News What were the consequences of John McCain's affair on his political career?

[Greg Bernhardt]

Can't believe I am first to break this on PF. Who saw this coming? How does this affect the DNP?
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/...r-convention-role-unclear/?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[OrbitalPower]

I actually was rooting for him in the primary and was sorry he lost to Obama and Hillary. Of course, now I am glad, as it likely would have come out during the campaign or something. I think it's unfortunate so many people are concerned with superficialities.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I actually was rooting for him in the primary and was sorry he lost to Obama and Hillary. Of course, now I am glad, as it likely would have come out during the campaign or something. I think it's unfortunate so many people are concerned with superficialities.

Yeah how could he think that would not surface if he was the candidate. It would be game over before it started.

 

[chroot]

Who gives a crap about what a politician does with his genitals? Find something more relevant to worry about.

- Warren

 

[turbo]

I feel sorry for his wife. She has had the attention of more than a few people on health-care issues, and this is really going to derail her work.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Who gives a crap about what a politician does with his genitals? Find something more relevant to worry about.

- Warren

It's not what he did with his genitals, but what he did to his family of 5. I would not trust a man for president who cheats on his wife and betrays his children, do you?

In the interview, Edwards says he lied repeatedly about the affair with a 44-year-old woman while his wife struggled with cancer. He denied he is the father of the woman’s child as reported by The National Enquirer, which broke the story.

Do don't see a problem with that chroot? That he could have been candidate for president?

 

[Jordan Joab]

Who gives a crap about what a politician does with his genitals? Find something more relevant to worry about.

- Warren

Thank you.

 

[fourier jr]

I actually was rooting for him in the primary and was sorry he lost to Obama and Hillary. Of course, now I am glad, as it likely would have come out during the campaign or something. I think it's unfortunate so many people are concerned with superficialities.

Who gives a crap about what a politician does with his genitals? Find something more relevant to worry about.

- Warren

Today is the day that the Beijing Olympic organizers humiliated every western, blond-haired, blue-eyed, English-speaking Olympic host city with their opening ceremonies. Maybe that's the reason the US media opted to focus on Edwards' personal life today.

 

[humanino]

It's not what he did with his genitals, but what he did to his family of 5. I would not trust a man for president who cheats on his wife and betrays his children, do you?

Truth is : it sells tabloids. There is nothing more to it, people don't like to think too hard about complicated political arguments.
Oh, the bad guy cheated on his wife is a simple argument understood even (especially) in Texas.

Disclaimer : I have absolutely nothing to back up this opinion.

 

[kyleb]

It's not what he did with his genitals, but what he did to his family of 5. I would not trust a man for president who cheats on his wife and betrays his children, do you?

I'm not much on trusting politicians regardless, but I think Thomas Jefferson did a respectable job with the office despite his infidelities.

 

[Crosson]

I don't personally care about this frivolous issue, but I am very disappointed with John Edwards for endangering and damaging the democratic party with this nonsense. He, and Bill Clinton in 1998, were more concerned with themselves then they were with advancing the democratic agenda (I don't say that because they wasted time having extramarital sex, I say it because they knew their actions had a high probability of hurting the party in future elections but they couldn't stop themselves).

On the other hand, democrats likely wouldn't mind if bedroom issues become central to the campaign, since Obama has a much cleaner history as a husband and father then does John Mccain.

 

[Jordan Joab]

I don't personally care about this frivolous issue, but I am very disappointed with John Edwards for endangering and damaging the democratic party with this nonsense. He, and Bill Clinton in 1998, were more concerned with themselves then they were with advancing the democratic agenda (I don't say that because they wasted time having extramarital sex, I say it because they knew their actions had a high probability of hurting the party in future elections but they couldn't stop themselves).

On the other hand, democrats likely wouldn't mind if bedroom issues become central to the campaign, since Obama has a much cleaner history as a husband and father then does John Mccain.

That we know of.

 

[Gokul43201]

I would not trust a man for president who cheats on his wife and betrays his children, do you?

A lot of people will be voting for McCain.

 

[Crosson]

That we know of.

That is hardly worth saying, since we have no reason to doubt the public account of Obama's life. It would likewise be wrong to follow the statement "John McCain has not ever been a pedophile" with your "that we know of." The reason that it is absurd to say things like this is that we do not doubt things without a reason, since otherwise we could doubt everything everyone ever says. In other words, cautioning that Obama may have hidden affairs in his past, without any evidence for this, is simply fear mongering.

 

[WarPhalange]

It's more likely that someone has had an extra-marital affair than that they are a pedophile.

You can say "McCain has never had an affair that we know of." but saying anything about pedophilia is a bit far.

 

[russ_watters]

Can't believe I am first to break this on PF.

Really? It doesn't surprise me at all!

 

[russ_watters]

This is interesting - this is almost exactly the same as how McCain's went down (difference is he married the woman). Is Edwards' name still being kicked-around as a VP candidate? This could kill him because I suspect the Dems are holding this issue in reserve for Sep/Oct.

 

[Crosson]

It's more likely that someone has had an extra-marital affair than that they are a pedophile.

So exactly how likely does something have to be in order to arouse your suspicion? Would it be correct to follow "John McCain has never used illegal drugs" with "that we know of?" I chose this example because most statistics put the rate of illegal drug use beyond the rates of affairs, although you can find statistics that disagree with this.

More directly, I think that applying frequentist logic to human behavior is a flawed way to derive conclusions. Not only do humans have free will, which allows them to break frequentist patterns a priori, but also in practice the frequentist misapply there own system by comparing two situations that are essentially different. You might counter this by saying that frequentist reasoning works well "in practice", but I would argue that this is not a scientific claim because it cannot be falsified.

You can say "McCain has never had an affair that we know of."

You can say it, but then you would be contradicting public facts e.g. McCain's biography that was linked to by Gokul above:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter5.html

"McCain has admitted to having extramarital affairs. "

McCain wrote: "But my marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine."

Ex-wife Carol wrote: "The breakup of our marriage was not caused by my accident or Vietnam or any of those things. I don't know that it might not have happened if John had never been gone. I attribute it more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."

"McCain was generous with Carol, the mother of their daughter Sidney and two sons, whom McCain had adopted."

but saying anything about pedophilia is a bit far.

Again, what standard are you applying? At what point does a societal pathology become statistically large enough for you to suspect all people of possessing it without any direct evidence?

 

[Crosson]

Is Edwards' name still being kicked-around as a VP candidate?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/20/ap-edwards-makes-obamas-vp-list/"

This could kill him

I agree, I think he hardly had a chance to begin with and now he is very unlikely.

because I suspect the Dems are holding this issue in reserve for Sep/Oct.

This might be true, but you should also consider that the democrats might be ignoring McCain's infidelity because it is frivolous and irrelevant. Only time will tell, but I hope that the democrats take the high road.

 

[WarPhalange]

Again, what standard are you applying? At what point does a societal pathology become statistically large enough for you to suspect all people of possessing it without any direct evidence?

My point was saying "XXX never had an extra-marital affair... that we know of" is low, but saying "XXX is not a pedophile... that we know of." is just stupid.

 

[Crosson]

My point was saying "XXX never had an extra-marital affair... that we know of" is low, but saying "XXX is not a pedophile... that we know of." is just stupid.

I asked you what criterion you are using to make this distinction, and you said that my example is "just stupid." I think that it is wrong to distinguish some kinds of unfounded speculative fear mongering from others, the entire method of inference, if you can even call it that, is too flawed. By drawing a distinction you are giving legitimacy to this misinformation tactic.

 

[WarPhalange]

How many people have extra-marital affairs? How "acceptable" is it?

Now, how many people are pedophiles? How "acceptable" is that?

Statistically speaking, either candidate is more likely to cheat on his wife than molest some kid.

 

[WheelsRCool]

I don't like politicians cheating on their wives, but it's ultimately no one's business I'd think.

I don't like that the media has kept so quiet about it though. If this was Mitt Romney, or Giuliani, I would bet it would be headlines in the all the major news media publications and news channels.

 

[LowlyPion]

It's more likely that someone has had an extra-marital affair than that they are a ...

I think this line of argument is counterproductive and your choice of "worse than" an extramarital affair more than unfortunate. Without careful reading you are creating by association a potentially salacious libel juxtaposing Edwards' name (or anyone's name save maybe Michael Jackson's for that matter) and I think it is something to be avoided.

As to the OP, I wouldn't have voted for Edwards against most other Democrats, but certainly this revelation throws a shroud of hypocrisy over his ads about standing by Elizabeth and the 2 of them vowing to defend the common person. I am disappointed in his supposed values and the demonstrated selfishness at the very time that he was trying to advance himself on the wings of selflessness.

 

[LowlyPion]

If this was Mitt Romney, or Giuliani, I would bet it would be headlines in the all the major news media publications and news channels.

Not for Guiliani. He's a been there done that guy already. Squeaky clean Mitt the Mormon on the other hand would surely be more than explosive news in the context of his moral rectitude posturing.

 

[WarPhalange]

I don't like that the media has kept so quiet about it though. If this was Mitt Romney, or Giuliani, I would bet it would be headlines in the all the major news media publications and news channels.

Guiliani did have an affair and it was all over the news.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is interesting - this is almost exactly the same as how McCain's went down (difference is he married the woman).

How many women did McCain marry, after his first wife?

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't like that the media has kept so quiet about it though.

Where do you get your news? The Edwards story is making the headlines/front page at CNN, NY Times, BBC, LA Times, Washington Post, MSNBC and NPR.

 

[LowlyPion]

Where do you get your news? The Edwards story is making the headlines/front page at CNN, NY Times, BBC, LA Times, Washington Post, MSNBC and NPR.

You can bet the Washington Times and Fox will be all over it like white on rice.

In the mean time here is Edwards Statement:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12405.html

 

[WheelsRCool]

Where do you get your news? The Edwards story is making the headlines/front page at CNN, NY Times, BBC, LA Times, Washington Post, MSNBC and NPR.

Sure, NOW. Fox has been talking about this for days already. The NYT had no problem writing up a story on McCain that had no factual basis whatsoever when they were suspicious of him. The majority of the media is only covering this so extensively now because he (Edwards) admitted to it. They downplayed it for days beforehand.

Sort of like how Sean Hannity was talking about Reverand Wright for over a year before it finally became known to the masses (and yes I know that subject has been beaten to death here, I'm just making a point about before it was widely known). Or how the media completely ignored it in San Francisco when protestors went into a Catholic Church (Most Holy Redeemer church) and mocked it, the majority of the media again remaining quiet for the most part; I'd have liked to see their reaction if some Christian radicals had gone into a mosque and done the same thing. I doubt the mainstream media, such as the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, etc...would have remained so quiet about it.

Of course, in saying all this, this doesn't mean the right-leaning news media wouldn't keep on the downlow any suspicions about Republican politicians either, which is why it is good to read/watch both, to get a balanced viewpoint. The majority of the mainstream media is Left-leaning though.

 

[Jordan Joab]

So, what was the crime here?

 

[MeJennifer]

Who gives a crap about what a politician does with his genitals? Find something more relevant to worry about.

- Warren

Wasn't he the guy who was on his high family morals horse before?

I find people who preach about morals this and morals that and then act the opposite way the worst kind of hypocrites.

 

[turbo]

Wasn't he the guy who was on his high family morals horse before?

I find people who preach about morals this and morals that and then act the opposite way the worst kind of hypocrites.

Quite. Leveraging his "family values" and his wife's cancer for the campaign after having an affair on her during her illness. Even worse, she knew about the affair and the near-certainty that it would become public knowledge as the candidates are scrutinized, and she "went along". What if he had wrapped up the nomination, and then the truth came out (or even unproved allegations)? They were both willing to risk their party's 2008 presidential race and the party's congressional coat-tails for a chance to live in the White House. Such selfishness and arrogance does not reflect well on either of them.

 

[WarPhalange]

To be fair, she was probably doing it for her husband more than for herself.

 

[Astronuc]

Some interesting comments from two columnists at NY Times.

Keeping It Rielle by Maureen Dowd
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10dowd.html?em

. . . .
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.
. . . .

Ken Doll in Lust by Gail Collins
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/opinion/09collins.html?em

When it comes to politicians and sex, our expectations are not all that great. Human nature being what it is, there will continue to be adultery no matter how many instructive scandals they’re exposed to. But you really would think that by now they’d know how to make a decent public confession.

Yet there was John Edwards, ignoring the many, many previous examples of why it is so important to admit the truth quickly and keep it simple. Unable to deny any longer that he had had an affair with a campaign worker, he insisted on parsing. It was all a mistake. If she was paid off, it wasn’t my money. And, in what may be a new high in the annals of weaseldom: my wife’s cancer was in remission.
. . . .

 

[sketchtrack]

It is an interesting twist that is for sure. I mean, I'm not sure who it will hurt more, the democrats or the republicans? I think what will happen is that the liberal media is planning a counter attack that will work in there favor. We will see weeks of news media demonizing Edwards for doing this, and then at some point they will turn the light onto McCain. People will already be all worked up about this hot topic, and then McCain will be placed in the view of a conditioned public.

 

[Alfi]

all it means to me is that Kerry is getting more sex than I am :(

 

[WarPhalange]

It is an interesting twist that is for sure. I mean, I'm not sure who it will hurt more, the democrats or the republicans? I think what will happen is that the liberal media is planning a counter attack that will work in there favor. We will see weeks of news media demonizing Edwards for doing this, and then at some point they will turn the light onto McCain. People will already be all worked up about this hot topic, and then McCain will be placed in the view of a conditioned public.

Are you honestly claiming the public is stupid enough to fall for something like that?

 

[Crosson]

Are you honestly claiming the public is stupid enough to fall for something like that?

Have you been to America recently? Have you seen the John McCain ad that compares Barrack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? Our political discourse is already at rock bottom, and has been for quite some time.

 

[Gokul43201]

Are you honestly claiming the public is stupid enough to fall for something like that?

Fall for what exactly?

 

[mheslep]

...I don't like that the media has kept so quiet about it though. If this was Mitt Romney, or Giuliani, I would bet it would be headlines in the all the major news media publications and news channels.

Where do you get your news? The Edwards story is making the headlines/front page at CNN, NY Times, BBC, LA Times, Washington Post, MSNBC and NPR.

Yes, but they all supposedly had wind of this 10 months ago during the campaign and sat on it because Sen. Edward's people told them it was crap; in contrast, the NY Times put four correspondents on the bogus lobbyist affair w/ McCain and then ran a story on the front page.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/business/media/09media.html?ref=us

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, but they all supposedly had wind of this 10 months ago during the campaign and sat on it because Sen. Edward's people told them it was crap; in contrast, the NY Times put four correspondents on the bogus lobbyist affair w/ McCain and then ran a story on the front page.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/business/media/09media.html?ref=us

Why are you comparing all of the media with the NYT?

Or here's another question...

This is interesting - this is almost exactly the same as how McCain's went down (difference is he married the woman). Is Edwards' name still being kicked-around as a VP candidate? This could kill him because I suspect the Dems are holding this issue in reserve for Sep/Oct.

Why is the media going crazy about Edwards when McCain has proven to be almost exactly the same. Why is it ridiculous that Edwards may be considered for a VP position (which he isn't) but it's absolutely fine that McCain be the Presidential nominee from the "family values" party? Why has the obviously and blatantly biased liberal media been giving McCain a free ride on his affairs?

Maybe the answer is this: the media didn't say anything about Edwards' affair (or McCain's affairs), because that is what McCain wants!
fqOHJwj-lgw[/youtube]

 

[russ_watters]

Or here's another question...

Why is the media going crazy about Edwards when McCain has proven to be almost exactly the same. Why is it ridiculous that Edwards may be considered for a VP position (which he isn't) but it's absolutely fine that McCain be the Presidential nominee from the "family values" party? Why has the obviously and blatantly biased liberal media been giving McCain a free ride on his affairs?

News.

 

[Gokul43201]

Point taken...though I think my own answer is more entertaining.

Still, it may just be that there wasn't any solid evidence to be had, couldn't it?

 

[Evo]

Was McCain's affair during his previous unsuccessful bid for the Republican Presidential candidacy? Serioulsy, I don't know, shows how much attention I paid to his career.

 

[Crosson]

Was McCain's affair during his previous unsuccessful bid for the Republican Presidential candidacy? Serioulsy, I don't know, shows how much attention I paid to his career.

No, McCain's affair was the way he started over his life as a politician with a new marriage. His ex-wife attributed the divorce to "John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again."

Also, Edward's affair was in 2006, which I wouldn't call "during his candidacy."

 

[Evo]

No, McCain's affair was the way he started over his life as a politician with a new marriage. His ex-wife attributed the divorce to "John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again."

Also, Edward's affair was in 2006, which I wouldn't call "during his candidacy."

It's close enough. That would be a major difference though in why McCain's affair isn't getting as much press, right? Mccain's affair is old news.

 

[turbo]

It's close enough. That would be a major difference though in why McCain's affair isn't getting as much press, right? Mccain's affair is old news.

It's the details of McCain's affair that make me wonder how the PUMA Hillary-zealots can say they'll vote for him. McCain's first wife was a beautiful fashion model. While he was in prison-camp, she was in a car accident. Her face was disfigured because she went through the windshield, and the doctors had to remove a lot of shattered leg-bone to put her legs back together, leaving a formerly tall, beautiful woman short and disfigured with a pained, awkward gait and legs that are quite short and out-of-proportion to her body. McCain took out a marriage license to marry Cindy while he was still married to his first wife. Edwards looks like a saint compared to McCain in the "infidelity race".

 

[Evo]

It's the details of McCain's affair that make me wonder how the PUMA Hillary-zealots can say they'll vote for him. McCain's first wife was a beautiful fashion model. While he was in prison-camp, she was in a car accident. Her face was disfigured because she went through the windshield, and the doctors had to remove a lot of shattered leg-bone to put her legs back together, leaving a formerly tall, beautiful woman short and disfigured with a pained, awkward gait and legs that are quite short and out-of-proportion to her body. McCain took out a marriage license to marry Cindy while he was still married to his first wife. Edwards looks like a saint compared to McCain in the "infidelity race".

Since we don't know the details of McCain's relationship with his first wife at the time of the wreck, (you shouldn't make idle speculations) and he wasn't pretending to be a leader in moral values while cheating on his wife (did you see the video where Edwards is laughing about his moral values speech he was about to give?), I'd say Edwards is a bit slimier, just my opinion.

If I wasn't getting along with my spouse, I wouldn't stay with them just because they had a disfiguring accident. I'd feel sorry for them, but it wouldn't and shouldn't make me feel compelled to not divorce them.

 

[sketchtrack]

Maybe his disfigure wife game him flashbacks of the POW camp?