Originally Posted By vbdad55 I don't think anybody excuses Edwards' behavior. But like it or not, there's a difference between conservatives who run on "family values Sorry this is John Edwards own quote- the sameperson who quote,unquote was going to give America the greta Moral lesson. Also the same John Edwards who even worse,played doting husbandfor his sick wife on TV and in interviews. So trying to blur the issue with another ( the gay rights issue is not on trial here) - has nothing to do with what has occured. Sorry no difference at all- both you mentionin the same scumbag wagon. "I want to see our party lead on the great moral issues - yes, me a Democrat using that word - the great moral issues that face our country," Edwards tells the crowd. "If we want to live in a moral, honest just America and if we want to live in a moral and just world, we can't wait for somebody else to do it. We have to do it."
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Lots of things can show poor judgment. Cheating on your wife is just one of them.< absolutely agree -- like lying to the press about it, them making the statement that his denials of the affair were 99% true, because there were someissue details with the accusations. Not the fact that he really did have an affair but they may havehad the room number wrong. An attorney till the end,even when caught- trying to justify why he lied. Gee, I wish he could be my leader.
Originally Posted By woody It's funny how no one sees the hypocrisy angle from the Edwards affair. Edwards who has no qualifications to become president has used his family to as background. He has no clothes literally to be in any campaign especially since he might appear in the Democrat Convention to give his hypocrisy speech. All you leftist liberals are hypocrites!!! You're also about to nominate Obama with no qualifications except for his personal story. Let's see how long that lasts. Edwards is a disgrace and Elizabeth knew all about it and keep everyone in the dark. This whole mess makes Hillary Clinton a better pick for President. All that stuff was finished and history. The Obama-Edwards story has just started. What has Obama knew and when? What has Elizabeth knew and when? Why did John lie and why did the old dinosaur media kept the lie going?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>All you leftist liberals are hypocrites!!!<< It really is fun seeing how pissed off conservatives are this election cycle. I'm seriously giddy over it. Finally, their own brand of hatred politics and fairy tale beliefs have no place in the election. And it drives them nuts, so they make personal attacks in nonsensicle posts. Good times.
Originally Posted By woody >>Finally, their own brand of hatred politics and fairy tale beliefs have no place in the election.<< Stop projecting. In the previous election cycle, conservative had to deal with their own sex scandals like Mark Foley & Larry Craig and other related scandals like Rev Haggard that has no relation to elected Republican officials. All these issues were promoted by the media, which was strangely silent with Edwards. The hatred was coming from the Left/Liberal. The fairy tale is only beginning with Obama and Edwards to think this issue is over. It has yet to begun. Your sentence speaks of the lie you told yourself and it is quite funny.
Originally Posted By dshyates "It's funny how no one sees the hypocrisy angle from the Edwards affair." I see tremendous hypocrisy. What I like is how he moved into the proverbial "glass house" after the affair. That, to me, is worse judgement than the actual affair, which in and of itself was bad. "like Rev Haggard that has no relation to elected Republican officials." Your either joking or willfully ignorant. I suggest the later, knowing your biases. Haggard had regular meetings with the Bush and his administration to advise them on how to use moral issues to mobilize his evangelical followers.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I agree - not apples and apples. But what always baffled me is how his many followers did not see any conflict in his proclaiming he was an everyday Joe, concerned with the poor and working families, yet was a multi-millionaire himself. I have never understood how people with gazillions of money can assume the roles of kindly benefactors to the poor unless they are in the habit of giving their vast volumes of money away.> To be fair, Edwards grew up poor, and only became wealthy as an adult, so he knew what it was like. Also, even some people who grow up wealthy can indeed do great things for the poor via public policy (FDR being the obvious example) if they so choose.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What has Obama knew and when?> Why in the world would Edwards have told Obama about it - someone he was running against? <What has Elizabeth knew and when?> Apparently, it was a short-lasting affair, and he told her about it in 2006, the year it happened.
Originally Posted By barboy ///NOTHING 'justifies' hooking up as you call it./// Wrong. If one spouse it getting it on outside the other spouse is entitlted to the same recreations. You know.... the old 'two wrongs make a right' rationale. If one spouse consistently refuses to be intimate with the other then by all means it's party time for the neglected spouse. If one spouse leaves the country to live overseas(yes, I personally know 5 couples in this arrangement) all bets are off and it's party time. Shall I go on?.... well you get the idea.
Originally Posted By woody >>Your either joking or willfully ignorant. I suggest the later, knowing your biases. Haggard had regular meetings with the Bush and his administration to advise them on how to use moral issues to mobilize his evangelical followers."<< I suggest he is not an elected official himself so the information you provided is irrelevant. Liberals and the media did not report on the Edwards affair precisely with the reason that Edwards is not currently holding an elected office and he is a private citizen. <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2196758/#whycover" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/id/219675...whycover</a> "1. No "private citizen": Edwards was certainly a contender for VP, or a big cabinet post like Attorney General, or even the Supreme Court, before the scandal first erupted in the "undernews" in late 2007. Some reporters say he was still on Obama's VP list until quite recently. If he's now finished as far as those big jobs are concerned, it's in large part because of this scandal, which Obama might never have learned about if everyone had followed the MSM's lead. Even now, Edwards may not be out of the running for an array of lesser public posts--including cabinet-grade positions--that provide non-trivial power and a platform for future advancement. Important unions back him. Until last week, he'd been traveling the country keeping himself in the public eye in a way well-designed to let him play a big national role in either the Obama administration or the opposition to the McCain administration. It's silly to say "he's just a private citizen"--he's much less of a "private citizen" than, say, William Bennett was in 2003 when Jonathan Alter and Joshua Green torpedoed Bennett's career by revealing his gambling habits." ---- To suggest Haggard should receive scrutiny worse than that of Edwards is completely ridiculous.
Originally Posted By dshyates Yeah, I get the idea, and I still think your wrong. If its a mutual agreement between the couple that its allowed thats one thing. If its done behind the spouses back its wrong. It really is that simple.
Originally Posted By dshyates "I suggest he is not an elected official himself so the information you provided is irrelevant." That's not what you originally claimed, let me qoute: "Rev Haggard that has no relation to elected Republican officials." He MOST DEFINITELY had relations with elected Republican officials. Very close relations to elected Republican officials.
Originally Posted By woody >>Yeah, I get the idea, and I still think your wrong. If its a mutual agreement between the couple that its allowed thats one thing. If its done behind the spouses back its wrong. It really is that simple.<< If I'm wrong, everything should be on the table for complete scrutiny. Yet you don't admit to the Edwards cover-up and now say there's difference to private behavior if everyone knows behind the scenes. That's certainly a fairy tale.
Originally Posted By woody >>That's not what you originally claimed, let me qoute:<< Yeah, I phrased it incorrectly the first time. >>He MOST DEFINITELY had relations with elected Republican officials. Very close relations to elected Republican officials.<< Okay, can I now make comparisons between Obama and Edwards?
Originally Posted By dshyates "If I'm wrong, everything should be on the table for complete scrutiny." I agree, IF this had come out during the primaries. Now that he is stictly in the private sector, it is none of our business. If he were to re-enter the race then yes it matters. "Yet you don't admit to the Edwards cover-up and now say there's difference to private behavior if everyone knows behind the scenes." Where did I say that? There was definely a cover-up. And I did state how he moved into a "glass house" after the affair. But he by leaving the race, moved out of said glass house. If he re-enters a campaign for public office, he movess back in. At this point it is nothing but a sensationalistic footnote. "Okay, can I now make comparisons between Obama and Edwards?" Go for it buddy. I am not aware of any advisory role that Edwards has played in the Obama administration.
Originally Posted By dshyates But should add that Haggard's actions don't reflect badly on Bush's integrity. As I am pretty sure that he didn't know what Haggard was doing. And I should also add that when I say "none of my business" I mean irrelevant. It would have been relevant if it had come out during his campaign. and would be relevant if he were to reenter public life. But does that mean the media should lay-off. No. he set himself up for it. By trying to cover it up during the campaign, it is a point of interest. salacious interest, but none the less, interest. But none the less it is still irrelevant. This will have no impact on who I vote for.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer I find the timing of Edwards admitting to the affair interesting, just after Senator Obama jumps on a plane to Hawaii for a weeks vacation. Let the news play out in the media and die down before he returns... And here is an interesting Editorial in the Wall Street Journal... <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121824172912326099.html?mod=djemEditorialPage" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/...rialPage</a> >>If one is going to run for the Presidency of the United States, as John Edwards did, high on the list of things one would be sure not to do in our time is have an extramarital affair at the same moment one is chasing the nation's highest elected office. Should any such affair come to light under the brutal glare of our politics now, one's candidacy is over. While no one disputes Mr. Edwards's assertion that he is "the dumbest man in America," those who supported his candidacy -- with their time, money and beliefs -- clearly thought him worth their commitment. It is an egregious failure of judgment and character to let so many people work so hard for a candidacy that Mr. Edwards knew was at high risk of destruction. Ambition made him run. Blind ambition brought him to this.<<
Originally Posted By mele How is a wife not making a public statement about her husbands affair a "cover up"? What, she was supposed to hold a big press conference when she found out? Does the President hold press conferences for every single bit of drama that surrounds his family life? Aren't we always complaining about people who live their lives in the press too much? It's no one's business. We aren't owed any explanations. Calling it a "cover up" is lame. Kind of funny but lame. LOL
Originally Posted By dshyates It became a cover-up when HE was questioned about it and he lied and tried to shame the media for asking. He should have said either, "That would be a private matter, therefore none of your business", or better yet, "Yep, I did it. I told the wife . We have worked through it. And that is all I'm going to say on the matter." And when the media continued, respond with, "What part of "all I'm going to say on the matter" don't you get."
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <///NOTHING 'justifies' hooking up as you call it./// Wrong. If one spouse it getting it on outside the other spouse is entitlted to the same recreations. You know.... the old 'two wrongs make a right' rationale. If one spouse consistently refuses to be intimate with the other then by all means it's party time for the neglected spouse. If one spouse leaves the country to live overseas(yes, I personally know 5 couples in this arrangement) all bets are off and it's party time. Shall I go on?.... well you get the idea.< yea I get the scumbag idea - but then don'tbe married. That is not a marriage now is it. ? I hope I never have to live in a world you portray - seems like you want to justify anything....much like the Mexican citizen situation...
