Posted on 09/23/2004 9:00:28 AM PDT by mabelkitty
Attention all prospective Republican lobbyists: K Street kingmaker Grover Norquist has announced his wedding date, so you’ll know when to send gifts. Problem is, the location and the gift registry are still up in the air.
Norquist, 47, will exchange vows with 31-year-old Samah Alrayyes of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) on Saturday, April 2, 2005, he has revealed, although he told The Hill last week that he promised his bride-to-be the wedding will not turn into a political event.
A source at USAID said Norquist joked that the couple should register at Costco. It makes sense, given his predilection for jumbo-sized food items. (He has been known to use a giant container of Kraft parmesan cheese for a bedside table.)
Norquist confirmed yesterday that the suggestion was made merely in jest, as was his proposition that the wedding itself be held at Costco. “They have seating for about 200, and they serve pizza” at the Pentagon City location, he said. “People could sit down and then do their shopping right there, so they don’t have to worry about it beforehand.”
How did Alrayyes take to his suggestions? “She did not dignify it with any kind of response,” he said.
There is hope for me yet!
Pretty big age difference if you ask me.
'Cause if he doesn't, his wife's family will be duly-obliged to murder him...
PS: I wonder if ol' Grove knows about the political affiliations of that Costco outfit:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=costcoI can't believe he doesn't.
He's already the Wash D.C. version of Scat Stevens, if you ask me.
There is a certain kind of man who just can't deal with a woman who is his professional and intellectual equal. It's much easier to get a woman who is going to always be a step or three behind him. From what I've heard about Grover from mutual acquaintances, he's one of this sort. Nor am I surprised he chose a woman from a culture in which women are taught to be subservient to their men.
Oops - make that: his wife's family will be duly-obliged to murder her...
When I remarry, it will be to a woman between +/- five years of my age; six on the outside. I think men who seek out much younger women have some emotional issues. Seems to be a lot of that in politics.
Will he move to Saudi Arabia or wherever his prospective bride comes from to reside?
His bride must have gotten a new job. Last year, she worked at the Islamic Institute, per press releases posted on CAIR's website.
I wonder if "Sameh" is a Mohammedan.
It wouldn't surprise me, being that Grover is a Jihadist sympathizer.
What evidence did you divine from the article that his bride is not a professional woman and his intellectual equal? All we know is that she is 31 - many women of all ages are very smart, and many have sucessful careers.
As for the subservience, you have no idea about what kind of a woman she is. How can you make such a statement with any kind of accuracy and fairness?
In several ways, your post is unfair - you come to several judgments about the lady based only on circumstantial evidence. The truth is, you have no idea what kind of woman she is personally, though you have somehow convinced yourself that you do.
That, as we say on Mulberry Street, is "Whacked!"
I'm unfamiliar with the term "whacked," so to my regret I can't respond to it.
Observe, ladies and gentlemen: we have here a genuinely mature person!
The other view is women who find men of their age to be immature wackos!
He is a paid lobbyist for Islamist causes. Its amazing he has any "conservative" support.
True. This was a problem I had all during my teens and early twenties, and my teenage daughter is having now.
If we put it all together, older men will find younger women and older women will find younger men. It balances the extremes that are out there. At least on paper it makes sense:):)
You explicitly did question her competence and intelligence when you were speaking of men like Norquist, saying "There is a certain kind of man who just can't deal with a woman who is his professional and intellectual equal."
You wrote that, I didn't. If that doesn't question her intelligence and profession, English must be your second or third langauge. It explicitly does question it.
And in any case, there is no reason to characterize a man with a younger bride, in itself, as someone who "just can't deal with a woman who is his professional and intellectual equal." It's an unknown quantity from where we stand and to characterize it that way in speculative and unfair, couching it in a frame of fear with no evidence to back it up.
I agree with you that a 15 year spread is wide, but not that unusual. I am 36 and sucessful, and exclusively date women age 23-27 or so - old enough to be mature and young enough to be appealing to me.
Part of that has to do with emotional baggage - that is, I find women past 30 who are single (either never married or divorced) to have much more baggage that their younger counterparts. Part of this also has to do with freshness of demeanor and looks. I find youthful women more appealing.
"More mileage and more life experience" is how you put it. I like low mileage, and I think lots of men and women do. To me, high milage is 'baggage.' I don't mind dealing with the baggage I helped create, but I do find dealing with the baggage of numerous other jerks in the past a bore and not worth the trouble, since I can date another class of woman and avoid a decade of baggage that way. That's purely rational, nothing controversial about that.
While relative youth does not guarantee minimal baggage, as a general threshold matter it works fairly well. To extrapolate from what you said, a 25 year old woman probably has less mileage than a 35 year old woman. A 25 year old man probably has less mileage than a 35 year old man. Upon confirmation of that, a person can find that uambiguously (and uncontrovesially) appealing.
Divining much more from a difference in ages like this (31 and 46) isn't very fair. At 31 she should have her act together - there's no reason to suspect, as you explicitly did (though you denied it) that she isn't his professional and intellectual equal.
She isn't a 19 year old girl he picked up at some college, after all - if she was it would make your observations probably more meaningful, but still uncertain.
Whacked is colloqual truncation of 'whacked out.' If you don't know that (and don't know what that means), you're probably not nearly as worldly as a guy like Norquist is. I suppose that would make you his intellectual unequal (and mine for that matter) ;-)
Just joshing with you! ('Joshing' means kidding around, by the way).
In any case, all that I conclude from the fact that he married a woman 15 years younger is that they met, find each other appealing, bonded in some way, and decided to commit to each other. Projecting anything more - positive or negative - from what was offered in the article is unfair.
No, I did not question her absolute competence or intelligence. I did not say that she was stupid or incompetent. I suggested, and continue to suggest, that she is probably not his intellectual or professional equal. It is extremely unlikely that at 31 she is as accomplished and successful as an internationally prominent, frequently-published figure like Grover Norquist, who has a curriculum vita six inches thick. None of my contacts in Washington politics has heard of her, so it's fairly unlikely that she is as advanced in her career as Norquist. How could she be? She's only 31. He has sixteen years on her. In sixteen years perhaps she will be at his level, but she isn't right now.
It's your prerogative to date anybody you like. I agree with you that women who are over 30 and divorced are often bitter and have "baggage." Avoiding that sort of thing is a problem, and I don't blame you for trying to avoid angry, bitter people; I try to avoid angry, bitter men, and it's not easy! (I had rather thought that your preference for younger women was the case from the strong reaction you displayed to the very concept that it might be appropriate for a man to date women of his own level of professional and personal attainment, which much younger people will not have achieved.)
Here's a thought, though--just a suggestion, and not a condemnation of you or any of your girlfriends: if you're looking for a wife, someone to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you through life's battles, consider someone who has faced serious challenges, sorrows, setbacks, and even suffering and emerged with wisdom. Someone who is 23 is cute, but the average 23-year-old American girl is an untested quantity when it comes to facing life's vicissitudes with great moral courage. When it's time to settle down, strength, faith, fidelity, honor, self-discipline, self-control, patience, and willingness to sacrifice are far more important in preserving a marriage and raising a family than flawless skin. Maybe some 23-year-olds have developed these traits, but they're rare traits in any age group and more rare still in the young, who haven't seen enough hardship to develop them.
Does this seem judgmental? Years ago I worked at a community mental health center that offered marriage counselling. Many times male clients came in complaining about the immaturity of their wives. Then the wife would come in, and we would see that he was right. Of course she was immature, compared to him--he was an increasingly successful professional man married to a babe who was 10 or even 20 years younger than he was, and he was angry that she wasn't as emotionally mature as he was! It's a serious conflict: it's tough to find someone who looks young but doesn't act young when the chips are down (as they eventually will be, life being what it is). Cuteness is great, but character is more important.
"Whacked" appears to be a New York regionalism, perhaps a term used mostly by the young? It's not in widespread use among people here in the DC area, and despite living in several major US cities and extensive travel in both Eastern and Western Europe, I had not encountered it outside of its meaning "to assassinate." I do not, of course, presume that I'm as sophisticated as a major political operative like Grover Norquist, but it's unclear that indulging in gratuitous insults to my educational level or my command of our language is productive in an exchange like this. However, chacun a son gout..
I really hate to break the news to you, but you did say that men like Norquist just can't deal with a woman who is his professional and intellectual equal.'
That speaks to two matters:
1. The kind of man Norquist is, and
2. The kind of woman his mate is.
Also, at no time did I suggest that you suggested she was stupid of incompetent. Simply, you did suggest that she isn't his professional and intellectual equal.
Professional status doesn't necessarily have to do with the criteria you suggested. At an old law firm of mine, for example, a young man made partner before age 30 - not common, but very accomplished, though he is unknown outside of the legal community (which is good, since he is a fairly loathsome individual).
As for her intelligence, stuff like career, status, eductaional background, etc, might be evidence of intelligence, but it certainly isn't conclusive of intelligence. She can be 31 and comperable intelligent to Norquist, why not? She can be 31 and more intelligent than Norquist, why not?
For example, I once worked for a boss who was 15 years older than me a while back, and I was much more intelligent and capable than she was. It wasn't even close. Yet she was my boss, and she was also 15 years my senior. In fact, I really carried her whole department. When I suddenly quit, she took it personally and badmouthed me to anyone who would listen. I just laughed, knowing that she can spin any take she wanted but the truth would catch up with her.
So just what can anyone divine from the difference in our ages? Not much, in itself, nothing meaningful anyway. By outward appearances someone could conclude that she was more mature than I was and more skilled, accomplished, and intelligent. That evaluation would be almost completely wrong.
To an extent, I'm just arguing for argument's sake. Most likely you are right in the professional sphere, but you can't come to a meaningful evaluation of her intelligence based on a 16 year difference in their ages. That isn't fair to her (and your backhanded evaluation of him isn't really fair either).
Bitter angry people (single, divorced, and married for that matter) have no place in my life - friend or lover. I just don't want to deal with it. I really don't know what you mean by my strong reaction to the very concept that it might be appropriate for a man to date women of his own level of professional and personal attainment. I never spoke to the matter directly at all - in fact, that demonstrates, to me anyway, your habit of filling in the blanks based on only circumstantial evidence (that's what you did to Norquist, his bride, and now to me). What can I say? I have no problem dating women of all sorts of backgrounds - I have dated fellow law students, lawyers, a legal assistant, a doctor, a screenwriter, a musician, and others.
Their career choice never was much a factor to me. I have no idea why you would think I would be especially concious about a professional area of a prospective mate. Odds are a 23 year old won't be a fellow attorney, but then again she may be a talented musician. What that in itself can tell about her professional accomplishment or intelligence remains a mystery.
By 25 or 26, it's all good, to a large extent.
Thanks for the thought and suggestion. You are completely right. But here's the wrinkle that I wasn't clear on. I don't look at every woman I enter into a romantic relationship as a potential wife. Sometimes I just look for nice companionship, conversation, 'fun,' shared interests, etc.
Much more important to me for a long term romance and marriage is aligned values and wisdom. For example, I casually date a very attractive woman in her early 30s (we first met when she was in her late 20s). She is a talented musician, and she is also very attractice woman inside and out. We aren't going to get married because she flatly doesn't want children. I do wan't children. It's not fair of me to try and badger her to change her mind - she is an adult and doesn't want to deal with that.
I do want children, so there is no long term prospect there for me (or for her).
It's good though - its affectionate and romantic, but not too heavy. That's good. She has had some wild life experiences in her younger years, but she is very mature and smart (since you speak of relative inteligence, I will confess she is probably more emotionally mature than I am, in having to deal with where her life path had taken her).
But to me, she is a young, fit, attractive woman who I share enough interests to be compatible with, and with different enough tastes to keep things interesting. It's good.
So I agree with you - 23 and cute doesn't cut it - I don't cast the net that wide.
For a more permanent mate, for the reasons you mention I do look to women who are still youthful but more mature - later 20s for example. You are right - cute alone doesn't cut it (and I never suggested it did)
But you know, I'm a nice guy and years ago I found myself dealing with my third or fourth mentalcase, who would fly off the handle at some innocuous thing I would say or do, because it jostled her memory bank and a nice set of baggage would konk her on the head, bringing back a rush of memories (and hurt). Of course, the guy who helped pack that baggage is gone (maybe, but maybe not, packing baggage with another woman), and it was me dealing with it. Nah, no interest in that, sorry. Be judgmental if you want, but I flatly don't want to deal with that, given the choice.
And that's just it - women with less baggage present me with that choice. I take the easy way out, I admit.
Character counts, you said it. But the conventional wisdom that you share presents a false choice - it isn't limited to character vs cute, wisdom vs youth. A woman can be cute and have character, be young and filled with vitality, as well as wise. None of this stuff is mutually exclusive - I suspect that in framing it this way for yourself, you limit options.
To be fair, youth doesn't necessarily mean no (or low) baggage. I know and condede that. It's just dead reckoning - it's a first cut I do, and then the lady is subject to increased scrutiny, reflecting many of the values you articulated. Most don't make the cut (just like I don't make many women's cut). It's all good.
And it works for me.
In any case, the fact that Norquist and his bride have a 15 year age difference, in itself, doesn't suggest to me anything necessarily good or bad about Norquist, nor anything necessarily good or bad about his bride. That was my point - I think the original post of yours that I responded to might be a good macro analysis, but when trying to apply it to a micro case (Norquist and bride), it fundamentally isn't fair and too speculative to be very meaningful or accurate.
Interestingly, it's probably more accurate than not in many cases. That's not to say most cases, or 90%, 80%, 60% of cases.
Everybody's different, that's my moral.
And by the way, "Whacked" is used by my dad, who is a spry 77! Then again, he grew up in NYC's Little Italy, so some deference to your definition is given! Haha! ;-)
PS - I'm just messing with you a bit and if my wisecracks offended, I am sorry and didn't make my nature clear enough. To reiterate, as a macro position and as a general principle, you are probably right. When applying the macro rule to any given case, there are probably more ways for you to be wrong and unfair than there are ways for you to be right.
And that's that. [Reference to the last line in the Martin Scorsese film 'Casino,' and not meant to be dismissive in any way.] ;-)
Forgive me for drawing the conclusion that you were intererested in dating younger women, but I figured if you weren't interested you wouldn't devote all this bandwith to the discussion. Clearly it's something I care about as well, partly due to the experience I had at that clinic, and partly because I see so many lovely, sweet women who are skipped over in favor of chicks in their twenties; it's quite sad. I maintain my belief that in general it leads to greater happiness in the long run if people have spouses who are at about their level and that is easier to find if you're shopping within a close age-range. There are always exceptions, of course.
As far as me making suppositions about Norquist: I do live in suburban Washington and work on Capitol Hill often, and I've had occasion to develop more knowledge of the gentleman than I've so far admitted.
I have NO idea why there are so many mental case women out there, but my reflex is to blame feminism. Good luck in avoiding them.
No doubt. Don't need no dirty money from 5th columnists. And we should not trust his "strategy" - could be sabotage. His day has come and gone. Take back the GOP!
Now she's embedded even deeper into our core institutions. This should make us take pause. Investigate!
Does that mean she's fat? ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.