Edwards admits to affair

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This post is a mess of internal inconsistencies. It's also dishonest. You didn't have any person in mind? You're lying. I'm no flutterer, but I do call B.S. on disemblers. I like clarity and courage of convictions.

One part Rocky, one part Waters. Impressive.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It sounds like Edwards is in therapy. Did McCain ever sort out what caused him to cheat? Other than she was fat and disfigured?

I'm personally grateful to Edwards for screwing (ahem) up and having the admission come when it did, as now we're finally (finally!!) getting some attention paid to McCain's torrid history. And to think it only took two years.

I know a lot of people don't care about politicians' sex lives, and that's fine, but when it comes to someone literally shopping for a new wife while still married, that should bring pause. I know forty-year-old guys leave their wives for hot twenty-year-olds all the time, but at least have the decency to leave your wife FIRST. It's surprising to me that with this kind of skeleton in the closet he would try to criticize anyone else's judgment.

And the rumors of his treatment of his current wife are cause for concern, too.

Call this election choosing between the lesser of two weevils if you want, but I do not want that man in the White House.

[T Blue]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I'm personally grateful to Edwards for screwing (ahem) up and having the admission come when it did, as now we're finally (finally!!) getting some attention paid to McCain's torrid history. And to think it only took two years.

I know a lot of people don't care about politicians' sex lives, and that's fine, but when it comes to someone literally shopping for a new wife while still married, that should bring pause. I know forty-year-old guys leave their wives for hot twenty-year-olds all the time, but at least have the decency to leave your wife FIRST. It's surprising to me that with this kind of skeleton in the closet he would try to criticize anyone else's judgment.

And the rumors of his treatment of his current wife are cause for concern, too.

Call this election choosing between the lesser of two weevils if you want, but I do not want that man in the White House.

Lesser of the two weevils, but believe me I DO NOT want the other guy in the white house alot more than I do not want Mccain in the white house.

I like being able to keep more of my hard earned $$$, and the thought of just giving them to somebody else because money should be distributed more evenly is just plain scary to anyone who thinks rationally.

Back on topic, is anyone really, truly surprised that this is happening? Aren't just about all politicians, at their cores, slimy?

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by T Blue

I like being able to keep more of my hard earned $$$, and the thought of just giving them to somebody else because money should be distributed more evenly is just plain scary to anyone who thinks rationally....

Yeah, I know, but the truth is that our hard earned $ are worth 30% less than they were seven years ago. Scary, huh? That's what spending without taxing does for us, and that's the strategy McCain will continue to employ.

Back on topic, is anyone really, truly surprised that this is happening? Aren't just about all politicians, at their cores, slimy?

I think our politicians, are, for the most part, reflections of the rest of us. And stats show that half of us will face infidelity either as the adulterer or as the spouse. I don't see why we should expect to see any higher code of conduct from the leaders than we do from the population at large.

[SeattleUte]

I can think of many politicians for whom there is not evidence of adultery, including our sitting president and both Utah Senators. There are many presidents who are the same. I don't think there's evidence Winston Churchill ever adulturated. (I think my two senators are clean, but they are women. Do they count? I know women do it too.)

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Yeah, I know, but the truth is that our hard earned $ are worth 30% less than they were seven years ago. Scary, huh? That's what spending without taxing does for us, and that's the strategy McCain will continue to employ.

Okay, what nonsense is this? Inflation year-to-year has on average stayed in the same range for about 15 years, which includes both Republican AND Democrat presidents. You have to go back to 1991 to find where it (annually) last crossed 4%.

Of all the arguments for or against McCain, inflation is one of the silliest. It has largely been neutralized as a political issue since the Reagan era.

http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I think our politicians, are, for the most part, reflections of the rest of us. And stats show that half of us will face infidelity either as the adulterer or as the spouse. I don't see why we should expect to see any higher code of conduct from the leaders than we do from the population at large.

Because these are supposed to be the best and the brightest.

It goes back to Huckabee's inane comment about "I remind you more of the guy you work with than the guy who laid you off." I've been laid off before. I don't want most of the "guys I work with" elected President. And I sure as hell would rather have someone running a business who actually understands economics running the country, even if it means laying people off.

The President should be someone who represents the best America has to offer, not its lowest common denominator.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Okay, what nonsense is this? Inflation year-to-year has on average stayed in the same range for about 15 years, which includes both Republican AND Democrat presidents. You have to go back to 1991 to find where it (annually) last crossed 4%.

Of all the arguments for or against McCain, inflation is one of the silliest. It has largely been neutralized as a political issue since the Reagan era.

http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp



Because these are supposed to be the best and the brightest.

It goes back to Huckabee's inane comment about "I remind you more of the guy you work with than the guy who laid you off." I've been laid off before. I don't want most of the "guys I work with" elected President. And I sure as hell would rather have someone running a business who actually understands economics running the country, even if it means laying people off.

The President should be someone who represents the best America has to offer, not its lowest common denominator.

What stuff are you smoking?

Isn't the beauty of American politics the point that it renders politicians to some extent irrelevant?

In terms of manipulative science, politicians are masters, but the time has passed us when our best and brightest are supposed to be our political leaders. I don't want it or expect it.

I'd prefer my brightest persons being my physician, my tax accountant and my attorney.

After that, I want my kids' teachers and coaches to be brightest. All things are local, and stuff in DC is more irrelevant than it was previously and in my opinion will become more and more irrelevant.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Tex

Okay, what nonsense is this? Inflation year-to-year has on average stayed in the same range for about 15 years, which includes both Republican AND Democrat presidents. You have to go back to 1991 to find where it (annually) last crossed 4%.

Of all the arguments for or against McCain, inflation is one of the silliest. It has largely been neutralized as a political issue since the Reagan era.

http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp

Are you really going to argue that we haven't seen a devaluation of the dollar's worth over the last ten years?

Because these are supposed to be the best and the brightest.

Wow. And you guys think Obama's naively idealistic.


.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What stuff are you smoking?

Isn't the beauty of American politics the point that it renders politicians to some extent irrelevant?

In terms of manipulative science, politicians are masters, but the time has passed us when our best and brightest are supposed to be our political leaders. I don't want it or expect it.

I'd prefer my brightest persons being my physician, my tax accountant and my attorney.

After that, I want my kids' teachers and coaches to be brightest. All things are local, and stuff in DC is more irrelevant than it was previously and in my opinion will become more and more irrelevant.

Well, there's no such thing as a monolithic America, but I think in general the population expects (or wants) more of its leaders, which is why scandals like these attract so much attention. This was really the great debate of the Clinton era: they wanted the man for his policies and power, but hated him for his personal indiscretions. They wanted to have it both ways ... a very hard thing.

Looked at another way: what is the appeal of Barack Obama? It's his Messiahship. His personal story, his charisma, his high-toned rhetoric ... all of it makes people believe he is more than just a man. He's instead become a symbol, an icon. A revelation that, say, he'd cheated on his wife, or embezzled millions of "average Joe's" dollars would devastate his campaign.

I maintain that people don't want to elect the guy sitting in the cubicle next to him, or the guy that mows his lawn across the street.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

Because these are supposed to be the best and the brightest.

Really? Could have fooled me. Looking through our election pamphlet I was struck by the overall medioctrity in their prior lives. Our incumbant AG is a singular exception. He was Law Review at Chicago. Most if not all of the rest lived very undistinguished lives before entering politics.

I think what makes a successful politician is a mystery. I suspect an ability to suffer fools gladly is important. Beyond that, it's a mysery. But I'm quite sure being among "the best and the brightest" is not a prerquisite. They are like us, only in some cases less exemplary.