This is weird. CNBC's Larry Kudlow posts an "Open Letter To Tiger Woods" on CNBC's website and on his Kudlow & Co. website.
"Fess up, Tiger. If you don’t, the tabloids are gonna kill ya."
If anyone knows the power of "fessing up," it is Kudlow who went into rehab in the 1990s for cocaine and alcohol addiction. NYT "A Wall Street's Star's Agonizing Confession" 1994
Kudlow drones on: ... The tabs and gossip sites like TMZ.com are saying a woman named Rachel Uchitel is the alleged home-breaker. That you have some kind of relationship with her. And that story is not going to die until you put it to rest one way or another by fessing up and telling all the details.
Adding fuel to these flames, you have pulled out of your very own tournament, the 2009 Chevron World Challenge, which is scheduled for this week. Tiger, my friend, one thing you need to consider is the business angle to this narrative.
The Daily Beast is running a story about your $100 million car crash. Investigative reporter Gerald Posner estimates that even if you take a 10 percent hit on your endorsement income, this incident could cost you $10 million a year, totaling $100 million over the next decade. At risk could be your contracts with Nike, Gatorade, and AT&T. There’s also Accenture and the EA video-game series.
So, my friend, stonewalling, when even whispers of marital infidelity are involved, just doesn’t pay.
And then there’s Bill Clinton, who stonewalled about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Woaaah! That caused one heck of a blow up, including impeachment proceedings in the House. Remember when he said that it “depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”? This was the worldwide sex-cover-up stonewalling attempt to end all marital-infidelity sex-cover-up stonewalling attempts.
Tiger, you don’t want to go there.
That could be you. There are lessons to be learned about coming clean as fast as possible.
Even though I personally have only one-ten-thousandth of your media and business impact, perhaps my story will be helpful. Over 15 years ago, after missing a big speech and resigning from my career on Wall Street, the New York Times came after me with a story of serious alcohol and drug abuse. They were right. I believed then as I do now that honesty is a virtue, and I fessed up. I got sober. My saintly wife and I recently celebrated our 22nd marriage anniversary. And today I am fully employed at CNBC (for which I am eternally grateful). People forgave me. God redeemed me.
But in your case, if there is no alcohol, drugs, or infidelity, and if there is a better-sounding, truthful explanation of your events, you’ve gotta get out there and say it. As you know, your clean, serious, sober, near-perfect, golden-boy bloom is already off the rose. And if you insist on stonewalling, from now on it’s damage limitation. And that will be no fun at all. Your bottom will be lower than anything you ever imagined.
C’mon Tiger. Be a mench. [Kudlow spells "mensch" wrong.] Fess up and clear the air. If you do it soon, you will be forgiven, and this too will pass.
Is Kudlow running for something? The annoying "my friend" is so John McCain...
Larry, hate to disappoint you but Tiger's got his story and he's sticking to it. Not everyone is lured by the honesty of 12 Step programs. Prediction: Tiger keeps his yap shut and lets the divots fall where they may.

Kudlow is a seriously strange bird.
ReplyDeleteAs sad as the whole Tiger Woods situation is, perhaps it might prompt us to re-evaluate the institution of marriage, and whether it is still a viable institution. Assuming, for purposes of argument, that there is no biological component associated with cheating, then simply examining the conduct of golfer Woods, Albert Einstein, Gov. Mark Sanford, Sen. John Edwards, Sen. John Ensign, inventor Henry Ford, Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Clinton, would strongly suggest that many do not respect the institution as presently constituted or evolved.
ReplyDeleteThe frequency with which infidelity occurs suggests a systemic problem. Society might consider starting a discussion about a modified or different institution to serve the functions previously served by marriage.