http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/09/ensign.affair/index.html

Quote :

"Statement: Ensign's parents give mistress' family $96K # Story Highlights # Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, admitted to an affair in June # Ensign says in letter that his parents gave mistress' family $96K as a gift # Parents learned of the affair and decided to make the gifts "out of concern" updated 9:15 p.m. EDT, Thu July 9, 2009 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The story of Sen. John Ensign's affair with a former staffer took a new twist Thursday with the revelation by Ensign that his parents gave the woman's family $96,000 as a gift."

Quote :

" Doug Hampton was Ensign's administrative assistant and Cindy Hampton worked on his election campaign when the affair occurred. Ensign and his family were longtime friends with the Hamptons. Ensign, a Republican from Nevada, announced the affair in June, more than a year after the check was given. Prior to the announcement, he was considered a possible Republican presidential candidate for 2012, and it is unclear if the affair has derailed his chances. The revelation raised questions about whether Ensign violated campaign finance reporting laws. On Wednesday, Doug Hampton told the Las Vegas Sun political television program "Face to Face with Jon Ralston" that his wife received more than $25,000 in severance pay, which would trigger campaign finance reporting stipulations. In response, the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a non-profit that focuses on government wrongdoing, called Thursday for the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the case."

Cheating on your wife is a horrible thing to do Sanford Ensign, but it is still a private affair until you start entangling money & your position as a public official into it.

[Edited on July 10, 2009 at 2:24 PM. Reason : I should probably include the link]

7/10/2009 2:17:18 PM

1) did we really need a separate thread for this?
2) corrupt politicians? Get out! WHy aren't you complaining about William Jefferson? Or Chuck Rangle? What about the loads of congressmen who have interests in the banks that got TARP money? What makes this case so special to you? That's right, you love the dems cause they will let you put your penis where you want, so the Repubs must be evil!

7/10/2009 2:20:24 PM

Edwards did the same thing.

Politicians get power, they think they're unstoppable and then they do shit like this.

It's certainly not breaking news

7/10/2009 2:25:26 PM

When he is someone advocating for constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage do defend the sanctity of marriage, then I'm not going to cut him much slack on this. Edwards is a total sleaze, but then again he's not out there trying to ban gay people from getting married. When you take up the title of defender of "traditional" marriage then you are subject to extra scrutiny.

But I didn't really get to me as much until it broke yesterday that about the nearly 100k paid to his mistress entangled with campaign finance issues.

7/10/2009 3:06:47 PM

Like I said, edwards doesn't care about where you put your penis, so you are OK with him. Seems like shitty reason to ignore his sleaziness while focusing on someone else's/

7/10/2009 4:24:33 PM

i'll remember this whenever you bring up the hypocrisies of someone you don't like.

7/10/2009 7:15:12 PM

Quote :

"2) corrupt politicians? Get out! WHy aren't you complaining about William Jefferson? Or Chuck Rangle? What about the loads of congressmen who have interests in the banks that got TARP money? What makes this case so special to you? That's right, you love the dems cause they will let you put your penis where you want, so the Repubs must be evil!"

Hey burro, this guy opposes Yucca Mountain with almost as much ferocity as Harry Reid. Reason enough to think the guy is a giant douche, regardless of affiliation.

Also, having your parents do the payoff? Wow, are we back in fucking high school again or what?

7/10/2009 7:58:48 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/17/a-third-c-street-republican-embroiled-in-sex-scandal/

Quote :

"A third 'C Street' Republican embroiled in sex scandal (CNN) – The wife of former Republican Rep. Chip Pickering filed a lawsuit late Tuesday against her husband's alleged mistress, making the former six-term congressman from Mississippi the third politician associated with the Capitol Hill "Christian Fellowship" home to be embroiled in a sex scandal."

He was also for amending the United States constitution to ban gay marriage.

[Edited on July 18, 2009 at 3:38 PM. Reason : .]

7/18/2009 3:37:17 PM

you gonna comment on Edwards? or Jefferson? Spitzer? Send your self-interested hackery elsewhere, man

7/18/2009 4:08:32 PM

How is it self-interested hackery to be concerned with the fact that many of the people who seek to oppress minority groups in the name of the sanctity of marriage and family values have no respect for their own marries or families?

7/18/2009 4:30:00 PM

i wonder if Rachel Maddow and Joe Scarborough(sp) share a hair piece.
they certainly share the same partisan-talking-head-format.

7/18/2009 4:32:22 PM

a lot of people don't care if someone has an affair
a lot of those people do care if doing so is blatantly hypocritical

7/18/2009 5:08:39 PM

Quote :

"Edwards did the same thing. "

you worked for him...

7/18/2009 7:04:35 PM

the difference is, these republicans have made the "sanctity of marriage" a centerpiece of their campaign platforms.

but for some reason, most republicans and their fanboys seem to be constitutionally incapable of recognizing irony.

7/19/2009 1:34:38 AM

Quote :

"How is it self-interested hackery to be concerned with the fact that many of the people who seek to oppress minority groups in the name of the sanctity of marriage and family values have no respect for their own marries or families?"

spöogyjon

Quote :

"the difference is, these republicans have made the 'sanctity of marriage' a centerpiece of their campaign platforms. but for some reason, most republicans and their fanboys seem to be constitutionally incapable of recognizing irony."

joe_schmoe

First, let me say that this Ensign fiasco sounds shady as shit. The hush money was awful, just awful--he should just go.

Second, the oppression argument is laughable. Oppressed--really?! All you have to do is travel to any number of countries in which citizens would die to come to the United States to live and you will quickly learn the true meaning of oppression. You know, places where they chop off your fucking head if you don't subscribe to their belief system.

Third, what is it with the "gotcha" every time a conservative gets caught with his or her pants down? You do realize that every time you do this it's like saying, "Join the Democrats: We have no moral standards, and we won't even call you a hypocrite when you inevitably get caught with your genitals in or around someone else's."

7/19/2009 1:50:20 AM

and hooksaw is apparently one of those fanboys who are incapable of recognizing irony.

sigh.

Look. it's one thing to do something generally understood to be sleazy and of low character (marital infidelity) and be held accountable in some way. ultimately, though, everyone understands this is a personal issue and while it can be damaging to public careers, it is best dealt with in the privacy of ones home and family.

HOWEVER ... it's another thing to repeatedly and continually publicly promote yourself as being the candidate that actively supports "X" and then be found out to be secretly violating "X"


for example: a number of high profile republicans make their campaign platform based on denying civil rights to gays, under the guise of supporting the sanctity of marriage as defined as being between a heterosexual couple.

then they are found out to be gay, themselves, after being caught in compromising situations:

Senator Larry Craig (R-ID)
-- playing footsie with a vice cop in the mens room stalls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig#2007_arrest_and_consequences

Congressman, Mark Foley (R-FL)
-- haranguing congressional page boys with sexual IM's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley#Resignation_from_the_U.S._Congress

President, National Association of Evangelicals, Chuck Haggard
-- having sex with male prostitutes while smoking meth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard#Homosexual_sex_and_methamphetamine_drugs_scandal

Spokane Mayor, and former State Senator (R-WA) Jim West
-- offering bribes to male city hall intern for sex favors
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/223201_west06.html


these are some of many examples of the type of hypocrisy that appears to be rampant amongst social conservatives. these people promote themselves as "defenders of the faith" but secretly hide behavior that is completely contrary to their faith, all the while attacking those who honestly admit to either engaging in or supporting the lifestyle.

this is why social conservatives are so laughable.

the point is the same with marital infidelity. youve got John Ensign, Mark Sanford, Chip Pickering -- all "Faith and Family" republicans -- now found out to be cheating, lying philanderers.

it's not the cheating and the lying. it's the sheer hypocrisy, knowing that they have been promoting themselves as being holy rollers, castigating others for what they themselves are doing.

7/19/2009 3:18:17 AM

Quote :

"these are some of many examples of the type of hypocrisy that appears to be rampant amongst social conservatives. these people promote themselves as "defenders of the faith" but secretly hide behavior that is completely contrary to their faith, all the while attacking those who honestly admit to either engaging in or supporting the lifestyle."

Absolutely true. So why then are we to be silent when "defenders of the little guy" like John Edwards go around acting like the biggest elitist pricks around? I seem to recall plenty of homespun folksiness from guys like this, and I don't seem to recall a lot of pro-gay attitudes either (recall that both he and Kerry shot down the notion of legalizing gay marriage). As vehement as the social conservatives? Not really. But about as sanctimonious, and therefore, equally deserving of scorn.

Let's not pretend gross hypocrisy manages to limit itself to one ideology.

7/19/2009 9:51:50 AM

i feel a little more sympathy for gays who are being denied rights than rich folks who potentially might not be allowed to quite as rich to allow for the larger safety net that edwards was advocating. but i do see your point. i was never a big edwards fan in the first place. though he was the most liberal in the last primaries. but i felt like that was just the role where he felt like he might have some chance at the nomination.

7/19/2009 9:59:52 AM

Quote :

"Absolutely true. So why then are we to be silent when "defenders of the little guy" like John Edwards go around acting like the biggest elitist pricks around? ... Let's not pretend gross hypocrisy manages to limit itself to one ideology."

actually a lot of people did say this, and edwards didn't get the nomination, and this cost kerry votes

Quote :

"I seem to recall plenty of homespun folksiness from guys like this, and I don't seem to recall a lot of pro-gay attitudes either (recall that both he and Kerry shot down the notion of legalizing gay marriage). As vehement as the social conservatives? Not really. But about as sanctimonious, and therefore, equally deserving of scorn."

its not so much being "pro-gay" as much as it is not giving a fuck what people do and not getting on a soap box against it. you won't find me defending edwards at all, but you aren't going to get a lot of traction with the argument that he is just as bad because he wasn't "pro-gay" enough

7/19/2009 10:42:22 AM

I don't think the point here has to be "who is more anti-gay" (as this one is obvious). It's "Who exhibit the most false piousness and then turns out to be a hypocritical douchebag." That one, it turns out, is a dead heat.

7/19/2009 11:35:19 AM

Quote :

"these are some of many examples of the type of hypocrisy that appears to be rampant amongst social conservatives."

I don't particularly think of those guys as hypocritical. Hypocrisy, in my mind, is more about professing one belief when you actually hold a different belief. In their cases, I actually think they still believe their actions were wrong, that homosexuality is wrong, but that they had acted out due to weakness. In fact this is pretty consistent with the idea of homosexuality as a set of "sinful acts," as opposed to a genetic/natural predisposition, and ironically that viewpoint tends to give these guys a moral escape hatch. After all, everybody sins.

Being a repressed homosexual in the closet is itself a mental "illness," that leads to a web of self-contradictions and lies. I think in most cases these guys are acting in a way that is consistent with their own internalizations of who they are; but nevertheless, in a way that doesn't make sense to the rest of us. That's the nature of the closet, and one of the big reasons that the culture wars have such a high price in human terms.

So suffice it to say I have a lot more sympathy for long-suffering repressed gay men than for, say, power-mongering egomaniacs like Ensign or Edwards. The latter start with every advantage in the world, and squander their money and power on conquests.

7/19/2009 12:21:57 PM

I thought this may be more relevant here than in the Sanford thread.

Mark Sanford and the Left's Romper Room Commentary

Quote :

"There is probably nothing that pleases our libertine left more than a social conservative's fall from grace. Just witness the predictable feeding frenzy that ensued when South Carolina governor Mark Sanford confessed to marital infidelity. Why, so voracious are his critics that a Google search for Sanford's name in parentheses and the word "hypocrite" yields 20,600 of their pages. Among other things, with the governor's condemnation of Bill Clinton's serial adultery in the 1990s, the left has put him in a glass house the size of the Crystal Cathedral. And, in all fairness, Sanford should be taken to task. We all have a duty to hold our leaders to the highest standards, and I'll be the first to say that if a politician -- regardless of party or passions -- cannot uphold sterling moral and ethical standards, he needs to go. Yet would the left join me in this? Would they say, "You know what, you're right; we can't subordinate virtue to political expediency"? Not going to happen, not with this childish bunch. On the contrary, whether it's Clinton, Barney Frank, Mel Reynolds, John Edwards, Gerry Studds or someone else, liberals tend to circle the wagons around transgressing brothers regardless of the offense. Reynolds, convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault on a 16-year-old, was pardoned by Clinton; Studds, who had an affair with an underage boy, was re-elected six times by Massachusetts voters. Hey, people in glass houses protect other people in glass houses. Of course, it's no secret that leftists couldn't care a whit about sexual impropriety. How could they? Once you've rubber-stamped homosexual behavior, it follows that everything just a lifestyle choice. [NB: I disagree with this position.] In fairness again, however, not too many leftists try very hard to feign outrage at the violation of marriage vows, which, if they had their way, would be an event in the 2012 Olympics. Rather, the stones they hurl with shot-put gusto pertain to hypocrisy, although it's never explained how such a thing is reckoned wrong in the universe of moral relativism. But how could we expect such philosophical depth, anyway, when leftists can't even understand the meaning of hypocrisy? Sanford could well be a hypocrite, but I doubt it. As I wrote in my piece, "Sanford's and Ensign's Fall from Grace Fuels the Immorality Police": I've observed that a great many people who fail to uphold their own ideals, wholeheartedly believe in them at the moment they espouse them; it is that perilous transition between talking and walking where problems occur. To paraphrase Confucius, "It is not that I do not know what to do; it is that I do not do what I know." Was the ancient sage a hypocrite? No, a mortal is more like it. Hypocrisy isn't saying one thing while doing another; it's saying one thing while intending to do another. To think otherwise is intellectually sloppy at best, as we are then lumping mortals' weakness and their self-serving deception into the same category. For example, two men tell their children not to drink to excess but then get drunk. However, while one of them planned to hit the bottle all along, the other's counsel was sincere. The problem is that he went to a gathering, had drinks waved under his nose and was seduced by the bottle. Now, call him pathetic if you must. Call him weak. Call him a sorry excuse for a father. But a hypocrite he is not. Now, I have no stake in Sanford's political fortunes. But I do care about ideas, and I see no evidence of hypocrisy. In fact, I'm not even so sure how much of a hypocrite Clinton is -- at least regarding his extra-marital dalliances. I'm content to call him a cad. Yet there are profound differences between the two men. Note that Sanford offered an unequivocal and apparently heartfelt apology at his teary-eyed press conference. There was no legalistic sleight-of-tongue about what the definition of "is" is, no feigned ingenuousness about what constitutes sex. And these differences are reflected in the behavior of their wives, too. Sanford's wife, Jenny, asked him to leave their home and wasn't by his side during the news conference. In contrast, that Hillary . . . well, she just takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'. But why? My analysis of the difference is this: While it probably was far from perfect, the Sanfords actually had (and let's hope will have) a real marriage. Jenny Sanford reacted normally, the way many hurt wives would. And it's entirely possible, as M. Sanford has said, that his Argentine escapade was his first full-blown affair. It's even more likely that it was the first time his wife had learned he had "crossed lines." As for the Clintons, they don't have a marriage. They have a business arrangement. In the 1990s, Hillary didn't stand by her man -- she stood by her plan. She had hitched her wagon to Bill's star and endured the bumps, jolts and rollovers. Did you really think she was going to cash out after giving Bill her best years and suffering the worst humiliations right when Clinton, Inc. was hitting pay dirt? No, sir, not Nicola Machiavelli. But, since I'm starting to feel like a gossip columnist, I'll move on to deeper issues. That is where the truly childish leftist commentary can be found, anyway. A good example of such a bad example is a CNN.com writer named Robert Zimmerman. Billed as a "political analyst," he recently wrote the piece, "Let's leave Mark Sanford's family alone ... as long as he leaves our families alone," and its content is as snide as the title suggests. After opening with an obligatory sentence about how everyone "had to feel extraordinary sympathy for the Governor's wife and family," he immediately transitioned into the irrational, talking about how "family values" politicians' sexual impropriety is dwarfed only by an even greater moral defect. This, supposedly, is traditionalists' divisiveness, fear-mongering, prejudice and, vice of vices, their imposition of values. He writes:"

[Edited on July 21, 2009 at 3:33 AM. Reason : Cont. below.]

7/21/2009 3:22:54 AM

Quote :

"Throughout their political careers, they have tried to dictate the definition of a moral American and a proper family. They have tried to create laws that restrict a woman's decision about her health and body and have denied personal rights and human dignity to gay and lesbian Americans. These are reflections of the immorality of their movement. . . . Now I know that many will bring up the scandals regarding the personal behavior of former President Bill Clinton, former Governor Eliot Spitzer, former Governor Jim McGreevey and former Senator John Edwards. As wrong and destructive as their behaviors were, these men did not try to dictate to us how we should live our lives . . . . I'm not precisely sure how to rate this commentary, but it hovers somewhere between idiocy and imbecility. First, Zimmerman contradicts himself within the space of two sentences. He scores traditionalists for trying to "dictate the definition of a moral American" but then labels their movement immoral. But how can you make that judgment without deciding upon a definition for a "moral American"? Some may say the difference is that he won't try to "dictate" that definition, but what does this mean? If he insists his conception of morality is correct, how is he different from the absolutists he bemoans? And if he is unsure, that throws his assessment of the traditionalist movement into question, doesn't it? OK, I get it. The fellow travelers in government he mentions (Edwards, McGreevey, etc.) don't try to legislate their values. Except, if this is true, it's only because those particular gentlemen are no longer in government. Correct me if I'm wrong, but being in government involves the act of governing; this involves controlling, and this is synonymous with telling us "how we should live our lives." Let's define this more precisely. There is no such thing as a lawmaker who doesn't try to legislate a conception of morality; this is because a law by definition is the imposition of a value. After all, a law states there is something you must or mustn't do, ostensibly because it is, respectively, a moral imperative or morally wrong - or a corollary thereof. If this isn't the case, why prescribe or proscribe it? What would be the point? Of course, from the relativistic left's perspective, morality doesn't exist and "values" are merely an expression of consensus opinion, which, of course, is synonymous with how most people happen to feel about something at a given time. Thus, implicit in the left's philosophy is the idea that they make laws in order to enforce their preferences. This robs them of all legitimacy. After all, if I can make the case that I'm legislating elements of Truth, I at least have a claim to moral authority. For then the claim is not that I'm imposing my values but, rather, morals originating outside myself -- outside man, in fact -- and authored by something superior to him. Yet leftists' implicit claim is that they are merely imposing feelings gussied up as "values"; thus, what they impose certainly is theirs. On what basis, then, should we take their pronouncements seriously? They may scoff at those who would point to God's law when shaping man's, but what alternative do they offer? Should we instead defer to their egos, their base instincts, their illusions? "If it feels good, legislate it" isn't much of a rationale. Some may say the Zimmermans of the world are being Machiavellian, that their accusations amount to a ploy designed to discredit their opponents' conception of morality. But while this may be true in a few cases, the bulk of them can't be accused of possessing that kind of sophistication. In most cases it's simply that they notice, as anyone would, the imposition of morals alien to them. On the other hand, they swim in their own values as a frog raised in a polluted pond swims in its dirty water: The values are simply the stuff of their natural environment, so leftists feel that nothing is amiss. As C.S. Lewis said about such people, "their skepticism about values is on the surface: it is for use on other people's values; about the values current in their own set they are not nearly sceptical enough." But whether they peddle this fallacy driven by phoniness or foolishness, the result is identical: it serves to stifle substantive debate. And traditionalists could do this, too. We could cite legislation we despise and complain of how the left dictates, controls, and imposes values. We could mention how the left won't let us run our own businesses as we see fit, with their anti-discrimination and anti-smoking laws and other limitations on freedom; or how they won't let us raise children as we desire, with anti-spanking laws and intrusive CPS agencies. "Ah," retorts the left, "But those things are necessary; they stop people from hurting others; they are right!" But that's the rub, isn't it? Traditionalists don't agree, and just as you leftists are sure of your dogmas, they are sure of theirs. That is why they're called dogmas. So let's now discuss the difference between a child's literary tantrums and an adult's incisive commentary. The child falls down and pounds the earth, disgorging visceral nonsense about how the other side is a meany who wants to control people's lives. The child then wants to take his ball and go home -- or take his opponents' ball away (e.g., Fairness Doctrine). But an adult understands that governing involves imposing, dictating and controlling; it involves legislating a conception of morality. It's simply a matter of what we will impose, dictate and control, of what that conception of morality will be. This won't be discovered if we entertain childish avoidance maneuvers that stifle the only debate that can determine this, the most important debate there ever could be: What is good? What is Truth? Unless a person is willing to discuss this - maturely, as an adult, without relativistic dodges - he has no more business rendering commentary or writing laws than the boys in Lord of the Flies."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/mark_sanford_and_the_lefts_rom.html

7/21/2009 3:23:27 AM