Arnold Schwarzenegger Admits Paternity of Child With Household Staffer

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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 election, it was not such a big deal.  If he ran for President, which takes like 2 years, every newspaper in the country would have been chasing this story and it would have come out.

    The Daily Mail goes on to quote [Tammy] Tousignant saying she hadn't eaten or slept 'since a reporter from the Los Angeles Times called at my door and asked me about it.' So in 2003, the Times was looking into the Tousignant love-child story, but sat on it.

    Sure (none / 0) (#64)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 17, 2011 at 10:03:55 PM EST
    ... a major news organization, possibly two, sat on a story like this, because after the fact, the reporters sitting on it said say they did.  Doesn't pass the smell test.

    The link states "No one knows if this is true, and the Times has decided not to tell us, saying they know but won't reveal it due to privacy concerns for Schwarzenegger's other family."

    The link is clearly an entertainment piece, guesstimates based on nothing but after the fact claims.


    O.K. evidently I missed a part of this (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:14:52 PM EST
    story. Who was reporting that Arnold fathered this child prior to Arnold making this statement?

    Luv it (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:20:31 PM EST
    i wonder who (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by The Addams Family on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:15:32 PM EST
    was about to spill, making it necessary for Ahnold to get out in front of this story - which is actually nobody's bidness BTW

    & i wonder why now

    This is absolutely none of my business (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:16:23 PM EST

    What is it though andgarden? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    That so many who seek to serve have no comprehension of boundaries?  I used to think that this stuff was none of my business but I'm getting really sick of all these people in office without functioning boundaries or the damned ability to control their sexual impulses.  I'm getting real sick of it.

    Sense of entitlement... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:34:15 PM EST
    that comes with power, money, fame, etc...I can't explain it, I'd be unable to live with myself treating people so....all I can tell ya is the sense of entitlement 'round this orb is epidemic...and the more one has, the more entitled one feels it seems.

    You're absolutely correct, Dog (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Zorba on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:58:35 PM EST
    As I said in a previous thread, this is the problem with those who have the power, the money, and the fame.  They start to believe that anything they want is exactly what they are entitled to.  It has gone beyond even the belief of Leona Helmsley "Queen of Mean," who once said "only the little people pay taxes."  

    The law ain't helping... (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:19:18 PM EST
    with the rampant "different rules different fools"...how could the rich and powerful believe otherwise. The law has sent a message they are, in fact, entitled.

    With sex, it's also the case (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 17, 2011 at 03:47:15 PM EST
    that people of both sexes throw themselves shamelessly on the powerful.  So the sense of entitlement is there and also an overabundance of temptation.  Doubt this had a lot to do with Ahnold and his housekeeper or whatever her job was, but it's true in spades with Edwards/Hunter, Clinton/Lewinsky, JFK/Womankind, etc.

    And with finances, people like Rezko start offering you sweet real estate deals or Countrywide offers extremely generous jumbo mortgage terms (Chris Dodd), etc.


    I think the same urges that drive (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by smott on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:08:42 PM EST
    People to success in a lot of fields are the same urges that decay boundaries. That is sometimes entitelement which we see often in athletes, developed from a very young age....with politics...dunno, power, authority, domination...

    But sadly...the very types of people who we'd most want in positions of political power are the types least likely to seek it.


    The Vonnegut Theory... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kdog on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:17:47 PM EST
    only psychopathic personalities seek power...PP's for short.

    Vonnegut called it the fundamental flaw of our republic, that nothing can be done to fix...smart dude that Kurt, I miss him.


    Never Read That (none / 0) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 17, 2011 at 03:06:45 PM EST
    Excellent theory, so simple yet so powerful.

    From.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Tue May 17, 2011 at 03:16:23 PM EST
    "A Man Without a Country", a collection of essays...great read.

    All these men and women without a country 'round here...maybe we should start our own...or better yet take ours back.


    No You Didn't... (none / 0) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 17, 2011 at 10:06:03 PM EST
    ... just write 'take ours(country) back'

    Tit for Tat (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by mmc9431 on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:40:03 PM EST
    A long as I have to put up with so many phoney hypocrites in politics telling me how to live my life and creating laws to minimize me, I do find it my business.

    I will get out of their private lives when they get out of mine.


    That's exactly (none / 0) (#16)
    by Zorba on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:59:57 PM EST
    the main thing I cannot abide the most- the hypocrisy.  

    That's exactly how I feel (none / 0) (#10)
    by sj on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:28:02 PM EST
    and yet, here I am, reading all about it.  (sigh)

    I feel the same way about (none / 0) (#22)
    by Anne on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:27:31 PM EST
    car accidents: I don't need or want to see the wreckage, but have been stuck in ungodly traffic because of people who do, who just have to look.  Is it the voyeur in them, their inability to separate what they see on their TV screens from things that happen to real people - things that change or take people's lives, things that make wreckage of lives as well as machines?

    I don't know.  You can't move 10 feet, look at a computer, turn on the radio or have the TV on without hearing about the wreckage that Arnold has made of the lives of those he was supposed to care the most about.

    The selfishness astounds me, even if it doesn't surprise me.  

    And I know, as we all should, that what we don't know about the lives of people we think we know because they live next door, or we work with them, or go to the same gym, or our kids go to school together or play on the same teams, or we're on some committee with them, would probably give us all pause.  

    I don't "care" about Arnold, and I don't need the details of a life we are undoubtedly going to find out is even worse than what we thought.  No one needs them, least of all those who will be most hurt by them.  But that won't stop the media from feasting on the bones, vultures that they are.

    Ugh - I feel like I need a shower.


    You know what? (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:20:59 PM EST
    I really don't care. It's just sad for everybody involved most of all the child from the mistress.

    October 13, 2007: (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:29:33 PM EST
    Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a same-sex marriage bill, the second time in three years that such a measure died on the governors's desk.   The bill would have amended state law to define marriage as a civil contract between two persons.  (more recently, and to his credit, Schwarzenegger refused to appeal Prop 8).

    What is the relevance of this comment? (none / 0) (#18)
    by sangreal on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:02:58 PM EST
    Arnold vetoed that bill because he felt it was a violation of the CA constitution for the legislature to pass a law overturning a ballot initiative, not some sanctity of marriage BS.

    Good piece in today's (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by brodie on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:32:16 PM EST
    Salon which underscores why I care about this story:  that if not for wife Maria covering and vouching for Arnold very publicly and forcefully when he was faced with a barrage of groping allegations in the LAT, if not for his wife stepping in and putting her seal of liberal Kennedy Democrat approval on Arnold, he likely would not have won, or certainly the threshold question of removing Gray Davis would have been much closer.

    Quite an appalling political circus that recall election was, and a cynical, GOP abuse of the recall power.  The campaign itself barely gave voters a chance to evaluate the rather large group of candidates, and the one debate Arnold agreed to allow was a free-for-all with too many candidates, too much cross talk, and too little real opportunity for some of the viable non-front runners to properly make their case.  

    And Arnold, excepting the last-minute LAT article which was fiercely attacked as suspiciously biased, had plenty of help from the rather passive MSM in the state which seemed as smitten by his movie star status as the typical star-struck celebrity worshipper.

    Even his considerable short comings as governor, and dwindling popularity, got fairly tepid media coverage in the past 8 yrs.

    Now of course, safely out of office, now we finally learn the truth.  Maria too, apparently.


    Collateral Damage (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 17, 2011 at 04:00:03 PM EST
    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.

    What about the ex, no one is reporting if knew, which means he could have lost a son today.  So I would add him to the compassion list if this proves to be the case.

    I read or heard, can't remember that the child was living with the family and playing with the kids.  Which has to be pure hell for Maria, this kid who she thought was anothers, had been living nearly as a part of the family for 10 years, was actually part of the family.  Talk about a stake to the heart, the 'love-child' right there with them.  Ditto for the kids, good thing Arnold cam e clean or there's a good possibility that they might have played a doctor with their sibling.

    And Jeralyn, 'love-child' ?  Seems pretty juvenile and disrespectful. The kids that fall into that category are illegitimate kids of the rich and powerful. Like the media needs to take a shot at the person via the kid expense.

    What I want to know is what exactly did the staffer do ?  Do they really have a staffer, or are they trying to spin an affair the with maid ?

    the only one (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by The Addams Family on Tue May 17, 2011 at 04:47:03 PM EST
    talking "conspiracy" is you

    i'm just talking about good old-fashioned hardball American politics the way the game has always been played

    Sometimes I disagree (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 17, 2011 at 12:51:04 PM EST
    repeatedly with Jeralyn on current happenings as she puts them up, but she always brings the juice :)  Holy Juice!

    Arnold - January 2001 (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Tue May 17, 2011 at 01:38:02 PM EST
    Interview with Salon

    Mind you - I don't disagree with what he's saying about parenting here.

    Also - TMZ reportedly had the out of wedlock child story last week, which may explain today's announcement.

    I didn't vote for him -ever (none / 0) (#17)
    by thereyougo on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:02:22 PM EST
    But I still think he makes great movies, thats all.

    He didn't help California  at all. his tenure as governor  was under  a cloud  because it was obvious he didn't know anything about governing.He tried to muscle his way into passing initiatives he couldn't convince  the Democratric led house of legislators and turned to the voting box and when none of them of them passed, he was humbled! ...sorta. He then claimed to move to the center politically. UGH!

     I objected to his claiming the mantle of the leader of my great state of California. I always had misgivings about his bad boy charges. He always came across to me as the muscle bound character in his movies. He just never had the polish of a leader.
    His heavy accent didn't help either. He was just wrong for the golden state. I am glad I NEVER voted for him. I am sad for his kids but he was a phoney, like Republicans tend to be.

    that "recall" election in CA (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by The Addams Family on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:32:24 PM EST
    was a Rethuglican coup, which was clear at the time & is even clearer in the light of revelations about Enron's manipulations of the CA energy markets

    OT, but all the more reason to dislike "former" Rethuglican & current fauxgressive Arianna Huffington, who saw fit to enter the race herself rather than decry the coup for what it was


    The one thing about Ahhnold (none / 0) (#30)
    by christinep on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:44:22 PM EST
    While I think this story is sad--and, almost pathetic--all the way around, on first hearing, what crossed my mind was: At least he wasn't one of those Vitters-Craig-Sanford-Livingston Republicans who preached morality from the political pulpit, only to crawl away when their undersides are discovered.  IMO, Arnold is a confirmed jerk for a number of reasons (beginning with an innocent child and much more)...but, with that, still a bit shy of the moralizing philanderers that seem to populate the upper regions of that party.  

    I think this is what is known as (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Anne on Tue May 17, 2011 at 02:59:38 PM EST
    "damning with faint praise;" I had to kind of chuckle at the idea that he's not a moralizing philanderer, just a garden-variety philanderer.  

    That's not saying much, is it?


    Nope, it isn't saying much (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by christinep on Tue May 17, 2011 at 03:11:36 PM EST
    Does one laugh or cry? Sorta both.

    Arnold's appetites have been well-known (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 17, 2011 at 03:31:58 PM EST
    for decades. Maria thought she could change him, does anyone ever really change? Permanently?

    Comments with name-calling (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 17, 2011 at 08:59:50 PM EST
    and personal attacks on Arnold or Maria have been deleted. This site does not allow them.

    CST, You are a straight shooting soul, (none / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Wed May 18, 2011 at 04:39:53 PM EST
    apparently,  I see you trying to fit this theory into overt actions and it won't ever fit well.  This is all under the table stuff.

    I know for a fact that you have many fine qualities which have been reflected here.  Having said that, I don't recommend that you aspire to higher office.  You're not nearly devious enough and would get creamed.  Sliced and diced and spit out in little tiny pieces.

    I expect so would I, but I'd probably see it coming...