PDA

View Full Version : Catching The Wrong John



Gayle in MD
08-12-2008, 12:46 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/catching-the-wrong-john-w_b_118064.html

Why Are The Media Talking About John Edwards Indifelity If They Aren't Going To Talk About John McCain's?

My first thought upon hearing Friday's "big news" on all the cable stations -- straight from the pages of the nation's leading investigative newspaper, the National Enquirer -- that John Edwards had been caught with his trousers down, was, "Oh, no, what if this cuts into the story of that little girl who disappeared whose mother hasn't seemed to figure out that someone is recording her jailhouse telephone conversations and putting them on the news! How will I ever get the news I need tonight?"

Let me be clear. I'm not a proponent of infidelity. As a clinical psychologist, I've seen its corrosive impact on many a marriage. But Edwards isn't running for president anymore. He's not running for Pope as far as I know. And he's not even a sitting elected official. To watch Larry King interview two "journalists" from the National Enquirer on his show Friday night was as pathetic as seeing the Edwards affair on the front page of the New York Times. If the media ran stories on every former or sitting elected official who ever had an affair, those stories alone would fill the news or sports sections of every newspaper (depending on how they classified them).

Rationalizations for Running the Story

I know what you're going to say. "He was running for president, and had he won the nomination, imagine what that would have done." True enough, and for that reason perhaps the story merited a migration from the Enquirer to the coupon section of the print edition of some newspaper somewhere. What he did was unbelievably reckless for a man who was running for president and could have put the Democratic Party in real peril had he won the nomination. And to paraphrase another Democrat who wedded restlessness with recklessness, Edwards should not have had financial relations with that woman, his videographer. All fair criticisms.

But Edwards didn't win the nomination. Personally, my primary feeling is sadness for the Edwards family. This would be tremendously difficult in private. It must be excruciating in public.

But this is an issue of character, you say. After all, he lied. But every affair involves deceit, and denying the affair is what people confronted with infidelity usually do, as they see their marriages potentially crumbling before their eyes -- and that's without the glare of the camera. It's not clear in this case (as in other such high-profile cases) to what extent Edwards' original denials were primarily motivated by self-protection, protection of his wife and family from humiliation, protection of his gonads from an angry spouse, or, most likely, all of the above.

So is lying about an affair a good predictor of other forms of deceit and corruption in office? By all reports George W. Bush has been faithful to his wife. If only he had been so faithful to the Constitution, the American people, and those silly little things we have in this country called laws.

But Edwards' infidelity was even worse because of the circumstances. His wife was ill. How could he do such a thing?

That's a compelling question, and those without sins should certainly cast their stones. An equally compelling question, however, is how the media humiliating his wife publicly in the final years of her life at this point serves any purpose than selling papers and boosting ratings. The man's children are already dealing with their mother dying. Do they really need to know -- and to know that everyone who ever meets them will know -- this level of private detail about their father's indiscretion?

As someone who has practiced psychotherapy for 25 years, there's one thing I've learned: that it's a lot easier to judge than to withhold judgment. Life isn't easy. Most people try to live good and decent lives, and most people fail at many points along the way. If fidelity over decades of marriage were so easy, I suspect more people would practice it.

What's Sauce for the Donkey out of the Race is Sauce for the Elephant in the Room

But this media "affair" raises a more serious question. If John Edwards' infidelity is news, and he's not a candidate for anything, why isn't John McCain's? He reportedly had numerous affairs in the years after returning home from Vietnam to a beautiful wife who had been disfigured in a car accident, and ultimately, by his own reports, he zeroed in like a laser on beautiful a 25-year-old heiress upon meeting her one evening in 1979 while he was still married, promptly lied to her about his age, and almost as promptly left his wife for her. We all extol John McCain for enduring 5 years of extreme hardship in Vietnam. But aren't his first wife's circumstances much like Elizabeth Edwards'? After all, the first Mrs. McCain waited in agony (and presumably fidelity) during those five long years for her beloved husband to return from Vietnam, raising their children while he was away and undergoing dozens of painful operations herself, only to be repaid by a philandering husband who ultimately left her for a younger woman.

Now personally, I don't think anybody's sex life has any bearing on a campaign, except to the extent that the candidate runs as a hypocrite, extolling family values, fighting gays while fighting his own gay demons, etc. But John McCain is increasingly making this campaign about character, and his actions over many years suggest some worrisome patterns that fly in the face of the entire story he tells about himself. Setting aside his cheating on his first wife, what about his attending to something other than the people's business as a member of the Keating Five (and ultimately contributing to a bailout that cost middle class American taxpayers the equivalent of nearly half a trillion in 2008 tax dollars -- imagine the middle class tax break we could offer if we weren't still paying off the principal and debt on that boondoggle); or hiring the most dishonest, amoral campaign team money could buy in 2008; or generating one fabricated or grossly misleading charge after another against Obama in the last three weeks (as in his sleazy new tax ad where, for example, he says Obama would raise taxes on small businesses when Obama has never proposed anything of the sort)? Like George W. Bush, he doesn't seem like a man who once was lost but now is found. He seems more like a man's whose principles are soluble in self-interest.

The Obama campaign seems reluctant to attack McCain even when the attacks are both true and on point, such as his standing on every side of virtually every issue, so they certainly won't go after his private life. Nor would I recommend they do so, unless McCain continues to raise issues about Obama's character, in which case Obama might want to take a public shot over the bow to let McCain know that if he wants to make this election a referendum on character, he can do that, but it would not be in his interest. McCain would get the message, and I suspect he would call off the dogs. Similarly, if McCain tries to mobilize anti-gay sentiment, or (more likely, since I suspect he's more libertarian at heart) colludes with those who do, it would be perfectly fair to ask him where in the Bible God prioritizes homosexuality as a sin over adultery, since there's a Commandment about one but not the other, and adultery is a far greater threat to the institution of marriage than gay people entering into committed relationships (McCain's first marriage being Exhibit A).

Washing the Media's Mouth Out with Soap

In any case, the media either need to be an equal-opportunity Enquirer -- in which case if John Edwards' infidelity deserves three or four days of media attention when he's not even running, McCain's deserves three or four weeks -- or they need to grow up. Personally, I vote for the latter. If the media decide that McCain's sexual transgressions, like virtually all Republican transgressions as long as they're heterosexual, are unworthy of media attention, they should do some serious soul searching about why they went after Edwards, and they should stop reporting on the sex lives of politicians in the future, whose personal foibles and frailties are none of our damned business.

And that leads to a final point. I have long thought that we need a watchdog on the watchdogs. Like most Americans, I watched in horror as the impeachment process was abused in 1998 with the complicity of a ratings-frenzied media that made a fortune turning the Congress into a reality show and the grand jury system into an adjunct to The People's Court. We now have a watchdog: the blogs. I suggest we use the blogosphere to teach journalists a lesson about privacy, humility, and humiliation, and put them on notice that if they continue to practice gutter journalism, bloggers will publish the same data kind of data on them that they publish on politicians. After all, journalists' objectivity is of the essence, and if they're purging their own sins by attacking them in others, the public has the right to know. And surely journalism requires the same level of honesty as public service.

So call it empathy training. My guess is that media enthusiasm for sex scandals would drop within days of the first report (replete with photos) on the sexual indiscretions of a television news anchor or reporter, and that the kind of rationalizations we have heard for two decades---"we had to cover it because the newspaper that brought you 'Woman Gives Birth to Four-Headed Reptile" was covering it -- would disappear as fast as you can say "zip it."

Drew Westen, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation," recently released in paperback with a new postscript on the 2008 election.

sack316
08-12-2008, 01:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As someone who has practiced psychotherapy for 25 years, there's one thing I've learned: that it's a lot easier to judge than to withhold judgment.

</div></div>

Well written article by this guy. But I did notice he seems to be judging as well. Be it judging Edwards, McCain, the media... whatever--- he didn't chose to withhold his. How could he expect others to do the same, especially when it's their job?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> selling papers and boosting ratings </div></div>

Bingo. I think that's the idea.

But I do like Westen's work. Especially this:

"Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want... Everyone... may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts'."--- from Westen after his study of political bias

Now that, I do think is true. He didn't even need to waste time or money doing a study. he coulda just joined us for a week and figured that one out /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
08-12-2008, 01:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well written article by this guy. But I did notice he seems to be judging as well. Be it judging Edwards, McCain, the media... whatever--- he didn't chose to withhold his. How could he expect others to do the same, especially when it's their job?

</div></div>



It's impossible to live without making value judgements, but that is a different thing than digging into personal affairs that don't concern you in order to create devastating consequences for other people, and then spreading that information around to the public. Lives are ruined by such actions.

As for such actions being a job, I think the jobs people take say a lot about who they are, also. Some journalists have nothing but high intention in the things they write, and the way they conduct themselves. Others, work for rags like The Enquirer.

Having some integrity and a conscience is not usually the path to that kind of reporting, just like McCain telling lie after lie about Obama has shown us all who he really is, another Bush, lies, blustering threats, inability to communicate, and all the rest.

Gayle

Deeman3
08-12-2008, 07:19 AM
I'll wait until this post come out in short story form to read it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r
08-12-2008, 07:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why Are The Media Talking About John Edwards Indifelity If They Aren't Going To Talk About John McCain's?</div></div>We ask you the same thing? When you were blasting McCain for sleeping around on his wife you never said anything about Edwards. Ok, well maybe you did not already know (we know your sources only give you dirt on Reps), but what about afterwards?

eg8r

eg8r
08-12-2008, 07:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's impossible to live without making value judgements, but that is a different thing than digging into personal affairs that don't concern you in order to create devastating consequences for other people, and then spreading that information around to the public. Lives are ruined by such actions.
</div></div>LOL, I don't really think you are capable of ruining McCain's life, but how about your take your own advice and cut the BS? I guess you only feel this way when it is a Dem in the news. Your double standard knows no end.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-12-2008, 08:59 AM
Pay attetion, Ed. I've already stated what a pos I think he was for what he did. Edwards was never a consideration for me, as far as votes were concerned.

I don't see the media going after McCain like they have gone after Hillary, for example, and Edwards, yet you guys seem to think that the media leans left. That's a joke.

We have a man running for president who has mental stability issues, and has committed every moral sin against marriage that a man can commit, but do we hear about it non stop? Hell no, he's a Republican.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
08-12-2008, 09:04 AM
Still in la la land, huh?

Ed, you're the least discriminating, and most partisan person on this board. The difference between you and me is that my opinions fall along the lines of statements made by special prosecutors, scientists who aren't paid off, and censored by the administration, Pulitzer winning respected authors, government charts, and the results of 16 National Security Agencies.

You, on the other hand, rely on Faux News, Limpballs, and the Republican smear machine.

You're seriously handicapped with that truth censor brain implant.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
08-12-2008, 09:05 AM
Typical Republican response to good journalism. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Deeman3
08-12-2008, 09:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Typical Republican response to good journalism. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Huffington Post, good journalism? Now that made me smile. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span>

Gayle in MD
08-12-2008, 09:37 AM
Most people think she has a great site, and good writers.

MAC
08-12-2008, 09:51 AM
Where do I get the cliff notes of this post? I went cross eyed trying to read it, haha

wolfdancer
08-12-2008, 09:56 AM
I agree for the most part with Sack's take on the article
....well written, with the author's own conclusions added in...
but as you write...we all make value judgments.
We spent over 100 mil digging out the stroke by stroke details of Clinton's affair...but was it any of our business in the first place? While these affairs are now "news"...for us old timers they are just yellow journalism.
Right up to the time of JFK, these were known but never reported.
I imagine that if we knew of the private lives of many of our huge corporate CEO's we might also be a little titillated as well.
Do these sexual peccadilloes interfere with a man's ability to do the job?
J.Edger Hoover built the FBI up to what it is today,reportedly wearing woman's clothing at private parties that he hosted.

wolfdancer
08-12-2008, 10:07 AM
Damn, this has to be frustrating for Ed...he can't even verbally
"beat up" on a Grandmother...in fact she scores the points on most of the exchanges. Meantime Ed is reduced to the lww style name-calling which passes for clever repartee amongst the two of them, and now with his new buzz words added in "hypocrite", "double-standard"

Deeman3
08-12-2008, 10:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do these sexual peccadilloes interfere with a man's ability to do the job?


</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">You are correct. It has little to do with their doing the job. I even think we all went overboard on Bubba. Its probably more of a deception story than anything else. </span>

eg8r
08-12-2008, 10:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pay attetion, Ed. I've already stated what a pos I think he was for what he did. Edwards was never a consideration for me, as far as votes were concerned. </div></div>Which "he" are you referring to since there were two in my post. If you meant Edwards, then I certainly missed that post of yours. However, my post has nothing to do with voting and whether you were picking one or the other.

eg8r

eg8r
08-12-2008, 10:46 AM
100% of the "most" you refer to are the sheeple of the left.

eg8r

eg8r
08-12-2008, 10:48 AM
Why then does Gayle mention McCain cheating on his wife?

eg8r

eg8r
08-12-2008, 10:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The difference between you and me is that my opinions fall along the lines of statements made by special prosecutors, scientists who aren't paid off, and censored by the administration, Pulitzer winning respected authors, government charts, and the results of 16 National Security Agencies.
</div></div>You are in a fantasy. None of this has to do with the my post. You feel a need to talk about McCain's private affairs yet you don't want anyone to talk about Edwards or Clintons affairs. Your double standard is at an all time high.

eg8r

eg8r
08-12-2008, 10:53 AM
Who is trying to beat anyone up. Are you really this stupid or is it just your "internet" act? Either way you are very convincing. This thread has to do with affairs. Gayle will blast McCain for cheating on his wife but then tells us, in reference to the Dems, that personal affairs should not even be brought up. You cannot have it both ways.

Now, you are no spring chicken yourself so why don't you start acting like it.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-12-2008, 10:59 AM
Pay attention, Ed.
Ed, like Wally, reads into a post what he wants to....for another prime example....see his reply.
Good thing he never had to read "Plato's Dialogues"...he'd still be trying to figure out WTF did he say?

wolfdancer
08-12-2008, 11:08 AM
I believe she's just pointing out where the real hypocrisy(if you don't mind me using your new buzz word) comes into play.
The Republicans became the majority party with their adopted Christian conservative label. So, it now does become "news" when one of their own.......
"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek.
[1596 Shakespeare Merchant of Venice i. iii. 93]"
"The devil can quote Scripture, as we all know, so why not a politician?
[1997 Washington Times 25 July A4]"

eg8r
08-12-2008, 11:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and now with his new buzz words added in "hypocrite", "double-standard"
</div></div>wolfie, I have been calling gayle a hypocrite for 7 years now, there is nothing new with that word. She seems to take offense to it so I have softened the truth for her and am using another word. Don't worry first-rung boy by the time you figure any of this out you will be long gone.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-12-2008, 12:49 PM
The only thing you contribute here is insulting name calling, and examples of your refusal to let anything of worth seep into your twisted brain.

Ed, anybody that would insist that voting for George Bush, after everthing he has done to this country, all the liess, corruption, and deceit, has no credibility.

Again, you're the last person in the world that ought to call other people a hypocrite. Bush has been the worst president in history. You just can't bring yourself to admit that anybody would have been better than this idiot, ANYBODY! That's why you have to change the subject over to Pelosi, everytime someone points out Bush's historically low approval ratings.

No wonder you like him, you're just like him. Believe what makes you feel right. You're an expert at that!

Bobbyrx
08-12-2008, 02:00 PM
The funny thing is, if the MSM had gone after this Edwards story when the National Enquirer put it out there instead of ignoring it to cover for Edwards, he would have been out of the race, Obama would have never won the early primaries and Hillary would be running against McCain

eg8r
08-12-2008, 03:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe she's just pointing out where the real hypocrisy(if you don't mind me using your new buzz word) comes into play.</div></div>Why don't you do a simple search on the "buzz" word and see how new it really is? I hate for you to continue this any further.

Just so you know, your reasoning is not the reason she gave for mentioning it. You really should not be posting before consulting her, it only leads to this type of confusion for you.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-12-2008, 03:19 PM
Ed, I'm worried that you are having a "meltdown"
Do you want me to pm both Gayle and Mike and ask them to ease up a bit?
The reason she posted that was because it was
"An Affair To remember"
(God, I love puns)
Well, hope the rest of the day goes better for you....

sack316
08-13-2008, 04:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Bush has been the worst president in history. You just can't bring yourself to admit that anybody would have been better than this idiot, ANYBODY! </div></div>

You know, I now wish things had been different. I wish we did have Gore, or Kerry in the white house. I'd love to see how different it is. How much better it is. I think I will do my best locally (not on this board, though) to push Obama. I want complete democratic control. I wanna give them their chance. And then I wanna see what we're talking about on here in a few years from now. Assuming, that is, we will still be free to do so. But really, I do hope it all happens. And I'd wager all that would be left on this board speaking is myself, eg8r (which really, lefties you should call him eh8r if you really wanna be insulting... but I know where the wit stopped so...), deeman, LWW, wally, and the rest of us evil righties. Because I'd bet there'd be nothing left to defend to make it worth the other side coming out on here. Then again, I may be on here bowing down and saying I was wrong... but somehow I just doubt that. Reality is still too strong a presence in my young mind.

Sack

Deeman3
08-13-2008, 07:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The funny thing is, if the MSM had gone after this Edwards story when the National Enquirer put it out there instead of ignoring it to cover for Edwards, he would have been out of the race, Obama would have never won the early primaries and Hillary would be running against McCain </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Yes, you are correct. So at least some good has come of a bad situation.</span>

Qtec
08-13-2008, 08:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll wait until this post come out in short story form to read it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

In short,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If John Edwards' infidelity is news, and he's not a candidate for anything, why isn't John McCain's? He reportedly had numerous affairs in the years after returning home from Vietnam to a beautiful wife who had been disfigured in a car accident, and ultimately, by his own reports, he zeroed in like a laser on beautiful a 25-year-old heiress upon meeting her one evening in 1979 while he was still married, promptly lied to her about his age, and almost as promptly left his wife for her. </div></div>

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif ie if Edwards is a ratbag, so is McCain.

Deeman3
08-13-2008, 09:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll wait until this post come out in short story form to read it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

In short,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If John Edwards' infidelity is news, and he's not a candidate for anything, why isn't John McCain's? He reportedly had numerous affairs in the years after returning home from Vietnam to a beautiful wife who had been disfigured in a car accident, and ultimately, by his own reports, he zeroed in like a laser on beautiful a 25-year-old heiress upon meeting her one evening in 1979 while he was still married, promptly lied to her about his age, and almost as promptly left his wife for her. </div></div>

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif ie if Edwards is a ratbag, so is McCain.

</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> I don't believe McCain lied about this during his campaign nor did he use campaign finds to shut anyone up. That said, he is just like Clinton with better taste in women. As I've said, the presidential choices are not good right now. A far left guy who has questionable associations and a white guy who may have cheated on his first wife. This is what we have come to in American politics.

I say we write in Snoop Dog. At least he could pass the Democratic muster.</span>

Gayle in MD
08-13-2008, 09:11 AM
As usual, you are quite wrong about that.

The polls indicated that Edwards voters would have gone with Obama, not Hillary.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
08-13-2008, 09:18 AM
"An Affair To Remember" Wow, that was the movie we went to see on our first date.

Don't you think it's rather interesting that the point of my post, which was to wonder why the supposed left Controlled media, (NOT) has been running non stop, stories about Edward's affair, who is not running for anything, with virtually NOTHING about McCain's decades of falandering, who IS a candidate for president.

That was the point, not the affairs themselves, but the right wing owned media.

Like everything else, Ed and Wally enjoy skewing the overall direction of my posts, and then using them to create completely unintended philosophies.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif
Think I'll take a nap...

Gayle in MD
08-13-2008, 09:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't believe McCain lied about this during his campaign nor did he use campaign finds to shut anyone up. <span style="color: #000066">Ha ha ha, I don't believe that anyone has even brought it up, or asked him about it, however, it doesn't surpirse me that you apparently think that John McSAME is the only man alive to run around on his wife for years, without lying about it! He has lied about just about everything else throughout his double talk express. He embodies some of the same morality attacks that the right used against Kerry, (flip flopper, living on his rich wife's inheritance, for example) but all that is fine when it's a Repiglican, right? </span> That said, he is just like Clinton with better taste in women. <span style="color: #000066">Pahleeze! Cindy McCain looks like a man, who spent all his time at the local bar. While Monica may have been somewhat overweight, she was ten times more attractive than Cindy! </span> As I've said, the presidential choices are not good right now. A far left guy who has questionable associations <span style="color: #000066">You obviously haven't bothered assessing McSame's lobbyists for tyrants and big oil, campaign operatives. The worst of the worst. </span> and a white guy who may have cheated on his first wife. <span style="color: #000066">May have? Ha ha ha, he even got his marriage liscense before he bothered with a divorce. Why did Ross Pero have to pay for all her innitial medical expenses, btw? </span> This is what we have come to in American politics.

I say we write in Snoop Dog. At least he could pass the Democratic muster. <span style="color: #000066">Democratics seem to be pushing for a change in Washington, and given the colossal mess the Republicans have made of things, I'd say that's a grand idea!

Gayle in Md. </span>
</div></div>

Gayle in MD
08-13-2008, 09:32 AM
Do you guys even bother watching any news at all?

Edwards supported Obama, not Hillary, because his voters stated that they would vote for Obama if he didn't win.

Sheesh!
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
08-13-2008, 09:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If John Edwards' infidelity is news, and he's not a candidate for anything, why isn't John McCain's? </div></div>Sure, but not according to Gayle. Politicians private lives should never be mentioned unless she is talking about McCain. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ie if Edwards is a ratbag, so is McCain. </div></div>You are absolutely correct. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
08-13-2008, 09:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Democratics seem to be pushing for a change in Washington, and given the colossal mess the Republicans have made of things, I'd say that's a grand idea!</div></div>The problem is that their change looks exactly like the status quo. That is why the country has the Dem led congress in toilet.

eg8r

eg8r
08-13-2008, 09:43 AM
You are not following your own logic Gayle. The people would no longer trust Edwards, especially those Edwards supported. They would have left in mass and hillary would have not needed to disrupt the DNC. Oh wait, that has not happened just yet.

eg8r

eg8r
08-13-2008, 09:44 AM
Your point has to do with a subject YOU keep saying should never be brought up. Don't make a point with a hypocritical subject if you want to be credible.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-13-2008, 09:46 AM
As usual, you don't base your statement on anything factual, just more of your skewed pointless false information.

Edwards voters chose Obama as a second choice, not Hillary. That's why he supported Obama to represent his own voters.

Do you ever get anything right?

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
08-13-2008, 09:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As usual, you don't base your statement on anything factual, just more of your skewed pointless false information.</div></div>Yours are not based on anything factual either, just take a look at all the secretary posts you have made.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-13-2008, 09:51 AM
Now that they have a falandering Republican running, they're ready to avoid the subject if HIS many, many affairs, but they can hash over Edwards non stop.

The right was real quick to post all this Edwards stuff, turn it around on them, and post about an actual Presidential candidate, who has the same problem, and they're ready to attack!

LOL, some things never change!

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
08-13-2008, 09:51 AM
You're hopeless. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif

eg8r
08-13-2008, 09:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now that they have a falandering Republican running, they're ready to avoid the subject if HIS many, many affairs, but they can hash over Edwards non stop.</div></div>Falandering? Are you referring to those on this board in your "they" statement? I think I have been pretty clear that they are both dogs. Is this going to be another example of us having to state something to you a thousand times before it seeps through your thick head?

No one is attacking. We took your hypocritical post about McCain cheating on his wife as truth and called him a dog for it. What more do you want?

eg8r

Deeman3
08-13-2008, 09:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you guys even bother watching any news at all? <span style="color: #FF0000">

Of course not. We wait on you to bring it to us. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

Edwards supported Obama, not Hillary, because his voters stated that they would vote for Obama if he didn't win.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> While some said this, many would have gone to Hillary in the critical areas of the Midwest, no matter what some said in exit polls.

I think the key here was that we at least dodged a bullet on Hillary and most of us would rather see Obama elected if the left has to prevail. As I have said, I am not that big on McCain anyway and won't bother to vote for him. I think many on the right feel this way and despite my respect for his service and his past bi-partisan efforts, he is not that far right of Obama and has not put forward a firm plan to be much more attentive to ecconomic issues than Bush has been. With Obama in place, we can, at least, call out the big spending wastes over the next 4/8 years and hope the public understands what drives our economy and builds wealth, business not welfare. By the time Obama finishes off the economy I'll be retired, again, and be able to live off the lavish lifestyle his presidency will provide. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Hillary would have been different and more pragamatic but her unpopular personal nature and ability to stir up discontent would have provided some insulation against policy change but she would have been good at the key socialist issues she harbors and that was too frightening for many in this country. She would have also provided at least 4 years of litigation as she would have had to defend herself over all the corruption charges from the California suits they are holding for now.

Have you not seen the entire rogues gallery of Clinton's many, many girlfiends over the years? The chubby one was not the ugliest, I admit that. She was, perhaps, the best of the baker's dozen.</span>

Sheesh!

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Double Sheesh! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span>
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

Gayle in MD
08-13-2008, 10:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While some said this, many would have gone to Hillary in the critical areas of the Midwest, no matter what some said in exit polls.

<span style="color: #000066">Your Opinion is not supported by the numbers. </span>

I think the key here was that we at least dodged a bullet on Hillary <span style="color: #000066">Is that why you voted for her? </span> and most of us would rather see Obama elected if the left has to prevail. As I have said, I am not that big on McCain anyway and won't bother to vote for him. I think many on the right feel this way and despite my respect for his service and his past bi-partisan efforts, he is not that far right of Obama and has not put forward a firm plan to be much more attentive to ecconomic issues than Bush has been. <span style="color: #000066">I'd call that destructive of economic issues, attention is an issue that both McCain, and Bush, do not have sufficient "SPAN" to sufficiently engage, hence, they can't even pronounce the names of the leaders of the world, or keep up with which countries no longer exist, or which country is the invader. </span> With Obama in place, we can, at least, call out the big spending wastes over the next 4/8 years and hope the public understands what drives our economy and builds wealth, business not welfare. <span style="color: #000066">LOL, the biggest deficit in history, created by Bush, with no positive obvious returns, and government expansion beyond our wildest dreams, with earmarks through the roof, and you're still trying to harp on Democratic policies? Ha ha ha. The expansion of welfare for terrorists under Bush, and supported by McSAME, is fine, though, as long as no American poor people get it! </span> By the time Obama finishes off the economy I'll be retired, again, and be able to live off the lavish lifestyle his presidency will provide.

Hillary would have been different and more pragamatic but her unpopular personal nature and ability to stir up discontent would have provided some insulation against policy change <span style="color: #000066">LOL, the country is in the worst circumstances since the great depression, and you're for insulation against policy change! Ha ha ha. </span> but she would have been good at the key socialist issues, <span style="color: #000066">I'll take socialism to fascism, anyday. </span> she harbors and that was too frightening for many in this country. <span style="color: #000066">Yeah, I can understand that, since fear runs the right, so much so that they forget their Constitution, their rights, and their best self interests. </span> She would have also provided at least 4 years of litigation as she would have had to defend herself over all the corruption charges from the California suits they are holding for now.

<span style="color: #000066">Any proof of that? </span>

Have you not seen the entire rogues gallery of Clinton's many, many girlfiends over the years? The chubby one was not the ugliest, I admit that. She was, perhaps, the best of the baker's dozen.

<span style="color: #000066">I don't recall any of them looking like they had been rhode hard and put up wet, like cindy. We had scaggs in high school that remind me of her. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif Guess that's why John volunteered her for the top less, bottomless, yahoo bubba event! </span>
</div></div>

Gayle in MD
08-13-2008, 10:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is this going to be another example of us having to state something to you a thousand times before it seeps through your thick head?
</div></div>

Hey, cement brain, I have condemned both their behaviors, also.
You're the one throwing around the hypocrite charges. You can't even keep up with your own nastiness. My post was about the media, not affairs, try to keep up. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif

You're hopeless.

Qtec
08-13-2008, 10:50 AM
RW hypocricy in action, straight from Fox fair and balanced. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x168904)

Q.

Bobbyrx
08-13-2008, 01:25 PM
Gosh, I'm sorry, I didn't see those polls. I didn't know that in the spring they asked Edwards voters who would you vote for if the National Inquirer is correct. I just took these quotes to be true, since they were from the Clinton camp therefore beyond reproach...... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif “I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee,” former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com. “Our voters and Edwards’ voters were the same people,” Wolfson said the Clinton polls showed. “They were older, pro-union. Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us and we would have barely beaten Obama.”

mike60
08-13-2008, 08:07 PM
My view is easy, blow jobs for all politicians. Look what it did for Bill.

Plenty of hookers down town need the work.....

mike /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif

Gayle in MD
08-14-2008, 05:15 AM
It's possible she would have gotten some, but Wolfson's take on it has not been supported by the MSM, or the polls, generaly speaking.

I've never said Hillary was beyond reproach, btw, just that she would have made the bets president of those we had left. I actually wanted Mark Warner, former governor of virginia, to run. He was my first choice, then Biden. Of McCain, Obama, and Clinton, she was my firs choice.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
08-14-2008, 05:16 AM
Fox is a joke! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

sack316
08-14-2008, 07:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">RW hypocricy in action, straight from Fox fair and balanced. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x168904)

Q. </div></div>

Colmes laid into both his co-host and guests there... really making them look pretty dumb. So we begin the segment with Hannity making his point, and end it it Colmes making his---although the guests tried to swat it way. But from that segment I heard both arguments on the matter. That, to me actually seemed balanced in the end (?)

Sack

Deeman3
08-14-2008, 09:17 AM
Lst night Colmes used the Bitch word to Hannity. Surprised me that he fought back as well as he did. I don't like Hannity as he is like a mini-me of my all time least favorite conservative, Rush Limbaugh. Both are too self centered.

I do like and respect Bill O'reilly. If most people would watch him, they would find he is pretty fair. Of course, his ratings show that no one is better.

Gretta van Sustern is o.k. but too one topic in the nature of her show, therefore too redundant. How many breaking news things can you say about one kidnapping or how exciting can you make a mother who killed her kid?

In do like Fox, but also watch CNN. I do refuse to watch the Obama network, MSNBC as a Democrat could strip naked and run through the congress and you'd never even hear about it.

Gayle in MD
08-14-2008, 09:50 AM
Deeman, MSNBC is chock full of righties. They may have Oberman, but take a look at all the others who appear on all their shows.

Scarborough, for one, and his side kick, whose daddy was and is a republican, Brezinski, spellig it how it sounds, Greenspan's wife is on there non stop, on Morning Joe.

MSNBC's chris Mathews even has more pundits from the right, than from the left, on his show.

G.

wolfdancer
08-14-2008, 10:15 AM
Democrat could strip naked and run through the congress and you'd never even hear about it.
That's because this kind of thing has become commonplace...some lust filled woman chasing after a naked Dem...or some naked Republican chasing after a senate page

eg8r
08-14-2008, 11:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Democrat could strip naked and run through the congress and you'd never even hear about it.
That's because this kind of thing has become commonplace...some lust filled woman chasing after a naked Dem...or some naked Republican chasing after a senate page </div></div>That is pretty funny. When I first heard McCain had cheated on his wife, I just knew for sure it was with another man, you know with all the strange bedfellows the right has taken on.

eg8r

LWW
08-14-2008, 05:16 PM
None of y'all were hurt by the shrapnel I hope?

I don't know why you continue to savage yourselves by jumping on these grenades?

LWW

mike60
08-14-2008, 05:47 PM
It seems to be overlooked but none of the cable news shows is watched by more than 1,500,000 if that many. The lowest reated Broadcast Network News has more than 5,000,000 and the highest more than 8,000,000 viewers. The actual right wing population is far below 50%. More like 25to30% of the registered voters. As long as the various divisions of the right are against each other for influence they're not effective.

Consider the actual percentage of voters voting.

This stat from 2004 is telling,"Number of eligible voters who didn't show up: 79,279,000 (NYT, Dec. 26, 2004). That's more than a third. Way more. If more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate."

If a third don't vote than 34% is a clear majority. If that's all it takes than the outcome is much easier to manipulate. Ask for and use an ABSENTEE BALLOT. This insures a paper trail and at least evidence if found to be mishandled. Remember it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes.

We are being unduly interfered with as we attempt to exercise our rights. The Photo ID requirements are being used to disenfranchise the poor, the elderly and this will occur until more responsible citizens become active in every state.

Good luck suckers.

miguel

Wally_in_Cincy
08-14-2008, 06:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


We are being unduly interfered with as we attempt to exercise our rights. The Photo ID requirements are being used to disenfranchise the poor, the elderly and this will occur until more responsible citizens become active in every state.


</div></div>

I do not think it is an undue burden to ask to voters to present a valid ID. If you disagree I would like to hear your thoughts.

Sid_Vicious
08-14-2008, 10:44 PM
"We have a man running for president who has mental stability issues, and has committed every moral sin against marriage that a man can commit, but do we hear about it non stop? Hell no, he's a Republican."

I'd like to hear an answer to this statement from the moralistic so-called Christians. Y'all DO need to read King James a bit if you defend yourself with 2-rights make a wrong, seriously...sid

Gayle in MD
08-14-2008, 10:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Steve Kalb of The New Haven Independent, wrote: "George Bush has, by his own account, a terrific marriage. Yet this is the same individual who has approved the wholesale gutting of the constitution, paying particular attention to rights of privacy, habeas corpus, separation of powers and the separation of church and state. While he has remained ever faithful to his wife, he has succeeded in alienating just about every other leader in the free and not-so-free world."

</div></div>

If we get another president like Bill Clinton, who can keep us out of wars, reduce the welfare rolls, create the vast number of jobs which his administration brought us, and leave us with a budget surplus, he has my wholehearted support if he needs an Occasional BJ to do the job!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
08-14-2008, 10:59 PM
After eight years of Bush nobody can afford to go out and get a voter ID. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

mike60
08-15-2008, 12:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wally_in_Cincy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


We are being unduly interfered with as we attempt to exercise our rights. The Photo ID requirements are being used to disenfranchise the poor, the elderly and this will occur until more responsible citizens become active in every state.


</div></div>

I do not think it is an undue burden to ask to voters to present a valid ID. If you disagree I would like to hear your thoughts. </div></div>

The requirements to register voters for most of the USA has been a birth certificate, baptismal certificate, neither of which has a photo attached. Most urban citizens don't drive a car
ergo no drivers license. It goes on elderly rural folks that have been out in the country their whole life. And the poor that will never drive. Well?

mike

Wally_in_Cincy
08-15-2008, 06:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The requirements to register voters for most of the USA has been a birth certificate, baptismal certificate, neither of which has a photo attached. Most urban citizens don't drive a car
ergo no drivers license. It goes on elderly rural folks that have been out in the country their whole life. And the poor that will never drive. Well?

mike </div></div>

Anyone can get a state ID in lieu of a driver's license.

eg8r
08-15-2008, 11:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The requirements to register voters for most of the USA has been a birth certificate, baptismal certificate, neither of which has a photo attached. Most urban citizens don't drive a car
ergo no drivers license. It goes on elderly rural folks that have been out in the country their whole life. And the poor that will never drive. Well?</div></div>OK, for those 5 people you just mentioned I agree. What about the other millions of voters?

eg8r

mike60
08-15-2008, 06:27 PM
Wally, Ed, Get a life.


miguel

Wally_in_Cincy
08-16-2008, 09:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wally, Ed, Get a life.


miguel </div></div>

Genius response.

Miguel, you need a driver's license or a state ID to cash a check, fly on a plane, and myriad other things in this modern age. What is wrong with asking folks to prove their identity to vote?

I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

Gayle in MD
08-16-2008, 09:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I'd like to hear an answer to this statement from the moralistic so-called Christians. Y'all DO need to read King James a bit if you defend yourself with 2-rights make a wrong, seriously...sid </div></div>

We'll never get it form them, Sid. I think some of us can readily see the hypocracy of the Republican Party, and the denial required by their supporters, after such a vast display of incompetence, dishonesty, and un-American activities, including inhumanity, of the Bush Administration, yet they can completely overlook and even support "Torture" and the killing innocent people, and destroying a whole country, to get one bad man, who wasn't even a threat, to justify all of it.

I think the children's paper, McDonald's follow the dots menu, requirement for Republicans, is much more important than a voter ID card! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif