John Edwards admits to affair with Rielle Hunter

[Narrock]

Chalk up yet another moral disgrace for the democratic party. Classic.

[Arlos]

As opposed to Republicans like Ted Stevens who was caught effectively taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in "gifts" (aka bribe money) from VECO, a big alaska oil company, in return for favorable legislation?

Or Duke Cunningham, former Republican Congressman from California, who took 2.4 million from defense contractors in return for getting them defense department contracts, and who was sentenced to over 8 years in prison for it?

Not excusing Edwards, that was a spectacularly stupid thing to do, ESPEIALLY in someone running for president. But lapses are hardly the purview of one party or the other....

-Arlos

PS. You never got back to me about having a beer while I was in Sacto last weekend!

[Martrae]

ot excusing Edwards, that was a spectacularly stupid thing to do, ESPEIALLY in someone running for president. But lapses are hardly the purview of one party or the other....

Doubly especially for someone who's wife is dying.

[Arlos]

Oh, no doubt. What he did is utterly reprehensible from a moral standpoint, and he's completely ruined any hope he might have had for any future political career. VP, cabinet, etc. all gone. He's got no one to blame but himself, either. I'm sure the leaders of the Democratic party are breathing several sighs of relief that Edwards is NOT the nominee. Can you imagine just how bad that would be? Look what it did to Gary Hart in 1984. It'd be 10 times worse now.

But lets be realistic here, while cheating on one's wife is a moral failure, I think that accepting bribes and similar malfeasance while a member of Congress, like Cunningham did and Stevens has been accused of is a far worse offense. Cheating on his wife ultimately only truly effects the people involved. Accepting bribes for favorable legislation or getting them government contracts... Well, that breaks trust with the entire nation, and hurts every single taxpayer.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

But lets be realistic here, while cheating on one's wife is a moral failure, I think that accepting bribes and similar malfeasance while a member of Congress, like Cunningham did and Stevens has been accused of is a far worse offense. Cheating on his wife ultimately only truly effects the people involved. Accepting bribes for favorable legislation or getting them government contracts... Well, that breaks trust with the entire nation, and hurts every single taxpayer.

When politicians profess love to the taxpayers I'll consider it a greater betrayal due to the numbers involved, while it might be shades of black, I consider greater blight on character to be able to betray your spouse then to be able to betray your boss.

That being said, I'm not even sure why you took this angle, I'm sure there are politicians from both sides of the isle that cheat on their wives. What bothers me about this particular case is that this story has been circulating now for a few weeks and is just now being given any attention by the major media. Is it really news worthy? Probably no more then other peoples troubles that are news because of celebrity status, but major media was very quiet on this for quite some time, which is not normal for someone of notable public stature doing something horrendously stupid and immoral.

I'm very glad that he's not the Democrats candidate for President, as this development would have taken the presidential race far from where it needs to be, not just this year, but in any presidential race. I wouldn't want to see any person elected simply because the opposing candidate(s) became non factors, not due to positions and ideas on the issues that face the nation but due to personal actions.

[Arlos]

Well, a big reason this one sat dormant so long was the newspaper that "broke" the story was the National Enquirer. Run a few too many Bat Boy or "UFOs land, say they have Elvis' Brain" stories, and there's going to be a moderate dose of skepticism when you claim a major politician has been sleeping around, especially when that politician was denying it so vehemently.

I guess you and I just see a difference between breaking of public trust and private trust. Both are reprehensible, but I find the former to be far worse in someone who is supposedly a public servant.

-Arlos

[Martrae]

I agree, there's almost an expectation that politicians will betray the public trust in their lust for votes.

When they betray their families as well, it REALLY shows their true character.

[Evermore]

Chalk up yet another moral disgrace for the democratic party. Classic.

Pot Meet Kettle...


what does his party affiliation have to do with him being a fucking scum?

Dont be a asswipe

[Arlos]

Well, Mart, there's a big difference between making empty campaign promises in return for votes, and lining one's pockets with millions of dollars in bribes in exchange for malfeasance and betrayal of one's sworn oath as a Congressperson.

Congressmen (senators or lower house) who take bribes hurt ALL of us. First because it lowers whatever limited trust we might have had left in our elected officials, but also because it can cost millions of tax dollars, which hurts all of us in the pocket book. Him sleeping around on his wife doesn't directly impact me personally, other than to alter my opinion of the man.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

I find it odd that people who are voting for McCain are laughing considering he cheated on his wife with a beauty queen whose father financially sponsored his political career...

it's reprehensible, to be sure, but its just as reprehensible for your candidate

he who lives in a glass house, mindia.

[Narrock]

I find it odd that people who are voting for McCain are laughing considering he cheated on his wife with a beauty queen whose father financially sponsored his political career...

it's reprehensible, to be sure, but its just as reprehensible for your candidate

he who lives in a glass house, mindia.

It's hilarious how the liberals have to defend their cronies by saying, "well, what about <insert republican or conservative figurehead here>?". That's SO weak of an argument, but hilarious nonetheless. Furthermore, I'm not even a republican anymore. But I'd vote for McCain or Paris Hilton before I would ever consider voting for Obama. Obama's plan is absolutely nuts and is the worst thing that could happen to America at this point, and he's already flip-flopping and then back-peddling MORE than that idiot John Kerry did a few years ago. On a side note... It's going to be comedy gold when Obama gets caught with an out-of-wedlock love-child like his compatriots the "rev" jesse jackson and John Edwards. I wonder who ol slick willie is bangin these days too. lolz

[Arlos]

Mindia, I hate to say this, but you seem to be going back a bit to your old ways here.

Please try and not just react viscerally, and actually read what people have said.

Not one single person defended Edwards in any way. I think we were universal in condemning his actions. Hell, I called them reprehensible, and said I was sure his political career is over forever. How is that defending him?

The point I, and others, were making is that there is little point to crowing about only 1 side of the political spectrum in this, as it happens on both sides. What about Frist, the guy who was preying on the pages in the Senate? I'm quite sure you think that was as reprehensible as I do, and he was a conservative. If you'd said "Look, another politician gets caught... " and so on, no one would've argued with you. But you seemed to be trying to imply that this was a specific failure of the Democratic party only, when in reality it extends across the entire political spectrum, sad as that may be.

As for Obama's energy policy, I must respectfully disagree with you. I quite believe that conservation, combined with massive investment in alternative energy sources is indeed the way to go in the long run. New drilling wouldn't produce one drop for 7-10 years, and given that Big Oil already has 70million acres of land they can drill on, but aren't using, I don't see any reason to give them MORE.

Heck, if oil independence is so important, why are our oil companies EXPORTING over 1 million barrels of oil a day? (that figure was as of 2004, I'm sure it's more now. Check the figures here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... nt/us.html for yourself) That's more oil per day being exported than the figures they're touting about what new drilling would bring in. (about 800k barrels/day) Why isn't that oil being used domestically instead? It couldn't POSSIBLY be that the oil companies make more money by selling that abroad and then re-importing foreign oil, could it? I mean, if THAT were the case, the oil companies would have insane record profits despite the economic downturn... Oh, wait.....

-Arlos

PS. Guess you really DIDN'T want to get that beer.

[Lueyen]

I suspect that many McCain votes will not be so much voting for him as voting against Obama, if Obama is even the candidate for the Democrats after the convention.

I think I'll likely be voting for Ron Paul, because of the feasible likely choices he's about the only one I won't need to be intoxicated to vote for.

[Lueyen]

As for Obama's energy policy, I must respectfully disagree with you. I quite believe that conservation, combined with massive investment in alternative energy sources is indeed the way to go in the long run. New drilling wouldn't produce one drop for 7-10 years, and given that Big Oil already has 70million acres of land they can drill on, but aren't using, I don't see any reason to give them MORE.

There is not one lease -- not one that Nancy Pelosi can point to where she could legitimately say that an oil company is sitting on a lease and not using it. The oil company has every incentive to use their lease and try and actually do the exploration and begin the drilling process so that they sell the product. There is not one lease that isn’t being utilized. There is about a 10-year window that Congress created to essentially slow the process down of permitting and to allow for all of the extraneous litigation that slows the process down, so we actually could be up and pumping within about three years rather than 10 years, and so when Al Gore makes those comments, he should really be pointing his finger at the United States Congress because Congress is the problem for delaying this process. If Congress got out of the way, these companies could easily get this oil online within three years. And that’s in a very environmentally-sensitive way.

That pretty much sums up the argument to your talking points Arlos. The fact of the matter is we don't need drilling OR alternative energy, we need BOTH.

Heck, if oil independence is so important, why are our oil companies EXPORTING over 1 million barrels of oil a day? (that figure was as of 2004, I'm sure it's more now. Check the figures here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... nt/us.html for yourself) That's more oil per day being exported than the figures they're touting about what new drilling would bring in. (about 800k barrels/day) Why isn't that oil being used domestically instead? It couldn't POSSIBLY be that the oil companies make more money by selling that abroad and then re-importing foreign oil, could it? I mean, if THAT were the case, the oil companies would have insane record profits despite the economic downturn... Oh, wait.....

-Arlos

You are disregarding the purpose of energy independence in your statement. Increasing US production of oil, gives us the capacity for energy independence, but yes companies will sell to the highest bidder. What developing production here would mean is more of a base to fall back on if for whatever reason other sources are not available. It's pretty simple really, if we can export for more money and import for less that's great, but having the greater production capacity when and if that situation changes is energy independence ie we would be less beholden to other countries for our own energy needs. In the end increased production world wide will cause the price to fall. This is however only part of a short term solution to our energy issues, but it is a significant part that should not be ignored or rejected by anyone serious about addressing the issue, just as a serious solution can not ignore alternative forms of energy and preparing for the long term future. We aren't going to change the way the world oil market operates in regards as to what oil companies do with oil produced absent draconian measures, but we can tilt the table more in our favor and in doing so buy ourselves more time to develop alternative energy without stifling our economy.

Oh yes, shame on oil companies for making a profit. Also ignore that the record profits and the big numbers posted aren't out of line when you consider the actual profit margin. Whatever you do, don't bring any attention to the fact that the entity that makes the most profit off the petroleum industry isn't the oil companies, but the government. Income tax alone that companies pay exceed their profit, and that doesn't even take into account the embedded fuel taxes at the pump. Yet Obama talks about windfall taxes and going after price gouging oil companies... so that government, which has the biggest profit margin from the petroleum industry can increase it's "profit" even more (hint: companies don't pay taxes, the consumers of their products do).

Screaming about oil company profits without taking them in the context of profit margin and inflation, and then using that to justify further government taxation is completely disingenuous. Of course Obama has to find some way to fund socialized medicine, and if you take Britain as an example heavily taxing oil companies would be one of the methods prescribed... of course the side effect is much higher fuel prices at the pump.

[Zanchief]

Chalk up yet another moral disgrace for the democratic party. Classic.

LOLZ!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_foley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vitter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_craig

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Allen

http://www.news-tribune.net/breakingnews/local_story_219210228.html

The topper of course is these guys are hypocrites too boot.

[Arlos]

Lueyen, I can pretty much guarantee that even if the Fed allows drilling, California will never permit it. Anti-drilling sentiment here is not just strong, it's rabid. A lot of people remember tons of spills and environmental issues from drilling platforms, and have no interest or intention to ever allow that again. Not to mention, the state makes billions from tourist dollars every year, a large part of which is related to the natural beauty of the coasts, especially in places like Big Sur, etc. Lines of oil derricks along the coast would harm that tourist industry immeasurably. Not only are the Democrats against it, most of the Republicans, up to and including the Governator, are opposed as well.

From what I've read, Florida is nearly as opposed as California is, and for much the same reasons. I, and millions of others, have SEEN the arrogance and environmental disregard by the oil companies year after year. I don't trust them any further than I could throw an offshore platform. Hello Exxon Valdez. Hell, look at the pipeline burst in Alaska a year or two ago, where there was a massive spill because the company running it deliberately neglected legally required regular maintenance, because they knew they'd make more money by running it 24x7 and just paying whatever fines they got hit with when it broke than they would by shutting it down to fix it, and to hell with what the law required. No bloody way do I trust ANY of them to keep a restroom clean, much less sensitive stretches of coastline.

Can the Fed force a state to lease out the state's lands when it doesn't wish to? I'm not sure, but that sure would get state's rights activists up in arms, would it not?

I don't feel that drilling is an answer to anything besides further enriching the oil companies, and further ruining the already damaged and fragile ecosystems of our coasts. Solar, wind, natural gas, biofuels (especially from hemp, algae, switchgrass, etc.), even clean coal (with the CO2 being captured, etc), combined with economization plus reduction in demand are what's needed. Not more environmental devastation that won't even produce any result for 10 years. We can have the problem SOLVED in 10 years, if we really address it.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

Chalk up yet another moral disgrace for the democratic party. Classic.

LOLZ!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_foley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vitter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_craig

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Allen

http://www.news-tribune.net/breakingnews/local_story_219210228.html

The topper of course is these guys are hypocrites too boot.

Thanks for making my point. lol

[brinstar]

back-pedaling*

(lrn2spel)

[Gypsiyee]

it's a 100% viable retort when your entire premise for this thread was to say chalk it up to another disgrace for the dems

the point that you're missing is that this isn't a disgrace for the dems, it's a disgrace for politicians, and PEOPLE, in general. you're posting this with a holier than thou attitude as if your affiliation is exempt, and they are not.

I could care less if you're republican, democrat, independent, or a friggin communist - if you are too ignorant and close-minded to realize that this happens everywhere and is not a disgrace solely to the party that you're against, then it's completely justified to point it out to you.

If you do realize it, then perhaps you should post something a little more worthwhile than "chalk it up to another disgrace for the dems" no?

[Evermore]

the energy policy we need is to upgrade our 30ish year old refineries to keep up with demand

[Narrock]

it's a 100% viable retort when your entire premise for this thread was to say chalk it up to another disgrace for the dems

the point that you're missing is that this isn't a disgrace for the dems, it's a disgrace for politicians, and PEOPLE, in general. you're posting this with a holier than thou attitude as if your affiliation is exempt, and they are not.

I could care less if you're republican, democrat, independent, or a friggin communist - if you are too ignorant and close-minded to realize that this happens everywhere and is not a disgrace solely to the party that you're against, then it's completely justified to point it out to you.

If you do realize it, then perhaps you should post something a little more worthwhile than "chalk it up to another disgrace for the dems" no?

You're missing the point. I know it happens everywhere (that's NOT the point), but the libs ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS get their little panties in a twist when one of their own gets caught and it gets publicized and gains tons of media attention. They'd much rather just try and sweep it under the rug, and then start pointing fingers at everybody else. That's why this is so hilarious.

[brinstar]

and you're missing their point

that's how EVERY party deals with this kind of scandal

[Evermore]

it's a 100% viable retort when your entire premise for this thread was to say chalk it up to another disgrace for the dems

the point that you're missing is that this isn't a disgrace for the dems, it's a disgrace for politicians, and PEOPLE, in general. you're posting this with a holier than thou attitude as if your affiliation is exempt, and they are not.

I could care less if you're republican, democrat, independent, or a friggin communist - if you are too ignorant and close-minded to realize that this happens everywhere and is not a disgrace solely to the party that you're against, then it's completely justified to point it out to you.

If you do realize it, then perhaps you should post something a little more worthwhile than "chalk it up to another disgrace for the dems" no?

You're missing the point. I know it happens everywhere (that's NOT the point), but the libs ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS get their little panties in a twist when one of their own gets caught and it gets publicized and gains tons of media attention. They'd much rather just try and sweep it under the rug, and then start pointing fingers at everybody else. That's why this is so hilarious.

and its ONLY the libs, right?

[Gypsiyee]

a piece on the Huffington Post a few minutes ago that I quite liked, and agreed with whole-heartedly regarding this whole mess:

Catching the Wrong John: Why Are the Media Talking about John Edwards' Infidelity If They Aren't Going to Talk about John McCain's?
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust Posted August 10, 2008 | 09:57 PM (EST)

My first thought upon hearing Friday's "big news" on all the cable stations -- straight from the pages of the nation's leading investigative newspaper, the National Enquirer -- that John Edwards had been caught with his trousers down, was, "Oh, no, what if this cuts into the story of that little girl who disappeared whose mother hasn't seemed to figure out that someone is recording her jailhouse telephone conversations and putting them on the news! How will I ever get the news I need tonight?"

Let me be clear. I'm not a proponent of infidelity. As a clinical psychologist, I've seen its corrosive impact on many a marriage. But Edwards isn't running for president anymore. He's not running for Pope as far as I know. And he's not even a sitting elected official. To watch Larry King interview two "journalists" from the National Enquirer on his show Friday night was as pathetic as seeing the Edwards affair on the front page of the New York Times. If the media ran stories on every former or sitting elected official who ever had an affair, those stories alone would fill the news or sports sections of every newspaper (depending on how they classified them).

Rationalizations for Running the Story

I know what you're going to say. "He was running for president, and had he won the nomination, imagine what that would have done." True enough, and for that reason perhaps the story merited a migration from the Enquirer to the coupon section of the print edition of some newspaper somewhere. What he did was unbelievably reckless for a man who was running for president and could have put the Democratic Party in real peril had he won the nomination. And to paraphrase another Democrat who wedded restlessness with recklessness, Edwards should not have had financial relations with that woman, his videographer. All fair criticisms.

But Edwards didn't win the nomination. Personally, my primary feeling is sadness for the Edwards family. This would be tremendously difficult in private. It must be excruciating in public.

But this is an issue of character, you say. After all, he lied. But every affair involves deceit, and denying the affair is what people confronted with infidelity usually do, as they see their marriages potentially crumbling before their eyes -- and that's without the glare of the camera. It's not clear in this case (as in other such high-profile cases) to what extent Edwards' original denials were primarily motivated by self-protection, protection of his wife and family from humiliation, protection of his gonads from an angry spouse, or, most likely, all of the above.

So is lying about an affair a good predictor of other forms of deceit and corruption in office? By all reports George W. Bush has been faithful to his wife. If only he had been so faithful to the Constitution, the American people, and those silly little things we have in this country called laws.

But Edwards' infidelity was even worse because of the circumstances. His wife was ill. How could he do such a thing?

That's a compelling question, and those without sins should certainly cast their stones. An equally compelling question, however, is how the media humiliating his wife publicly in the final years of her life at this point serves any purpose than selling papers and boosting ratings. The man's children are already dealing with their mother dying. Do they really need to know -- and to know that everyone who ever meets them will know -- this level of private detail about their father's indiscretion?

As someone who has practiced psychotherapy for 25 years, there's one thing I've learned: that it's a lot easier to judge than to withhold judgment. Life isn't easy. Most people try to live good and decent lives, and most people fail at many points along the way. If fidelity over decades of marriage were so easy, I suspect more people would practice it.

What's Sauce for the Donkey out of the Race is Sauce for the Elephant in the Room

But this media "affair" raises a more serious question. If John Edwards' infidelity is news, and he's not a candidate for anything, why isn't John McCain's? He reportedly had numerous affairs in the years after returning home from Vietnam to a beautiful wife who had been disfigured in a car accident, and ultimately, by his own reports, he zeroed in like a laser on beautiful a 25-year-old heiress upon meeting her one evening in 1979 while he was still married, promptly lied to her about his age, and almost as promptly left his wife for her. We all extol John McCain for enduring 5 years of extreme hardship in Vietnam. But aren't his first wife's circumstances much like Elizabeth Edwards'? After all, the first Mrs. McCain waited in agony (and presumably fidelity) during those five long years for her beloved husband to return from Vietnam, raising their children while he was away and undergoing dozens of painful operations herself, only to be repaid by a philandering husband who ultimately left her for a younger woman.

Now personally, I don't think anybody's sex life has any bearing on a campaign, except to the extent that the candidate runs as a hypocrite, extolling family values, fighting gays while fighting his own gay demons, etc. But John McCain is increasingly making this campaign about character, and his actions over many years suggest some worrisome patterns that fly in the face of the entire story he tells about himself. Setting aside his cheating on his first wife, what about his attending to something other than the people's business as a member of the Keating Five (and ultimately contributing to a bailout that cost middle class American taxpayers the equivalent of nearly half a trillion in 2008 tax dollars -- imagine the middle class tax break we could offer if we weren't still paying off the principal and debt on that boondoggle); or hiring the most dishonest, amoral campaign team money could buy in 2008; or generating one fabricated or grossly misleading charge after another against Obama in the last three weeks (as in his sleazy new tax ad where, for example, he says Obama would raise taxes on small businesses when Obama has never proposed anything of the sort)? Like George W. Bush, he doesn't seem like a man who once was lost but now is found. He seems more like a man's whose principles are soluble in self-interest.

The Obama campaign seems reluctant to attack McCain even when the attacks are both true and on point, such as his standing on every side of virtually every issue, so they certainly won't go after his private life. Nor would I recommend they do so, unless McCain continues to raise issues about Obama's character, in which case Obama might want to take a public shot over the bow to let McCain know that if he wants to make this election a referendum on character, he can do that, but it would not be in his interest. McCain would get the message, and I suspect he would call off the dogs. Similarly, if McCain tries to mobilize anti-gay sentiment, or (more likely, since I suspect he's more libertarian at heart) colludes with those who do, it would be perfectly fair to ask him where in the Bible God prioritizes homosexuality as a sin over adultery, since there's a Commandment about one but not the other, and adultery is a far greater threat to the institution of marriage than gay people entering into committed relationships (McCain's first marriage being Exhibit A).

Washing the Media's Mouth Out with Soap

In any case, the media either need to be an equal-opportunity Enquirer -- in which case if John Edwards' infidelity deserves three or four days of media attention when he's not even running, McCain's deserves three or four weeks -- or they need to grow up. Personally, I vote for the latter. If the media decide that McCain's sexual transgressions, like virtually all Republican transgressions as long as they're heterosexual, are unworthy of media attention, they should do some serious soul searching about why they went after Edwards, and they should stop reporting on the sex lives of politicians in the future, whose personal foibles and frailties are none of our damned business.

And that leads to a final point. I have long thought that we need a watchdog on the watchdogs. Like most Americans, I watched in horror as the impeachment process was abused in 1998 with the complicity of a ratings-frenzied media that made a fortune turning the Congress into a reality show and the grand jury system into an adjunct to The People's Court. We now have a watchdog: the blogs. I suggest we use the blogosphere to teach journalists a lesson about privacy, humility, and humiliation, and put them on notice that if they continue to practice gutter journalism, bloggers will publish the same data kind of data on them that they publish on politicians. After all, journalists' objectivity is of the essence, and if they're purging their own sins by attacking them in others, the public has the right to know. And surely journalism requires the same level of honesty as public service.

So call it empathy training. My guess is that media enthusiasm for sex scandals would drop within days of the first report (replete with photos) on the sexual indiscretions of a television news anchor or reporter, and that the kind of rationalizations we have heard for two decades---"we had to cover it because the newspaper that brought you 'Woman Gives Birth to Four-Headed Reptile" was covering it -- would disappear as fast as you can say "zip it."

[vonkaar]

It's hilarious how the liberals have to defend their cronies by saying, "well, what about <insert republican or conservative figurehead here>?". That's SO weak of an argument, but hilarious nonetheless. Furthermore, I'm not even a republican anymore. But I'd vote for McCain or Paris Hilton before I would ever consider voting for Obama. Obama's plan is absolutely nuts and is the worst thing that could happen to America...

you... just... did... it...

I hate when people type in all caps to make a point.
I HATE WHEN PEOPLE TYPE IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE A POINT.