Gay Patriot Header Image

On John Edwards’ Indiscretion & his Poor Judgment

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 1:18 am - August 9, 2008.
Filed under: Democratic Scandals,Media Bias,National Politics

I really didn’t think I would have much to say on former Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards’ recent admission that he lied about an extra-marital affair.  But, I decided to weigh in because it seems (to me at least) many who have already written about the story have only gotten half of it.  And upon learning (from my sister-in-law) of a comment he made to ABC News which I relate at the end of the post.

I agree in part with Glenn Reynolds, “the real story is how the mainstream press, despite knowing or strongly suspecting that he was lying, covered for him.” There is, however, more to it than that.

Given that the Edwards told his wife of his indiscretion, admitted he “made a very serious mistake” and asked her and God for forgiveness and apparently ended the affair, the story should be irrelevant to our political discourse, no more than fodder for the tabloids.  It is, after all, primarily a matter between the former Senator and his wife.

What makes this an issue is not just that the North Carolina Democrat lied about it.  It also raises the question of this man’s judgment and the image he created of himself, especially as Democratic nominee Barack Obama is considering him as a potential running mate**–or, should he win election, a member of his cabinet.

First, to the matter of Edwards’ judgment: what does it say about a candidate who, in the era of the Internet and in the wake of Bill Clinton’s indiscretions*, harbors national political ambitions and engages in an extra-marital liaison?  He should knows it could be made public should just one prominent blogger gets wind of it, even if, as in this case, the MSM tries to ignore it.

As Ann Althouse put it:

What a selfish bastard — to run for the nomination while parading his cancerous wife about and knowing that if he won this story could have come out at any time . . .

Second, to the image he created of himself.  As Lee Stranahan of the Huffington Post put it, Edwards and his wife “made a conscious decision to make their relationship a focus throughout the campaign” (via Kaus via Instapundit).  He presented himself as a loving husband, concerned about his wife’s health and committed to their marriage.  He even “made a point of telling [ABC reporter Bob] Woodruff that his wife’s cancer was in remission when he began the affair.

He knew this could compromise the image he was trying to cultivate of a caring spouse.  That he would say this is particularly revealing, as if he’s still trying to preserve the image he created last year.  As if it somehow makes him a better person because he only cheated when his wife was in remission.

Under normal circumstances, a man’s past indiscretions should be a matter for himself and his wife.  And not the news media — or the blogosphere.  

But, when the man in question enters into this relationship while pursuing higher political office, his actions calls into question his judgment, an aspect of his executive abilities.  Not just that, what does he say about a man that he would pursue higher office by holding himself up as a devoted husband while betraying one of the fundamental principles of matrimony?

Related:  Eliot Spitzer, Larry Craig, Sex and Circumstance

An Innocent Game of Footsie?

*UPDATE: Nine years ago, Edwards weighed in on Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky: “I think this president has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter.” That he would say this only confirms my point about his judgment. He was aware of the consequences of infidelity for a political figure.

**UP-UPDATE: Perhaps I should have said Edwards is positioning himself for the vice presidential nod or position in Obama’s cabinet should that Democrat win election this fall.

Share

78 Comments

  1. I disagree completely that this should not be news. Fairness in media dictates that it must. So, naturally, it wont. I predict the story will be dead and buried in the so-called *mainstream* media by Monday. Were it a Republican, it would be THE top story every day, in every medium, from now until November.

    Comment by American Elephant — August 9, 2008 @ 6:19 am - August 9, 2008

  2. Absolutely it should be news. And we are only getting half of the truth. Let’s see the results of a DNA test (if one is ever taken).

    Comment by PatriotMom — August 9, 2008 @ 7:33 am - August 9, 2008

  3. You may recall that Larry Flynt dug deep into the pasts of Republicans who were engaged in impeaching Bill Clinton. Several of them crashed and burned as a result. The news media had no compunctions about publishing Flynt’s research.

    John Edwards is hardly a private citizen. Until yesterday, he was an active candidate for a position of power in the Obama administration.

    Perhaps his “private life” is his own. I doubt it. He and his wife were quite public about restarting their family after their son’s death. His wife’s cancer became a campaign topic. His decision to run for president even though his wife has terminal cancer was an issue he made public. That is one whale of a lot of “private” life made public in the name of politics. So, when it turns up that he has been using a woman “he never loved” for orgasms and stress relief, it is a bit late to start calling his disgusting, base and family destroying choices a “private” matter.

    This whole “private lives” of public people theme is a game of duplicity. The MSM has to be forced to print the junk about their favorites and will print the most tenuous assertions about those they do not support.

    John Edwards deserves everything he is getting out of this mess. Only Dick Morris can do this trash and come out on the top of his pile of slime.

    Let Edwards go back to channeling dead babies and building shopping mall size additions on his house. He is what he is.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 9, 2008 @ 9:39 am - August 9, 2008

  4. One thing still doesn’t add up. He says he ended the affair too soon for the baby to be his. Since the child was born in February 2008, that would mean the affair was over sometime by Spring 2007. So why was he arranging a secret meeting with his “former” mistress at a hotel just a few weeks ago? Has this been addressed anywhere, or am I missing something?

    Comment by TPG — August 9, 2008 @ 10:43 am - August 9, 2008

  5. This ain’t over. Edwards hasn’t given the whole story. AFAIK, the late night trip to the hotel of the “former” mistress, which led to the Enquirers scoop, has yet to be explained. Or was he just “helping” an old friend?

    Oh, and the left-wing blogs are having a tizzy because the “ring-wing” media, which is all the media as far as they’re concerned, is not covering John McCain’s affair with Cindy Hensley. Of course, the reason it’s not news just might be any one of the following:

    McCain wasn’t running for president at the time.
    He got a divorce and married her, so unlike the Edwards thing, this isn’t just a fling.
    It happened, oh, twenty-eight years ago, and has been common knowledge for about that long.
    And last but not least, McCain’s wife wasn’t dying of cancer at the time!!!

    Comment by sonicfrog — August 9, 2008 @ 10:55 am - August 9, 2008

  6. because the “ring-wing” media,…

    I swear I have some weird form of dyslexia, Should have been “because the “right-wing” media,….

    Comment by sonicfrog — August 9, 2008 @ 11:10 am - August 9, 2008

  7. And before someone chimes in on my last comment about Elizabeth’s cancer, and compares it to Carol McCain’s car crash and subsequent problems, let me be the first to say McCain was, and may still be for all I know, a complete cad!!!!

    Comment by sonicfrog — August 9, 2008 @ 11:27 am - August 9, 2008

  8. Sonic, I’m gonna dissent and say that McCain’s indiscretions are fair game; as they would be for anyone playing politics at that level.

    (Puts on helmet, prepares for beating.)

    Comment by V the K — August 9, 2008 @ 11:29 am - August 9, 2008

  9. Whether a candidate’s marital indiscretions should be made public is a broad issue and subject to debate. But, as of now, right or wrong, it does make the news. And Edwards knew this, yet decided to (1) have an affair, and (2) continued to run for president, despite the fact that it could have seriously damaged his party’s chances at election time. And of course, the fact that his wife was ill during this time makes this even more inexcusable.

    Not just that, what does he say about a man that he would pursue higher office by holding himself up as a devoted husband while betraying one of the fundamental principles of matrimony?

    Dan, beyond the character issues, it just says that he’s a hypocrite. As bad as it is, I’m less troubled by this then by Larry Craig’s or Eliot Spitzer’s actions. Not only did they falsely portray themselves as against homosexuality, in Craig’s case, and prostitution, in Sptizer’s case, they felt that it should apply to everyone else, but them. If it was a one-time indiscretion, that’s one thing, but apparently this was more widespread for both of them.

    Comment by Pat — August 9, 2008 @ 11:35 am - August 9, 2008

  10. Sonic, I’m gonna dissent and say that McCain’s indiscretions are fair game; as they would be for anyone playing politics at that level.

    I’ll dissent as well. It’s all fair, but because it happened much longer ago, people can decide what weight that should be given.

    Comment by Pat — August 9, 2008 @ 11:38 am - August 9, 2008

  11. Amanda Marcotte who was Silky Pony’s chosen campaign blogger until her deranged, anti-Christian rants were publicized, defends her old boss using the classic “all great men treat their marital vows as a thin tissue of lies” defense.

    Comment by V the K — August 9, 2008 @ 11:41 am - August 9, 2008

  12. Amanda Marcotte who was Silky Pony’s chosen campaign blogger until her deranged, anti-Christian rants were exposed, defends her old boss using the classic “all great men treat their marital vows as a thin tissue of lies” defense.

    Comment by V the K — August 9, 2008 @ 11:43 am - August 9, 2008

  13. Edwards is a phony in the here-and-now. Many of us suspected he was, just by noting the demonstrably false aspect of his “Two Americas” meme; his hypocrisy in mouthing such rhetoric while being a rich trial lawyer with a mansion; his personal vanity; etc. Edwards’ affair only reinforces the point: even as he was parading his suffering wife for sympathy and “standing by” her, he was cheating on her. To be clear: I don’t object to Edwards’ affair, per se. I object to his phoniness.

    As for McCain’s alleged indiscretions: Assuming they were real, it would take a lot to get me to care about those, too. I would care if they pointed to McCain being a phony human being. Is he? No. He may be arrogant, crotchety, too long in bed with Washington elites, borderline-authoritarian and badly misguided on economics. But phony? No way. The one undeniable fact about McCain is that he is an American hero.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 9, 2008 @ 11:56 am - August 9, 2008

  14. Edwards is a phony in the here-and-now. Many of us suspected he was, just by noting the demonstrably false aspect of his “Two Americas” meme; his hypocrisy in mouthing such rhetoric while being a rich trial lawyer with a mansion; his personal vanity; etc. Edwards’ affair only reinforces the point: even as he was parading his suffering wife for sympathy and “standing by” her, he was cheating on her. To be clear: I don’t object to Edwards’ affair, per se. I object to his phoniness.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 9, 2008 @ 11:58 am - August 9, 2008

  15. As for McCain’s alleged indiscretions: Assuming they were real, it would take a lot to get me to care about those, too. I would care if they pointed to McCain being a phony human being. Is he? No. He may be arrogant, crotchety, too long in bed with Washington elites, borderline-authoritarian and badly misguided on economics. But phony? No way.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 9, 2008 @ 11:59 am - August 9, 2008

  16. As for McCain’s alleged indiscretions: Assuming they were real, it would take a lot to get me to care about those, too. I would care if they pointed to McCain being a phony human being. Is he? No.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 9, 2008 @ 12:00 pm - August 9, 2008

  17. The most interesting thing to me about the Edwards saga is the polititians that have such huge egos and think they are these mega stars. They can get away with almost anything. Americans are sick of pols that set themselves apart from regular people. Edwards didn’t think he would get caught, and if he did, he figured like Bill Clinton he’d muddle his way thru. What kind of ego does it take to expect to still be welcomed to the Dem Convention? Edwards does know that others in the Democrat party can get away with trysts and even illegalities. When you stack up the so called leaders of the Dem party and really look at their histories, man is it rotten! T Kennedy, P Kennedy, Clinton, Gore, Biden, Spitzer, K Kilpatrick, etc.
    And another thing, I’m not sure why this doesn’t make Edwards a more attractive candidate for VP. The base of the Democrat party would cheer and stomp their feet for him.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 9, 2008 @ 12:03 pm - August 9, 2008

  18. Do we know yet whether this was an affair or just a one night thing with Edwards? This is a huge black eye for the MSM and stations like MSNBC. Media types have always said they go for the story…if it is a good story they follow it no matter the party. Not when it involves a Democrat. Their excuse that they didn’t want to sensationalize it with deference to Ms Edwards is odd. They hound everyone else. Remember Larry Craig was accused of playing footsie. Remember how the MSM felt bad for his wife and showed sympathy for his family? No? Because it didn’t happen.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 9, 2008 @ 12:08 pm - August 9, 2008

  19. He got a divorce and married [Cindy]

    …and even adopted a Bangladeshi daughter with her. All pointing to his authenticity.

    McCain has some bad points and I might not vote for him. But he isn’t a walking moral vacuum/fraud, in the manner of, say, Clinton, Kerry or (now) Edwards.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 9, 2008 @ 12:09 pm - August 9, 2008

  20. I am so mad at Edwards, I’d be willing to go after his privates with a rusty knife!
    His excuse is he didn’t love the other woman – he loves Elizabeth. This is how a cad shows love to his wife – while dealing with the return of cancer – he decides that his desire to be president trumps all – even making sacrifices for the wife ‘he loves’. Then he sends her out to be his attack dog- (against Ann Coulter). All the while he is relieving stress with a woman ‘he doesn’t love’. Didn’t have a baby with her – but is photographed in a hotel rooms with said baby on his lap.

    Does character not matter at all?? This guy is the lowest slime there is around.

    As to McCain’s past, I thought that divorce, multiple marriages are just fine. The Catholic Church is so old fashion in it’s rejection of divorce.
    So it’s ok for everyone but a Republican candidate, they must live up to some mythical standard that no other modern human has to.

    I don’t want to know what happened with McCain’s first marriage. All I know is like many honorable people, it didn’t work out, he married another woman and they have created a wonderful family together.

    I guess deep down, even the most libertine person believes in a moral code – just not for themselves. So they demand that the Republicans live up to more stringent standards than were ever the norm in society. They can flaunt every misdeed in public, but when a Republican behaves like a normal person, suddenly they are hypocrites – and must be flayed in the public square.

    Of course when a Democrat fools around in the Oval office with a girl the age of his daughter, or Edwards completely debases and shames his ill wife – that’s ok, move along, nothing to see here.

    Comment by Leah — August 9, 2008 @ 12:37 pm - August 9, 2008

  21. I just read the transcript, and now I know why you never do an interview after you’ve been caught lying about an affair. I am not a lawyer, but the evasiveness was about as clumsy as I’ve ever seen. I expected better from a successful lawyer!!!

    More Thoughts Here

    Comment by sonicfrog — August 9, 2008 @ 5:28 pm - August 9, 2008

  22. Oh, and the KOS Kids are having a Complete Cow!.

    It’s times like these when I absolutely LOVE politics!

    Comment by sonicfrog — August 9, 2008 @ 5:31 pm - August 9, 2008

  23. Elizabeth Edwards said in her statement:

    This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private because as painful as it was I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well.

    Then what on Earth were you doing running for President and First Lady of the United States???! I wouldn’t expect you to be as phony as your husband is, Elizabeth, but man, are you spewing bullcrap here!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 9, 2008 @ 5:58 pm - August 9, 2008

  24. I wish to invoke the “quarter-of-a-century rule.” If you can stay clean for 25 years, we will honor your rehabilitation and call it successful.

    John Edwards will be “clean” in 2033 if he keeps his zipper in check. Until then, we will just watch and wait.

    John McCain has successfully met the “quarter-of-a-century rule.”

    Meanwhile, how do we know Edwards is not the father? How do we know Edwards doesn’t have other ladies he has serviced? Shall we “take his word” for it?

    John Edwards is not a tragic figure in the Greek drama sense. He more of a buffoon in the lower tier of gods as in “The Birds.” This Greek morality play is complete with a MSM chorus all croaking their pious incantations from behind “neutral” masks.

    To Hell with John Edwards. He has stuck Mr. Happy into strange places and got caught doing it. He couldn’t lie his way out of it. He can’t slick litigate his way out of it. He can try crying on TV and pull a full-press atonement tour a la Bill Clinton. Or, he can “just fade away.” He has children to raise, a dying wife and plenty of trash in his sorry past. In the end, my favorite ditty about such fools comes to mind:

    “Yesterday, upon the stair, I met a man who wasn’t there. He wasn’t there again today. How I wish that man would go away.”

    Comment by heliotrope — August 9, 2008 @ 6:58 pm - August 9, 2008

  25. Edwards says he is willing to have a DNA test if Mrs. Hunter is. Anyone else surprised that she is declining to do so?

    Comment by sonicfrog — August 9, 2008 @ 9:09 pm - August 9, 2008

  26. Until yesterday, he was an active candidate for a position of power in the Obama administration.

    You don’t think a little thing like cheating on a dying wife and producing a love child would stop Obama from nominating him or Democrats from confirming him do you? When impeachment, larceny, fraud, money laundering, bribery, treason, sedition, wire-tapping, and even manslaughter dont bother them, why should a little affair?

    Oh, and the left-wing blogs are having a tizzy because the “ring-wing” media, which is all the media as far as they’re concerned, is not covering John McCain’s affair with Cindy Hensley.

    I don’t watch TV News much anymore, but I suspect they have already begun doing so. I wouldn’t be surprized if the story ends up being more about McCain’s affair than Edwards’.

    I wouldn’t expect you to be as phony as your husband is, Elizabeth

    Oh, she is every bit as sleazy as her husband. Lets not forget she was the one who suggested the Cheney’s were ashamed of their daughter when they objected to Edwards and Kerry trying to use Mary’s sexuality to score campaign points. And I know she’s said and done some other really vile things regarding Republicans, I just can’t remember what they were. And if you need any further evidence what a low-class sleaze she is, remember when she wanted to post her statement, of all places, she went straight to the DailyKos to do so.

    Comment by American Elephant — August 9, 2008 @ 9:12 pm - August 9, 2008

  27. Google DNA paternity testing and see how quick and cheap the service has become. Baby slobber is not exactly a rare substance. I suspect that there is a cottage industry of sleaze agents who specialize in rounding up DNA samples. In fact, I bet the National Enquirer has already got the results.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 9, 2008 @ 9:48 pm - August 9, 2008

  28. McCain, Gingrich, Edwards: peas in a pod.

    Comment by michael — August 9, 2008 @ 11:29 pm - August 9, 2008

  29. what does it say about a candidate who, in the era of the Internet and in the wake of Bill Clinton’s indiscretions*, harbors national political ambitions and engages in an extra-marital liaison?

    It says that he’s perfectly willing to run as a liberal candidate for president. He just padded his resume as far as the left is concerned. Too bad Kerry didn’t get his pic taken with drunk floozies four years ago.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 10, 2008 @ 12:19 am - August 10, 2008

  30. Let’s see now:

    Clinton: very public scandal with Lewinsky – still married to his first (and only) wife for 33 years.
    Edwards: Now very public about a short affair – still married to his first (and only) wife for 31 years

    On the other side:
    Newt Gingrich: Married 3 times (fooled around with 2nd wife while still married to 1st, fooled around with 3rd wife while still married to 2nd)
    Ronald Reagan: Married Twice
    Bob Dole: Married Twice

    So: Shouldn’t people like the Edwards and Clintons be commended for their fortitude for taking bad situations of their own making and making their marriages work while the other 3 chose to cut and run? (at least one of them did some running twice before the cutting occurred)

    I can’t wait for Senator Craig to chime in on this debate…..

    Comment by Kevin — August 10, 2008 @ 12:45 am - August 10, 2008

  31. #25 – Kevin’s cat threw up on the keyboard and came up with:

    “Clinton: very public scandal with Lewinsky – still married to his first (and only) wife for 33 years.
    Edwards: Now very public about a short affair – still married to his first (and only) wife for 31 years”

    If you want to know why, Kevin, it is based upon 2 theories:

    1. Democrat women are self-hating shrews who enjoy being a rich man’s doormat; and
    2. Democrat women are not self-sufficient and know a good meal ticket when they see it

    I for one am glad that Elizabeth Edwards will never telephone Ann Coulter again on live TV and expect a showdown.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 10, 2008 @ 1:21 am - August 10, 2008

  32. I think it’s the hate of the 6 year old.

    I mean when you get the hate, it seems to come as two forms to me. Violence and trying to get you to shut up, figuratively by yelling at the top of their lungs ala Pinky, or when they know they’re beat, they ignore you completely and change the subject, ala Kevin.

    It’s also the hatred of being wrong. I mean even if His Emptyness wins and takes office in 09, they’ll still hate that the control will pass over peacefully, and that the left would have to accept that their dreams of being the brave Rebel Alliance against the Evil Emperor Bush and his enforcer Darth Rove are not more real than my playing D&D.

    Comment by The Livewire — August 10, 2008 @ 1:35 am - August 10, 2008

  33. So: Shouldn’t people like the Edwards and Clintons be commended for their fortitude for taking bad situations of their own making and making their marriages work while the other 3 chose to cut and run?

    In case you’re not familiar with the Bible, Kevin, adultery IS grounds for divorce.

    What we have here is an example of two Democrat Party couples who, rather than admitting they cannot be sexually faithful to each other as they promised in their marriage vows, have extramarital affairs while proclaiming to the world how wonderful, committed, and monogamous they are.

    In other words, they pretend to be married while they regularly and repeatedly violate everything for which marriage stands.

    Give me an honest divorcee over a promiscuous “married” couple like the Edwards or the Clintons any day.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 10, 2008 @ 2:09 am - August 10, 2008

  34. Kevin’s cat threw up on the keyboard and came up with:

    AHAHAHAHAHA!

    Comment by American Elephant — August 10, 2008 @ 2:42 am - August 10, 2008

  35. (cont.)

    3RD MOVE: vehemently deny having any knowledge or involvement of the paying of “hush money” to the home-wrecking slut by the campaign’s NATIONAL FINANCE CHAIRMAN and another close friend/aide. Enlist both men to confirm the story and have one of them say that the love child is his EVEN THOUGH HE IS MARRIED WITH CHILDREN OF HIS OWN. (Every savvy political campaign needs a finance chairman who acts on his own whims in secret.)

    4TH MOVE: throw the press a real curveball by denying paternity and graciously agreeing to take a dna test, anytime, anyplace. Of course, this fearless challenge is only made with the full knowledge that Rielle Hunter has agreed to release a statement the following day, stating that SHE won’t participate in a test out of concerns for her and her daughter’s “privacy.” Wow. That’s interesting. A woman who was accepting handouts from two of Edwards’ philanthropic aides to pay her rent has suddenly decided not to demand a paternity test of Edwards, her multi-millionaire former lover (and late-night hotel room visitor just a few weeks ago). Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. What integrity she must have to walk away with nothing but her head held high (and a baby who still has no father listed on her birth certificate and apparently never will). NICE.

    Yes, there are other vile details in the plan, i.e., “I only cheated while Elizabeth’s cancer was in remission!” and, “Baby? What baby? That’s not me holding Rielle’s baby! Do you know how many babies I hold during a campaign?!” It’s nothing but Klass on top of Klass for the Edwards’ campaign. But what no one should lose sight of is the fact that Edwards and his minions are supposedly doing all of this because they have a desperate desire to serve the American people. Seriously. We are supposed to believe the insane fiction that Edwards is trying to save his political career because HE WANTS TO END POVERTY?! Are these the kind of hoops honorable people jump through just so they can help others?! Isn’t it more likely that this is what unethical people are willing to do simply because they want POWER?

    Comment by Sean A — August 10, 2008 @ 5:46 am - August 10, 2008

  36. Hmmm, Kev. Didn’t realize this was some sort of contest.

    Comment by sonicfrog — August 10, 2008 @ 10:01 am - August 10, 2008

  37. Kevin,

    John F. Kerry and John F. Kennedy, LBJ and FDR didn’t make your list.

    Nor did these presidents who were married to one woman and did not play around: Truman, Eisenhower*, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush and Bush. (*prove it!)

    How about these candidates for president who were neither divorced nor played around: Goldwater, Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore.

    But you choose Clinton and Edwards as models over Reagan and Dole because Reagan and Dole were divorced. Then you sweep Gingrich into the mix. If you are going to go pond scrumming are you certain the Democrat sewage lagoon is all potable water?

    Idiot.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 10, 2008 @ 10:09 am - August 10, 2008

  38. Kevin,

    I should not have called you an idiot. I apologize. Idiots can not help themselves.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 10, 2008 @ 10:11 am - August 10, 2008

  39. …and the hypocrisy of those who comment here soars to a record level! All pretense of reasonable observation is torn to shreds as each one tries to outdo the other at pouring venom at Democrats while ignoring and/or justifying the “sins” of Republicans. Y’all are shining examples of the gutter dwelling denizens of patrisan politics.

    Comment by Dave — August 10, 2008 @ 11:07 am - August 10, 2008

  40. Um, Dave, did you read *any* of the comments preceding yours?

    Comment by V the K — August 10, 2008 @ 12:09 pm - August 10, 2008

  41. Y’all are shining examples of the gutter dwelling denizens of patrisan politics.

    You’re right. Pointing your finger and squealing “Republicans are worser!” puts you right at the top of the heap. You might want to stick with the KOShole circle jerk. Elsewhere, you just look like an ignorant douche.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 10, 2008 @ 12:09 pm - August 10, 2008

  42. All pretense of reasonable observation is torn to shreds as each one tries to outdo the other at pouring venom at Democrats while ignoring and/or justifying the “sins” of Republicans.

    I would point to heliotrope’s comment:

    Nor did these presidents who were married to one woman and did not play around: Truman, Eisenhower*, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush and Bush. (*prove it!)

    How about these candidates for president who were neither divorced nor played around: Goldwater, Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore.

    Interesting that you’re now claiming all of those are Republicans, Dave.

    Or V the K’s comment above:

    Sonic, I’m gonna dissent and say that McCain’s indiscretions are fair game; as they would be for anyone playing politics at that level.

    In short, it’s obvious to everyone else that you’re not reading the thread; you’re simply projecting what you need to be true in order to rationalize the behavior of John Edwards, just as Amanda Marcotte is trying to desperately spin that all heterosexual men cheat on their dying wives.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 10, 2008 @ 12:13 pm - August 10, 2008

  43. #33: “Gutter dwelling denizens of partisan politics”? That’s quite a mouthful, Dave. Very impressive. Obviously you spent all morning on it and didn’t have time to bother coming up with (a) your perspective on the Edwards scandal (the topic of the post), (b) examples of “hypocrisy” exhibited by other commenters, or (c) examples of Republican “sins” that are being ignored or justified in this debate.

    Well, if your nutty accusations of “gutter dwelling” is all you can manage today, I guess that will have to do. However, I assure you, no one here plans on moving to your neighborhood–you’ve probably already elected some “gutter dwelling city council” that wants to zone out all of the fast food restaurants or legislate some other crazy nonsense. (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSCOL06846020080730)

    Comment by Sean A — August 10, 2008 @ 12:14 pm - August 10, 2008

  44. How sadly typical of Kevin that all he can do is try to change the subject… and in a way that rather misses the point.

    “It’s the phoniness, stupid”, of Edwards / Clinton / Craig / etc. / etc. The craven dishonesty. How sadly typical of Dave that, confronted with that reality, all he can to is shriek to try to displace it onto… drumroll… the commentors at the GP blog. (Ooooh! Big score, you big man! ;-) )

    Courtesy of sonicfrog, now let’s watch the Great Lawyer at Work – he who would be President:

    Last week, the Enquirer published a blurry photo of a man who looks like Edwards holding a baby. The tabloid said the photo was taken at the hotel.

    “I don’t know if that picture is me,” Edwards said. “It could well be. It looks like me. I don’t know who that baby is. I have no idea what the picture is.”

    When pressed by Woodruff, Edwards continued: “I mean, do you know how many pictures have been taken of me holding children in the last three years? I mean, it happens all the time.”

    Truly Presidential… um, if, say, Kerry and Clinton are your standards. The Enquirer guy’s response is tart:

    David Perel, the Enquirer’s editor in chief, insisted the photo is authentic. “I think it’s amazing, even as the man’s coming clean, that he’s continuing to lie,” he said of Edwards. “Just as I’ve been saying for 10 months that he had an affair with Rielle Hunter, we know for a fact that is Rielle Hunter’s baby and that is him holding the baby in the Beverly Hilton. He’s not only hiding things from the public, he’s [still] hiding things from his wife.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 10, 2008 @ 12:15 pm - August 10, 2008

  45. Here, Dave. Let me summarize the thread up until your comment:

    #1. Media would be treating the story differently if a Republican had been caught cheating on his cancer-stricken wife

    #2 – Edwards had this coming for acting irresponsibly

    #3 – Media have a double-standard in treating the privates lives of Reps vs, Dems

    #4 – Edwards’s story doesn’t add up.

    #5-7: McCain’s affair was different

    #8: No it wasn’t

    #9 – John Edwards not as bad as Larry Craig or Eliot Spitzer

    #10: Agreed Mac’s affair is fair game.

    #11: Notes how the sinestrosphere is defending Edwards

    #12: McCain isn’t phony, but he is an asshole

    #13: Edwards is a phony and a hypocrite. (Venomous, maybe, but also true)

    #14-15: Doesn’t care about McCain’s personal indiscretions, because they’re not as bad as his economics.

    #16: Embarrassment to the MSM for hiding this story.

    #18: McCain redeemed himself by adopting a brown child.

    #18: Wants to do to Edwards what Jesse Jackson wants to do to Obama, but with better reason.

    #19: Edwards interview was “clumsy”

    #20: Sinestrosphere hacing cows

    #21: Elizabeth Edwards – political Stepford wife

    #22: McCain’s affair is old news

    #23: Rielle Hunter declines paternity test

    #24: John and Elizabeth Edwards are both sleazy

    #25: Paternity tests are cheap and easy

    #26: McCain and Newt are just as bad as Edwards

    #27: It doesn’t matter when liberals cheat.

    #28: Kevin spews the party line.

    #29: Peter notes that Kevin spews the party line.

    #30: NDT refutes the party line.

    #31: Agrees with Pete and NDT

    #32: Edwards damage control is Democrat SOP

    #33: Smart-ass comeback to Kevin

    #34: Kevin left out some cheating Democrats in his list.

    #35: Heliotrope apologizes for calling Kevin an idiot.

    #36: Dave throws a hissy-fit over all the “venom” on the thread.

    If you think this is venom and mindless defense of Republicans, you either don’t get out much, or are hysterically projecting onto others what you do yourself.

    Comment by V the K — August 10, 2008 @ 12:29 pm - August 10, 2008

  46. P.S. Sorry for the repetitive posts from me that are now #12-15. I was fighting the spam filter. It was winning. I stopped after I getting my point through. Now the earlier attempts have shown up. Sigh.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 10, 2008 @ 12:30 pm - August 10, 2008

  47. #43: Well, ILC, maybe you wouldn’t have such problems with the filter if you weren’t such a gutter dwelling denizen of partisan politics. I’m not sure what that means but I understand it is VERY disreputable. Don’t bother trying to deny it.

    P.S. I’m apparently quite the “denizen” myself. I’ve been having the same problem, ILC (i.e. comment #32).

    Comment by Sean A — August 10, 2008 @ 1:29 pm - August 10, 2008

  48. Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, I too think McCain’s affair is fair game, though I’m not sure the relevance to this particular topic. McCain was no where near running for Prez when he had the affair. But, like I say, he was, and may still be FAIK, a complete cad.

    PS. And to make sure no one accuses me of being a fan boy or anything, I’m probably not voting for anyone for Prez… OK, maybe Paris Hilton (JK). No one seems the least bit interested in fiscal responsibility.

    Comment by sonicfrog — August 10, 2008 @ 1:36 pm - August 10, 2008

  49. I disagree that McCain’s MARRIAGE (not affair) with Cindy is “fair game”. That’s what it is… a marriage.

    Divorce doesn’t bother me, when the people are ill-matched and probably should divorce. Adultery doesn’t bother me, when the preceding applies and it’s a serious passion, ending in a new marriage. Phoniness does bother me. If you can show that McCain is a phony because he has since cheated in Cindy, then do it. Otherwise, cut the crap.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 10, 2008 @ 1:53 pm - August 10, 2008

  50. #9: “Whether a candidate’s marital indiscretions should be made public is a broad issue and subject to debate. But, as of now, right or wrong, it does make the news.”

    Wrong, Pat. These issues aren’t nearly as complicated as you and the MSM are trying to pretend they are. Even if it were “subject to debate” the MSM ended it long ago when it determined that things like 25 year old DUIs and innuendoes about cocaine use constituted indisputable election-eve hard news, at least where the Republican candidate is concerned. The debate’s over. It’s ALL NEWS. And you’re correct that the people should decide what weight the information should be given (#10). The problem, of course, is that the MSM cannot be trusted to report the news if it might reflect badly on their chosen political party. We can, however, trust the MSM to report information that damages Republican campaigns even if the story isn’t true and none of the involved reporters or editors bothered to check it out.

    And that’s fine. That’s the system we have in place right now and Republicans are doing just fine under that system. The bloggers will continue their vigilant task of preventing the MSM from actively concealing information from the public they supposedly serve. The free market will continue to be the barometer of the MSM’s performance until the NYT can’t even sustain itself as a supermarket freebie and CBS can’t get a single grandmother to tune in to see Katie Couric go through her recipe file on the air.

    Comment by Sean A — August 10, 2008 @ 5:49 pm - August 10, 2008

  51. #43/44 Im having the same problems with the spam filter and my post was funny dammit! of course, now that ive posted it twice and caled it out, if it ever shows up it wont be funny anymore.

    Comment by American Elephant — August 10, 2008 @ 9:22 pm - August 10, 2008

  52. Wrong, Pat. These issues aren’t nearly as complicated as you and the MSM are trying to pretend they are.

    Sean, if you think that the issue is simple, then we’ll have to disagree. I think it does make a difference if we’re talking about a one-time discretion or an ongoing affair and/or indiscretions, if it happened recently or long ago, and what the spouse has forgiven and/or permitted (which in many cases, we don’t know, because it’s not our business). But also, how has the candidate conducted himself publicly about his marriage and what is he advocating or insisting the rest of us are doing. For example, Edwards touted himself as a devoted husband, while he was cheating on her during her illness. There are many issues involving candidate’s extramarital affairs that I don’t believe it as simple as you make it out to be.

    If it was as simple, then how come the MSM (who you contend is biased against Republicans) has put so much more attention on an affair by a Democrat who left the race months ago, than the Republican nominee’s affair?

    Comment by Pat — August 11, 2008 @ 8:53 am - August 11, 2008

  53. Divorce doesn’t bother me, when the people are ill-matched and probably should divorce. Adultery doesn’t bother me, when the preceding applies and it’s a serious passion, ending in a new marriage. Phoniness does bother me. If you can show that McCain is a phony because he has since cheated in Cindy, then do it. Otherwise, cut the crap.

    ILC, I agree with all the points here except your second sentence above. I believe that if a couple does find that they are no longer suited for each other and they want to divorce, that’s fine. But if the condition of the marriage is such that one choose to have an affair, the divorce, or at least the proceedings, should happen first.

    Comment by Pat — August 11, 2008 @ 8:59 am - August 11, 2008

  54. spam filter hates me too, guys.

    Personally, I couldn’t stand Edwards before, so this does little to change my opinion of him. A coward who will hide behind anyone to benefit himself.

    Comment by The Livewire — August 11, 2008 @ 10:51 am - August 11, 2008

  55. But if the condition of the marriage is such that one choose to have an affair, the divorce, or at least the proceedings, should happen first.

    Agree 100%. And you know what else should happen? Women should get married before having a baby. Doesn’t always work out that way, eh?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 11, 2008 @ 11:16 am - August 11, 2008

  56. #51 – Count me in as another victim of the spam filter.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 11, 2008 @ 11:21 am - August 11, 2008

  57. Imagine how different the DEM primary would have been if this info had come out before the primaries. Hillary’s primary race and delegate count MAY LOOK A WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT without John John.

    How many folks were previous supporters of Edwards? How many of those folks would have voted for Hillary if Edwards had NOT been in the running for the nomination.

    Hillary is NOT finished yet…..should be interesting.

    Jeb

    Comment by jeb — August 11, 2008 @ 11:43 am - August 11, 2008

  58. Agree 100%. And you know what else should happen? Women should get married before having a baby. Doesn’t always work out that way, eh?

    Yep, getting married before having children is preferable. And since I live in a city adjacent to one of NJ’s illegitimate children capitals (we have about ten of them), I can safely say that all too often it doesn’t work out that way.

    Comment by Pat — August 11, 2008 @ 11:50 am - August 11, 2008

  59. Stop looking at the “affair” and focus on the behavior. Edwards is a cheat and liar. But the public gave Bill a pass and so Edwards thought he could cash in one too.

    I truly believe (this is my cynical side) that ALL men will cheat if they think they will NOT get caught. Oh, except me :-)

    Who knows why women sleep with married men….SLUTS! Did I say that out loud.

    How do they justify the behavior? Not my area of expertise. You would have to asked the feminists that believe they can behave as badly as men.

    It’s a very very sad world.

    jeb

    Comment by jeb — August 11, 2008 @ 12:32 pm - August 11, 2008

  60. I’m still waiting to hear the smears coming from the Edwards, Clinton or snObama campaigns regarding the unwed mother’s behavior. Remember, Bill Clinton had a whole staff to deal with “bimbo eruptions.”

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 11, 2008 @ 1:33 pm - August 11, 2008

  61. I just keep thinking back all of those soft-focus, warm propaganda pieces the MSM put out about Silky Pony and Mrs Silky Pony spending their anniversaries at Wendy’s, and how he was standing by her while she endured her cancer treatment.

    It was all b-llsh-t.

    Comment by V the K — August 11, 2008 @ 1:36 pm - August 11, 2008

  62. #59 – V, the gang on FNC’s “Red-Eye” show last night (with special commentator Ann Coulter!) were dissecting that image and having a field day.

    Greg Gutfield also pointed out that Elizabeth Edwards was no shrinking violet, either – she posted her own screed on DailyKos where she blamed the National Enquirer for poking its nose where it didn’t belong.

    More BS.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 11, 2008 @ 1:41 pm - August 11, 2008

  63. Well, I predicted it: the sliming of Rielle Hunter has started. Only this time it is the MSM leading the charge.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 11, 2008 @ 1:49 pm - August 11, 2008

  64. Stop looking at the “affair” and focus on the behavior. Edwards is a cheat and liar. But the public gave Bill a pass and so Edwards thought he could cash in one too.

    Jeb, I agree Edwards is a cheat and a liar. I don’t think that Edwards thought he could cash in if he got caught. I believe he thought he wouldn’t get caught, or more likely, thought having the affair, whether he got caught or not, was worth the consequences.

    I truly believe (this is my cynical side) that ALL men will cheat if they think they will NOT get caught. Oh, except me

    Me too. Actually, I would be more concerned about the fact that I would know what I did more so than any others finding out. Combination of having some morals and a guilt complex.

    Who knows why women sleep with married men….SLUTS! Did I say that out loud.

    I’m not sure if you’re making a distinction between men and women’s behavior, but no double standards as far as I’m concerned. I know men and even women who cut the guy some slack, because well, he’s a guy, while women are judged more harshly than men in the same circumstances. At this day and age, I view them the same.

    It’s a very very sad world.

    Too many times it is. A strange one at times as well.

    Comment by Pat — August 11, 2008 @ 2:14 pm - August 11, 2008

  65. Who knows why women sleep with married men….SLUTS! Did I say that out loud.

    Sluts, narcissistic predators. That is why I laugh when women say that women are better human beings than men. They are not, they are just as harmful and hurtful in their own way.

    A very good friend is the wife, her husband strayed for years, but now that he is dying of cancer – who do you think is taking care of him?? If there weren’t children in the picture – he’d be out on his ass.

    On the other hand, I have an acquaintance (not a friend!) who was the other woman for 11 years. At 72, she is alone, living on a very small fixed income and isn’t a very happy person. She speaks proudly of the ‘love of her life’ sees no problem that there were other people sidelined by her love affair.

    As to Elizabeth, no she’s not a nice person, she married and stuck with the cad all these years. I can’t believe this is news to her that he has no morals whatsoever. But even she doesn’t deserve to go through this hell, unfortunately, because of the cancer, I don’t see her leaving and starting over.

    Comment by Leah — August 11, 2008 @ 5:59 pm - August 11, 2008

  66. I’m curious about a couple of things. John Edwards emphasized that his wife’s cancer was in remission when he started the affair. Is that the new Democrat etiquette for adultery? That its okay to cheat on your wife when her cancer is in remission?

    Also, he claims one of his campaign aides is the baby-daddy. Is that also part of Democrat adultery etiquette? It’s just good manners to share your mistress with your employees?

    Comment by V the K — August 11, 2008 @ 6:22 pm - August 11, 2008

  67. #63, V, it appears the Edwardses are victims of selective thought processes. Edwards started seeing Rielle in 2006. Per her own admission, Elizabeth Edwards did not go into remission until 2007. So much for his timeline credibility.

    Also, according to FNC, Hunter met Edwards at a New York City hotel in late February or early March of 2006, and that the affair began shortly thereafter – contrary to Edwards’ claim that the relationship began only after Hunter was hired to film Edwards for a series of documentaries to appear on the Internet. She was already his mistress when she was hired by the campaign.

    “Oh, what a tangled web we weave/when we practice to deceive.”

    It’s 400 years later, and the Bard is still right on the money.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 11, 2008 @ 6:45 pm - August 11, 2008

  68. Pat said:

    If it was as simple, then how come the MSM (who you contend is biased against Republicans) has put so much more attention on an affair by a Democrat who left the race months ago, than the Republican nominee’s affair?

    Simple. McCain’s affair took place 30 plus years ago in 1978, a soldier long forgotten by the public, and he was a candidate for nothing (didn’t run for House seat until 1982),. Edwards affair took place a year ago, at a time when he was campaigning for the office of President. As they say in the biz – timing IS everything!!!

    PS. I put the important bits in bold to help you understand.

    Comment by sonicfrog — August 11, 2008 @ 8:44 pm - August 11, 2008

  69. I simply adore about many of you blather on about the hatred of liberals, yet the name-calling against Democrats / Liberals continues unabated. For a few of you, hate pours forth from keyboards on every post. amazing.

    Comment by Kevin — August 12, 2008 @ 1:04 am - August 12, 2008

  70. I guess Kevin is scraping the bottom of his small bag of talking points. You gotta love it. One of his socialist idols reveals himself to be a lying, cheating, sleazebag… but instead of condemning the Democrat who cheated on his wife while she was battling cancer… he attacks us for pointing it out.

    Blind obedience, unquestioning groupthink… that’s why we call ‘em the GayLeftBorg.

    Comment by V the K — August 12, 2008 @ 5:48 am - August 12, 2008

  71. #66: “I simply adore about many of you blather on about…”

    Shelby, DRINK THE JUICE.

    Comment by Sean A — August 12, 2008 @ 7:23 am - August 12, 2008

  72. Simple. McCain’s affair took place 30 plus years ago in 1978, a soldier long forgotten by the public, and he was a candidate for nothing (didn’t run for House seat until 1982),. Edwards affair took place a year ago, at a time when he was campaigning for the office of President. As they say in the biz – timing IS everything!!!

    Actually, sonicfrog, I agree totally with your point here. My comment in #49 was responding to Sean A, who responded to my comments in #9. My comment in #9 pretty much says what your point above is. I took (perhaps incorrectly) Sean’s comment to mean that adultery is cut and dry, that there are little or no factors to be considered in distinguishing them. IF that was the case, I was just questioning if that would mean that McCain’s adultery 30 years ago was the same as Edwards’ recent affair. And if that was the case, then the MSM is focusing on the affair of someone who is no longer a candidate for president, while virtually ignoring an affair of a major party nominee for president.

    Again, for clarity, I understand exactly why the focus is on Edwards and not McCain regarding extramarital affairs, and believe when these occurred ARE relevant.

    Comment by Pat — August 12, 2008 @ 8:43 am - August 12, 2008

  73. #69 – Pat, to address what you had mentioned in #49, the MSM seems to have an anti-GOP bias in terms of what it considers “news.” For example:

    1. Both the LA Times and New York Times knew about the Enquirer stories on Edwards, but refused to assign reporters to look into them. In fact, the LA Times told its bloggers that even MENTIONING the Edwards story was verboten.

    But when then-candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) was said to have sexually harassed several women prior to his gubernatorial campaign (based upon pure HEARSAY), the LA Times assigned up to half a dozen reporters to investigate.

    2. In a simiar vein, the LA Times had the story about Arkansas state troopers allegedly procuring women for Bill Clinton while he was governor, but didn’t publish it until after the 1992 election.

    But when you allege that you heard someone say that McCain may have had an affair 30 years ago, then the NY Times makes it a hard-hitting piece on page 1.

    The MSM has a reticence to covering any Democrat indiscretion, but if you are a Republican like Larry Craig, Mark Foley or David Vitter, it immediately becomes front-page news.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 12, 2008 @ 11:34 am - August 12, 2008

  74. Peter, while I concur there are biases in the media, I tend to think that things balance out in the long run. For example, I’ve heard that a Washington Post reporter had evidence that a former Republican candidate for president (and to keep things cryptic, I won’t mention whether he won his election(s) or not) had a long term extramarital affair. I lived near Washington at the time, and I knew a couple of people who were in some of the political circles who were certain that it was true and even knew the other woman. Yet Katherine Graham squelched it. Obviously, you have no reason to trust that this information is true, as I wouldn’t if the situation were reversed. But this is just an example of my perspective of what I have seen and what I know, when I make a determination as to the bias of MSM.

    But I’ll concede the point to you that the MSM has an anti-GOP bias. The good news is that today, MSM’s influence has been lessened with the Internet and various bloggers to get the story out there. And Fox News (whether one regards it as fair and balanced, or biased toward Republicans), also helps counter any advantage the Democrats has with the MSM.

    Comment by Pat — August 12, 2008 @ 12:38 pm - August 12, 2008

  75. #71 – Point well taken. Actually, it is sites like this one, Drudge, LGF and Townhall which have broken the old MSM monopoly of being the only ones to deliver “news” and slant it any which way. People can’t get away with fooling the public anymore (remember the “fake but accurate” Bush records that CBS tried to foist on us?) – thanks to the web.

    It used to be that it wasn’t news until Walter Cronkite reported it. In 2008, it isn’t news unless Matt Drudge says it is. And for that I am eternally grateful.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 12, 2008 @ 12:51 pm - August 12, 2008

  76. For a few of you, hate pours forth from keyboards on every post. amazing.

    Ain’t it a b*tch when folks dish it right back to you instead of grabbing their ankles and letting you get away with it?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 12, 2008 @ 11:28 pm - August 12, 2008

  77. And, Edwards is STILL lying:
    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_sex_more_lies_videotape_/celebrity/65288

    I never thought I’d link the Enquirer. But: What party to this “affair” has been basically honest with the public, up to this point? (Hint: If you guessed ‘Edwards’, you guessed wrong.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 13, 2008 @ 9:41 am - August 13, 2008

  78. #74 – Ouch, that’s gonna leave a mark.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 13, 2008 @ 12:42 pm - August 13, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.