John Edwards plans on marrying his mistress once his wife dies

R

rumblebear

CAGiversary!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/us/politics/20edwards.html?_r=2

Looks like Andrew Young, John Edwards aide is shopping for book deals.

"Mr. Young, who has since renounced that statement, has told publishers in a book proposal that Mr. Edwards knew all along that he was the child’s father. He said Mr. Edwards pleaded with him to accept responsibility falsely, saying that would reduce the story to one of a political aide’s infidelity."

"In the proposal, which The New York Times examined, Mr. Young asserts that he assisted the affair by setting up private meetings between Mr. Edwards and Ms. Hunter. He wrote that Mr. Edwards once calmed an anxious Ms. Hunter by promising her that after his wife died, he would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band."


I don't understand why in this day and age John Edwards would go to this extent to cover up his affair and love child. It's not like he's a Republican running on family values. It's perfectly reasonable why he would have this affair: His wife was getting old, fat, sick, and undergoing cancer treatment which makes her further more undesirable and abnormal-looking. Any sane man would have ditched her right away. I know he was running for President at the time, but had he come out I'm sure the mainstream media would've empathize with him and get him tons of extra good press. Instead the mainstream press had to assist him in covering this up, further reducing his visibility.

Well it's nice to know John Edwards has a plan to be happy soon. He already had his mistress move her home closer to his, and they're probably planning their grand wedding ceremony right now. Only thing they're not set on is the date, which shouldn't be too far off now given how sick Elizabeth Edwards is.

Hopefully Obama will give John Edwards a high cabinet position as his wedding gift. Edwards was suppose to be appointed the U.S Attorney General as his reward for endorsing Obama and stopping Hillary, but I guess he wanted his private life to settle down first before accepting such position.
 
[quote name='homeland']The right better not jump on this. They are the ones that preach of the importance of keeping the family together.[/QUOTE]

You won't be seeing much of anyone jumping on this because John Edwards has the equivalent political importance of a ham sandwich these days.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']You won't be seeing much of anyone jumping on this because John Edwards has the equivalent political importance of a ham sandwich these days.[/QUOTE]

Ham Sandwich 2012!

The debates against Sarah Palin are guaranteed to be a definite win.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='homeland']The right better not jump on this. They are the ones that preach of the importance of keeping the family together.[/QUOTE]

And the left preaches understanding of gay marrriage, yet Obama won't back it and Dick Cheney does. The left is full of hypocrites as much as the right. They both suck.

Who cares who uses what as fodder, it's all a smokescreen that politicians use. That's why shit like Halliburton and Acorn can fester and pop up out of nowhere like they do because we focus on clowns like John Edwards and Glenn Beck and the stupid shit they do.
 
No one cares about this story. He is a non-entity, he has no future political career.

The same goes for Sarah Palin. I could care less what she is doing. That said, I'm praying she becomes the GOP frontrunner for president in 2012, as it will guarantee an Obama win.

Let's talk about John Ensign, David Vitter, and Mark Sanford, two sitting senators and a sitting governor, who admitted to extramarital affairs and are still viable politically.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I know, i've never heard him say he agreed with it.[/QUOTE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5jefmsqBG8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

This is why the concept of liberalism and conservatism is absurd in this country. No one is liberal all the time or conservative all the time. This is also why one side isn't better than the other. Sometimes people actually think for themselves instead of spewing the ideology of their party.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5jefmsqBG8

.[/QUOTE]
that is such a cop out, anytime they don't want to deal with something they make it a states rights issue. Well how about all the benefits that the federal government grants married people that would leave his daughter out in the cold since its a state to state thing in his mind.
 
[quote name='IRHari']No one cares about this story. He is a non-entity, he has no future political career.

The same goes for Sarah Palin. I could care less what she is doing. That said, I'm praying she becomes the GOP frontrunner for president in 2012, as it will guarantee an Obama win.

Let's talk about John Ensign, David Vitter, and Mark Sanford, two sitting senators and a sitting governor, who admitted to extramarital affairs and are still viable politically.[/QUOTE]

I don't think she has much left in the way of political ambition. She saw the nastiness of politics during the 08 election and decided she didn't want to deal with any of it anymore. Despite what the political pundits and commentators say she won't run for office anymore.
 
[quote name='IRHari']No one cares about this story. He is a non-entity, he has no future political career.

The same goes for Sarah Palin. I could care less what she is doing. That said, I'm praying she becomes the GOP frontrunner for president in 2012, as it will guarantee an Obama win.

Let's talk about John Ensign, David Vitter, and Mark Sanford, two sitting senators and a sitting governor, who admitted to extramarital affairs and are still viable politically.[/QUOTE]

You know this is why he has no political future, right? People were saying he'd become Obama's AG and then this story broke.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']that is such a cop out, anytime they don't want to deal with something they make it a states rights issue. Well how about all the benefits that the federal government grants married people that would leave his daughter out in the cold since its a state to state thing in his mind.[/QUOTE]

Obama said it is a state issue too.
 
It's funny that Clinton did the same backtracking on Gay rights when he was elected, yet the Gay Left would never think of abandoning the Democrat Party.

Hillary backtracked even before the primaries were over and was never taken to task for her betrayal of the Gay cause.

There is nothing "Liberal" about the Democrat Party. They are Leftists disguising themselves as "Moderates" or "Centrists". The terms really has no meaning except being politically expedient and morally bankrupt to please whomever will give you power.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's funny that Clinton did the same backtracking on Gay rights when he was elected, yet the Gay Left would never think of abandoning the Democrat Party.

Hillary backtracked even before the primaries were over and was never taken to task for her betrayal of the Gay cause.[/quote]

Well unless there's a viable third party...

[quote name='bmulligan']There is nothing "Liberal" about the Democrat Party. They are Leftists disguising themselves as "Moderates" or "Centrists". The terms really has no meaning except being politically expedient and morally bankrupt to please whomever will give you power.[/QUOTE]

But....left....what?

If they were leftists they would be supporting gay marriage. So are you saying they're not supporting gay marriage because they're leftists or because they're trying to fake being moderates?

Both Democrats and Republicans think they would lose support if they advocated for gay marriage, because the Republican base is against it and the Democrat not-base is against it. They both use "state's rights" as a cop-out (as it almost invariably is) so that they can pander to the everyone while not actually doing anything.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well unless there's a viable third party...



[/QUOTE]

Until someone other than Neal Boortz is the most recognizable Libertarian in the US it will never happen.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's funny that Clinton did the same backtracking on Gay rights when he was elected, yet the Gay Left would never think of abandoning the Democrat Party.

Hillary backtracked even before the primaries were over and was never taken to task for her betrayal of the Gay cause.

There is nothing "Liberal" about the Democrat Party. They are Leftists disguising themselves as "Moderates" or "Centrists". The terms really has no meaning except being politically expedient and morally bankrupt to please whomever will give you power.[/QUOTE]


what are you talking about backtracking Obama has always says that he understands the want for gay marriage and says it up to the states decide.

Yes its politicking, but he's not lying or backtracking on anything.
 
It might help if people stopped summing up everyone's agenda into a single word.

Just as the American Dream is different for every American, Liberal/Conservative/Democrat/Republican/Christian/Catholic/Muslim/Jewish/Baptist is different to every American.

More importantly, each label is much more complex than what you might be able to fit onto a bumper sticker or shout at another person.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='SpazX']
If they were leftists they would be supporting gay marriage. So are you saying they're not supporting gay marriage because they're leftists or because they're trying to fake being moderates?[/QUOTE]

I disagree with you here. If they were Leftists (and they are), they have the same ultimate goal of the reactionary Right - The curtailment of you personal freedom and subjugation to the State. They will pander, under the guise of being a "liberal", to whomever will give them power. It's the same lie as a Republican saying they want smaller government, backtracking to the middle to get as much pork as possible, then get re-elected.

If they were real "liberals", they would champion an individuals right to freely associate, and then act accordingly instead of morphing into a moderate to wield a plurality over any policy movement. Then, every 2 years they can give more lip service to the "liberal" cause, get re-elected, and claim the road to freedom is a long, arduous process and can't be done in just one or two terms.
 
[quote name='gareman']what are you talking about backtracking Obama has always says that he understands the want for gay marriage and says it up to the states decide.

Yes its politicking, but he's not lying or backtracking on anything.[/QUOTE]

It's bad government.

States should not be allowed to deny two private individuals the right to join into a legal contract based on the gender of the individuals.

For Obama (or any President) to say "State's Rights" - is simply a neglect of duty.

And this is coming from a proponent of state's rights.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I disagree with you here. If they were Leftists (and they are), they have the same ultimate goal of the reactionary Right - The curtailment of you personal freedom and subjugation to the State. They will pander, under the guise of being a "liberal", to whomever will give them power. It's the same lie as a Republican saying they want smaller government, backtracking to the middle to get as much pork as possible, then get re-elected.

If they were real "liberals", they would champion an individuals right to freely associate, and then act accordingly instead of morphing into a moderate to wield a plurality over any policy movement. Then, every 2 years they can give more lip service to the "liberal" cause, get re-elected, and claim the road to freedom is a long, arduous process and can't be done in just one or two terms.[/QUOTE]

bmull is right.

Best way to solve is strict term limits for every elected office in this country. I'd even go as far as limiting the President to one six year term. That way there's no pandering in the first term. It might be a disaster at the local level but there could simply be a law that you keep the position until someone else wants it.
 
[quote name='depascal22']bmull is right.

Best way to solve is strict term limits for every elected office in this country. I'd even go as far as limiting the President to one six year term. That way there's no pandering in the first term. It might be a disaster at the local level but there could simply be a law that you keep the position until someone else wants it.[/QUOTE]

I mostly agree with this. I've never understood the reason why local elected officials have to "run" every election when there's no one running against them. Seems like a waste of time and money. I would like to see a "Keep Mr. X in Position Y" option, though. If a majority of people vote no, then the office will be vacated and a special election can be held.
 
[quote name='depascal22']bmull is right.

Best way to solve is strict term limits for every elected office in this country. I'd even go as far as limiting the President to one six year term. That way there's no pandering in the first term. It might be a disaster at the local level but there could simply be a law that you keep the position until someone else wants it.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this mostly. I think Senators should be limited to one six year term, representatives two, two year terms, and the president 1 or 2 four year terms. Could work for state and local levels too.
 
Anytime you have a candidate that's looking toward re-election instead of governing, you'll run into conflict of interest. One six year term and that's it. Saves millions in election money and also gives legislators ample time to push legislation and put their stamp on this country.
 
I think we found a solution most can agree on. I think almost all politicians should only get one term. The current system almost forces politicians to pander and ignore issues just so that they can get re-elected.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's bad government.

States should not be allowed to deny two private individuals the right to join into a legal contract based on the gender of the individuals.

For Obama (or any President) to say "State's Rights" - is simply a neglect of duty.

And this is coming from a proponent of state's rights.[/QUOTE]

While I agree with you in principle on the gay marriage issue, I still think many of these issues should be solved as states rights issues.

I'm thinking more of the enforcement angle - I don't like the idea of feds breaking down the door or ripping up contracts while enforcing controversial legislation in areas where it is wildly unpopular. Using a heavy hand is counter-productive - on the liberal side it reinforces phobias about totalitarianism and distrust of the law enforcement - on the conservative side it plays into the persecution complex and Fox channel's martyrdom of loony conservative bigots.

When you let states decide these matters people can vote with their feet and it's harder for radicals to decry their treatment. It's all a matter of time, as long as we remain a democracy the progressives will overcome.
 
When I read the title, I thought the OP was talking about the TV psychic, and John Edwards saw that his wife was dying soon and was making plans already.
 
[quote name='camoor']While I agree with you in principle on the gay marriage issue, I still think many of these issues should be solved as states rights issues.

I'm thinking more of the enforcement angle - I don't like the idea of feds breaking down the door or ripping up contracts while enforcing controversial legislation in areas where it is wildly unpopular. Using a heavy hand is counter-productive - on the liberal side it reinforces phobias about totalitarianism and distrust of the law enforcement - on the conservative side it plays into the persecution complex and Fox channel's martyrdom of loony conservative bigots.

When you let states decide these matters people can vote with their feet and it's harder for radicals to decry their treatment. It's all a matter of time, as long as we remain a democracy the progressives will overcome.[/QUOTE]

How funny, in one topic I'm arguing for discrimination, then, in the next topic, I'm arguing against it. ;)

In theory, I agree, the state and local governments should not interfere with a contract signed between two parties based on the gender of the individuals involved. However, if the state or local government refuses, then the parties should have the right to appeal to the Federal Government.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']And the left preaches understanding of gay marrriage, yet Obama won't back it and Dick Cheney does. The left is full of hypocrites as much as the right. They both suck.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='GuilewasNK']Obama said it is a state issue too.[/QUOTE]

Just thought those quotes in the same thread should be next to eachother. On that note, Dick Cheney said in your clip that his family "lived with for a long time in our family" referring to his daughter's homosexuality, I wouldn't consider that supporting gay marriage. He made it sound more like a debilitating disease or handicap than a sexual preference, but maybe he just sounds that grim all the time. You and I both know that if she wasn't his kin though, he'd be as openly anti-homosexuality as every other right wing conservative.

And as for John Edwards, I felt betrayed when I found out, because it was extremely reckless of him to continue his pursuit of the presidency after succumbing to his desires like that. If he'd been elected, or even just gotten the nomination before it came out, we could've ended up with another George W (or worse) just like how Bill inadvertently screwed over Al Gore's chances. I don't blame Bill Clinton entirely for 2000-2008, but I do hope he feels guilty about it every day until he's made more reparations, because it's in no small part his fault that George W was elected.

Despite my animousity towards Edwards, I don't think he could possibly be as slimy as one man has described him. And I followed the Left Wing news reasonably closely but I never heard any talk of Attourney General for him, so I don't know where you're getting that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top