Tea Party Reasoning? Typical sleazy political tactic -- take the behavior of a nut on the fringe of a movement and project that behavior on the movement at large. You know, every Democrat is an adulterer just like John Edwards.

John Edward isn't crazy... he's a con man! His staff hands out questionnaires asking who the audience members are there to contact, and about what. Then he comes out and uses that and his less than mediocre skills as a cold reader to fool the idiots that paid 300$ to talk to grampa into believing that they are.

He is the worst kind of person on the planet.

>> ^dgandhi:
Edwards just laughed it off. I wonder if he gets this kind of theatrics all the time.


To save face, no doubt..

I just want to make sure you have the facts straight.

Bill Clinton
John Edwards
Eliot Spitzer
Gary Condit
Gavin Newsom
David Paterson
Barney Frank

These are the most famous politicians that I am actually familiar with. I didn't do any research on obscure politicians from the sticks. I'm sure we can all agree that I could go on, but what's the point. Same as the republican party - there are more than have been previously mentioned.


Paterson is still Gov of NY so he obviously didn't resign
Newsom didn't resign
Clinton didn't resign
Edwards didn't resign or get pushed out of anything. He had already removed himself from the Presidential race before anyone knew about his infidelity.
Condit didn't resign even though there was more than just cheating involved in his scandal.
Barney Frank is still "spraying it, not saying it" to this day.
Only Spitzer resigned.

Edwards and Clinton have continued to be active in politics since their affairs were made public. Clinton remains popular among some democrats (he was very active during the last Presidential election) and Edwards gave an interview last week in which he stated, "What happens now? If you were to ask people during the campaign who's talking most about [poverty], it was me. There's a desperate need in the world for a voice of leadership on this issue. . . . The president's got a lot to do, he's got a lot of people to be responsible for, so I'm not critical of him, but there does need to be an aggressive voice beside the president."

I guess he thinks the world needs him. Doesn't sound like a resignation to me.

And don't get me started on all the TAX evasion scandals this year: Charlie Rangel and Tim Geithner to name the two biggest.


You guys are all so cute with your delusions and wild imaginations, though. It was a nice attempt at winning the game of "partison politics."

It's pretty clear to me who has a "holier than thou" attitude here on the sift and on the news.

True that!

My point is that I hate when we play the "Democrats are ALWAYS right and republicans are always wrong game (or vice versa)." Just call a spade a spade.

Again, those were just off the top of my head and I just remembered another one: David Paterson, current Gov. of NY. I'm sure there are others, I just don't care to look.


I just want to make sure you have the facts straight. Paterson is still Gov of NY so he obviously didn't resign, Newsom didn't resign, Clinton didn't resign, Edwards didn't resign (he had already removed himself from the Presidential race), and Condit didn't resign. Only Spitzer and Hart resigned, not 'all but one' like you stated.

Edwards and Clinton have continued to be active in politics since their affairs were made public. Clinton remains popular among some democrats and Edwards gave an interview last week in which he stated, "What happens now? If you were to ask people during the campaign who's talking most about [poverty], it was me. There's a desperate need in the world for a voice of leadership on this issue. . . . The president's got a lot to do, he's got a lot of people to be responsible for, so I'm not critical of him, but there does need to be an aggressive voice beside the president."

I guess he thinks the world needs him. Doesn't sound like a resignation to me.



In reply to this comment by Citrohan:
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
^I'm pretty sure he's not gay. Didn't he cheat with a lady?



...and don't try to make this a partisan thing. It's a SCUMBAG thing. I could give you a few examples of the infidelity of prominent Democrats from off the top of my head:

Bill Clinton
John Edwards
Eliot Spitzer (Gov of NY involved in Prostitute Scandal)
Gary Hart (Ran against Bush Sr. in '88)
Gary Condit (The guy involved in the Chandra Levy Murder Scandal)

...but Republicans ARE on a roll right now. Pitiful.
Gavin Newsom (Dirtbag Mayor of San Freaksisco)


Yes, the Republicans are on a roll NOW compared to the list you provided. This is the second such incident in so many weeks where as the examples you listed are old news. I mean come on, Gary Hart? That was over twenty years ago! Yes, Democrats do get caught up in a mess like this, but the difference, as in the case of Spitzer, they RESIGN or step aside (as all but one of your examples did). Ensign, the mens room toe tapper Craig, prostitute and diaper aficionado David Vitter stay on, despite the wishes of their constitutes. These examples are off the top of my head as well, but a big part of why I remember them is because they happened with in the last two years or less.
As fair as it being a partisan thing, if Al Gore’s home’s carbon footprint and his use of private CO2 spewing jets are fair game in the “Who’s a Hypocrite Game” , then any Family Values politician that acts like this is fair game as well. You know, that thing about what people in glass houses should avoid doing.

BTW Gary Hart did NOT run against Bush in 1988. Hart didnt even make it past two primaries.

^I'm pretty sure he's not gay. Didn't he cheat with a lady?



...and don't try to make this a partisan thing. It's a SCUMBAG thing. I could give you a few examples of the infidelity of prominent Democrats from off the top of my head:

Bill Clinton
John Edwards
Eliot Spitzer (Gov of NY involved in Prostitute Scandal)
Gary Hart (Ran against Bush Sr. in '88)
Gary Condit (The guy involved in the Chandra Levy Murder Scandal)

...but Republicans ARE on a roll right now. Pitiful.

Oh, and Gavin Newsom (Dirtbag Mayor of San Freaksisco)

Wow. He just flew past John Edward to become the Biggest Douche in the Universe...

John Edward's $400 haircut sounds less and less unreasonable compared to this...

^ Easy to fix if more people paid attention. It's not as if they disinvited Paul from every debate (though they did once he flopped in the Iowa caucus).

I think Paul also failed to use his campaign funds properly. Did he hire a campaign strategist? Did he flood the airwaves in Iowa? Had he been making appearances there nonstop for the 6 months beforehand?

If he'd won the Iowa caucus, he'd have been taken seriously by the media -- no laughing him off would be possible then. Heck, even a 2nd place finish would've kept him in the media spotlight.

I think the traditional right-wing noise machine would've ripped him apart because he's not part of their pro-corporation, anti-citizen agenda, like they did with Huckabee and McCain. Doesn't seem to have worked on McCain, unfortunately.

I also think you're overestimating the Republican base's committment to real conservative philosophy. I think most of the base thinks it's all about babies, guns, and jesus, and talking in simple, absolute terms. Small government just means tax cuts -- domestic wiretapping is okay. Refusing to testify before Congress is a sign of strength, and they want a strong leader.

In short, I think there's a better case for the CFR theory if you follow the campaign of John Edwards, rather than Ron Paul.

He beat Hillary for 2nd spot in Iowa, but the media completely ignored him, and his numbers fell sharply after that.

Back to the economics, I'm in agreement with Paul about the need for the losers in charge of these companies, and their shareholders to pay a price for the failures they've wrought. I'm thinking he's painting too rosy a picture about what would happen if the companies outright failed, though. I'm pretty sure in the short term that would be seriously ugly, though in the long term (decade-scale) it'd probably make the recovery faster.

Question is, do you want a sharp, short downturn that makes people lose their homes, or a longer, wider one where people can keep them, but are just moderately worse off for a longer period of time?

There's probably more area under the 2nd curve, but isn't there a case to be made that it's better for people to have the shallower, broader downturn?

>> ^Lurch:
>> ^rougy:
Typical conservative.
When somebody says something you don't like, it's not enough to disagree, but you have to wish them bodily harm as well.
As if you could survive in the wilderness due to your native prowess....
Hypocrisy.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Ann-Coulter-talks-about-John-Edwards
"Why do peopel give that skanky old whore any face time at all? She is genuinely evil, and I'm going to party on the day she dies."
http://www.videosift.com/video/No-Nukes-for-You-A-history-o
f-LIES-about-Irans-nukes
"Hang them by the neck. Or fly a B-52 over Tehran and drop Lieberman, Bolton and any other cowardly piece of dirt neocon within arms reach of Washington. In fact, we should soften them up by dropping Grover Norquist and the rest of his...smaller government weenies into the Bay of Funday, just for practice."
Really... it seems so incredibly rare for me here on the sift to actually find a comment where you aren't wishing someone dead, spewing hatred and personal attacks, or pulling the nazi card. You might actually be a decent guy, but you'd never be able to tell from this place. All I see is constant anger, a lot of hate, and insults. But it's only typical conservatives, or "fat headed cons," that do that kindof thing to innocent liberals. Yup, couldn't possibly be you too.


Hey stop being so hateful.

>> ^rougy:

Typical conservative.
When somebody says something you don't like, it's not enough to disagree, but you have to wish them bodily harm as well.
As if you could survive in the wilderness due to your native prowess....

Hypocrisy.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Ann-Coulter-talks-about-John-Edwards
"Why do peopel give that skanky old whore any face time at all? She is genuinely evil, and I'm going to party on the day she dies."

http://www.videosift.com/video/No-Nukes-for-You-A-history-of-LIES-about-Irans-nukes
"Hang them by the neck. Or fly a B-52 over Tehran and drop Lieberman, Bolton and any other cowardly piece of dirt neocon within arms reach of Washington. In fact, we should soften them up by dropping Grover Norquist and the rest of his...smaller government weenies into the Bay of Funday, just for practice."

Really... it seems so incredibly rare for me here on the sift to actually find a comment where you *aren't* wishing someone dead, spewing hatred and personal attacks, or pulling the nazi card. You might actually be a decent guy, but you'd never be able to tell from this place. All I see is constant anger, a lot of hate, and insults. But it's only typical conservatives, or "fat headed cons," that do that kindof thing to innocent liberals. Yup, couldn't possibly be you too.

>> ^BillOreilly:
make fun of the kid with Down's Syndrome


Hmmm, obviously you and I watched different videos.

He made a snide remark about John Edwards, not the DS baby. But, why let little things like that get in the way of your awesome rants?

The press is swearing on a stack of bibles that Obama will pick either Joe Biden, Evan Bayh, or Tim Kaine. They also swore on a stack of bibles that there was no reason to doubt that there were WMD in Iraq.

Snarkiness aside, I'm thinking they're right, it'll be one of those three, with a smidge of possibility for Katherine Sebellius.

Nobody has an inside line, but I think the smartest pick for Obama out of that group is Biden, and I think the press is right to consider him the front runner.

I'm with Fjnbk, I'd probably be most excited about Al Gore, but that's not happening.

There's quite a few people I liked more than the names that are left, Jim Webb, Chris Dodd, John Edwards (before I knew about the affair), and even Bill Richardson, but Webb & Edwards are out of consideration, and Dodd & Richardson's names never made it on any of the short lists, even when the short list was 15+ people.

I'm trying to figure out who McCain will pick. I've got zero read on where he's at, but I don't see anyone who'd be a good choice for him. Who'd be able to energize independents without pissing off the base, or who'd energize the base without pissing off independents? Why wouldn't such a person have become the nominee in the first place, if they existed?

If I had to guess, I'll say Romney, which will mean I get to promote old videos of McCain and Romney attacking each other from the Republican debates.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Disappointing. You know, as much as I liked Edwards populist message, I always sensed he was a bit smarmy. I guess I was right. Wow, we really dodged two bullets in the nomination fight.


Dude, a LOT of bullets...

Agreed.

>> ^rougy:
“I thought that since U.S. is supporting Georgia there would be some control over the situation in South Ossetia and that there would be a peaceful solution to the conflict. But what is happening there now it’s not just war, but war crimes. George Bush and [Georgian president] Mikhail Saakashvili should answer to the crimes that are being committed – the killing of innocent people, running over by tanks of children and women, throwing grenades into cellars where people are hiding,” Mestas said.
“The war is when military fight against military. But the Georgian army is killing innocent civilians. This is genocide,” he added.
http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28824

It's hard as hell for an American to know what's going on since we have to learn more about John Edwards and his mistress, first.