Least surprising political scandal ever?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

For better or worse, the President is the person who represents you and me on the world stage. Ideally, I want this person above reproach morally, ethically, socially, intellectually, etc.

When a President cheats on his wife, he is no longer ethically or morally above reproach. However, the problem many of these candidates make is that they do not come out and admit to these things. If it was something that happened in the past, come out and admit the mistake. Ask for forgiveness and move on. When it is revealed by someone else, you are hosed no matter what in the court of public opinion.

Finally, it all comes down to trust. If a man breaks his trust with his wife, how can I trust him in other areas? Yes, they are two separate things, but now there is doubt.

So people shouldn't vote for McCain?

[Mrs. Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Drake

Just because people consistently fail to meet basic standards of honesty, decency and dignity doesn't mean that the standards are to blame.

I like that statement.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That may be, but until we know differently we should stand on the facts as we know them.

Wow, really? You're defending him? Come on already.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So people shouldn't vote for McCain?

I do like the people who say adultery should disqualify them from a political position. Either they all are guilty, or none of them are.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

With as well as this hag is doing financially, it makes me wonder if I should have an affair with a politician. Unfortunately the women I see in politics leave much to be desired, and the men aren't an option.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Wow, really? You're defending him? Come on already.

Reread the first part of my first post. The answer's in there.

Not that I'm defending him, but right now the story is that the affair was during a period when the cancer was in remission.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

For better or worse, the President is the person who represents you and me on the world stage. Ideally, I want this person above reproach morally, ethically, socially, intellectually, etc.

When a President cheats on his wife, he is no longer ethically or morally above reproach. However, the problem many of these candidates make is that they do not come out and admit to these things. If it was something that happened in the past, come out and admit the mistake. Ask for forgiveness and move on. When it is revealed by someone else, you are hosed no matter what in the court of public opinion.

Finally, it all comes down to trust. If a man breaks his trust with his wife, how can I trust him in other areas? Yes, they are two separate things, but now there is doubt.

what worse lying about cheating on your wife or lying about the reasons to start a war that leads to the deaths of thousands?

[Noop]

John McCain divorced his crippled wife for a beer heiress, is it conceivable to believe he was having sex with her(beer heiress) while still married? I think he did and that has nothing to do with my political affiliation. (which is independent as of two days ago.)

So cheating on a cripple or cheating on a cancer patient which to my knowledge was in remission.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

For better or worse, the President is the person who represents you and me on the world stage. Ideally, I want this person above reproach morally, ethically, socially, intellectually, etc.

Even now, with all this coming to light:

morally: Edwards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bush

ethically: Edwards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bush

socially: Edwards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bush

intellectually: Edwards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bush

etc.: Edwards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bush

Seriously. It isn't even close.

[JPhillips]

Clearing brush: Bush>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Edwards

[Crim]

Originally Posted by Drake

Just imagine how pissed Hillary must be. If this comes out *before* Edwards takes a chunk of the votes, maybe Hillary vs. Obama Into June doesn't happen.

+1, Drake this is a great point, which I had not even considered.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Wow, really? You're defending him? Come on already.

IIRC, Chief, he wasn't defending JE on the affair, he was responding to (I think) molson and me saying this was probably one in a long string of affairs.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by Crim

IIRC, Chief, he wasn't defending JE on the affair, he was responding to (I think) molson and me saying this was probably one in a long string of affairs.

Nevermind, IDRC. (I didn't remember correctly)

JPhillips clarified up the thread.

[Sgran]

Funny timing. I was just reading about Gary Hart.

[molson]

What does the Iraq war have to do with Edwards knocking up some broad?

Really some weird reactions in his thread.

"Edwards was wrong to cheat on his wife"
"Well, uhh, there's other stuff that's way worse..."

OK

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

what worse lying about cheating on your wife or lying about the reasons to start a war that leads to the deaths of thousands?

Actually, if you read the latest report on the pre-war intelligence, it backs up what Bush said. I'm not going to argue that he didn't play it up, he did, but the pre-war intelligence all said the same thing.

Regarding McCain, McCain has a record to fall back on. My point in regards to Edwards is that he based his whole campaign and public persona on family values, faith, etc., etc. He does not have much of a record worth speaking of other than that. So when he has a scandal like this, it hurts him much more than another candidate.

Look at Clinton. Do I have a problem with him having an affair? No. The only questions I ask are:

1) Did it interfere with his work as President?
2) Why couldn't he have gotten some one better than Monica? Come on, he's the most powerful man in the free world!

It all boils down to this: When a candidate's only quality and selling point is that he is the family values candidate and he does not have much of a record, this type of stuff hurts more. Because it breaks trust. Once that trust is broken, can you listen to what he says? In the case of a candidate with a record, you can still go back to his past record and see how he votes. It still hurts this candidate, but not as much as the unknown quantity.

[JPhillips]

Shorter Warhammer:

When a Democrat cheats on his wife it disqualifies him from public office. When a Republican cheats on his wife it doesn't matter.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Shorter Warhammer:

When a Democrat cheats on his wife it disqualifies him from public office. When a Republican cheats on his wife it doesn't matter.

What are you talking about? What Democrat has been "disqualified from public office" for cheating? Bill Clinton seemed to do OK. Who's saying that Edwards should be? Why are you so desperate to make this a political debate?

By the way - I'm not a republican. I think it's hilarious that you seem to be assuming that, bringing up McCain and Bush every post, apparently assuming I'm a McCain/Bush supporter just because I speak out about Edwards.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Shorter Warhammer:

When a Democrat cheats on his wife it disqualifies him from public office. When a Republican cheats on his wife it doesn't matter.

Not at all. I never said Clinton should have been disqualified from office. Only issue with him was lowering the standards of the Presidency. JFK shagged Marilyn Monroe. Clinton got a hummer from Monica Lewinski. Again, Edwards whole campaign was based upon the stories and persona he built up. This scandal shattered that persona.

Look at the Republican from Idaho that got caught in a public bathroom. His career is over as well. Its not a right or left issue. Republicans that get caught with their pants down are just as vulnerable to these scandals. I would actually argue that Democrats tend to do better in these situations because they are typically not espousing the family values as heavily. Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy are two examples of this.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

My point in regards to Edwards is that he based his whole campaign and public persona on family values, faith, etc., etc. He does not have much of a record worth speaking of other than that. So when he has a scandal like this, it hurts him much more than another candidate.

Wait, what?! I really dislike Edwards (I think he's a lightweight), but his whole campaign was on family values and faith?! Are you thinking of a different John Edwards? Edwards' campaigns, if they were on anything, was that there were "Two Americas" and the bottom one was getting left behind while the the top one was doing well.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wait, what?! I really dislike Edwards (I think he's a lightweight), but his whole campaign was on family values and faith?! Are you thinking of a different John Edwards? Edwards' campaigns, if they were on anything, was that there were "Two Americas" and the bottom one was getting left behind while the the top one was doing well.

Oh you're right, I forgot when he gave that speech from the front lawn of his 28,000 square foot mansion.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wait, what?! I really dislike Edwards (I think he's a lightweight), but his whole campaign was on family values and faith?! Are you thinking of a different John Edwards? Edwards' campaigns, if they were on anything, was that there were "Two Americas" and the bottom one was getting left behind while the the top one was doing well.

Edwards was consistent. He was getting some from both Americas!

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Reread the first part of my first post. The answer's in there.

That's an excuse carries no weight with me. He's indefensible, IMO, no matter at what stage the cancer was in. Only "gone" or more particularly "never happened" returns him to the level of disdain normal adulterers should get.

No one should be defending this guy at all. And don't tell me you're not defending him, either, because that's exactly what you're doing. Trying to mitigate the impact of what he did is defending him, even when you qualify it by putting up how you're "not defending him."

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Noop

John McCain divorced his crippled wife for a beer heiress, is it conceivable to believe he was having sex with her(beer heiress) while still married?

He applied for the marriage license to Cindy Beerfortune while still married to his first wide, so yeah, I'd say he was hitting that.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

That's an excuse carries no weight with me. He's indefensible, IMO, no matter at what stage the cancer was in. Only "gone" or more particularly "never happened" returns him to the level of disdain normal adulterers should get.

No one should be defending this guy at all. And don't tell me you're not defending him, either, because that's exactly what you're doing. Trying to mitigate the impact of what he did is defending him, even when you qualify it by putting up how you're "not defending him."

WTF? I'm certainly not defending him even if your caricature of me would work better if I was. I was merely trying to correct a statement that based on the facts as we know them shouldn't be stated as a truth.

If you can show me a single statement that has me defending Edward's actions I'd love to see it. It would especially be interesting given I actually did say this,

You can't say this,

"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. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen,"

and then fuck around on your wife.

and this

On a public level Edwards betrayed a lot of people by running for office while he knew this was hanging over him, especially after some of the comments he made about Clinton. If I had given him money or volunteered for his campaign I would rightly be very pissed.

[Chief Rum]

I never said you were defending his actions. I said you were defending him. And that's indefensible (on you).

[JPhillips]

Again, where the hell have I defended him? Is a desire for speculation to not be labeled as fact a defense of Edwards? Do you want me to say Edwards is a bastard? Fine, Edwards is a bastard. I have no interest in defending him. (btw- how do I defend Edwards while also not defending his actions?)

Chief, you're so desperate to frame me as a crazed liberal that you can't see what actually has been said. You can't find a single instance of me actually defending Edwards, so you just invent it to fit your biases.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Chief, you're so desperate to frame me as a crazed liberal that you can't see what actually has been said.

You're doing enough to frame yourself as a crazed liberal without Cheif's help.

Edwards's screwing around on his sick wife and you use it as an opportunity to point out how McCain and Bush are worse or just as bad. That's the definition of crazed liberal.

When you watch a football game and there's an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, do you point out how it's not as bad as stuff Bush does?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Chief, you're so desperate to frame me as a crazed liberal that you can't see what actually has been said. You can't find a single instance of me actually defending Edwards, so you just invent it to fit your biases.

You're joking, right? Do you think I take one second to care about how you look or to try to be right? Does that make you feel better? To character assassinate those who disagree with you? Pathetic, really.

No, what you're doing with Edwards is akin to spin doctoring. You're trying to make yourself out to be as affronted as everyone, but at the same time, you're trying to clean things up here, to lessen the hit. I don't know that you're actively trying to do this, or being led to it unconsciously by your convictions, but that's what you're doing.

I say let Edwards go, and let people believe what they want, because regardless of word play, it's undeniable the guy is a dirtbag and not worth my time nor yours.

[JPhillips]

Bullshit. I haven't tried at all to spin what Edwards has done. Sticking to the facts doesn't lessen the hit. In fact, I don't think it's worse morally to cheat while your wife is ill. The underlying act of betrayal is the problem and other circumstances don't matter to me. What we know he did is bad enough that speculation shouldn't need to be added.

What he did to his wife, family, political supporters and the entirety of the Democratic Party was incredibly reckless. His betrayal to all of the above will be extremely hard to overcome and he should be, rightfully, out of the public eye for the rest of his life. However, if his wife chooses to forgive him, it's none of my business.

I don't believe adultery in itself should be a disqualification for public office as we're all subject to moral failings and I try not to condemn for moral failings, but I would like to see standards applied equally. If Edwards actions are unforgivable and if adultery in itself should keep a person from becoming the President, I think it's fair to ask if that standard will also apply to McCain.

edit: I also think the probability of corrupt use of donors funds to hire his mistress should be investigated along with any supporters paying her off. If he committed a crime he should suffer the consequences.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

edit: I also think the probability of corrupt use of donors funds to hire his mistress should be investigated along with any supporters paying her off. If he committed a crime he should suffer the consequences.

There's republicans who have done worse though, right?

[JPhillips]

Who's making blind political attacks?

btw- I've never been a "Republicans are worse" guy. My stance has always been that people of all ideological stripes should be treated th same for the same issues. But that's not as easy to caricature as you'd like.

[cougarfreak]

No political sex scandal surprises me. I'm neither republican nor democrat, but I don't really think republicans want to bring this scandal up with McCain is their candidate. He only left a crippled wife who had waited for him to come home as a prisoner of war for a beer princess. I'd guess upwards of 3/4 of U.S. politicians at the Federal level are guilty of something similar (minus the dying wife of course).

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't believe adultery in itself should be a disqualification for public office as we're all subject to moral failings and I try not to condemn for moral failings, but I would like to see standards applied equally. If Edwards actions are unforgivable and if adultery in itself should keep a person from becoming the President, I think it's fair to ask if that standard will also apply to McCain.

The thing is, you're trying to do two things here, one I find deplorable, while the other is at least out of context:

1. I don't know why we need to even discuss the issue of Edwards' political future or his potential as a candidate. To me, this is about what he did, which I think is awful. I, too, think adultery is bad, and I also do not believe it disqualifies someone from office. To me, that's not really anything that matters here. I am not judging Edwards' political aspirations. I am judging Edwards the man. I'm not sure why it needs to go beyond that.

2. Bringing McCain into it qualifies as another spin doctor move, and that's the one I find deplorable. You would seek to either excuse Edwards' actions by comparing him to McCain or Bush (as others have done, not sure if you have), or you would have both Edwards and McCain brought down, since Edwards screwed up. This is classic partisanship. Take the hit. Going after McCain in the wake of Edwards only makes you look worse. If you feel that strongly about discretions by McCain, maybe you can start a separate thread and explain from the start why you're bringing it up now. And then that thread can be about McCain, and doesn't look like you're trying to spin Edwards.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Who's making blind political attacks?

btw- I've never been a "Republicans are worse" guy. My stance has always been that people of all ideological stripes should be treated th same for the same issues. But that's not as easy to caricature as you'd like.

So if you're not a Republicans are worse guy, why go after McCain on this? His discretion isn't worse than some others, many of whom were Democrats (Kennedy, Clinton, etc.). Reason you went after McCain is because you are playing the partisan card and trying to attack the party that doesn't stand for you ideologically. But since you don't like to come off as a shill for Democrats, you decry Edwards' actions and say things like the above.

Really, I sometimes wish people wouldn't try to act like they're all even and uninfluenced all the time. If people would just admit biases, it would help avoid having to make posts like these.

I am a fiscal Republican politically and I don't have an issue admitting my thoughts tend toward that point of view. I don't believe in throwing good Dems under the bus (or even questionable ones) just to make myself feel better about the dirtier people in my own party. There's plenty of crap on both sides of the aisle, so getting into an argument about who has the worst transgressors is ridiculous and pointless.

[JPhillips]

I only brought up McCain when the thread deviated from Edwards. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it with Molson, although I believe he's supported McCain in other threads, but I certainly make no apologies for asking why Warhammer can condemn Dems who cheat, but can also support McCain.

As for your general point, I don't hide that I'm a Dem, but I do try to hold people to an equal standard whether or not you want to believe that. That's what bringing up McCain was about. If this is wrong for Dems it should be wrong for Republicans as well. I don't think the adultery is reason enough to disqualify either guy, but then again I try not to make those kinds of blanket statements.

All of this, though, has gone a bit astray. Your original quote that I was defending Edwards based on the post you cited wasn't true and you haaven't been able to produce any evidence that I am defending Edwards. Regardless of our disagreements, which based on other threads I don't see us getting past, I hope you can at least acknowledge that you took that post out of context.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I only brought up McCain when the thread deviated from Edwards. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it with Molson, although I believe he's supported McCain in other threads, but I certainly make no apologies for asking why Warhammer can condemn Dems who cheat, but can also support McCain.

That's the point. This isn't about McCain. Dems here are trying to make it about McCain to divert attention from the specific culprit that is targeted in this thread. This shouldn't be about McCain. This is about Edwards, and attempts to move it away from him, I view as a plain and partisan attempt spin this away from Edwards and deflect the issue.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As for your general point, I don't hide that I'm a Dem, but I do try to hold people to an equal standard whether or not you want to believe that. That's what bringing up McCain was about. If this is wrong for Dems it should be wrong for Republicans as well. I don't think the adultery is reason enough to disqualify either guy, but then again I try not to make those kinds of blanket statements.

I think people should be held to the same standard as well, but there is a time and place for these things. If McCain has his own thread, discuss it there. It doesn't look so bad in context there than it does here, as an obvious defense of a Dem politican.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

All of this, though, has gone a bit astray. Your original quote that I was defending Edwards based on the post you cited wasn't true and you haaven't been able to produce any evidence that I am defending Edwards. Regardless of our disagreements, which based on other threads I don't see us getting past, I hope you can at least acknowledge that you took that post out of context.

No, I did not. Just by posting about McCain here, you are spinning this away from Edwards. That is a defense of Edwards. The spotlight should rightly be on him, and your attempts to steer it elsewhere is clear and appalling.

As for our own differences, considering I have stayed out of political threads for probably close to five years now, glad to see you don't hold grudges and are willing to work with the opposition to reach an amenable middleground accord.

[JPhillips]

I can't recall the thread, but it's been in the past year that you called me out. I don't think I've even been posting much for five years. I'm also not the one that keeps calling the other a liar. Of course, you could also cross over and reach an amenable accord, but I guess that's too much to ask. Since we've already taken this thread off-track, I'll stop responding unless you wish to continue things in PMs.

[molson]

I'm still trying to find the post where Edwards should be "disqualified from running for public office".

He's not even running for anything.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I can't recall the thread, but it's been in the past year that you called me out. I don't think I've even been posting much for five years. I'm also not the one that keeps calling the other a liar. Of course, you could also cross over and reach an amenable accord, but I guess that's too much to ask. Since we've already taken this thread off-track, I'll stop responding unless you wish to continue things in PMs.

If I called you out, I had good reason, and I am certain it had to do with this sort of situation, where it wasn't a political disagreement, but a disagreement about an approach you took or a bias you were showing. I call others out on that as well, and in non-political threads.

So if this is about being fair and balanced in posting or not taking liberties with respect to logical conclusions or argumentation, you're right, we won't reach an accord. I have a very rigid standard for that, and it goes to the core of who I am (which is not going to change).

Where exactly do I call you a liar? Surely you don't mean saying you defend Edwards? You do know that that is an interpretive conclusion, and not something that has an ironclad basis in fact? It's an opinion. You are labelling people who disagree with you as having called you a liar for having done so? If that is so, it is no wonder we disagree so much; there is no agreement to come with someone who takes a stance like that.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

That's the point. This isn't about McCain. Dems here are trying to make it about McCain to divert attention from the specific culprit that is targeted in this thread. This shouldn't be about McCain. This is about Edwards, and attempts to move it away from him, I view as a plain and partisan attempt spin this away from Edwards and deflect the issue.

That's called the Clinton Internet Syndrome.

I have not been posting much (besides being away on vacation) and will likely not post much here on out. The reason is that I am in agreement with an earlier poster who said something to the effect that the arguments are being slanted towards a desired outcome. In other words, there is a very strong sentiment among certain people for a desired outcome in November that all arguments, rebuttals, attacks, defensives, etc. are being framed solely in that light. They will deny it and it takes the fun out of discussing this, as I irrationally seek neutrality or passive observing, as the primaries thread tending to go.

[Buccaneer]

I actually thought I was in the Obama/McCain thread but I guess I wanted to make the point somewhere in a political thread.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's called the Clinton Internet Syndrome.

I have not been posting much (besides being away on vacation) and will likely not post much here on out. The reason is that I am in agreement with an earlier poster who said something to the effect that the arguments are being slanted towards a desired outcome. In other words, there is a very strong sentiment among certain people for a desired outcome in November that all arguments, rebuttals, attacks, defensives, etc. are being framed solely in that light. They will deny it and it takes the fun out of discussing this, as I irrationally seek neutrality or passive observing, as the primaries thread tending to go.

Heh...I think you're right. The two major parties are even further apart than ever before, thanks to the polarizing politics of Bush.

And both parties have picked candidates that are fairly far from the ideologies fo the other. There is no centrist candidate in this debate.

So there are two opinionated sides that would very much dislike for the other candidate to get into office, and every debate results in steering it to support their own ideology or to denigrate the other.

Can't wait for the election to be over then, so we can return to more reasonable discourse that focuses on the issue, instead of the candidate and the poster.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

And both parties have picked candidates that are fairly far from the ideologies fo the other. There is no centrist candidate in this debate. So there are two opinionated sides that would very much dislike for the other candidate to get into office ...

Interesting in that, at the same time, only portions of each party (at best) seem particularly enthusiastic about getting their own candidate into the office for any reason beyond "not being the other guy".

Maybe we ought to consider trying something radically different. Everyone who voted in an (R) primary has to vote in a (D) primary in four years and vice versa. You pick my candidate, I'll pick yours (announced only after the ballots have been closed in the traditional fashion), anybody who didn't vote last time goes into a hat or something. Probably not going to produce much happiness but it might prove entertaining in some trainwreck fashion

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Interesting in that, at the same time, only portions of each party (at best) seem particularly enthusiastic about getting their own candidate into the office for any reason beyond "not being the other guy".

Maybe we ought to consider trying something radically different. Everyone who voted in an (R) primary has to vote in a (D) primary in four years and vice versa. You pick my candidate, I'll pick yours (announced only after the ballots have been closed in the traditional fashion), anybody who didn't vote last time goes into a hat or something. Probably not going to produce much happiness but it might prove entertaining in some trainwreck fashion

As long as the libertarian-minded voters can overrule the choices and insert the better candidates into both parties.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I still can't believe that I had friends that thought he was the more "real" candidate while Obama was a "fake." I guess cheating on your wife while she battles cancer is keepin it real.

When you build a 20,000-25,000 square foot compound right in the middle of your rich vs. poor American campaign should of said it all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

As long as the libertarian-minded voters can overrule the choices and insert the better candidates into both parties.

Nope, you get drafted. No sense getting too ridiculous here

[Karlifornia]

I give Chief Rum the "Beltway Sniper" award of this thread, for diligence in picking off undeserving victims.

[Galaxy]

I also must add that these guys get zero points for the chicks they bang. If your going to cheat on your wife, at least make it worth it.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by molson

You're doing enough to frame yourself as a crazed liberal without Cheif's help.

Edwards's screwing around on his sick wife and you use it as an opportunity to point out how McCain and Bush are worse or just as bad. That's the definition of crazed liberal.

When you watch a football game and there's an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, do you point out how it's not as bad as stuff Bush does?

You're missing the point.

Folks, who have been silent or supportive of Bush through all of his lies, deciets, lack of morals, lack of ethics, all of which have done so much more harm to this county and the world in general, are coming out of the wordwork to preach about how horrible it is for a politician to cheat on their wife and how that'd make them a horrible public servant.

Pointing the fact that Bush has done much worse things that, you know, have actually harmed the country (not just his personal relationship) does not make one a crazed liberal. (If it does, you really don't know any crazed liberals, trust me.) What it shows, or, at least, what it is intended to show is that what really matters to one who has a job is how one performs that job, not what one does in the bedroom.

If you had invested all of your money in a company, would you rather have it run by the guys at Enron or by a bunch of guys who slept around on their wives, but kept the company on the straight and straight and did good by your investment?