Disappointment
Maybe this is beating a dead horse or maybe it just belongs in the comments of the previous post....
I supported John Edwards for President starting in 2003 when I became his Oregon coordinator. My support for him never wavered.
Though disappointed that he didn’t win the nomination in 2004, I was thrilled John Kerry selected him to be his running mate. I went on the road the last weeks of the campaign, working exclusively for Edwards. I wrote extensively about that here on Blue Oregon.
In the mean time, I worked with Edwards on a limited, sometimes volunteer basis when he came to the northwest, doing such things as staffing his events, both political and for his book tour.
Without ever second guessing his leadership, I was an early and vocal supporter of his 2008 bid, though he was running against two rock star candidates and the underdog the entire time.
In late 2007 when a story broke about an affair and potential child, I chose not to believe it. Early this year I even hopped on a plane to an early Primary Election state to work for him. All on my dime.
Last month when the National Enquirer reported the encounter with Edwards in the Beverly Hilton and I was asked about it, I could only say that I didn’t fully believe it based on that report alone.
Over this past weekend, I watched his Nightline interview admitting that he cheated on Elizabeth and lied to the public about it. Infidelity is awful, but can be forgiven. Lying to your family or the public about it once, much less over a sustained period of time is unacceptable.
Am I curious to know whether Edwards fathered a child? No. The bond of trust has been broken and I do not care. Do I believe his story for why he was in his supposedly former mistress’ hotel room just last month? No. The bond of trust has been broken and I do not care.
|
August 11, 2008 |
Jesse Cornett | Comments (101 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: paul g. | Aug 11, 2008 9:57:27 AM
Jesse,
I am more ambivalent about the whole thing. Edwards would not have lied about the affair if we were not in a climate where such behavior is used as a criteria to determine a president.
As to when and where he lied to his wife about the affair, I'm just not sure why that's any of your or my business. Lying to your wife and lying to the public are two very different things.
But of course, in American politics, we seldom separate the two, feeling somehow that morality is a single unified characteristic of a person.
Why do we do that? Why do we think personal morality translates into public morality? What does someone's personal life have to do with their fitness for public office?
We do remain a deeply moralistic people, and politicians forget this at their peril.
Posted by: backbeat | Aug 11, 2008 10:09:25 AM
Well, I sure feel like a fool after supporting Edwards and calling him a Boy Scout. Jeebus. The big point here is that Edwards was so selfish and arrogant that he figured he could go against the rules. You know - the rules that say atheists are not allowed to run for president. The rules that say you can't be president unless you are willing to push the big red button. And since clinton, the rule that says you can't be a philanderer. Screw you Edwards.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Aug 11, 2008 10:09:43 AM
We need more candidates who are willing to say "It's none of your business" when asked about their private lives. In nicer words, of course.
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Aug 11, 2008 10:13:09 AM
There is always a sliver lining my friends.
At least he didn't have to pay for it (like a former governor from NY) nor was she underage (like a former governor from OR)
Posted by: Jesse Cornett | Aug 11, 2008 10:13:46 AM
Paul,
Thanks for your insight. I do actually think that dishonesty whether public or private is a good indicator of ones propensity to lie in all situations,thus making it the our business if he wants to remain a public figure.
He was in her hotel just last month. I really doubt that if the tabloid he is trashing in this situation had not caught him there, he would have told Elizabeth, which indicates to me his ongoing willingness to deceive both his wife and the public. I do not think he was honest in either his reason for being there, or about the payoff to the mistress, which by the way I think could constitute a violation of FEC laws by his finance chairman if carefully reviewed.
I've spent so long advocating for Edwards and he feels like a fraud now. In terms of getting the underrepresented involved in politics, this is the worst kind of thing that can happen. "They're all like that, why bother to vote," people will say or think.
Posted by: Ian McDonald | Aug 11, 2008 10:16:01 AM
Jesse...I can only imagine your frustration.
Here's a lesson from this episode, for those looking for one.
Individual leaders, as individuals, will always disappoint you. Sometimes in spectacular fashion, sometimes bit by bit. Because...stop the presses...they are deeply flawed human beings. Just like you and me.
We have a democratic institution that, when it works well, helps address this problem. That is...the political party.
Support a party, and you are supporting ideas and policy choices, not just a media-filtered personal vibe. You get, to put it inelegantly, the Wisdom of Crowds.
It's possible, just maybe, that Edwards's good ideas will outlive his political career, through the party.
And the inevitable breakdowns of people like John Edwards, or you, or me, become marginalized.
As such, parties deserve some care and feeding. No doubt, they deserve a lot of criticism, but they exist for good reasons. Remember those reasons this fall.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Aug 11, 2008 10:31:21 AM
What I find interesting is that whenever a Republican gets caught in a situation like this, Democrats love to pounce on it as an example of hypocrisy because Republicans claim to support "family values" or "traditional values."
When a Democrat does the same thing, it's a more nuanced discussion of who he lied to about it or when he lied, apparently because Democrats don't believe in "family values" or "traditional values" in the first place.
And then you all spend your time trying to figure out why you can't carry Middle America at election time.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 11, 2008 10:32:31 AM
I've admired Edwards since 2003, but he was always my 2nd choice as I flipped through primary choices. First Bob Graham and then Howard Dean in '04. This season it was Obama from the start. But Edwards was always on my short list.
So perhaps my view of this latest revelation will make more sense because it sorta mirrors my political views on Edwards.
I find myself agreeing in almost equal measure with both Jesse here and with Paul. Which I guess places me somewhere inbetween.
I fully agree with the notion that private honesty/dishonesty tells us something valuable about public honesty/dishonesty. But that's heavily tempered by the fact that we remain a deeply moralistic society - to a fault, IMHO.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I can't and won't turn a blind eye, but at the same time I do believe very strongly in *sincerely* offering the possibility of redemption. Because, after all, I'm no more perfect than anyone else and I want the opportunity to redeem myself when I fail. The very least I can do is practice the Golden Rule because I've been on this planet long enough to be utterly convinced that what goes around comes around - or Karma, if you will.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 11, 2008 10:43:45 AM
Jack,
That's called holding someone to their own standard. Dems don't usually pontificate on morality. Thus the hypocrisy factor is significantly less relevant when Dems fail.
What I find interesting is that Republicans don't want to be held to the same standard they want to hold others to.
Posted by: carla axtman | Aug 11, 2008 10:47:36 AM
When a Democrat does the same thing, it's a more nuanced discussion of who he lied to about it or when he lied, apparently because Democrats don't believe in "family values" or "traditional values" in the first place.
Or perhaps, Jack, its because most of my fellow progressives aren't interested in shoving our notion of "family" down everyone's throat and forcing them to eat it. I'm sure you see the difference.
In fact, more nuanced discussions have been had about Republicans. Rudy Giuliani, for example. That guy has a serious zipper problem, from my observation. But he doesn't pay lip service to the GOP hardline notion of "family values" while systematically breaking those same notions in practice.
Posted by: david s | Aug 11, 2008 10:56:39 AM
I'm sharing the pain, annoyance and anger but write mainly in response to Jack Roberts' interesting point. To the extent that there are differing reactions, I think they arise from the sense of hypocrisy that comes attached to the holier-than-thou family values candidate who--it turns out--isn't.
But actually, some of us see him no differently as the family values people who cross various lines, either. As a former Edwards supporter, I'm pissed off at the arrogance illustrated primarily by leading supporters to fund and volunteer for someone who was Nat Enquirer unelectable.
Posted by: Jesse Cornett | Aug 11, 2008 11:03:22 AM
Oh, Jack, you must not understand. It's not that D's don't believe in "family values" we just don't try to force those values on everyone (and then get caught trying to solicit gay sex in a bathroom).
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Aug 11, 2008 11:07:39 AM
"Democrats love to pounce on it as an example of hypocrisy because Republicans claim to support "family values" or "traditional values."
Jack are you saying Republicans don't support family values or traditional values?
Posted by: RW | Aug 11, 2008 11:20:44 AM
I am always bemused by those who truly do not understand that in life, in this life, we do not operate unseen. Ultimately, all that we do is there, we operate in the open.
A friend was recently asked to run for a pivotal office at this important time. I am glad he elected not to do so. It would have put his tangled personal business out front in a more-destructive way than its denouement already dictated. Smart man. He possibly saved a number of people from massive humiliations, frankly.
I am jaundiced since the last two rigged elections. Yet the disappointment viz Edwards flooded me too. Please, Kucinich - please please please don't have anymore personal revelatory surprises for me. My poor idealistic heart cannot take it.
Posted by: LT | Aug 11, 2008 11:29:39 AM
This is for Jack Roberts:
1) I agree with what David Bonior said about Edwards.
2) As has been said in the past, it depends on the candidate's core message. If a Republican runs on "family values" and then gets caught doing otherwise, that is hypoocrisy. If poverty crusader Edwards were caught being part owner of a sweatshop (or like a post here awhile back owning part of a farm that mistreated migrant workers) that would be the same level of hypocrisy.
As is the case when people who have had multiple marriages attack those who are still married for the first time and have done (are doing) a good job raising their kids simply because of a vote on a bill some group said was a "family values" piece of legislation.
Which is why some of us say "Ditch the generalities, and let us see the details of your proposal".
And about this:
"And then you all spend your time trying to figure out why you can't carry Middle America at election time."
Gee, Sens. Tester and Salazar aren't from Middle America?
Here in Oregon, unless Gordon Smith wins re-election, you Republicans will be without a statewide elected official. And if you don't run someone of the hard work and high quality of Frank Morse for Gov. in 2010, once again you will lose that one.
Posted by: springfielder | Aug 11, 2008 11:45:42 AM
I really doubt that if the tabloid he is trashing in this situation had not caught him there, he would have told Elizabeth, which indicates to me his ongoing willingness to deceive both his wife and the public.
Jesse, Elizabeth Edwards says he told her in 2006.
I realize that since many of us actually supported and admire(d) Edwards, this is a difficult thing to hear about. However, I think there is probably a very very short list of national politicians who have not had some sort of, um, scandalous activity.
That doesn't excuse it for Edwards, but people need to drop the "he was a politician so he needed to be perfect" meme. I think recent history (and actually, most of history) shows the exact opposite.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Aug 11, 2008 11:51:30 AM
[Off-topic comment removed. -editor.]
Posted by: anon | Aug 11, 2008 12:29:48 PM
People make mistakes, we build politicians up merely to cut them down. It is sad that we hold our politicians to a higer standard than we hold ourselves. I am sure that many individuals myself included that read & post on this board have made a mistake or two and lied about it, when the implications were great deal less important than becoming the leader of the free world.
I am very disapointed with John Edwards, which is why I feel like he needs my support more now than ever. None of his politics, ideals or passions have changed, he simply got a little to big for his britches, and now has been knocked down hard and is lying on the canvas.
The question becomes will he get up and will any of us have the courage to stand next to him if he does? I hope that he does and we do.
Posted by: Coyote | Aug 11, 2008 12:41:01 PM
Jessie,
I simpathize with your position and applaud your response. It has happened to me before and I am one of the most loyal of friends when you have my friendship. It makes the cut that much harder if that friend has been deceiving you.
I for one, obviously, did not support Edwards in anything and thus I don't feel the sting of his actions as some do. In fact that is why I did not follow the story that much.
I put one post up on it last winter and at the time took the press to task for chasing down Ms. Hunter. I thought it was bad form at the time.
Since Edwards was not going to win the primary I guess his errors never really rose to the "alert" level on my meter.
It is too bad that the story is still a story now that he no longer has any political viability. I wish the press would leave it alone because really... it just does not matter.
As I said before I do think it was horrible form for him to basically toss Ms. Hunter under the bus when he DID finally make an announcement.
I think he would have been better off saying "I did it." and then when the press asked about the child say "Noneya." And that's all.
So everyone would have thought that he had a child out there somewhere. A small burden to bear compared to what he is putting his wife and this woman through.
-----
Kevin,
Who said Republicans "don't want to be held to the same standard?" Don't you watch the politics of the other party?
You may not like the whole "family values" canard, but you certainly cannot say that the Republican party doesn't make their politicians pay a political price when they act hypocritical.
Just look at Mike Erickson. He has become a laughingstock WITHIN his own party.
Remember Congressman Livingston? He was driven from public office.
The icky Larry Craig? There may not be a way to legally drive him from office but he could not win an election do dog catcher in a Republican primary now.
So say what you want about the family values plank in the Republican party. But you can't say that we don't like being held to it.
----------
Rebecca,
GREAT point. Politics has truly bled over too much into personal lives of people. Anyone entering politics these days has to assume that they may get taken up on charges for something stemming simply from a difference of political opinion.
It is having the effect of driving some from the thought of public service and more and more the folks who get in and stay in have to have an alley cat mentality.
I can't believe that in the long run that that is a good thing.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Aug 11, 2008 12:45:23 PM
One of the aspects of the situation is that Edwards in fact gave a televised interview late in 2007 saying exactly that private morality matters as a measure of character. From the brief segment of it I saw aired on Channel 6 (I think) the night the story broke, he appeared to be engaging in exactly the kind of moralism brings the hypocrisy charge to bear along with the dishonesty issues. Likewise he said in 1999 anent Bill Clinton:
I think this president has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.
But Jack Roberts, it's not just what others have said about not imposing values on others, though I agree with that. I have strong family values that are expressed by the phrase "love makes a family," also the name of a human rights organization in Oregon. So I reject the so-called family values that refuse to value families of people I love.
And I don't share a good many other so-called "traditional family values." Actually from other things I know about your public life, I wonder if you share them?
Do you agree with the Promise-Keepers that it is the duty of men as husbands to rule (benevolently and cooperatively) over their wives, and of wives to seek cooperation, but in cases of disagreement, to submit to their husbands' wills? Though I don't know you, it would surprise me if you did.
That is just one example of among a number of so-called traditional family values with which I disagree, and with which I daresay a great deal of "middle America" disagrees.
A lot of them have in common justifying male domination and other forms of authoritarianism in one way or another, often extending from the domestic realm into the political.
But I categorically reject the claim that because I reject those values, I or others on the left have no values, and I reject the standing of the most conservative elements of religious conservatism to be the arbiters of who has values and who doesn't.
It is too bad that for reasons of political expediency the more libertarian and moderate elements of the Republican Party have ceded that standing to organized religious ultra-conservatives.
The focus on their hypocrisy arises in part from their claiming to have that standing, from their willingness to cast not only the first stone, but a whole lot of others after them, to hurt people who don't deserve it.
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Aug 11, 2008 12:57:26 PM
The fact that this is news is reflective at how primitive American culture is. Oooo, lookie! It's a naked person! Oooo, what are THEY doing in the bedrooom? Who are they being whipped by?
Who the hell cares? Not me.
Posted by: marv | Aug 11, 2008 1:12:02 PM
The opinion shared by liberalincarnate is long overdue. As
the MSM has whipped this issue up I have been checking out
Left in The West and learned that the Crow Trbe has signed
a seven billion dollar deal with an Australian entity to
build a liquifaction plant. Also, polls show that the
right wing is winning in the campaign to convince people
that drilling offshore is the answer. On this site it is
very comforting to the Republican Party to see a massive
guilt trip and pitty party for somone who was once a can-
didate. The victory party for McCain is assured. And for
that I am truly disappointed.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 11, 2008 1:30:51 PM
Who said Republicans "don't want to be held to the same standard?" Don't you watch the politics of the other party?
I used to be a Republican.
You may not like the whole "family values" canard, but you certainly cannot say that the Republican party doesn't make their politicians pay a political price when they act hypocritical.
That's the crux of it right there. For far, far too many Republicans it's 99.99% about politics and 0.01% about the morality.
Has Newt Gingrich paid a political price among Republicans for the abjectly reprehensible way he treated his former wife? Not much that I can see. Ditto for John McCain.
The whole GOP "family values" thing isn't a mere canard. It's demagoguery that fairly oozes cynicism.
Posted by: RW | Aug 11, 2008 1:38:34 PM
Even as I say my idealistic heart can't stand another kamikaze crash of a much-needed candidate, that is really just me groaning comedically. From my serious side, I find the adolescent irreality of American's expectations of purity in the political class to be intellectually primitive. Likewise our continued surprise at each revelation of an election that was tampered. I was bitterly disappointed in Jimmy Carter when he opted NOT to make it his business to serve the nation's needs in talking long and deeply on how VERY contexted our electoral ills are related to those in ostensibly notorious nations. It was the time for a thought leader, knowledgable in this arena, to embark on the dialog and education of the incorrigibly faux naifs of the American public.
I do not condemn out of hand and in my ignorance the actions of Edwards: his story is his own, his marriage and their lives are psychodynamic. However, one is revealed in one's character and one's thought when one chooses which things to lie about. And to step up to a major campaign given the inevitable revelations of ANY secrets held.... was not very wise. American politics are what they are. Like them or not, there are certain lamentable rules of hypocrisy that shape and drive the scene. Thinking of Leonard Cohen's again.
Posted by: Steve | Aug 11, 2008 1:49:04 PM
Posted by: Evan
"We need more candidates who are willing to say "It's none of your business" when asked about their private lives."
Good grief, you don't think severe infidelity and lying has any part in measuring one's moral fitness?
Posted by: carla
"Or perhaps, Jack, its because most of my fellow progressives aren't interested in shoving our notion of "family" down everyone's throat and forcing them to eat it. "
Good grief, what do you call the gay marriage and gay adoption agenda?
Posted by: marv
"Also, polls show that the right wing is winning in the campaign to convince people
that drilling offshore is the answer."
It's the sanity wing doing so and it aint being pitched as "the answer" .
The sane reality is we have huge supplies of our own energy resources. Growing desperate for more foreign supplies while our own sit untapped is insane.
Since Global Warming is no more,
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_09/contoski-warming.html
you need not pretend any longer that the insanity is justfied.
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Aug 11, 2008 2:00:29 PM
You may not like the whole "family values" canard, but you certainly cannot say that the Republican party doesn't make their politicians pay a political price when they act hypocritical.
Wait a second. John McCain cheated on his (first) wife and the Republicans nominated him for President. Sen. Vitter paid women to do some, shall we say, weird things and he not only retained his seat, but was given a standing ovation by the Senate Republicans.
I think there is every indication that Republicans do not hold their hypocritical politicians accountable.
Posted by: Mike Schryver | Aug 11, 2008 2:11:22 PM
Good grief, what do you call the gay marriage and gay adoption agenda?
Wow, when were you forced to marry someone of the same sex? Or is the real problem that you've contorted your world-view into such a state that not being able to prevent others from leading a loving and happy life means, to you, that you're losing something you're entitled to?
Posted by: Evan | Aug 11, 2008 2:11:39 PM
I for one am hoping marital infidelity MATTERS in this election, because
John McCain is a PROVEN marital infidel!
Once a dog, always a dog I say!
Posted by: Miles | Aug 11, 2008 2:29:30 PM
Why do we think personal morality translates into public morality? What does someone's personal life have to do with their fitness for public office?
I don't understand how you can separate the two. Have you ever known someone who is personally amoral but professionally ethical?
Public office requires difficult decision making that often involves morality, ethics, values, and fidelity. This includes political decisions ("Do I throw my allies in Congress under the bus in order to score political points"); personal relationships ("Should I lie to this person about what I've done because I might need him in the future?"); ethical decisions ("Should I accept this weekend golf junket from this lobbyist?"); and policy issues ("Even if it's legal to torture enemy combatants, is it right?").
It's appropriate to look at Edward's private actions and judge his character accordingly. But even if you could convince me that his private actions have no bearing on his overall character, you would still need to explain his public actions, which include repeated lies to the American people. If his infidelity is none of our business, then the appropriate answer when asked is "It's none of your business." You can't first lie, then justify the lie by saying the subject matter was off limits.
I think Jack Robert's point was not really about hypocrisy, but the fact that Democrats are losing "middle America" because we're unwilling to say clearly in situations like this: JOHN EDWARDS WAS WRONG TO CHEAT ON HIS WIFE. This isn't forcing our version of family values on anyone, we're not saying that it's wrong to have sex outside of marriage, we're not saying that it's wrong to be in an open marriage, we're simply holding Edwards to his own voluntary marital commitment.
Posted by: carla axtman | Aug 11, 2008 2:37:11 PM
Good grief, what do you call the gay marriage and gay adoption agenda?
I call it making a family. If you don't approve of gay marriage or gay adoption, then don't participate in gay marriage and don't participate in gay adoption.
The obvious difference is: I believe in the autonomy to choose the life you want. Those whom Jack referred to as "pro-family values" in general would force us all to live under their standard.
Posted by: carla axtman | Aug 11, 2008 2:45:46 PM
I think Jack Robert's point was not really about hypocrisy, but the fact that Democrats are losing "middle America" because we're unwilling to say clearly in situations like this: JOHN EDWARDS WAS WRONG TO CHEAT ON HIS WIFE. This isn't forcing our version of family values on anyone, we're not saying that it's wrong to have sex outside of marriage, we're not saying that it's wrong to be in an open marriage, we're simply holding Edwards to his own voluntary marital commitment.
The premise that Democrats are "losing middle America" is specious, frankly. Polling certainly doesn't suggest that, especially given the number and geography of pick-up opportunities for Democrats this cycle at the national, state and local levels.
I also don't think its about whether or not people say that Edwards cheating on his voluntary commitment is wrong. It looks to me like plenty of people in the progressive community are saying it. That's a complete and separate argument from what I read from Jack..which is that Democrats have no "family values"--therefore when one of us does something like this, there is no hypocrisy.
Jack's premises are faulty and should be called as such, IMO.
Posted by: Steve | Aug 11, 2008 2:49:40 PM
Mike,
Your imagination sure went wild with my response to Carla saying.
"most of my fellow progressives aren't interested in shoving our notion of "family" down everyone's throat and forcing them to eat it."
Strange opinion since IMO pogresssives are busy trying to shove their notion of "everythig" down everyone's throat and forcing them to eat it.
That's what they do. Is it not?
I know y'all like to play otherwise but the left is much more agrressive and on the march than any contigent from the right.
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Aug 11, 2008 2:56:50 PM
The thing I like best about Steve's posts is how clearly he states the conservative world view. I just wish more conservatives were as up front about their ideas, beliefs and agendas. It would make electing progressives that much easier.
Posted by: Steve | Aug 11, 2008 2:58:22 PM
I too call it making a family. Make your choices.
But if you disapprove of forcing people to live under one's standards you better get your values out of our schools, where your "forcing" is clearly on the march to force much.
Posted by: RW | Aug 11, 2008 3:12:38 PM
Jesse:
Thanks for this thread. You opened an avenue to wholistically discuss the human experience of relatedness amongst those of you whose primary endeavours of service take place in the political domain. My decades of primary service are in public health and also closely-held Traditionalist life as a native home. I resonate with the necessity of the multidimensional responses to your commentary.
I appreciate your personal feelings of having been had. You are indeed also a "victim" of Edwards' infidelity. This is an opportunity to review your own pschodynamic, beliefs, human vulnerabilities and the spirit of your own vision of how to serve. Geeky, unfasshionable, beautiful: there really is a "life of the nation", and there really is a warriorlike romance in service to the nation, and a relationship component therein.
For those of us engaged in working spirituality, we must grapple these questions on a frequent basis. These questions of service, relationship, integrity, clarity, as well as projective delusion and co-responsibililities in the community of medicine and prayer -- they are real.
Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | Aug 11, 2008 3:26:09 PM
I feel bad for Elizabeth just as I feel sorry for John Sidney McCain III's first wife whom he cheated on after she had waited five long years for him to return from being a POW only to be tossed aside for a younger, richer woman
Both those guys were a holes.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 11, 2008 3:46:10 PM
Rebecca cuts to the very heart of this, IMHO:
I do not condemn out of hand and in my ignorance the actions of Edwards: his story is his own, his marriage and their lives are psychodynamic. However, one is revealed in one's character and one's thought when one chooses which things to lie about. [emphasis supplied]
Exactly!
That he was unfaithful to his wife is one thing. That he lied to US about it is another entirely.
Posted by: genop | Aug 11, 2008 3:54:35 PM
Most dems expect their leaders to be scrupulously honest with their constituents and certainly family members. Most Repubs expect their leaders to be clever and evasive. They appreciate a wily character who works behind the scenes to maintain/degrade the status quo. They trust their evasive leaders to do right by them. It matters little how they achieve the ends. My evidence: Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, etc. McCain is just another trickster in heroes clothes.
Posted by: Steve Buel | Aug 11, 2008 5:01:38 PM
The lesson for me in the Edwards matter was when he said he began to think of himself as "special" -- became egocentric etc. Here was a man whose main agenda was helping poor people. Yet, he was corrupted by politics just like person after person is, whether they are running for President, or are elected to the county commission, the school board, or whatever elective office.
They get treated like they are special and it is a lot of fun. Very addicting, very powerful. The treatment becomes more important than their agenda they were elected to fulfill. And, in order to not lose that special treatment and that special feeling, they don't stand up for what they believe (or should believe) if it is going to cost them votes or re-election. Or they make errors in judgement they might not otherwise have made. And we all suffer for it.
Posted by: carla axtman | Aug 11, 2008 5:11:08 PM
But if you disapprove of forcing people to live under one's standards you better get your values out of our schools, where your "forcing" is clearly on the march to force much.
Seriously...? Do we really need to go down this road? Cuz the fact that so many public schools force prayer, moments of silence, abstinence only, etc are hefty evidence to the contary of your premise.
In the end, its about making choices. Most progressives that I know are for the autonomy of people to choose the life they want. Most conservatives that I know are in favor of a "traditional" family, not allowing for anything else.
And when a conservative who has espoused such ideology doesn't uphold that for themselves, they are deservedly called a "hypocrite".
Like paulg, I have an ambivalence about such criteria being used to judge our political leaders. I rather think its more appropriate to judge them on the stuff we hire (or are planning to hire) them to do: issues of policy and the requisite results of those policies.
Fidelity to a spouse doesn't make a person qualified to govern appropriately, as far as I can tell. Nor does infidelity, that I can tell.
Posted by: Miles | Aug 11, 2008 5:25:19 PM
The premise that Democrats are "losing middle America" is specious, frankly. Polling certainly doesn't suggest that
Well, Carla, we lost to an imbecile in 2000. And we repeated that in 2004, after the disaster was clear. It's impossible to look at those two elections, where a completely outmatched Republican candidate won, without turning the focus inward and asking why we aren't connecting to voters. And even today, it's just not clear why McCain is within a few points of Obama in many swing states, except for the fact that we're just not connecting with certain groups.
what I read from Jack..which is that Democrats have no "family values"--therefore when one of us does something like this, there is no hypocrisy.
That's not how I read it, but I'll let Jack speak for himself. I was picking up his point in relation to some of the posts here and on the first thread that seem to say "Hey, why is this such a big deal, anyway? Who cares whether he had an affair?" There's a dangerous moral relativism that creeps up on progressives and prevents us from making firm declarations of right and wrong. Well, what Edwards did is wrong, period, both the lying and the infidelity. And I think if we were a bit more vocal about saying that, we would connect better with those groups in middle America that are keeping the presidential polls so close.
As for your post about fidelity and qualifications, do you think moral and ethical behavior is necessary for elected officials? If so, do you really think it's possible to act immorally in private but morally in public?
Posted by: Steve | Aug 11, 2008 6:20:43 PM
Carla,
No, we shouldn't go down that road, because since you think "so many public schools force prayer, moments of silence, abstinence only, etc" you obvioulsy don't live in Oregon.
The hefty evidence in this State shows plenty of progressive force being thrust upon our schools.
But we should leave that alone.
Yes in the end, its about making choices. But not as your characterization suggests.
Most progressives are about marching the country to the left with selective choices and the very progressive idea of school choioce is not one of them.
Conservatives are for thje most part about maintaining traditional values without any march to the right at all.
Yet liberals always cast the right as puhing the country further to the right when all they are doing is attempting to hold ground against your tsunami.
As far as Edwards and others' infedelity?
I can't imagine how anyone can unplug the marital and family treason in infedelity from judging one's character.
But here we again debating whether character matters?
Is it not fundementally desireable that our political leaders must be trustworthy, loyal and honest?
Could not the family cheater also cheat his country or community?
How many times have we read of local officials, bureaucrats who have swayed from trust and stolen from accounts?
Of course the crime against family, cheating affairs, are a valid measurement of a political leader's trust and honesty.
If he or she would betray their closest loved one they would certainly screw the electorate.
Judge tham all you want on issues of policy and the requisite results of those policies but to leave out their character is irrational and naive.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Aug 11, 2008 6:24:30 PM
Miles got my point. It isn't that political candidates are expected to be saints or that we should judge candidates primarily by their private behavior. But if Democrats hold themselves out as the party of "anything goes," I believe you will pay a price for it in America.
Ironically, the Democratic politician who probably has the best handle on this is Harold Ford. As near as I can tell, he consistently strikes the right tone on these issues. Perhaps it's because he was a congressman from Memphis who, unlike his father, wasn't satisfied with that and wanted to become a statewide leader. He damn near made it.
The reason I say "ironically" is that until April of last year Ford was single and by reputation quite a ladies man. But I don't think that matters nearly as much as whether politician conveys to people a sense that he or she understands and shares their values. For most of "Middle America," Ford does.
Posted by: George Seldes | Aug 11, 2008 6:43:55 PM
Best comment on Edwards is from Sam Smith.
[Editor's note: Previously, this comment included the entire text of Sam Smith's blog post at ProRev.com. It's been replaced by a link. Please don't publish copyrighted material in whole - instead, excerpt and link.]
Posted by: Greg D. | Aug 11, 2008 7:04:50 PM
I see references to Senator Edwards' lack of 'moral fitness' in some of the above posts. Wouldn't it be great if the Constitution had allowed the appointment of a 'moral fitness' commission to act as a gatekeeper for all those aspiring to public office. I can imagine a panel consisting of myself, Dick Cheney, the Pope, James Dobson, and two or three others who would sit in judgment of all who seek public office. Perhaps we could add the ghost of Joe McCarthy as an ex officio member of our panel. Only those who receive a "thumbs up" from the moral fitness commission could be listed on the ballot.
If you eliminate freedom of expression and freedom of choice, elections would be so much simpler.
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Aug 11, 2008 7:05:55 PM
Jack Roberts: You're serious? You want to hold out Harold Ford as your moral compass? After the debacle in his protégé Nikki Tinker race this week? You really don't.
Posted by: Oregonian37 | Aug 11, 2008 7:57:01 PM
Conservatives are for thje most part about maintaining traditional values without any march to the right at all.
First, whose traditional values are you talking about? The "traditional values" espoused tend to be the values that, believe it or not, the vast majority of the people in this country have never actually lived by.
Second, if the majority of conservatives are not wishing to march to the right, than they need to discuss that with the party leadership that has made absolutely no attempt to disguise the fact that an arch-conservative, right-wing agenda is exactly what they have in mind.
Posted by: Jeremy | Aug 11, 2008 8:07:54 PM
I am disappointed as well.
But I also don't get this whole "He LIED to ME!" "To US!". I am dissapointed but I don't feel betrayed cause I am not family and I am certainly not his wife.
The only one he betrayed is Elizabeth - she is the only one who was "lied to". The rest of us are just bystanders.
Think about your personal life - if a good friend was revealed to have cheated on his wife. Would you feel like he "lied to you?". You would be dissapointed and definitely mad at your friend for being so foolish. But this whole emotional "betrayed" thing would be a bridge too far.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Katy | Aug 11, 2008 9:46:09 AM
Jesse I remember when you were working for Edwards and wondered how you were feeling about the news when I heard it.
I totally agree with everything you've said. I think for most of us the anger comes when we wonder why he was running at all with this secret? If he'd won the nomination his mistress wouldn't have the been the only who got screwed.