls, or that's my recollection anyway.

He was able to keep it a secret (none / 0) (#26)
by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:32:49 PM EST

partly because of the Fox News firestorm that erupted after the LA Times reported on his other 'woman troubles'. The media backed off immediately in response to the Foxrage.


TMZ says they had it last week (none / 0) (#28)
by jbindc on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:39:11 PM EST

: Yes, but why did no one have it 10 (none / 0) (#50)
by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2011 at 04:08:53 PM EST

yrs ago? I think it is because they backed off when the LA Times got blasted by Fox and the Repub noise machine.
Not sure if TMZ was even around back then.

Non-Sense Buckeye (none / 0) (#32)
by ScottW714 on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:57:36 PM EST

The reason Edwards got busted is because he had a married staffer pretend to be the baby's daddy. How long could that possibly last, at some point the fall guy is going to want to clear his name.

Whereas this child was in the same house as his real dad playing with his half brothers and sisters, he was essentially part of the family.

The fall guy was an ex-husband which is easily believable, and it hasn't come out if he even knew the truth.


: Baloney, people have been chasing (none / 0) (#40)
by Buckeye on Tue May 17, 2011 at 03:22:21 PM EST

this story for years. In California in a recall elec