Impossible to be a Republican Candidate?

[leftysergeant]

Well, to be fair, let those of us on the Democratic side not get too high-and-mighty about ourselves. I seem to recall, within very recent memory, a certain sex scandal (with illegitimate children and everything - juicy!) involving a one-time vice-presidential and later would-be presidential candidate. And the douchebag was doing all of this while his wife was very publicly battling cancer.

His name: John Edwards.

And we threw him under the bus when we found out what a scuzzball he was.

 

[Robrob]

And we threw him under the bus when we found out what a scuzzball he was.

It's funny, I debated online about Edwards with someone from North Carolina back during the 2004 elections. This person railed against Edwards. You'd have thought Edwards was convicted felon for the animosity. He even complained about the size of Edwards' house.

Not one word about "infidelity." Either that was a bad habit he didn't start until 2006 (which I doubt) or the person was complaining about all the wrong things based solely on politics and completely missed the actual failing.

I'm betting the latter.

 

[Cobalt]

The thing that is killing Cain and that will kill Gingrich (if he's nominated) is the denial. Cain steadfastly declares that he has never acted inappropriately with a woman, though it becomes more and more apparent that he has done so many times.

No, it becomes apparent that there's accusations. Accusations are not evidence of guilt.

 

[leftysergeant]

No, it becomes apparent that there's accusations. Accusations are not evidence of guilt.

True dat. But then, telling three different stories to cover his raggedy ass in the same day sure makes good circumstantial evidence that he is a lying sack of crap.

 

[mhaze]

It's funny, I debated online about Edwards with someone from North Carolina back during the 2004 elections. This person railed against Edwards. You'd have thought Edwards was convicted felon for the animosity. He even complained about the size of Edwards' house.

Not one word about "infidelity." Either that was a bad habit he didn't start until 2006 (which I doubt) or the person was complaining about all the wrong things based solely on politics and completely missed the actual failing.

I'm betting the latter.

No, there wasn't one word about infidelity. In the arrest warrant or indictments.

But accusations against Cain are equalized with Edwards.

Interesting.

 

[BenBurch]

No, there wasn't one word about infidelity. In the arrest warrant or indictments.

But accusations against Cain are equalized with Edwards.

Interesting.

LOL. You really don't get it, do you?

Your side has only got two choices who are not either dishonest or insane; Huntsman and Romney.

You'd do well to choose one and make sure he gets nominated.

 

[mikeyx]

Heard some of the latest Cain drama on NPR this morning. Now that he has a mistress, can the Republican base support him? Is it possible to be a Republican candidate and not have committed at least one of the 25 or so "mortal" sins that seems to get conservative voters riled up?

Funniest part of the story was a quote attributed to Cains lawyer: "The media and the American public have no business digging in to what goes on between two consenting adults". A representative of a major Republican candidate actually said that - can he still put an (R) after his name?

Possible yes, but given the range of what we currently have, a rational one would be an improvement, but mayb eit's bad enough a rational person wouldn't want the job.

 

[eeyore1954]

From an individual? Very high. From a candidate representing a party that presents itself in direct opposition to conduct engaged in by the candidate? Very low.

The Republican Party concocted an unwarranted impeachment of a sitting President for the crime of lying in answer to question he never should have been asked. His actual crime was to have been caught having an extra-marital affair. It now appears that Cain is even more guilty than Clinton was. If the Republican party does not make him in eligible to represent the party...........

Is the republican party of today really any more against marital infidelity than the democrat party? For the most part all politicians are in favor of "family values".

Why shouldn't President Clinton have been asked the question that the impeachment eventually was about? Do you feel sexual harrasment is not a serious charge?

I wholly agree that the republicans were desperately looking for any reason to smear President Clinton (probably because he was black) and when they got the perjury they ran with it. I don't believe it should have been grounds for any impeachment proceedings.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is the republican party of today really any more against marital infidelity than the democrat party? For the most part all politicians are in favor of "family values".

Why shouldn't President Clinton have been asked the question that the impeachment eventually was about? Do you feel sexual harrasment is not a serious charge?

I wholly agree that the republicans were desperately looking for any reason to smear President Clinton (probably because he was black) and when they got the perjury they ran with it. I don't believe it should have been grounds for any impeachment proceedings.

Remember the outcome where the judge said that even if everything she claimed were true it would not constitute the charge?

Sexual harassment is more serious than infidelity though.

 

[mhaze]

LOL. You really don't get it, do you?

Your side has only got two choices who are not either dishonest or insane; Huntsman and Romney.

You'd do well to choose one and make sure he gets nominated.

They are, I do agree, the somewhat palatable choices to rabid socialists and advocates of technocratic kleptocracies such as yourself.

Of course, some of us, of a more independent and thus a small government persuasion, see the irony in this.

Oh, by the way.... your concept of "sides" is part of the problem, not the solution. Not that it matters because your "side" is shrinking rapidly.

 

[Crossbow]

The problem is not that the candidates are republicans, but rather the kind of republicans that the candidates are.

Seconded!

There used to be a time when I disagreed with Republicans about many things, however I always believed that they were acting in the best interest of the country; but after the last few years I have concluded that what most of the national Republicans care about (far more than anything else) is the winning of elections.

Ugh! I am so very dissappointed with the Republicans now.

 

[mhaze]

......when they got the perjury they ran with it. I don't believe it should have been grounds for any impeachment proceedings.

No, of course not.

Lying is okay.

Some think that.

Eric Holder for example.

 

[fuelair]

No, of course not.

Lying is okay.

Some think that.

Eric Holder for example.

And, no offense, every single republicker wannabe candidate.

 

[Almo]

Why shouldn't President Clinton have been asked the question that the impeachment eventually was about? Do you feel sexual harrasment is not a serious charge?

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Since when was the Lewinsky thing about harassment? Last I heard, it was a consensual infidelity.

 

[Cleon]

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Since when was the Lewinsky thing about harassment? Last I heard, it was a consensual infidelity.

The Lewinsky affair* only arose** in the course of investigating Clinton for sexual harassment of Paula Jones.



* See what I did there?
** And there?

 

[sarge]

And we threw him under the bus when we found out what a scuzzball he was.

No. First your party defended and obfuscated.

 

[sarge]

Is the republican party of today really any more against marital infidelity than the democrat party? For the most part all politicians are in favor of "family values".

The Republican party presents, as a core value, the notion that it is more "moral" than the Demcorat party. Republicans profess to consider marital fidelity to be a biger factor when deciding who to vote for than Democrats do. This makes infidelity (and homosexual conduct, and drinking, etc) by Republican candidates a greater hypocrosy than infidelity by Democrat candidates.

Why shouldn't President Clinton have been asked the question that the impeachment eventually was about? Do you feel sexual harrasment is not a serious charge?

Was Clinton impeached for sexual harrasment?

Clinton was impeached on a very flimsy charge of lying about getting a header. That is the sum total of the real charge against Clinton.

I wholly agree that the republicans were desperately looking for any reason to smear President Clinton (probably because he was black) and when they got the perjury they ran with it. I don't believe it should have been grounds for any impeachment proceedings.

The impeachment was an attempted coup.

 

[eeyore1954]

The Republican party presents, as a core value, the notion that it is more "moral" than the Demcorat party. Republicans profess to consider marital fidelity to be a biger factor when deciding who to vote for than Democrats do. This makes infidelity (and homosexual conduct, and drinking, etc) by Republican candidates a greater hypocrosy than infidelity by Democrat candidates.



Was Clinton impeached for sexual harrasment?

Clinton was impeached on a very flimsy charge of lying about getting a header. That is the sum total of the real charge against Clinton.




The impeachment was an attempted coup.

Officially Clinton was impeached for lying under oath (perjury) and obstruction of justice.

Republicans profess to consider marital fidelity to be a biger factor when deciding who to vote for than Democrats do.

Is this a position by the republicans. I hear this thrown about a lot and I believe it is certainly true about homosexual marriage. But I don't know that it is neccesarily true about marital infidelity.

 

[MattusMaximus]

And?

Still would have made a better president than Kerry, Bush, McCain or Obama.

Hmmm, you must be using a crystal ball that allows you to see parallel realities. Sorry, mine is in the shop, so I'll just stick with this reality.

 

[MattusMaximus]

And we threw him under the bus when we found out what a scuzzball he was.

Just as it seems the GOP base is now doing to Cain.