Least surprising political scandal ever?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

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)

Hey, at least it's not like the New Orleans thread that ended up being about Nazi Germany.

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.

My "wild theory" about Bush is that he took some unproven facts and translated them directly into 5000 American deaths. I'm sure that'll come as no surprise to anyone.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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?

We've also been over that the Clinton Administration believed similar intelligence. The only difference was that Bush was willing to do something about it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.?

Funny that you bring this up without PROOF, as you criticize others for doing about Edwards.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

Who's gotten indignant? Are you counting Warhammer's one sentence? You've set this up where you can't possibly lose. You respond to Edwards' affair by bringing up McCain. If people argue that it's silly and obnoxious to bring him up here, they're "indignat" about McCain's similar failings. If they just ignore you, you've managed to turn the thread about Edwards into a thread about McCain.

What McCain did 30 years ago simply isn't news in 2008 the way Edwards' admission was. Obama can certainly bring it up as a relevant part of this campaign if he wanted (unless he's afraid of similar skeltons being brought up on him).

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Where did I say that?

You didn't say it as clearly as JPhillips ("When a Democrat cheats on his wife it disqualifies him from public office. When a Republican cheats on his wife it doesn't matter"), I may have been thinking of him.

You did say

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

Which to me pretty much infers the same thing, that Edwards is being attacked more harshly here by the media because he's a Democrat, where McCain gets a pass. Maybe you're not talking about the media, but other than the difference in media coverage, I see zero difference betwen the two incidents.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

My "wild theory" about Bush is that he took some unproven facts and translated them directly into 5000 American deaths. I'm sure that'll come as no surprise to anyone.

So you never, ever state an opinion about a factual matter if it hasn't been 100% proven (perhaps through an admission)? Nobody would find an example of that in your previous posts??

[molson]

And in case anyone forgot - Edwards is still a douchebag

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by molson

So you never, ever state an opinion about a factual matter if it hasn't been 100% proven (perhaps through an admission)? Nobody would find an example of that in your previous posts??

You're equating stating an opinion with supporting and authorizing the invasion of a sovereign nation, costing untold billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives? That doesn't seem like kind of a large leap?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

We've also been over that the Clinton Administration believed similar intelligence. The only difference was that Bush was willing to do something about it.

Pity he wasn't willing to do anything about the NIE stating Al-Qaeda's danger to the U.S. mainland, and the Clinton administration's warnings during the handover about Al-Qaeda.

But yeah, use agreement on the evidence by Clinton (who had been out of office for three years prior to the invasion of Iraq) as your conclusion that Bush was right.

Originally Posted by molson

Funny that you bring this up without PROOF, as you criticize others for doing about Edwards.

Yeah, almost like I'm trying to prove a point or something....

Who's gotten indignant? Are you counting Warhammer's one sentence? You've set this up where you can't possibly lose.

Alternatively, of course, it's not that I can't possibly lose, but that I'm correct.

You respond to Edwards' affair by bringing up McCain. If people argue that it's silly and obnoxious to bring him up here, they're "indignat" about McCain's similar failings.

First, is it really necessary to quote me and introduce a spelling mistake?

Second, I'm not saying that people are being "indignant" by bringing up Edwards, I'm saying they're being "indignant" when confronted with McCain's behavior in comparison to Edwards'.

If they just ignore you, you've managed to turn the thread about Edwards into a thread about McCain.

This is a messageboard. Tangents and thread-jacking are what we do here. Besides, Warhammer and Greg are trying to turn this into a conversation about WMD. Surely that's more off-topic?

What McCain did 30 years ago simply isn't news in 2008 the way Edwards' admission was.

It may not be news, but it can certainly be relevant, especially if some people (like people have posted in this thread) want to use Edwards' actions as an example of the kind of person who can't be trusted to be President.

Originally Posted by molson

So you never, ever state an opinion about a factual matter if it hasn't been 100% proven (perhaps through an admission)?

Did I say that? Where did I say that? What is it with people around here putting words into others' mouths?

Nobody would find an example of that in your previous posts??

You might want to work on correctly parsing my current posts first.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

You're equating stating an opinion with supporting and authorizing the invasion of a sovereign nation, costing untold billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives? That doesn't seem like kind of a large leap?

I'm not talking about Iraq at all (or flere's previous posts in this thread). I'm responding to the idea that people shouldn't state an opinion about a factual matter if it hasn't been proven. In this case, that Edwards cheated on his wife at times other than the time he admitted to it.

I think that everyone in the world states opinions about what they think might have happened in any given situation, there's nothing wrong with that, and when people criticize you for doing it, they've obviously made up their mind to criticize you/defend someone else from attack no matter what.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

You're equating stating an opinion with supporting and authorizing the invasion of a sovereign nation, costing untold billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives? That doesn't seem like kind of a large leap?

Remember, liberals make unfounded assumptions because we're weak minded, while conservatives take bold stances based on feelings "from the gut".

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Remember, liberals make unfounded assumptions because we're weak minded, while conservatives take bold stances based on feelings "from the gut".

You're like a thread cancer....Who are you defending youself against now? Who's saying or even remotely implying this?

[duckman]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Remember, liberals make unfounded assumptions because we're weak minded, while conservatives take bold stances based on feelings "from the gut".

[Noop]

Flere is laying the Smackdown!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I think that everyone in the world states opinions about what they think might have happened in any given situation, there's nothing wrong with that, and when people criticize you for doing it, they've obviously made up their mind to criticize you/defend someone else from attack no matter what.

Or, alternatively, they're a) asking you to provide proof that your opinion is correct or at least factually persuasive or b) pointing out where your opinion may be based on mistruths or wild exaggerations.

[JPhillips]

Molson: You need to research the "Shorter ..." internet convention.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

You're like a thread cancer....Who are you defending youself against now? Who's saying or even remotely implying this?

Pretty much the entire GOP since 1980? Does anyone want to disagree that perhaps the key storyline of the 2004 campaign was "wishy-washy liberal vs. from-the-gut straight-shooter"?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Pretty much the entire GOP since 1980? Does anyone want to disagree that perhaps the key storyline of the 2004 campaign was "wishy-washy liberal vs. from-the-gut straight-shooter"?

So you're responding to something from the 2004 election now?

Just to clarify again, you do understand:

-I've never voted for Bush, and think he's been a horrible president
-I'm mostly liberal and am trying to talk myself into Obama, but have reservations.
-If I didn't vote for Obama, I wouldn't vote for McCain anyway
-McCain was wrong to cheat on his wife, at least just as wrong as Edwards and perhaps more wrong
-The Iraq war has been handled horribly, and knowing what I know now, shouldn't have been waged in the first place.

What drives me crazy is the extreme, unrelenting, partisianship that does nobody any favors. It makes liberals look bad. Nationally, the anti-Bush sentiment was there in '04, but liberals were SO way over the top with it that it just seemed like typical election rhetoric. When someone's views and actions, 100%, 24/7, conform or oppose a specific person or platform, their views become absolutely meaningless. It just blends together and is tuned out. All I came into this thread to do was to bash Edwards about being a douchebag, and I'm being hit by all sides by people yelling at me about McCain. When I'm not a McCain supporter.

More than half the posts here are about Mcain, Bush, or Iraq. Do you consider that a "win"?

When liberals are further perceived (fairly or unfairly) as defending Edwards by dragging McCain through the mud, do you really, honestly, don't see how off-putting that is to anyone who's remotely moderate, or just not 100% indoctornated into the Democratic party? It's a tiny, tiny example of how Democrats blow elections.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by 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.

Reaching way back into this thread: I wasn't actually pointing a finger at you, J. And I concur 100% with your last two sentences. I think we're on the same page. I don't really give a shit about the circumstances around his infidelity -- until which point Edwards tries to defend/deflect by pulling out the "remission" card. At that point, I think it's fair to point out to him that he's a douchebag and that there is never an excuse for infidelity.

Cheating is always a choice. All of the reasons, justifications and excuses that people come up with that allowed them to make that choice are inevitably bullshit. Nothing forces anyone to cheat. It's always a choice without any defense.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

So you're responding to something from the 2004 election now?

No, I'm using something from the 2004 election as an example to illustrate a point.

Just to clarify again, you do understand:

Yes, yes, yes. You should understand that I'm not attacking you or your positions, just your particular argument in this thread.

More than half the posts here are about Mcain, Bush, or Iraq. Do you consider that a "win"?

"Win"? Not really. After all, it's a messageboard. Besides, if I "won", I'd be somewhat afraid of what the prize would be.

[albionmoonlight]

I have not had the time or energy to read this thread and re-hash McCain v. Obama v. Bush v. Kerry v. Carter v. Regan v. Clinton (Bill).

But I did want to pop in and note that John Edwards = sleaze.

John Edwards Ends Fling With Anti-Poverty Center—By Ken Silverstein (Harper's Magazine)

John Edwards Ends Fling With Anti-Poverty Center

By Ken Silverstein
Once upon a time John Edwards wanted to be president. “Poverty,” he said back then, “is the great moral issue of our century,” he told a group of students at Berkeley in 2005. “People living in poverty need you. And another thing: America needs you.”
To show his own dedication, Edwards “created a tax-exempt nonprofit dedicated to fighting poverty”, reported the New York Times. Except:

The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and—unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students—the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show…
The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus for Mr. Edwards after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004 and before the start of his presidential bid this time around. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states.
While Mr. Edwards said the organization’s purpose was “making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation,” its federal filings say it financed “retreats and seminars” with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors—as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do—and there were no limits on the size of individual donations.

In other words, the Center may have done some good, but its primary purpose was to serve as a vehicle for Edwards’ political career. Indeed, it appears to be very similar to the bogus “Reform Institute” that John McCain set up after his defeat to George W. Bush in 2000, and which was designed to keep alive his presidential ambitions and reward his cronies.
Edwards of course lost his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination this year, and guess what happened to his big anti-poverty initiative? That’s right–it appears he pulled the plug on it.
About a week before Edwards acknowledged having an affair with Rielle Hunter, Edwards quietly shut down a “scholarship program he started at an Eastern North Carolina high school–a program he once promised would be a model for the nation under an Edwards presidency,” reports the Raleigh News & Observer:

Edwards’ presidential hopes have evaporated. And he recently informed Greene County officials that he would end the pilot program at Greene Central High School. “We sent a communication out to upcoming seniors and their parents,” said Randy Bledsoe, principal of Greene Central High. “Some are saddened that the opportunity is not going to be there for their children. But we’ve had a lot of positive reaction over the years.”
Edwards started the “College for Everyone” pilot program at Greene Central High in 2005, shortly after he was the Democratic vice presidential nominee. It was a privately funded effort designed to increase the number of students at a rural high school who attend college. The program provided the cost of tuition, fees and books at a public college for one year. In exchange, students had to work at least 10 hours a week while in college, take college preparatory courses in high school and stay out of trouble.

But now Edwards is no longer a presidential candidate, and with revelation of his affair, his political career is probably over as well. And no more College for Everyone. And incidentally, it doesn’t look like Edwards’ Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation did any other notable anti-poverty work, and the group itself appears to be largely defunct. The foundation has no website, and, after examining tax records, my colleague Sebastian Jones determined that it was largely indistinguishable from the College for Everyone program.

[JPhillips]

There's still a lot of good he could do regardless of his political status. If he wanted to really make a difference he could follow the Carter model and do a hell of a lot more after his political career ended.

What an asshole.

[molson]

Fortunately that article already mentioned McCain's similar sleeziness, which might spare us the desperate deflection attempts.

[flere-imsaho]

Setting up the center for those overtly-political purposes is pretty shifty. What's surprising, to me, is that he'd bother to shut them down. I wonder if, by shutting them down, he effectively was throwing in the towel for future Presidential runs (which are probably now moot because of the adultery scandal anyways).

A guy as rich as Edwards could easily put the center and the scholarship fund back on track, and he shouldn't generally have a tough time raising money for their endowments.

Anyway yeah, what a tool.

Originally Posted by molson

Fortunately that article already mentioned McCain's similar sleeziness, which might spare us the desperate deflection attempts.

Well, since you bring it up....

Heh, seriously, though, if you want to have fun with both McCain & Obama, go look up the series of stories NPR's Marketplace did on their PACs a few weeks ago. After listening to a few of the articles, I began to wonder why we bothered with campaign finance legislation in the first place.