Edwards admits affair

[MossMan]

Exactly, and for someone to try and compare McCain to this slimeball is nauseating, yet predictable. I may be wrong, but I thought I heard McCain's ex-wife actually intends to vote for him and hold no ill will towards him.

It doesn't matter what McCain's ex-wife thinks of him. It matters what you think of him. Let me put it this way: if Edwards wife says she is OK with what he did, does that mean you or I have to be OK with it too. Not on your life. Edwards is a slimeball. Full stop.

But here's the real question. Does Edwards being a Democrat make him more of a slimeball. Or put another way, does McCain being a Republican make what he did somehow less despicable?

We have to make sure we are on firm ground whenever we condemn someone. Let me give you an extreme example to make a point. If you take a murderer from 1980 and compare him to a murderer from 2008, many will not see a difference. Both men are murderers and that's all that counts. I'm OK with that view.

However, that seem extreme to me if we are talking about infidelity. But if someone take infidelity more serious than I do, maybe they have this extreme view. For them it's OK to compare 1980 John McCain to 2008 John Edwards. As long as they are willing to apply this standard evenly, go ahead and make the argument.

Since I don't believe infidelity is anything like murder (to use my extreme example) I believe we have to compare 2008 John Edwards to 2008 John McCain. In that comparison McCain easily comes out the better.

It doesn't nauseate me that someone makes the extreme case for infidelity, it just makes me suspicious. How much is conviction and how much is political expediency?

 

[lindalinda]

Stupid reply-abit.

Oh my! An unprovoked attack! Whatever will I do!

 

[duckfan78]

Oh my! An unprovoked attack! Whatever will I do!

If you think that was unprovoked, than you have a reading/writing disorder.

 

[Goobergal99]

Maybe I am the only one... but I don't think marital fidelity is a pre req for being a good politician... in fact I think the opopsite may be true... as is seen in the past

 

[MossMan]

In this case, the NE Bush story is all hearsay, innuendos & 3rd party info. Which is the trademark of NE stories.
However, in the JE story the NE had firsthand witnesses & proof of suspicious activity!

But that's exactly what we heard about the Edward's story until it was finally broken.

And even if it wasn't, the potential impact of Bush being a drunk far outweighed the impact of Edwards extramarital activities. If I have first hand accounts of Rudy Giulini's drug use (I'm making this up to argue a point) and second hand accounts of Obama's shady dealings with lobbyists (something else I just made up), which story should the journalist pursue?

If the possibility the Bush story is true was only 10% while the possibility of the Edwards story being true was 80%, the Bush story should still take precedence. At the very least, if you argue that one story should have been pursued I thinks its fair to argue that both should have been pursued.

 

[DISUNC]

But that's exactly what we heard about the Edward's story until it was finally broken.

And even if it wasn't, the potential impact of Bush being a drunk far outweighed the impact of Edwards extramarital activities. If I have first hand accounts of Rudy Giulini's drug use (I'm making this up to argue a point) and second hand accounts of Obama's shady dealings with lobbyists (something else I just made up), which story should the journalist pursue?

If the possibility the Bush story is true was only 10% while the possibility of the Edwards story being true was 80%, the Bush story should still take precedence. At the very least, if you argue that one story should have been pursued I thinks its fair to argue that both should have been pursued.

The JE had more tangable evidence, the Bush story was more rumor.

I agree that if the Bush story had more real proof (no pun intended) that indeed the Legit press should have ran with it. Now if Bush was drunk at a hotel at 2:00am and then hid in a Bathroom, and this was witnessed by many people.....THEN YOU GOT A STORY.

But really, when unnamed sources said they heard from a unnamed family member (who wasnt even there) and knew what Laura was saying & thinking. How do you even go about proving that?

 

[Grumpy's Gal]

CNN announced that some lawyer (didn't catch his name) said he has been providing money to this woman/her baby to live on and that John did not know that.

 

[DVC Sadie]

I don't see anywhere that DISUNC said you were either ignorant or racist. A little jumpy aren't we?

You must have a mouse in your pocket since I am not jumpy at all.

Are you "flowering" kidding me or what? Give me a flowering break, okay. I did not now or ever (that I can recall) ever been jumpy (your words), towards DISUNC so please either let DISUNC "get jumpy" on me or get frisky, feisty or jumpy with somebody else.

I shouldn't have even replied since it is obvious that some people will say anything in order to increase their post count.

 

[firemandisney]

Doesnt suprise me one bit.
Edwards, Is old news though. He has NO political future and never really did anyways.

 

[MossMan]

Drama queen a bit.

WOW unprovoked personal attack by a Obama supporter!
Who would have thunk it!

Stupid reply-abit.

I not only would have thunk it but dab nab it, if I say anything about BO that certain posters object to then I am automatically called ignorant or a racist.

Oh my! An unprovoked attack! Whatever will I do!

Lets not get this thread shut down.

If you read something you don't like, may I suggest you go to the Disney Trip Report board and read a few threads there. Then come back and reply. The Dis Community board works as a place where politics can actually be argued for a reason. Even at it's most heated, there is a civility here you don't get on other boards. It's actually a little special.

I am as guilty as anyone in writing posts with my temper. So this is to remind me as much as anyone. I find it entertaining to have spirited discussions about politics. And I think this is a great topic. But lets actually discuss it.

 

[JARNJ3]

Oiy!!!!! This is bad for me to read.

I am having problems with her statement, simply because I dont believe her husband has still told 90% of the truth. She would have been better off saying nothing.
Saying she knew about the affair in 2006 and agreeing with him to run for Potus in 2008, and thinking that this story would not get out. Is not a good thing. What where they thinking?
She is blaming the messenger for this fiasco, and not him.

As far as him being a private citizen, he is not. He was suppose to speak at the DNC convention, his name was on the VP list, possible Secretary of State...etc. Millions of people gave him $ and thier time, because they believed him, and in him. They deserved better, and his statement is full of holes & innuendos.

Because of his actions, a major voice and champion for the poor has been severly tainted. These people have also been badly affected by his deeds.

I see your points - but to me - the whole political landscape is filled with men who cheated on their wives........ its an equal opportunity affliction (both republicans and democrats do it.....)

I have learned to discount the extramarital affair, using the logic a lot of folks used when Bill Clinton's affair was exposed (if Hillary's ok with it - then it doesn't bother me, who am I to judge).....

A hypothetical question - let's say its learned that Obama partook - or McCain partook again....... would that change your (the collective your) upcoming vote in November?

 

[DISUNC]

Maybe I am the only one... but I don't think marital fidelity is a pre req for being a good politician... in fact I think the opopsite may be true... as is seen in the past

If it was just the affair, and it was over years ago, thats one thing. But I tend to believe, based on what I read that the child is his. And that baby is only 6 months old.

And why would he go meet this woman in a LA hotel in the middle of the night a few weeks ago, if indeed it was all over 2 years ago.

His explaination of what happend leaves way more questions than has been answered. He gave a really bad excuse.

 

[tinatark]

dang this Nightline interview is killing me.

He is lying, still!

Told Elizabeth about the middle of the night meeting the morning after, because she "deserved to know". Doesn't know if the photo in the NE is him or not. He is talking in circles!

$15k a month paid to her from his National Finance chair for the past year. Yikes.

 

[Goobergal99]

If it was just the affair, and it was over years ago, thats one thing. But I tend to believe, based on what I read that the child is his. And that baby is only 6 months old.

And why would he go meet this woman in a LA hotel in the middle of the night a few weeks ago, if indeed it was all over 2 years ago.

His explaination of what happend leaves way more questions than has been answered. He gave a really bad excuse.

well I certainly can understand what you are saying, I mean we know he can spread the seed... just based upon how many kiddles him and Elizabeth have

 

[MossMan]

The JE had more tangable evidence, the Bush story was more rumor.

I agree that if the Bush story had more real proof (no pun intended) that indeed the Legit press should have ran with it. Now if Bush was drunk at a hotel at 2:00am and then hid in a Bathroom, and this was witnessed by many people.....THEN YOU GOT A STORY.

But really, when unnamed sources said they heard from a unnamed family member (who wasnt even there) and knew what Laura was saying & thinking. How do you even go about proving that?

I really don't have a clue about this Bush alcohol story. I assumed it wasn't true, but I also assumed the Edwards story wasn't true.

I brought it up only to highlight why its a mistake to constantly make the assumption that the press is acting as an agent for our political foes. It's a tiring argument. Both sides make it all the time. And I mean all the time. As long as the media generally ignores sordid stories from the National Enquirer concerning both political parties, I'm happy. Even when it gets the occasional one right, the National Enquirer track record is not very impressive.

The only big conclusion that can be drawn from this story is that John Edwards is a slimeball who has caused much hurt to his family. To a far lesser extent, it is also about how much Edward's slimeballness has hurt his political supporters.

The only good that can be drawn is that Edwards is neither the nominee for President nor Vice-President.

This story is not about the sins of John McCain's past, it's not about morally corrupt Democrats and it's not about how the media is unfair to Republicans. It's about a slimeball.

Trying to make this story have political significance is an effort in futility. In fact, giving the story some political significance says more about the people who would use this story for some nebulous political gain and not very much about John Edwards.

 

[Goobergal99]

dang this Nightline interview is killing me.

He is lying, still!

Told Elizabeth about the middle of the night meeting the morning after, because she "deserved to know". Doesn't know if the photo in the NE is him or not. He is talking in circles!

$15k a month paid to her from his National Finance chair for the past year. Yikes.

I wish I could have a babies daddy that would give me 15k a month.... I just had to marry my poor highschool sweetie

 

[disneyfan67]

Of course both sides of the political isle cheat on their spouses and politicians have been caught red handed at this, since forever it seems.

Doesn't make it right though and to a ever decreasing amount of American voters, it matters to some of us. I know it matters to me. I have said it before and I'll say it again. If you don't want the American public to know some of your naughty business, then don't run for public office. Period. Same goes with media figures, personalities, TV preachers, etc, who make a living by selling themselves in some way, to that same public. Those above mentioned people forget that fame and fortune has a cost and it's not a one way street. Bill O'Reilly comes to mind and he loves the ambush interview tactics, getting into peoples faces over their bad doing. But was outraged when his phone sex and other nonsense he did with that female producer, came around and hit him in the rear like a Karma sledgehammer.

John Edwards is even worse IMO, because he had his affair in 2006, told his wife, yet they both went along with the lie. They both went along hand in hand on the campaign trail in late 2007 and early 2008, keeping this secret. They're both hypocritical liars and Elizabeth won't get anymore sympathy from me. I don't trust a word that comes out of either of their mouths. They were both was ignorant to think this scandal wouldn't come out, because it always does.

He lied to the following.

He lied to his supporters that had given him their money, their trust, and worked hard to get him elected.

He lied to the Democrat party and if he was the nominee, this story breaking could have caused havoc in the party.

He lied to the American people and still is lying, IMO. There's more to this and he paid that woman hush money, tries to pin it off on a staffer and shift the blame. Sorry, that dog won't hunt, Johnny boy!

Not only could he have caused Obama serious problems if put on the ticket or worse yet, been appointed a high level position in the cabinet. That's just what a new POTUS wants in his first days of his new administration. A scandal that puts a dark cloud over the first few months of his term.

More is going to come out on this story and hopefully this will be the end of his political career, forever. Good new for him though. He can go back to chasing ambulances and still make a living out of frivolous lawsuits and malpractice claims.

 

[WonderfulDreamer2]

Stupid reply-abit.

You took the words right out of my mouth

 

[WonderfulDreamer2]

It doesn't matter what McCain's ex-wife thinks of him. It matters what you think of him. Let me put it this way: if Edwards wife says she is OK with what he did, does that mean you or I have to be OK with it too. Not on your life. Edwards is a slimeball. Full stop.

But here's the real question. Does Edwards being a Democrat make him more of a slimeball. Or put another way, does McCain being a Republican make what he did somehow less despicable?

We have to make sure we are on firm ground whenever we condemn someone. Let me give you an extreme example to make a point. If you take a murderer from 1980 and compare him to a murderer from 2008, many will not see a difference. Both men are murderers and that's all that counts. I'm OK with that view.

However, that seem extreme to me if we are talking about infidelity. But if someone take infidelity more serious than I do, maybe they have this extreme view. For them it's OK to compare 1980 John McCain to 2008 John Edwards. As long as they are willing to apply this standard evenly, go ahead and make the argument.

Since I don't believe infidelity is anything like murder (to use my extreme example) I believe we have to compare 2008 John Edwards to 2008 John McCain. In that comparison McCain easily comes out the better.

It doesn't nauseate me that someone makes the extreme case for infidelity, it just makes me suspicious. How much is conviction and how much is political expediency?

Big applause on this post.

 

[MossMan]

Yes, what he did was morally wrong, but really what person on this earth can honestly say they didn't do something morally wrong in GOD's eyes at one time or another? I could care less how he's in the public eye, he has done no more than me you or anyone else, because a sin is a sin. I would love to see him as vp because as far as I'm concerned his marital state has nothing to do with the other.

I don't think this makes very much sense. I know I can't speak for God and I wouldn't for a minute suggest I have insights into morality that others do not.

But what does someone have to do before we condemn them for their actions? Would you condemn Edwards if he conned old ladies out of their pensions checks, or what if he was convicted of robbing liquor stores and using the money to buy crack.

I'm not trying to be absurd. I'm just pointing out their are some things people do that deserve our condemnation. I may not know the mind of God, but if someone is convicted of robbing liquor stores, I will judge them. I will tell my children not be like him. I will not look to become his friend. And I will not vote for him if he runs for public office.

I also happen to believe cheating on your cancer stricken wife is one of those things that would elicit the same response from me. That doesn't mean I think infidelity is on par with violent robberies. But I do believe it crosses the line. I don't think jay-walking crosses the line, but cheating on your cancer stricken wife certainly does.

You may draw the line at different places. Maybe for some, they wouldn't consider condemning a man for cheating on his cancer stricken wife. All that means is we have different values. But these people would presumably condemn Edwards for other things I would agree with. At some point our values would intersect. Lets use jaywalking as an example. I don't think jaywalking crosses the line. But maybe there are some people who believe it does. They would pass judgment on Edwards if it came out he jaywalked. I would disagree with them. But presumably, these people would also judge Edwards for what he just did to his family. At this point I would agree with them.

What many people wonder though, is are these lines drawn at different places for different people. I probably would be far more lenient in my view if it was my brother we were talking about and not John Edwards. That makes me a hypocrite to some degree.

But what I wonder is if there are people out there who are giving Edwards a pass because of his political affiliation. Or conversely, are there people out there who are tougher on Edwards because of his political affiliation.

The humor many people feel about this sordid event has nothing to to with Edwards and his family. The humor comes from the reaction of people to what Edwards has done. I suspect that is at the root of Dawn's reaction. I can't tell you whether Dawn would have the same reaction if Edwards was a Republican.

But that shouldn't really matter to you. What should matter to you is if your reaction is influenced by politics.