Least surprising political scandal ever?

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by 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.

The former Governor from New York has already won all of the points that will be allocated this year.

[Drake]

For the record, my interest in starting this thread had nothing to do with political affiliation.

Edwards was actually the candidate I preferred until Obama crossed my field of vision (and, of course, Edwards was out of the race long before the Indiana primary).

I do want to make one comment about Edwards (and others') insistence that his wife being "in remission" makes a difference.

Maybe I'm out of line in this particular case, but most folks I've met who have been "in remission" from an aggressive cancer have usually been that way as a result of having their bodies practically slammed into paste by chemo.

So, yeah, cheating on your chemo-shattered wife while the cancer is in remission puts a *much* better spin on your character. But, hey, I'm sure she probably wasn't much in the mood to put out -- probably turned him down a few times. A guy's got needs, right? If the bitch won't take it, she shouldn't be surprised when he goes looking somewhere else.

[JPhillips]

Drake: You're missing my points. One, I think it's always important to be accurate with things that are stated as facts. Two, and this is just me personally, I don't think it is any worse. I say that because if it's worse, that would mean it's more acceptable if she were healthy and I don't agree with that. The act itself is the problem for me, not the state of health of the spouse.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

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

Be happy. It was go after JPhillips in this thread or gun after you with your ridiculously over the top attack on fencing in the Olympics thread. Doesn't that just make you thrilled?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

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?

You see, the problem with this is, I haven't seen much evidence the guys who slept around on their wives have much idea how to keep the company on the straight and straight neither. A lack of as much an opportunity does not mean they for sure do a better job.

[ISiddiqui]

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.

It's actually rather a response to the crazy posts of some people on the right side of the aisle saying they could never vote for someone who does something like cheating (because they aren't moral). It's basically an attempt to show how much they are overstating such things.

And I say that as someone who is leaning towards McCain for the general.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The act itself is the problem for me, not the state of health of the spouse.

Certainly, you are correct that the health of the spouse should have no bearing on the base depravity of participating in this act, which is just as deplorable no matter the status of said spouse. That said, I see nothing wrong with being even more outraged that Edwards made this decision while his wife was suffering through this condition (and the fact of the condition, in my mind, is all that matters, not what stage it is in). The act alone is undeniably bad. That doesn't mean it can't be worse.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's actually rather a response to the crazy posts of some people on the right side of the aisle saying they could never vote for someone who does something like cheating (because they aren't moral). It's basically an attempt to show how much they are overstating such things.

And I say that as someone who is leaning towards McCain for the general.

If that's what they said, then they are doing somewhat the same thing as I accused of JPhillips, and are certainly no better. Spinning this so that it impacts even harder on Dems is no better than spinning it to blunt the blow on them (or spinning it to impact Republicans).

[Chief Rum]

BTW, not to harp on this too much, but the first specific statement for which I have gone after JPhillips in this thread was in post #17--well before anyone on the right of the aisle made any comments about the fitness of adulterers for office.

So while I still think no better of those right wingers who would claim to not support an adulterer for office, I reject the notion that JPhillips himself was only responding to that notion, if that was your inference, Issidiqui.

[ISiddiqui]

But he only brought in John McCain in response to assertions that people wouldn't support adulterers in office. Post #17 made no mention of McCain or anyone else other than Edwards.

Though post #17 was trying to correct a mistaken impression, something making Edwards look worse (or perhaps it was dramatic license, but "fighting for her life" sounds far worse).

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Certainly, you are correct that the health of the spouse should have no bearing on the base depravity of participating in this act, which is just as deplorable no matter the status of said spouse. That said, I see nothing wrong with being even more outraged that Edwards made this decision while his wife was suffering through this condition (and the fact of the condition, in my mind, is all that matters, not what stage it is in). The act alone is undeniably bad. That doesn't mean it can't be worse.

I agree with this. Adultery is a deplorable, and awful act, but it can be made worse. The betrayal of adultery while terrible is made worse by coming at a time when his wife needed him the most. An extreme example, but when committing murder is it even worse to torture and rape the person first? Of course it is.

Just because certain acts may be common doesn't mean they should be given a pass. I don't care if every other politician had done the same thing, it doesn't make this act any less wrong.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

It's hard to argue that logic.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

But he only brought in John McCain in response to assertions that people wouldn't support adulterers in office. Post #17 made no mention of McCain or anyone else other than Edwards.

Though post #17 was trying to correct a mistaken impression, something making Edwards look worse (or perhaps it was dramatic license, but "fighting for her life" sounds far worse).

McCain was a later issue I levied on JPhillips. Post #17 is the original issue I had that made me come into the thread at all. It was the first post I saw as a "defense" of Edwards, in that it had the appearance of attempting to defray the impact of this news on Edwards (and on the Dem party by association). If you review the posts between JPhillips and I, you will see that this post is really the first and primary source of disagreement. The McCain thing was later, and only something I saw as further evidence of what was written in Post #17.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Be happy. It was go after JPhillips in this thread or gun after you with your ridiculously over the top attack on fencing in the Olympics thread. Doesn't that just make you thrilled?

Ha! I didn't know I was dealing with a trained assassin who picks and chooses who he eliminates. Come at me in the olympics thread. Go ahead, I think you'll find it difficult to prove an opinion wrong.

I'll say this...learn from your daddy Slick Rick Neuheisel....don't gamble..you're just gonna get taken out.

[JPhillips]

Now that I see in the MLB thread that you have some sort of odd vendetta with me that I don't share, I'll let this all drop. There's no point in having a discussion when you've made it plain that you have it out for me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

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?

Am I allowed to think that Edwards is a douchebag AND Bush harmed the country? Or does that just make your head explode?

I just the reaction is obnoxious. A very pominent figure lied for months about an affair and then told the truth. And he gets shit on a message board. This shouldn't surprise you.

For the crazed liberals to dive in and deflect towards Bush and McCain in this context is just silly. It makes you look bad.

Now if someone had said, "You see, typical Democrat, a Republican would never do anything like this", than I can see where you'd be coming from.

Yes, HB, if that makes you happy, yes, being a bad president (which Bush is) is worse than cheating or your wife. I get that. Nowhere did I state the opposite. Nowhere did anyone else state the opposite. Somebody posted something a few months ago about a rude police officer. That's not as bad as being a bad president. Somebody posted about some baseball player sucking. That's not as bad as being a president.

If we all condede that point, could you just give it a rest? You have no fight here.

And I'm not a Republican. It's incredibly sad that we've reached a point where if you a criticize a liberal for cheating on his sick wife, it's assumed you're a republican. People need to fucking think for themselves. I hate all political parties because they breed sheep.

[Buccaneer]

molson, I believe the point was that McCain == Bush2 and therefore, no one in their right mind should vote for him. I don't necessarily disagree with that but I don't agree that there is a better option - just a different option.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Now that I see in the MLB thread that you have some sort of odd vendetta with me that I don't share, I'll let this all drop. There's no point in having a discussion when you've made it plain that you have it out for me.

You misunderstand. I am saying there are a group of liberal posters I have a long history with. You yourself have already admitted the same about me. It's not a negative thing, just a fact. When it's you posting and being familiar with your biases, it elicits a stronger desire on my part to respond when I see you take what I believe to be liberties within your stance or within your logical approach to the argument at hand.

Actually, your "have it out for me" comment is really extremely off the charts wrong in describing this. I actually enjoy having you on this board and more often than not, I enjoy our debates. I also think you are being brutally unfair to drop a post like this sullying me and then leaving.

[molson]

Looking back, I think that JPhillips and HB were just looking for a fight here. JPhillips was basically challenging me to defend McCain's infedelity and I didn't take the bait (because McCain was also wrong).

That made JPhillips a little pissy, so we get unsupported gems like, "When a Democrat cheats on his wife it disqualifies him from public office. When a Republican cheats on his wife it doesn't matter."

Then he gets frustrated, realizes there's no substance here, throws up the standard "Chief Rum has it out for me" as a desperate attempt to hold onto a little pride before he leaves.

[jeff061]

Why can't someone have it out for me? I feel so lonely.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

McCain was a later issue I levied on JPhillips. Post #17 is the original issue I had that made me come into the thread at all. It was the first post I saw as a "defense" of Edwards, in that it had the appearance of attempting to defray the impact of this news on Edwards (and on the Dem party by association). If you review the posts between JPhillips and I, you will see that this post is really the first and primary source of disagreement. The McCain thing was later, and only something I saw as further evidence of what was written in Post #17.

:shrug: I actually agree with what JPhillips said in #17. People were making it seem like she was on her death bed and I think saying she was in remission is a valid correction to make. People think worse of it if she felt she was close to dying.

It's also why I correct people who say McCain came back from Vietnam, saw his wife's disfigurement and added weight due to the car crash and immedately cheated on her. It was over 5 years later when he met Cindy. Cheating is bad, but it seems far less bad when these things are pointed out.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

:shrug: I actually agree with what JPhillips said in #17. People were making it seem like she was on her death bed and I think saying she was in remission is a valid correction to make. People think worse of it if she felt she was close to dying.

It's also why I correct people who say McCain came back from Vietnam, saw his wife's disfigurement and added weight due to the car crash and immedately cheated on her. It was over 5 years later when he met Cindy. Cheating is bad, but it seems far less bad when these things are pointed out.

Yeah, I didn't question the straight fact of JPhillips' post in #17, which was correcting a factual error or an overstatement on the part of previous posters. I questioned his intent in choosing to do so (and still do; it was classic partisan protection spin).

[molson]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Yeah, I didn't question the straight fact of JPhillips' post in #17, which was correcting a factual error or an overstatement on the part of previous posters. I questioned his intent in choosing to do so (and still do; it was classic partisan protection spin).

I didn't have a problem with that either, though I stated that IMO, he cheated more than this one time. JPhillips challenged me on even stating such an opinion, yelling about Cindy McCain sucking cock or something.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Why can't someone have it out for me? I feel so lonely.

If I pretended to have it out for you, thus fulfilling my need to pretend I have it out for someone, does that work for both of us?

SI

[Chief Rum]

The crux of it for me was the JPhillips was stating he wasn't defending Edwards, but his posts just all had a the feel of spin to me. His first post by itself is relatively innocuous. But if you read the rest of the first page, it becomes pretty clear that he is taking a defensive stand while decrying Edwards' actions at the same time.

I mean, this combination of facts (adultery, wife has cancer) is pretty abominable. Even if liberties are being taken with statements, hyperbole is to be expected (but not encouraged) when something like this is revealed. We can't take everyone to town for that--we would be at it forever and a day.

Incidentally, that level of dirtbagginess was the emotional "trip" that got me to respond in this thread, not JPhillips being JPhillips. It could have been anyone saying that sorta thing, and I probably would have responded much the same. Not saying a known biased individual posting it didn't contribute to the desire, but it wasn't the main cause for me to step into this thread. By and large, I have avoided political threads for some time now.

[Crim]

jeff061 is a ninny. I would be furious at his comments, except it's become clear to me that it is better to endure his inanities in silence. It is better to let his annoying banter flap in the breeze alone, than for me to feed the troll and give him more ammunition.

I honestly can't stand the guy.

[Crim]

How's that, jeff?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I didn't have a problem with that either, though I stated that IMO, he cheated more than this one time. JPhillips challenged me on even stating such an opinion, yelling about Cindy McCain sucking cock or something.

No, that's not what happened. Judge it however you'd like, but at least stick to what happened.

I said:

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.

You said:

I put the odds of this being 100% true at 0%.

I said:

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

You said:

I would agree if Edwards was credible. Otherwise, when you lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, you don't deserve to be believed. Especially on message boards that have no relevance to anything.

and I said:

So I can say Cindy McCain sucked cock for money to buy crack because she lied about her drug addiction?

I'll stick with with belief that things shouldn't be stated as facts without substantial evidence that they are facts, regardless of the venue.

[JPhillips]

The crux of it for me was the JPhillips was stating he wasn't defending Edwards, but his posts just all had a the feel of spin to me.

This is just another reason why I think it's pointless for us to continue to rehash this. I never said anything positive about Edwards and specifically and repeatedly condemned him. If you're going to assume I'm being dishonest regardless of what I've said, especially those things said before you even entered the discussion, we can't ever find any common ground.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is just another reason why I think it's pointless for us to continue to rehash this. I never said anything positive about Edwards and specifically and repeatedly condemned him. If you're going to assume I'm being dishonest regardless of what I've said, especially those things said before you even entered the discussion, we can't ever find any common ground.

I never said you said anything positive about Edwards. I have stated that you took a stance in the thread that, IMO, has the appearance of deflecting at least a little of the criticism, and IMO, Edwards deserves none of that. And given your well known political leanings, it has the distinct feel of a spin to it.

Now, I don't say this as in you're actively looking to go in here and spin things. I view it as you naturally tending toward your own ideology and protecting your own. You don't have to do it overtly or think about doing it. It's just who you are, the biases you have, just like I and everyone else has biases.

You insist on wanting to make this out like I am saying you are outright being positive about Edwards or that I am calling you a liar, and the fact is, these are outright mis-statements of what is going on. I have never called you dishonest in this thread, nor have I ever believed you were (except maybe with yourself, but that's a battle for you and yourself alone). But you continue to try to drag me through the mud by stating that I have. It's pretty insulting and I wish you would stop.

[JPhillips]

Call it what you want, but there's no possibility of discussion when you're certain you understand my motives better than I do and are willing to ignore any evidence to the contrary. There seems to be nothing I can say or do that would lead to believe I wasn't trying to defend Edwards.

It's not my intention to drag you through the mud. You made clear in the MLB thread that you are inclined to go after me based on our history, but that history, as far as I understand, consists of you calling me out and me defending myself. I'm not aware of any time that I've started anything with you. I don't know why you've decided to put a target on me, but based on what you've said in this and the MLB thread, it's clear that you see a need to call me out where you don't with others.

I don't know you and conversations on the internet tend to both purposefully and unintentionally create a character that doesn't fully represent a person. I've never thought of you as a bad guy and based on the number of people around here that think highly of you I'd imagine that IRL you're a good person to be around. I don't think I fully understand you, but I also don't think you have a very good understanding of me either.

I don't think it benefits either of us or this thread to continue to argue a point where agreement isn't possible. For the benefit of everyone, give yourself the last word and let's agree to move on.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Crim

jeff061 is a ninny. I would be furious at his comments, except it's become clear to me that it is better to endure his inanities in silence. It is better to let his annoying banter flap in the breeze alone, than for me to feed the troll and give him more ammunition.

I honestly can't stand the guy.

Dude whatever. After that post in the John Edwards thread it's obvious you have it out for me. So I just won't respond any more.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Crim

How's that, jeff?

Ahhhhh. I feel so fulfilled now.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Call it what you want, but there's no possibility of discussion when you're certain you understand my motives better than I do and are willing to ignore any evidence to the contrary. There seems to be nothing I can say or do that would lead to believe I wasn't trying to defend Edwards.

It's not my intention to drag you through the mud. You made clear in the MLB thread that you are inclined to go after me based on our history, but that history, as far as I understand, consists of you calling me out and me defending myself. I'm not aware of any time that I've started anything with you. I don't know why you've decided to put a target on me, but based on what you've said in this and the MLB thread, it's clear that you see a need to call me out where you don't with others.

I don't know you and conversations on the internet tend to both purposefully and unintentionally create a character that doesn't fully represent a person. I've never thought of you as a bad guy and based on the number of people around here that think highly of you I'd imagine that IRL you're a good person to be around. I don't think I fully understand you, but I also don't think you have a very good understanding of me either.

I don't think it benefits either of us or this thread to continue to argue a point where agreement isn't possible. For the benefit of everyone, give yourself the last word and let's agree to move on.

I am sorry if I am attributing more to your motives or viewpoint then is the truth. I know I can't see into anyone's mind even face to face, much less through the Internet and all the veils we have on here, so if I said anything I feel is concretely in your mind when that is not the case, I apologize for that.

I will say, though, that I can only go forward from my own experience and what I know. All I know of you is what you post on this board. So I hope you will forgive me if I can only draw conclusions about you from that information I have available to me.

[duckman]

[sterlingice]

Aw, look at the cute kittens

SI

[jeff061]

Cute kitties? That one kitty is about to horribly maim the other you morbid son of a bitch!!!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Cute kitties? That one kitty is about to horribly maim the other you morbid son of a bitch!!!

That's it, bastard. We're throwing down. I've had just about enough of your stupid ass stances in the past.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Celebrity Hot or Not, Vol. 22: Kate Beckinsale
Kate Beckinsale hottest woman on earth? Hardly. Probably in the top 50, but we're talking about the entire earth. Clearly you have no taste and are blind as well!

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Kornheiser on MNF
In favor of Al Michaels leaving MNF. Are you nuts? How's that Tony Kornheiser thing working out?

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Which superhero are you?
And finally, this one doesn't even need any commentary. It speaks for itself!

People like you shouldn't be allowed to walk around on this earth. You might as well come clean about your Hitler-supporting and Devil-worshipping, you vanilla-frosty-loving monster!

SI

[jeff061]

I spent years burying the memories of that traumatizing super hero test. And with one fell swoop you knock down the fragile house of cards I built to protect myself .

[Buccaneer]

You actually like vanilla frosty????? Oh dear god.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You actually like vanilla frosty????? Oh dear god.

(I have no proof of it, Bucc- it's just wild, crazy accusations. This is a political thread after all)

SI

[duckman]

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

He got some nookie while his wife, who didn't have her hard working husband (who had enough money to be more stay at home, mind you) battled through cancer. And then he lied about it. And then he released a statement today with the gall enough to say he was only "99% truthful."

I don't think a lot of people do worse.

You don't read the news a lot, do you?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What do you figure the extramarital affair rate in Congress is?
Personally, I'd guess 75% to 80%.

Sounds about right. When I worked there as an intern I remember being impressed by the number of hot staffers running around. And, more than any place else I've worked, Capitol Hill just exuded a sense of desire for power or proximity to power.

Originally Posted by Logan

I think you forgot to include homosexual affairs.

I'd take Jon's estimate with the homosexual affairs inclusive.

[flere-imsaho]

LOL. You know, there's enough in the actual known facts of Edwards' adultery to castigate him about, but that doesn't stop the posters on page one from exaggerating the truth or just plain making shit up in an effort to out-do each other in the assassination of his character.

What's even better is that the same posters get their panties in a twist when someone applies the same "technique" to the character assassination of John McCain. Seriously, do some of you even read what you write before hitting the "post" button?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Though McCain sucking cock for money for crack because she lied about her drug addiction is a LITTLE bit more of a stretch that Edwards cheating on one occasion because he did on another occasion.

A more apt comparison might be to assume, given his later actions, that McCain started fooling around on his wife immediately when he returned home from Vietnam, and this later culminated in his extra-marital romance and later marriage to the drug-abusing, beer heiress Cindy McCain. After all, if you read Cindy's description of the first time they met (see the big Newsweek article on her, for instance), it's pretty clear McCain was exactly the kind of guy to already be on the prowl.

The difference, of course, is that Edwards is your proto-typical pretty-boy politician that the GOP faithful have been longing to take down since 2003 while McCain is an ex-POW (but he doesn't use that to his advantage on the campaign trail, oh no) who apparently is beyond approach for his high moral standards.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

A more apt comparison might be to assume, given his later actions, that McCain started fooling around on his wife immediately when he returned home from Vietnam, and this later culminated in his extra-marital romance and later marriage to the drug-abusing, beer heiress Cindy McCain. After all, if you read Cindy's description of the first time they met (see the big Newsweek article on her, for instance), it's pretty clear McCain was exactly the kind of guy to already be on the prowl.

The difference, of course, is that Edwards is your proto-typical pretty-boy politician that the GOP faithful have been longing to take down since 2003 while McCain is an ex-POW (but he doesn't use that to his advantage on the campaign trail, oh no) who apparently is beyond approach for his high moral standards.

Sure, that's a more apt comparison. And with a track record like that, the only reason he might not cheat on his wife now is his age.

But I still don't get the comparison between the two. Neither has had any kind of sanction against them like "being DQ'd for running for public office". So what's the point? That the Edwards thing is a bigger news story now than the McCain thing was 30 years ago? Was politician adultery even news back then?

Or are you saying that the McCain thing should be all over the papers now? Obama could certainly bring it up if he wants to - I'm sure the media would have his back.

If McCain admitted today that he had an affair this year, you don't think it would be HUGE news??

And what does the GOP "trying to bring Edwards down" have to do with this? Are they controlling the National Enquirer now? And the news media that picked up the story (a story which was sat on for MONTHS by the way, until Edwards actually admitted it)

The idea that Republicans get a pass from the media for their moral indiscretions in laughable.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

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.

No it doesn't, it never has, there were multiple sources that conflicted with the Bush Administration's version, and we've gone over this in a billion posts.

Perhaps you missed the news that the primary source for the WMD claims of the Bush Administration was a guy who couldn't hold down a job at Burger King because he was so lazy & dishonest?

Regarding McCain, McCain has a record to fall back on.

Record? What kind of record?

A family record? This from a guy who left his wife for a beer heiress almost 20 years his junior. This from a guy who was such an absentee father/husband that he wasn't able to be with near his wife during at least two of her miscarriages, and also missed when she became addicted to painkillers.

A public trust record? Can we say Keating 5 S&L scandal? How about looking at how riddled his campaign is with prominent lobbyists and soft money?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

LOL. You know, there's enough in the actual known facts of Edwards' adultery to castigate him about, but that doesn't stop the posters on page one from exaggerating the truth or just plain making shit up in an effort to out-do each other in the assassination of his character.

What's even better is that the same posters get their panties in a twist when someone applies the same "technique" to the character assassination of John McCain. Seriously, do some of you even read what you write before hitting the "post" button?

Other than the fact that none of this has actually happened in this thread.....

Edit: I take that back, Warhammer did take the bait and typed one sentence trying to distinguish McCain, which allowed you to accomplish your goal here of making an Edwards affair thread about McCain's issues. Congrats! (I'm sure you changed a lot of people's votes)

What's wrong with having opinions about whether an unproven fact happened or not? Don't tell me you don't do that. You probably have all kinds of wild theories about Bush.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Sure, that's a more apt comparison. And with a track record like that, the only reason he might not cheat on his wife now is his age.

Actually, there's plenty of rumor and innuendo to suggest that McCain's been cheating on Cindy up to and through 2000. So age probably isn't a barrier as much as the 24-hour coverage of the presidential campaign is.

But I still don't get the comparison between the two. Neither has had any kind of sanction against them like "being DQ'd for running for public office". So what's the point? That the Edwards thing is a bigger news story now than the McCain thing was 30 years ago? Was politician adultery even news back then?

Or are you saying that the McCain thing should be all over the papers now?

Any politician with skeletons (new or old) in his/her closet is a target. I'm pointing out the disconnect between the vitriol with which people are attacking Edwards in this thread (to the point of making stuff up and calling his cancer-ridden wife a "hag") and getting all indignant when people suggest the same failings in McCain.

Like it or not, McCain's the guy running for President, not Edwards. If people want to get all righteous about Edwards' behavior, don't come crying to me when it's pointed out that their guy, McCain, has some pretty scummy back history.

The idea that Republicans get a pass from the media for their moral indiscretions in laughable.

Where did I say that?