Edwards Admits Sexual Affair; Lied as Presidential Candidate

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by sublicon, Aug 8, 2008.

  1. sublicon

    sublicon New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Mind blowing.

    Thought I'd beat fog to the punch on this one and be the first post sans any attempt to use this as an overreaching indication of how Democrats are "as a people" because Edwards is a lying cheating bastard despite having a terminally ill wife at home. It'd be as smart as saying all homophobic Republicans are really closet homosexuals that only look for love in public restrooms . . right? Yeah.

    The other amazing thing about this is what was this fucking asshole doing running for president if he had this skeleton in his closet? Imagine him getting the nomination, or getting a VP not from Obama, and the whole bird comes crashing down. His life would've been over, not just for fucking up his family, but basically fucking up the entire Democratic race for the presidency.

    What . . a selfish . . fuck!!

    Anyway, it's disgusting and disappointing to say the least. Edwards is now officially a scumbag in my eyes. Amazing how one's perception of a person can change in the blink of an eye.
     
    #1
  2. Clevelandmo

    Clevelandmo Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    RE: Edwards Admits Sexual Affair; Lied as Presidential Candi

    Well said sublicon.

    He always seemed a fake to me and a fake is just not that far or different from a liar and a cheat. Anyway, most of these politicians do this from what I hear. If that is indeed the case, I wish the media would just leave it alone so the families dont have to suffer publically. Why would the media want to cover this story when his wife is dying.
     
    #2
  3. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    Hmmm; this seems all so selective, sub -- and I don't mean by that that you are. Bob Dole, who I proudly voted for in '96, repaid his wife of 25+ years for nursing him back to health after his harrowing battlefield injuries by dumping her for a tobacco lobbyist hottie he'd been shacking with for a long time. Not only did this not hurt him in getting nominated for vp in '76 or president in '96, but the lobbyist turned 2nd wife became a huge asset to him, served in Reagan's cabinet, and was widely touted as a future member of a national ticket.

    I'm not condoning anyone's behavior, but there's indescretions out there a lot more heinous than getting some nookie on the side. It didn't bother me that each presidential candidate in '92 had a mistress named Jennifer/Gennifer, any more than it bothered me that LBJ had a string of them as did FDR, JFK, and even Eisenhower. This kind of thing has always been associated with men with power. In the scheme of things, it just doesn't rate highly enough to be a scandal.

    And, yes, Edwards is a slimeball for treating his cancer-ridden wife that way, but at least he didn't serve her with divorce papers in the recovery room after surgery like another politician-turned-pundit did.
     
    #3
  4. WhitesBhoy

    WhitesBhoy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Location:
    The Beach, For Now
    No offense, but is anyone really surprised about this??

    [Inject your assumptions below.]
     
    #4
  5. sublicon

    sublicon New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    It's more about what would be at stake, than the indiscretion itself. Putting this party's run for the presidency is a big deal. It's one thing for the presidents you name to do what they did while in office, but it's a whole different matter altogether when you have not yet assumed the post and you stand to not only ruin it for yourself but everyone else as well.

    Just my feelings on it, honestly. *shrug*

    It's more a situation where given all the circumstances, I really hoped that it wasn't true. I love scandal, trust me. But this time, I was really hoping it wasn't so.
     
    #5
  6. shinerbockguy

    shinerbockguy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Location:
    Arizona
    Re: RE: Edwards Admits Sexual Affair; Lied as Presidential C

    Of course he's a liar and a cheat - he's a trial lawyer. Duh.



    Shame that people don't learn from the mistakes of guys like Gary Hart & former rising star Henry Cisneros, but that stuff goes on for both sides of the aisle...
     
    #6
  7. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    sublicon: Your observation about his being a selfish prick regarding his party and what would happen SHOULD he have gotten the nomination is dead on.
    That was the first impression of Ann Althouse, a great lawblogger

    Don, I'd request you set aside your political differences with Newt and explain to me how ANYONE could have done that. I, personally, cant imagine anyone I detest dropping a bomb like that. Not Kerry, not Edwards, or insert any other name here.
    According to Newt's wiki, it didnt happen. They discussed the divorce, which implies she knew it was happening before the surgery.

    So why doesnt Newt deny it? We have all just seen how much good a denial does.

    Most of all it just doesnt make sense.
     
    #7
  8. Spencer

    Spencer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    I always kind of wonder what the dynamic really is in these political marriages. In this case Mrs Edwards was said to know of the affair for quite some time and they decided to go ahead and run any way. That gives you the perception that shes just as much invested in his career as he is, that she'd like to be first lady as much as he'd like to be president and was evidently equally blinded to the risks and implications of it all.

    Take the Spitzer situation. My first thought when I saw that was, she knew, she definitely knew. Though when I told a few people that view they pushed back pretty hard against the idea which made me question it.

    So it makes you wonder, theres 100 senators and 435 members of congress. Makes you wonder how many have partners on the side. 20%?, 50%?, 80%? and how many wives are actually oblivious to it?
     
    #8
  9. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    Well, what it make ME wonder is whose business is it -- aside from the person and his/her spouse. People marry for a myriad of reasons. They stay married for a myriad of reasons. They divorce for a myriad of reasons. Each marriage consists of its own series of compromises, tolerances, and serial forgiveness. Those marriages which DON'T include those three are the ones that last less than a year.

    Whether the Edwards, or the Doles, or the Bushes, or the Clintons stay married, separate, or divorce, and whatever pacts they've made with each other along the way is the stuff of Access Hollywood and other such fluff.

    None of it has anything to do with their intelligence, experience, love of country, or ability to govern. We don't have a religious test for office in this country, so morality -- which is ALWAYS subjective in any case -- is something that is brought up to distract people from what should be the issues. You remember issues, don't you? The war, the economy, lack of medical care, the dollar, etc. etc. etc.
     
    #9
  10. Coog

    Coog New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Location:
    Providence
    Anything that compromises a politician is dangerous. Whether it's the business people you associate with that have a potential interest in getting gov't contracts or a woman who wants to do some campaign videos and bats her eyes and rubs his thighs. Most politicians can't resist temptation. Edwards is scum, but there is alot of other scum we haven't been apprised of yet. :3d nervous:
     
    #10
  11. Spencer

    Spencer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Hey now, you pulling that holier than thou crap Don. So you never speculate on the marriages of others eh. And if theres ever any news coverage of public infidelities then you automatically turn the dial and flip the page I gather.

    Well I don't. Contrary to your claim, this does reflect poorly on John Edward's intelligence. As pointed out both he and his wife were of the belief that this affair could be concealed throughout an extensive and probing general election campaign. That shows a flaw in judgment.

    And hey! I think you pulling the issues card (You remember issues, don't you? The war, the economy, lack of medical care, the dollar, etc. etc. etc.) is rather rotten :shock: You know damn well I remember the issues. I argue about them on here all the time. And I'm going to the ballot box on the issues. You pard on the other hand have said your voting Republican because you don't like how Obama dealt with his church.

    So a mans relationship with his wife is no ones business but his relationship with his church is grounds for losing votes? Seems to me that has nothing to do with the lack of medical care, the economy, the war, the dollar, ect., ect., ect. When explaining the decision you said (I'm summarizing) that the issues you care about are never addressed anyway so this(the church) was sufficient reasoning. Hows that mesh? I don't think it does.
     
    #11
  12. FulhamAg

    FulhamAg New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    To be fair, Don's been pretty clear in saying that Obama's ambiguity on policy specifics is what's driving his vote.

    I fall on the side of Edwards' indiscretion reflecting poorly on him. Of course being a trial lawyer and politican do as well, to me, so this doesn't exactly make it much worse.

    I'm just curious though, who supports this guy? He seems so blatantly and obviously plastic to me (and this is compared to other pols), that I just can't fathom how anyone would buy into him. Doesn't appear he had any supporters on this board from what I've read. Maybe he gets them from sympathy for his wife, in which case Don's wrong, his actions are absolutely lethal to his career and should be. It cuts both ways.
     
    #12
  13. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Look, here I am coming to Don's defense, summat.

    As I said in the earlier post, Sublicon got it dead on. That he had the affair while intending to run for President is the issue. Which always has the danger of detracting from the issues at hand.
    -but-
    Ike's dalliances with his driver are a different matter. FDR's affair is probably a different matter.
    While it's WRONG to judge others private matters in themselves, it's also wrong to say Morals doesnt matter. It matters to a lot of people thus must be taken into account. Whether we agree or not.

    Further let's parse down why we dont like Edwards' lawyer background. If he had been a defense lawyer, it would be a whole different thing. 'Johnny Cochrane for Pres!' But Edwards made his millions by sucking them from companies, primarily insurance companies by representing 'class victims'. While these cases do perform some public service, by causing the defendant entities to practice their business with an eye to possible penalties down the road, we all know they often cost US a lot of money when we go to buy our own insurance, products and services.

    In other words, he's just an elevated version of your local 'As Seen on TV: The Dog doesnt actually have to BITE YOU, for you to sue!' lawyer.

    The kind that if you knew them, you wouldnt tell them ANYTHING PERSONAL.
     
    #13
  14. Clevelandmo

    Clevelandmo Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Hillary the victim

    A Clinton aide claims Edwards' lying about the affair cost Hillary Iowa and the Dem nomination. Interesting - Hillary the victim of a cheat again. If Obama becomes President and saves the world, will we someday be grateful for Edward the Cad.

    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 63,00.html
     
    #14
Similar Threads: Edwards Admits
Forum Title Date
Miscellaneous Kathleen Edwards May 1, 2009
Miscellaneous Speaking of scary and plastic: Edwards drops out Jan 30, 2008
Miscellaneous John Edwards preys on poor Aug 18, 2007

Share This Page