this is what happens when state grads go to UNC.

8/10/2008 2:19:05 PM

haha

8/10/2008 2:26:27 PM

i can't believe people are defending him. what an idiot. if he had somehow won the nomination, we would be fucked right now... the fact that he was even pursuing the presidency after that blows my mind.. did he not think it was going to come out eventually?

8/10/2008 4:05:15 PM

i cant believe people liked him in the first place

8/10/2008 4:06:46 PM

i cant believe you still post in TSB

8/10/2008 4:53:06 PM

you are like the xsmp of tsb now

8/10/2008 4:56:21 PM

nice try, but no.

you see, there are 3 big diffs between me and that guy:

(1) i went to State.

(2) i got a 4-year degree.

(3) i'm not a creepy pedo.

8/10/2008 5:01:50 PM

lol ok you win

8/10/2008 5:29:39 PM

Quote :

"it doesn't change what happened. You've got a guy who's spent his whole career discriminating against homosexuals that is found to be pursuing sex in a public area with a complete stranger. You've got a guy talking about family values who cheated on his wife"

Well, I don't think I ever argued that it changed what happened. When did I say that?

I just think that somebody who is gay has no obligation to support gay rights, nor to live as an openly gay man, and they have every right -- in my view -- to live a life of moral opposition to homosexuality if that is their choice. But that doesn't make it at all easy (and in my view nigh impossible) for them to overcome their innate sexuality.

Analogously (dangerous I know, analogies are officially impossible on TWW) -- people may become addicted to nicotine, find it almost impossible to quit, and yet in their public lives as statesmen and leaders decry smoking. But we don't reasonably believe they're hypocrites if occasionally they succumb to the urge to smoke. They are simply weak when confronted with the force of addiction, as we all are. Such is its nature.

So -- I don't think Larry Craig and Edwards are even in the same league on this. I sympathize much more with a man who lived a life of such internal conflict between his own belief system and his innate sexual drive. Believe it or not, very many gay people simply spend part of or their entire lives in intellectual and emotional turmoil because the cards they're dealt don't line up with their value systems.

Edwards can claim no such internal conflict or difficulty except that he is now revealed as an unfeeling sociopath. I find it hard to sympathize; the comparison to Craig is beyond unfair except in the most superficial terms.

8/10/2008 8:22:54 PM

Wait, wasn't Craig also married when he supposedly sought out a sex partner? That seems like a paralel.

What's your source for Craig's motivation being some innate sexual drive? I believe he still claims he isn't gay, whatever that means.

Finally, I question adultry as proving someone an unfeeling sociopath. In the patriarchal world we live in, maybe. It's definitely dubious that she was a campaign worker. Past that, though, why shouldn't humans engage in sex acts as they please?

8/10/2008 9:00:28 PM

didnt craig like always deny it and edwards is definitely guilty?

8/10/2008 9:25:15 PM

^^^ How, then, do you define hypocrisy at all? I have a hard time teasing it out of what you are saying above, at it seems to rule out what most people would call hypocrisy.

If you will: someone condemning an action or behavior in others as "evil" and working to criminalize that behavior - in whatever degree of magnitude - would be a hypocrite by conventional definition. A pill-popping pundit who regularly rails on the need to go after junkies, for instance. Or, I'm sure one can produce their own scenario.

It doesn't seem to matter whether one has an internal self-conflict going on while it happens - the fact is, their actions belie their words. Which seems to be the conventional definition of hypocrisy.

That being said, the basic characterization of Edwards as innocent of hypocrisy fails on the grounds that, while he wasn't exactly campaigning as a Moral Majority crusader, the fact was that he pretty much campaigned on his personal integrity and shamelessly exploited his relationship with his wife for sympathy does kind of stink of a certain level of hypocrisy - or, if not hypocrisy, gross disingenuousness.

Which of course leads me to agree with Smoker4's characterization of Edwards as a calculating sociopath. Of course, even without the infidelity I'd be saying that - this is John Edwards we're talking about.

8/10/2008 10:06:01 PM

Quote :

"What's your source for Craig's motivation being some innate sexual drive? I believe he still claims he isn't gay, whatever that means."

But there's a difference, in my view, between people who are 'gay' which is to say they desire men on the basic level of physical lust, and to say they are 'gay' as in they actively identify themselves as primarily attracted to the same sex and that it is part of their basic identity.

The actual concept of being 'gay' is somewhat nebulous and drives much of this discussion. In the modern politics of sexuality, one's orientation is very much a function of identity. Which is to say one actively characterizes oneself as "gay" versus "straight" versus "bisexual" or whatever else. But in my view that's just a social construct. At the end of the day how can one make a single statement about what they find attractive? For example I am gay but that means for all practical purposes I seek out the same sex. But I can't prove definitively that there's NO woman anywhere on Earth I would find sexually attractive. That amounts to proving a negative existential which is of course very hard to do.

The point of all this is -- it's not fair to call Larry Craig a hypocrite because he denies the rights of people who self-identify as gay, but then acts out with the same sex. You're not comparing apples to apples. In fact what makes being "gay" significant is that you "come out" and make it part of your identity versus merely considering it to be a series of individual acts. That's the bold step all openly gay people have taken as part of "coming out." It requires a lot of prerequisites -- like believing being gay is "who you are," believing that your life should be solely devoted to the same sex, believing that such a mode of existence is OK, etc. etc. -- all tied to value systems, social constructs, etc. etc.

Larry Craig is an old guy who lives in Idaho. It's entirely believable to me that he's never bought into all those prerequisites and expecting him to "come out" as a gay man in accordance with his physical lust is a bit much. It's more likely for someone like him to act out because, at the end of the day, no matter what your value system is, it's really fucking hard to control your deepest sexual orientation. Devoted Catholic clergy who are sworn in front of God to celibacy fail in this matter; it's no wonder a powerful senator on frequent business trips does.

To me the whole "identity politics" of sexual orientation is just a helpful abstraction. Gore Vidal has always said he believes sexuality is fluid and I think he's right. The modern concept of being "gay" exists in a way to put people into helpful boxes so we can understand them. The truth is a little harder to deal with -- I've known gay Mormons, sworn Pentacostal ministers, prominent Republicans, devout Catholics, -- all people who "shouldn't exist" or are "hypocrites" on paper, but in reality these are ordinary people who are more than their sexuality and have to fight with the inherent contradictions in their lives every day. I respect that struggle as it's fundamentally very hard and for many people consuming. It's easy to sit here and say "hey, come out, admit it, stupid!" but until you've walked a mile in those shoes, I wouldn't recommend it.

8/10/2008 11:37:43 PM

Quote :

"That being said, the basic characterization of Edwards as innocent of hypocrisy fails on the grounds that"

Smoker4:

Quote :

" He lacks the surface credibility to get by with the "weakness" excuse. Especially considering that in a way he not only dishonored his wife in public but also his deceased son to whom he dedicated much of his public life."

So maybe I am misleading you somehow, but I don't basically characterize him as innocent of hypocrisy? Theres a very real possibility Edwards is a hypocrite.

My point is that those who compare him to Larry Craig are wrong. I think Craig was quite sleazy in his actions but I don't think the man a hypocrite. Based on what I know, he genuinely believes in the anti-gay positions he took, he was just unable to curtail his own sexual drive.

And in fact I'll go further and say I think there's a very real possibility that by comparison, Edwards is one of the worst, most sociopathic, and perhaps even most hypocritical politicians to come about in the last ten years. By that standard Craig doesn't hold a candle to him.

Quote :

"Finally, I question adultry as proving someone an unfeeling sociopath. In the patriarchal world we live in, maybe. It's definitely dubious that she was a campaign worker. Past that, though, why shouldn't humans engage in sex acts as they please?"

His wife had cancer and the overall motivation for his public life was, in part, to honor his deceased son. He also claimed to be a tireless advocate of the poor. He risked all that on a single sex act and then lied about it in public for months on end.

If that's not an unfeeling sociopath, nobody is.

[Edited on August 10, 2008 at 11:47 PM. Reason : foo]

8/10/2008 11:44:58 PM

Quote :

"So maybe I am misleading you somehow, but I don't basically characterize him as innocent of hypocrisy? Theres a very real possibility Edwards is a hypocrite."

No, I'm more asking why Craig isn't. I guess my real question is, "How do we define hypocrisy?" Because ordinarily, they both seem like hypocrites - the order of which we can debate.

My larger point pertains to, your own post aside, the fact that Craig is commonly accepted as a hypocrite whereas Edwards is not, the reasoning being that somehow Edwards wasn't a right-wing demagogue. He did, however, place his character and his relationship to his wife (who has teh cancar!!!one) at the center of his campaign. Which, in my mind, makes him a hypocrite - if you're selling yourself as a paragon of personal integrity and then turn out to be just another sleazebag - one who lies with ease and does so in the most awful of circumstances - well, you're a pretty huge hypocrite, and possibly a sociopath. (So we agree there, this point was more to address the more prevailing opinion otherwise.)

Quote :

"My point is that those who compare him to Larry Craig are wrong. I think Craig was quite sleazy in his actions but I don't think the man a hypocrite. Based on what I know, he genuinely believes in the anti-gay positions he took, he was just unable to curtail his own sexual drive."

Let's assume this is true. Then, as we understand it, Craig actives condemns an activity which he himself is unable to keep himself from engaging in. So, I guess the question is, is it not wrong (by his standard, not mine) when Craig does it? Given that he's spent a significant amount of effort making life difficult for other gays, what exactly do you call his behavior, if not hypocrisy?

I mean, to put it another way - I don't think anyone would be getting on his case if he'd spent his public service quietly in the closet and never spent the kind of energy he did making life difficult for gays. It'd have been just One More Congressional Sex Scandal, and that's it. What makes the story so salacious is his anti-gay advocacy, and what makes his solicitation of gay sex all the more galling.

[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 12:49 AM. Reason : .]

8/11/2008 12:42:34 AM

NEWSFLASH: anti-gay republican congressman seeks men for filthy airport bathroom footsies and anal sex.... CHECK

NEWSFLASH: old lecherous anti-gay republican congressman tries to fuck teenage page-boys.... CHECK

NEWSFLASH: evangelical, anti-gay pastor of rightwing megachurch smoking meth with male prostitutes.... CHECK

...

CUB REPORTER: got another one, boss! democratic senator has brief affair with 43-year old professional woman who was contracting for his campaign...

TABLOID EDITOR: um ... i dont know ... can't you spice it up a bit? Any farm animals? Gay midget troupes on trapeze?

CUB REPORTER: well, his wife was in remission from breast cancer...

TABLOID EDITOR: ehh ... i suppose. go ahead and run it.






[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 12:58 AM. Reason : ]

8/11/2008 12:50:06 AM

BLOOBITY BLAH BLAH BLAH.

There, I've summed up page 5 for you people.

8/11/2008 3:13:11 AM

Quote :

"What makes the story so salacious is his anti-gay advocacy, and what makes his solicitation of gay sex all the more galling."

Well, again -- as I've tried to explain -- I think the problem here is the equivalence that's made between gay _acts_ and gay _identity_. When you talk about gay rights as a political, moral, social, etc. movement, it's a very different beast from individual sex acts.

I mean, even within the gay community itself I know people who wholly oppose gay marriage. Are they hypocrites because they also sleep with men? What if they oppose equal employment laws?

The "gay rights" movement clearly covers way more than sex per se. Sex is at the core of homosexuality but it's not the only thing. We're also dealing with issues of relationships, adoption, etc. etc. that go way above and beyond.

8/11/2008 3:21:39 AM

what the fuck are you talking about?

8/11/2008 3:24:02 AM

^ Can you read?

8/11/2008 3:24:42 AM

apparently not. i guess i'll try again tomorrow.

8/11/2008 3:25:39 AM

Look, let me just ask you this. Let's say Senator John Doe spends his days on Capitol Hill fighting tirelessly for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Maybe he also opposes Gay Adoption and ENDA, voraciously.

Then he goes home at night and he's a normal single guy except he likes to find men to have one-night stands with. No marriage, etc. -- he's just a guy who has occasional one-night stands with men.

Is he a hypocrite? Why or why not?

I say no. Because having sex with men doesn't mean you support Gay Marriage. Nor does it mean you support Gay Adoption. Or ENDA. Or any specific policy related to Gay Rights. In fact I think you can even still actively oppose them and not be in any way a hypocrite.

I don't see what's hard to understand about this. And likewise, why does Larry Craig's sex with men somehow make him a hypocrite in regards to his public policy positions on gay rights?

[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 3:36 AM. Reason : foo]

8/11/2008 3:35:18 AM

what the fuck are you talking about?

8/11/2008 4:01:36 AM

^^Because public policy opposing gay rights relies on the premise that it protects the sanctity of marriage when Craig was violating his marriage left and right. And he was trying to have sex in a public place where children are likely to be around.

Quote :

"I say no. Because having sex with men doesn't mean you support Gay Marriage. Nor does it mean you support Gay Adoption. Or ENDA. Or any specific policy related to Gay Rights. In fact I think you can even still actively oppose them and not be in any way a hypocrite."

Bullshit. Would John Doe's supporters feel the same way? "Oh you can fuck all the dudes you want, but we support your right to be fired over it". If they saw him walking down a street arm-in-arm with his latest bar conquest, would that be ok? No, of course not. His supporters would vote under the assumption he was straight (meaning he has no sexual contact with men), and he'd let that assumption go unchallenged.

You seem to be caught on the definition of hypocrisy (which I would say is when your actions contradict your stated beliefs), so I'll just say that Larry Craig's sex acts are despicable (just as Edwards' affair was). On top of that, Craig's political platform was based on keeping men who engaged in his behavior in the closet instead of living openly. The idea that he is more deserving of sympathy is absurd.

8/11/2008 9:39:41 AM

craig>edwards

8/11/2008 9:46:52 AM

Quote :

"It wouldn't be nearly as bad if he were an atheist, pagan, or muslim right? PEOPLE are hypocrites."

If he were a muslim, and had spoken of the religious values he has that involved a cohesive family and honoring his wife, then yeah, he'd be a hypocrite. If he were a pagan or atheist that spoke about how important "family values" are (which you probably wouldn't see an atheist or a pagan do), then yeah, he would be a hypocrite. He is a christian, though, and his religion and love for his wife and defense of "traditional family values" are a hallmark of his public person and campaign, and he's once again proven that prominent religious icons can very easily be jerkoffs.

8/11/2008 9:52:22 AM

Quote :

"The modern concept of being "gay" exists in a way to put people into helpful boxes so we can understand them. "

I'll agree with that much. It applies to a lot of other minority groups too.

8/11/2008 10:32:13 AM

Quote :

"Gore Vidal has always said he believes sexuality is fluid and I think he's right."

I agree completely. I'd go further and say it's primarily conditioned and constructed. That's why I question your talk of deepest sexual orientation and the like.

Quote :

"His wife had cancer and the overall motivation for his public life was, in part, to honor his deceased son. He also claimed to be a tireless advocate of the poor. He risked all that on a single sex act and then lied about it in public for months on end."

That's all assuming there's something wrong with adultry. (And something right with marriage.) As Edwards and his wife apparently bought into this view, I guess that does make him guilty of a transgression. But he would decribe it much as you describe what happen to Criag. Temptation, weakness, etc. Why does that work for one but not the other?

8/11/2008 10:53:03 AM

I love this quote from the NandO

Quote :

""The creepiest part of his creepy confession was when he stressed to Woodruff that he cheated on Elizabeth in 2006 when her cancer was in remission. His infidelity was oncologically correct.""

Here is what he said about Clinton's affair.

Quote :

""remarkable disrespect … for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter." "

[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2008 12:26:46 PM

Screw the argument of whether or not adultry is right or wrong. The general opinion of society is that its wrong, and more importantly, if you are (or pretend to be) a christian, you should think (or pretend to think) adultry is wrong.

^lol

[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 1:19 PM. Reason : ]

8/11/2008 12:56:25 PM

the creepy part about the anti-gay republican congressman, Larry Craig, is that he would play bathroom stall footsie with complete strangers in a dirty airport shitter in his bid to solicit gay sex in some twisted attempt to squelch his own self loathing

the creepy part about the anti-gay republican congressman, MAF54, is that he would e-stalk teenage boys at their homes and send them IMs while rubbing his cock on the computer screen. that is, if he wasnt being physically ejected from trying to drunkenly crash into their dorms late at night.

the creepy part about the anti-gay fundamentalist preacher, Ted Haggard, was that in between his Republican Focus on the Family fundraisers and hellfire and brimstone sermons chastising members to be "Soldiers of Christ"... he was smoking meth and getting sexed up with male prostitutes.



now THAT's fucking creepy shit.








[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 1:01 PM. Reason : ]

8/11/2008 12:56:25 PM

^^ heh, it's okay to cheat on your wife as long as she doesn't have cancer, I guess.

8/11/2008 1:03:37 PM

sucks to be that guy right now

8/11/2008 1:10:00 PM

ADULTERY

8/11/2008 2:38:54 PM

Quote :

"If he were a muslim, and had spoken of the religious values he has that involved a cohesive family and honoring his wife, then yeah, he'd be a hypocrite. If he were a pagan or atheist that spoke about how important "family values" are (which you probably wouldn't see an atheist or a pagan do), then yeah, he would be a hypocrite."

I think what you're missing, and what I was trying to get across is that his calling himself a Christian, and being a hypocrite isn't nearly as important in this instance as some other instances. (Haggard's indiscretions were a much better example of Christian hypocrisy.)

I'm not sure I buy into your phrasing of the pagan/atheist example, because in the case of Edwards, the issue at hand is not so much "traditional family values" as being a married man. (The very nature of taking vows to forsake all others, yadda yadda yadda, making a person officially a partaker in monogamy, rather than some proponent of family values.)

If you are actually seeking to prove that "prominent religious icons can very easily be jerkoffs" then I'm afraid you're wasting your time on proving something has been around for as long as the earliest days of the church. (read Acts some time) In fact, it predates Christianity as evidenced by the state of Israel in those same days.

So perhaps instead of hand ringing every time somebody of a belief system different from your own fails, you might find that there is some greater lesson to be learned. Like for instance, the grace and forgiveness with which Elizabeth is dealing with the whole situation. But hey, maybe not, ring away!

8/11/2008 3:15:02 PM

Quote :

"I'd go further and say it's primarily conditioned and constructed."

LOL

Quote :

"Why does that work for one but not the other?"

Because Craig was talking about his built-in sexuality, and Edwards is talking about his unbridled ambition and narcissism -- which he clearly "conditioned" and "constructed" by choice, given his chosen career path.

8/12/2008 3:05:19 AM

Quote :

"You seem to be caught on the definition of hypocrisy (which I would say is when your actions contradict your stated beliefs), so I'll just say that Larry Craig's sex acts are despicable (just as Edwards' affair was). On top of that, Craig's political platform was based on keeping men who engaged in his behavior in the closet instead of living openly. The idea that he is more deserving of sympathy is absurd."

I'm caught up on the actual meaning of something versus just having a superficial name-calling fest? I'd say that's a "problem" unique to TWW. I'm glad to have it.

Anyway I still don't think you answered the hypothetical question about John Doe. What his supporters think has nothing to do with anything.

If a person engages in same-sex activity, is he obligated in any way to support gay marriage, or gay rights, or gay people "living openly?" The answer to that question is emphatically no.

Maybe you're right and his supporters in reality would boot him out for his behavior. But that's politics, not morality. John Doe is still behaving in a perfectly reasonable and consistent way overall.

8/12/2008 3:14:28 AM

It seems good ole johnny might have violated some laws bc he was running for president when he started buying this girl off. They had to move her from NC and bought her a house in Cali, along with another man from the campaign. This could get worse for the proud lawyer.

8/12/2008 9:07:41 AM

Quote :

"Maybe you're right and his supporters in reality would boot him out for his behavior. But that's politics, not morality. John Doe is still behaving in a perfectly reasonable and consistent way overall."

To cast off an implicit deception as "politics" is laughable. John Doe only behaves in a "perfectly reasonable and consistent way" if you consider saying whatever it takes to get elected as acceptable, personal integrity be damned.

Quote :

"I'm caught up on the actual meaning of something versus just having a superficial name-calling fest? I'd say that's a "problem" unique to TWW. I'm glad to have it."

I don't get what you're saying here. You're the one branding Edwards an "unfeeling sociopath" while trying to debate the definition of "hypocrite". You're name-calling and being anal about a definition.

8/12/2008 12:08:21 PM

Quote :

"If a person engages in same-sex activity, is he obligated in any way to support gay marriage, or gay rights, or gay people "living openly?" The answer to that question is emphatically no."

I can buy the premise that someone who engages in same-sex activity has no political obligations to the larger gay rights agenda, however, that being said - does not them actively speaking out on the inherent "wrongness" of a lifestyle they themselves practice - or would practice, in secret - the part where it steps over the line?

Further, going back a bit - it's not just that people such as Craig pushed political ends counter to the interests of the gay community - which is and should be the right of any member of said community - it's that his very reasoning was in the fact that such a lifestyle was immoral, yet one that he himself practiced or would practice. So it doesn't seem so distant and remote from his identity - his politics were based upon a premise that a certain behavior was wrong and should be condemned, and that thus the law should follow from that. Now we find that he attempted to engage in such acts covertly and anonymously. If that isn't hypocrisy, just what is it?

So, in other words, while being gay shouldn't come with the baggage of having to support any particular set of policies, if one bases their policies on a moral premise - i.e., "homosexuality is wrong" - and pushes a legislative agenda on that premise, and then is later to be found engaging in behavior counter to the premise behind their legislative agenda - how is that not hypocrisy?

[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 12:16 PM. Reason : .]

8/12/2008 12:14:09 PM

Quote :

"I can buy the premise that someone who engages in same-sex activity has no political obligations to the larger gay rights agenda, however, that being said - does not them actively speaking out on the inherent "wrongness" of a lifestyle they themselves practice - or would practice, in secret - the part where it steps over the line? "

Didn't Hitler commission the act of genocide to promote an 'ideal race', in which Hitler himself was not technically included?

Sure, invoke Goodwin's Law, but this is a rare case where I find allusion to Hitler to draw a perfectly relevant parallel.

8/12/2008 12:23:50 PM

Quote :

"Didn't Hitler commission the act of genocide to promote an 'ideal race', in which Hitler himself was not technically included?"

I always kind of wondered why the German people didn't look at the picture of the ideal "Aryan" and look back to Hitler and just say, "What the fuck, man?"

8/12/2008 12:32:30 PM

i love how they took edwards out of the speaking for this AND REPLACED HIM WITH BILL CLINTON

8/12/2008 12:35:02 PM

The entire point of this is the hypocrisy.

Both examples are a big WTF. Maybe you shouldn't have supported the legislation keeping people like yourself from pursuing happiness... maybe you shouldn't have mass murdered all these people because of how they look, epically considering how... they look like you... ...

8/12/2008 12:37:44 PM

Quote :

"so didnt lunak work for him? i hope she didnt like work for him voluntarily"

haha i just saw this....

yea i actually did

8/12/2008 9:49:27 PM

its the "voluntarily" part that gets me


i mean did you think he was a nice guy or what? i just "dont get" why you'd work for him...i know women have bad judgement but DAMN...

8/13/2008 9:37:42 AM

Yeah I met the dude back in 1995 and even then I knew he was slime.

8/13/2008 9:53:57 AM

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/124755.html

Quote :

"The UNC think tank that once provided John Edwards a platform to discuss poverty issues is not counting on the former Senator and two-time presidential candidate to return to the fold."

8/13/2008 10:56:25 AM

Who cares if he cheated on his wife? I mean seriously people, get over yourselves. You are not holier than thou. People fuck up, just be happy when it's something harmless like cheating on a wife and not something harmful, like... starting a war and murdering thousands of people for no apparent reason other than to transfer $100 billion from the taxpayers to private contractors.

Not only that, he spoke up for the homeless vets - something I see more than anyone else on TWW. I'm sure it wasn't his idea, but nobody else running made a deal about it. And you guys are talking about him cheating on his wife?

LOL - Next step -- go join the Bill O'reilly clan and run up on journalists on the street to try to make your program look tough. After you deny that there are any homeless vets in this country, you gotta do that first.

8/13/2008 12:01:51 PM

Quote :

"Who cares if he cheated on his wife? I mean seriously people, get over yourselves. You are not holier than thou. People fuck up"

you're right...lots of people cheat on their wife while she has cancer

8/13/2008 12:05:05 PM