It never ceases to amaze me...

[Atticus]

I'm pretty sure all of this could have been taken care of in the douchebag thread

[MrRain422]

Pretty sure this is the douchebag thread.

[Spawn's dad]

This is true, up to a point. I think there are cases when a man and his wife would agree that they don't care what they do sexually or who they do it with (not suggesting this is the case here, but your statement isn't specifically referring to John Edwards) in which case it no longer matters (more in line with the Clintons, maybe). The last paragraph, though, is gold. Couldn't agree more.

 

 

At that point is it really "cheating?"

[explodo]

At that point is it really "cheating?"

It is to the media who wouldn't have any idea about this pact having been made.

[bjorn_skurj]

It is to the media who wouldn't have any idea about this pact having been made.

 

Maybe they should file a notice at the County Clerk's Office and put up flyers at supermarkets and stuff.

[MattZ]

...Darwinian...

 

Great points.

 

On the topic of Darwin, one of the op-eds in the Times yesterday made the funny, but sad, point that we are making "real progress" in our country when it comes to these scandals. You know, because Edwards went on national TV for his mea culpa without forcing his wife to sit there next to him smiling.

[MrRain422]

Perhaps crass for me to ask this (in which case, ignore me), but it's something that's been on my mind.

 

Over the past year or so, there's been some speculation as to Elizabeth Edwards's political aspirations. A lot of people have accused Hillary Clinton of using her husband's infidelity as an opportunity to raise her own political profile. How will this scandal effect Elizabeth Edwards's political aspirations (if in fact she has any)? Will it help her in the way that some claim it helped Clinton? Will it hurt her by raising the same accusations? No effect? What do you all think?

[Good Old Neon]

Perhaps crass for me to ask this (in which case, ignore me), but it's something that's been on my mind.

 

Over the past year or so, there's been some speculation as to Elizabeth Edwards's political aspirations. A lot of people have accused Hillary Clinton of using her husband's infidelity as an opportunity to raise her own political profile. How will this scandal effect Elizabeth Edwards's political aspirations (if in fact she has any)? Will it help her in the way that some claim it helped Clinton? Will it hurt her by raising the same accusations? No effect? What do you all think?

 

I don

[MrRain422]

You're probably right about that. She's likely to be a visible advocate for issues such as healthcare, but probably won't run for office or anything.

[Good Old Neon]

You're probably right about that. She's likely to be a visible advocate for issues such as healthcare, but probably won't run for office or anything.

 

Agreed

[MrRain422]

I always liked him, but at this point it's hard to not be really really glad that he failed to get the nomination. The Dems would be completely fucked right now.

[John Smith]

So Edwards has an affair, gets caught and admits to it. OK that's not a good thing, but what about it exactly causes his politcal future to be ended? Is the affairs the qualifier that ends the publics trust? The lyign to his wife? What exactly is it? How and why does this stain Obama? Yes I have heard people use Edwards (a man not runnign for president anymore) actions to stain Obama. If the affair is used to disqualify Edwards for VP or damages his future politcal life, why does McCains not ruin his? Is there a double standard? I mena when they vet poltential VP candidates, or cabinnet candidates, Supreme Court Candidates etc... A skeleton like McCains would typically disqualify him for the position, why no outrage on this with his presidential candidacy? What are the views on the two situations? Hypocricy? or this another matter of IOKIYAR?

 

BTW I've never been a huge fan of Edwards, so this affair/event means little to me actually.

[sweetheart-mine]

i think it's partly a double standard and partly the fact that it happened long ago and therefore doesn't seem real to people. there may also be an element of p.c. thinking -- no criticizing the former p.o.w.

[Tweedling]

The Dems would be completely fucked right now.

I think they already are.

[John Smith]

i think it's partly a double standard and partly the fact that it happened long ago and therefore doesn't seem real to people. there may also be an element of p.c. thinking -- no criticizing the former p.o.w.

 

But if he, McCain, were going for a cabinet position or an SC position, then his past would surly disqualify him, he would not pass the vetting process. These things happen all the time, why would something like this disqualify a potential supreme court justice or a potential secretary of Housing or a potential VP yet for a presidential candidate its not a big deal? I would venture to guess that if this affair (Edwards) had happened twenty years ago it would still be the main topic of discussion on the news. And my question is why that would disqualify any candidate or potential from a position? Do we suddenly disagree with the candidates views on issues for having an affiar? Or is it simply a matter of hypocracy because Edwards is a popular democrat and a potential VP canndidate? Face it the main topic on the news this weekend was probably the Edwards story followed by the olympics and then Georgia, and we all know which story really has the greatest potential for disaster. Though I do give NBC props for spending a good 5+ minutes on Georgia Sunday Night. The Edwards story was beat to death and yet the information changed so little from last week till now, yet the Georgia situation was fluid and mutating. Once again the sad state of our press rears its ugly head.

[ih8music]

I think they already are.

Because of this?

 

If anything, it gives Democrats the opportunity to bring up McCain's past infidelity. If Edwards is such a bad SOB because of what he did, what does that make McCain? At least Obama has been faithful to his wife (as far as we know) - so for anyone whose vote would be affected by this type of thing, I think it goes to Obama's favor.

[Party @ the Moontower]

I agree with this. Since when does being a p.o.w make you a military expert, and why do we need our president to be one? I don't want an old hothead making military decisions for our country, or any for that matter. Being a p.o.w and wrecking 5 planes does not alone make you fit to be president.I do respect that he fought for his country, but this does not exclude him from being judged.

 

 

Crap I read he has said when he does not get his way..

 

~ "Only an asshole would put a budget together like this!" (to New Mexico Republican Pete Dominici)

 

~ "I'm calling you a fucking jerk!" (to Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley)

 

~"Fuck you. I know more about this than anybody in the room." (To Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn)

 

This is why Senator Dominici said in 2000 that "I decided I didn't want this guy anywhere near a trigger." It is presumed by this he meant the nuclear trigger.

 

I don't think he respects women or this country. He wants to play Maveric cowboy war games before anything else. But the p.o.w thing may just get him elected. Just like how Bush gained his votes as a cowboy christian who will sit down and have a brewskey with ya. The proof is in the State Fair. I saw way to many Missourians sporting McCain stickers, while only 1 Obama sticker was seen. Put a boot up your ass kind of thinking. More people support Bush than I realized.

[Party @ the Moontower]

Because of this?

 

If anything, it gives Democrats the opportunity to bring up McCain's past infidelity. If Edwards is such a bad SOB because of what he did, what does that make McCain? At least Obama has been faithful to his wife (as far as we know) - so for anyone whose vote would be affected by this type of thing, I think it goes to Obama's favor.

 

Just hoping there isn't an Obama bump with another story out there. If so, I give up.

[John Smith]

I agree with this. Since when does being a p.o.w make you a military expert, and why do we need our president to be one? I don't want an old hothead making military decisions for our country, or any for that matter. Being a p.o.w and wrecking 5 planes does not alone make you fit to be president.I do respect that he fought for his country, but his does not exclude him from being judged.

 

 

Isn't this what Clark said? Being in the military is not necessarily going to make you a great leader? Remember McCain was passed over for admiral and retired. Why? And he was offered rear admiral, but had little or no fleet command experience. So what did the navy see way back in 1980 or so that it thought...John McCain would not make a good leader of men, but he would make a good navy bureaucrat? But the whole POW and serving thing is a center piece of republican campaign strategy and has been for twenty some years or longer. Not for McCain per se

[Guest Jules]

,because face it after twenty years his senate record is really not that much more accomplished than Obama's is after six years.

Details?

 

Also, Obama's only been in since November 2004.

[John Smith]

Details?

 

Also, Obama's only been in since November 2004.

 

I know Obama has only been in a few years, but I can nto think of a single major acccomplishment for McCain in the past quarter century. And really intodays world to run for president out of the congress you have to have been pretty anonymous and your terms non-eventful. The more active you are in the congress the more targets you leave out there for people to take aim at when you run for higher office. In all honesty all I can think of with McCainns service on congress is voting agaisnt MLK day and his carefully crafted Maverick image. Perhaps a McCain supporter can detail any accomplishments he hhas had. I still say nneither guy hhas done much in congress and iit has to be that way if they or any congressman wants to run for president.

[ih8music]

I can nto think of a single major acccomplishment for McCain in the past quarter century.

Now that's not really fair. McCain has had many accomplishments over the years... only problem is he no longer believes in them. The McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act & the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Act to name a couple...

[Party @ the Moontower]

I have heard it mentioned over and over that McCain is the king of not showing up senators. I'm not an expert on mavericks or anything, but I can read just fine.

 

MISSED VOTES:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/votes/missed/

John McCain has missed 407 votes (63.8%) during the current Congress.

 

So maybe Obama should bring this to light more often when his experience is compared to McCain's. To me it's like saying a 12th grader is naturally smarter than a 9th grader because of years in school. It's how you voted that matters, not how many years.

[John Smith]

Now that's not really fair. McCain has had many accomplishments over the years... only problem is he no longer believes in them. The McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act & the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Act to name a couple...

 

I consider the McCain-Feingold act to be a failed piece of legislation. It does nto cover what it was intended to cover in the begining and both parties skirt it and have their work arounds so it may as well not even exist. Though the intentions were there. I don't believe the other ever became law. If it did I stand corrected. I still stand by my opinion that McCain has accomplished little while in congress.

[sweetheart-mine]

But if he, McCain, were going for a cabinet position or an SC position, then his past would surly disqualify him, he would not pass the vetting process. These things happen all the time, why would something like this disqualify a potential supreme court justice or a potential secretary of Housing or a potential VP yet for a presidential candidate its not a big deal? I would venture to guess that if this affair (Edwards) had happened twenty years ago it would still be the main topic of discussion on the news.

if the edwards affair had happened twenty years ago, i agree that it would be more of a main topic in the press now than mccain's past transgression is. edwards doesn't have the shields (such as p.o.w. status) that mccain has -- but edwards is no longer running for anything, and i believe this story will not last long.

 

he would be a poor choice for obama's v.p. running mate, though, because an unknown but probably large number of u.s. voters, right or wrong, would not vote for that ticket because of edwards's affair. as for cabinet or supreme court positions, those aren't decided by the voters but are appointed by the president and subject to confirmation by the senate. citizens have only so much say about those positions, if any, depending on who "represents" them in the senate and how loudly citizens speak out about it.

 

some people have gotten used to the affairs and so on of politicians, and some haven't. but when presidential-election votes are at stake, it would probably be stupid to jeopardize them by running a very recently scarred v.p. candidate.

 

i would add: especially this year of all years!