Vito Fossella of House GOP admits to fathering love child

It's beginning to look like Rep. Vito Fossella, the only House Republican representing a New York City district, may not have much of a future left in Congress.

Fossella, who's conservative and married, has admitted to having a 3-year-old love child. This comes a week after he was arrested in northern Virginia on drunk driving charges.

There are some congressional districts where such extracurricular behavior might not be fatal to a political career. His Staten Island district probably isn't one of them.

Here's how the Almanac of American Politics describes part of Fossella's district:

"Culturally, Staten Islanders are deeply conservative -- more so than in most of New York's suburbs, and quite a contrast from Manhattanites who live a 20-minute ferry ride away. Taking a cue from Fresh Kills, their motto is apt: "Don't dump on us." Not many people here read the New York Times...."

Here's a Bloomberg News story, by Christopher Stern, on the latest revelation:

U.S. Rep. Vito Fossella of New York admitted having an affair ...

... with a woman and fathering her 3-year-old daughter.

Fossella's relationship came to light after he was arrested in Virginia on May 1 for drunk driving.

"My personal failings and imperfections have caused enormous pain to the people I love and I am truly sorry," Fossella, 43, said in a statement released today by e-mail....

"While I understand that there will be many questions, including those about my political future, making any political decisions right now are furthest from my mind," his statement said.

"Over the coming weeks and months, I will to continue to do my job and I will work hard to heal the deep wounds I have caused," Fossella said in the statement.

Fossella, who first won his House seat in 1997, may not be ready to make decisions about his political future. But, most assuredly, others are.

Here's the Staten Island Advance story on the situation.

-- Frank James

Frank James writes for the Swamp of the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau.

Photo credit: Associated Press

Comments

[BOB KHOLOS]

Was this with Barbara Walters?

(Oooh, ouch. Bob, you hit a nerve there.)

[adoria beaverton]

You know, everyone makes mistakes and nobody is perfect.

I think Mrs. Fosella will be more than happy to raise her husband's love child.

It's politician wife's criteria these days.

[ed]

Bob:

Barbara Walters? LOL!

However, rumor is, it was Rosie O'donnell. He "slipped" her something! He was DUI wasn't he?

[dave]

is it because they don't read the nytimes that you choose to diligently disregard their motto? why not let the man sort out his family problems, in his privacy? a child of love you say - then why so hateful? it's moot to confuse party affiliations with one's prejudice; or retaliate in rancor, and engage in worldly inquisition.

[edwina beaverton]

Dave,

You sound like a married man whose been caught "poking" around many times. Love-child is the politically correct term oppose tp a "lust-child", "an adulterous child", "a bastard child", and yadayadayada...

Get it?

There is nothing hypocricial about this article.

[dave]

edwina,

some simple people just do prefer the non-politically correct, perhaps more truthful words; and love tops lust, i'd readily agree. but any way, what's the use of spritzing spite and glee against that man for no good reason there...you see?

[robinia]

Wow. Again. A clean cut politician, with "probably" a doting, attractive, educated wife with two or three children, a dog and lives in a two-story picket fenced house. Only to be mesmerized by a high-heeled, lace-legged, plastic-but gorgeous hussy who probably couldn't even begin to understand the words 'adultery' and 'homewrecker'.

Then his daughters grow-up to be first class sluts themselves. Go figure?

[dave]

or even 'presidents'? audacity of hope, or hopeless depravity, of a hypocritical, perverted society - willfully blind, always on the moralizing lookout for some lowest common denominator - way to go?
it's not usually by passing judgment that people get to find and see their own responsibility.
how many people refuse to see, or even value, integrity?
(e.g. when i see a billion people, as requested, ignore their natural ability to count past three, that explains some things, but more than that, it puzzles me. there are FOUR presidential candidates in the race, and guess or don't who's the one with a vital message, but you probably don't see - you won't, if you can't, and you can't, if you won't, and if you can, it's not a guess anymore)