Lucky Dems.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23813.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23813.html)
QuoteBy: Manu Raju
June 16, 2009 05:47 PM EST
Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign has told colleagues that he plans to admit an extramarital affair, a senior Republican official tells POLITICO.
A Nevada political insider told POLITICO that Ensign began an affair with a staffer several months after he separated from his wife. When Ensign reconciled with his wife, the source said, he gave the aide a severance package and parted ways.
Sometime later, the source said, Ensign met with the husband of the woman involved and had what this source described as a positive encounter. But the source said that the man subsequently asked Ensign for a substantial sum of money – at which point Ensign decided to make the affair public.
Ensign's office did not return calls for comment, but the senator told the Associated Press Tuesday: "I deeply regret and am very sorry for my actions."
Ensign's staff said he would be making a statement about a "personal matter" at 3:30 p.m. local time in Las Vegas.
Ensign is chairman of the GOP Policy Committee, making him the highest ranking Republican Senator in Nevada's history. He has three children.
Ensign was absent on Capitol Hill Tuesday, skipping the weekly lunch that his committee hosts for GOP senators and its ensuing press conference where party leaders espouse their weekly message. Word of his expected announcement stunned colleagues, were preparing for this summer's big battles over the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor and a health care fight but now have to contend with a drama hovering over one of their leaders.
Elected in 2000, the 51-year-old Ensign has moved up the leadership chain in the Senate. As chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2008, Ensign oversaw the devastating losses to GOP candidates. But his party largely spared him of blame, casting it instead on an unpopular president who dragged down the party's brand. Since then, Ensign has sought to articulate conservative principles and is a mainstay at GOP press conferences deriding Democrats' domestic policies.
Ensign ran for the Senate in 1998 against Sen. Harry Reid in a nasty, cliffhanger race that Reid – now the Senate majority leader – won by a razor-thin 428 votes. Reid and Ensign have since reached a détente; neither man criticizes the other back home by name.
A staunch fiscal and social conservative, Ensign has been considered a rising star in his party, recently making headlines by speaking at events in Iowa, raising speculation about his interest in a run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.
Text too big, didn't read.
What the heck? He had the 'extramarital affair' when he was separated from his wife. That is getting a little technical isn't it? Surely the Republicans are not going to throw him out over something like that.
On the other hand if you are trying to show yourself to be a social conservative I guess you are required to live like a monk.
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2009, 05:16:41 PM
What the heck? He had the 'extramarital affair' when he was separated from his wife. That is getting a little technical isn't it? Surely the Republicans are not going to throw him out over something like that.
On the other hand if you are trying to show yourself to be a social conservative I guess you are required to live like a monk.
The only part that was a bit iffy is paying off the woman and firing her when he got back with the wife - though anything else would be pretty awkward.
Edit: though it looks like the woman was married herself, which some might find a bit of a no-no.
Well and the fact she was married at the time I guess is a little below impeccable moral standards.
Edit: Yeah I didn't think about that one at first.
Never heard of him. So long as it's not a dead woman or a live boy I can't get to worked up.
Newsflash: People have sex.
pics plz
Five years ago this guy made this press release:
QuoteJuly 13, 2004
ENSIGN DEFENDS SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE ON SENATE FLOOR
Washington, D.C. – Senator John Ensign took to the floor of the United States Senate today to defend the sanctity of marriage and urge passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment Act.
"Marriage recognizes the ideal of a father and mother living together to raise their children," Ensign said. "Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation. Marriage, as a social institution, predates every other institution on which ordered society in America has relied."
Ensign, in his comments, noted that Nevadans had amended the state constitution to guarantee the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Ensign emphasized the need to preserve the will of Nevadans who voted overwhelmingly to preserve marriage as well as the need to preserve the will of the majority of Americans.
"I am deeply concerned that a few unelected judges and some locally elected government officials have taken steps to redefine marriage to fit their own agenda," said Ensign. "It is not right to mold marriage to fit the desires of a few, against the wishes of so many, and to ignore the important role of marriage."
Fuck you, you sanctimonious son of a bitch. :lol:
I think it's fair to point out that they were on a break.
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2009, 09:58:51 AM
I think it's fair to point out that they were on a break.
:lol:
I think he deserves life in front of a firing squad.
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2009, 09:58:51 AM
I think it's fair to point out that they were on a break.
Well it did work for Ross eventually. Maybe he should try it.
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2009, 09:53:31 AM
Five years ago this guy made this press release:
QuoteJuly 13, 2004
ENSIGN DEFENDS SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE ON SENATE FLOOR
Washington, D.C. – Senator John Ensign took to the floor of the United States Senate today to defend the sanctity of marriage and urge passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment Act.
"Marriage recognizes the ideal of a father and mother living together to raise their children," Ensign said. "Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation. Marriage, as a social institution, predates every other institution on which ordered society in America has relied."
Ensign, in his comments, noted that Nevadans had amended the state constitution to guarantee the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Ensign emphasized the need to preserve the will of Nevadans who voted overwhelmingly to preserve marriage as well as the need to preserve the will of the majority of Americans.
"I am deeply concerned that a few unelected judges and some locally elected government officials have taken steps to redefine marriage to fit their own agenda," said Ensign. "It is not right to mold marriage to fit the desires of a few, against the wishes of so many, and to ignore the important role of marriage."
Fuck you, you sanctimonious son of a bitch. :lol:
Not sure I see the inconsistency you're alluding to. In his statement, sanctity = keeping marriage between a man & a woman. I don't think he was campaigning against adultery.
I'd vote for him.
I say revoke his commission and bust him to seaman.
Quote from: PDH on June 17, 2009, 10:22:57 AM
I think he deserves life in front of a firing squad.
Life in front of a firing squad? Won't that be a pain to the squad? They'd have to follow him around for years, pointing their guns at him as he went baout his business.
He's history's greatest monster.
*yawn* Who cares? I thought people generally understood that 90% of politicians can't control their sexual urges, due probably to their extreme narcissism.
This gets better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-SJiOcUsSA
Apparently he not only employed her (and doubled her salary just after he started fucking her) but also employed her husband and her 19 y.o. son (the latter in the Republican party committee he was chairing). Damn, these Republicans are really big on family. :lol:
I'd rather talk about John Edwards. He's more amusing. This guy seems boring.
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 07:32:50 AM
Apparently he not only employed her (and doubled her salary just after he started fucking her) but also employed her husband and her 19 y.o. son
:lol:
Big pimpin.
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 07:32:50 AM
This gets better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-SJiOcUsSA
Apparently he not only employed her (and doubled her salary just after he started fucking her) but also employed her husband and her 19 y.o. son (the latter in the Republican party committee he was chairing). Damn, these Republicans are really big on family. :lol:
It'll only be big if he had sex with all three.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 19, 2009, 08:12:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 07:32:50 AM
This gets better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-SJiOcUsSA
Apparently he not only employed her (and doubled her salary just after he started fucking her) but also employed her husband and her 19 y.o. son (the latter in the Republican party committee he was chairing). Damn, these Republicans are really big on family. :lol:
It'll only be big if he had sex with all three.
AT THE SAME TIME
Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2009, 10:27:36 AM
Not sure I see the inconsistency you're alluding to. In his statement, sanctity = keeping marriage between a man & a woman. I don't think he was campaigning against adultery.
I doubt it is very good for children to know that their father is off sleeping with other women / separated from their mother. Now while the scenario I described is likely the cornerstone that our nation was built upon, I doubt that's what Ensign meant.
Why has this thread gone on this long with out pics? With out pictures this should be nothing.
Until this, he was the single most popular political figure in Nevada. I wonder if this kills that off.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 19, 2009, 02:01:47 PM
Until this, he was the single most popular political figure in Nevada. I wonder if this kills that off.
There's hope.
Errr... in Nevada, people would have a problem with some guy cheating on his wife with another guy's wife? :blink:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 19, 2009, 02:01:47 PM
Until this, he was the single most popular political figure in Nevada. I wonder if this kills that off.
Vote for Ensign! At least he's not Gibbons!
Quote from: Caliga on June 19, 2009, 07:00:07 PM
Errr... in Nevada, people would have a problem with some guy cheating on his wife with another guy's wife? :blink:
Sure. It's almost as bad as a Senator from Lousiana sleeping with a hooker. :lmfao:
So, I'm coming home from SF again last night and the only radio station I can get in the pass is the Reno AM GOPtard talk station. This dude (I think he was a local Hannity-wannabe--the way he was talking about northern Nevada, I don't think it was a national show) was calling for Ensign's resignation. I'm thinking WTF, really? Isn't that a bit extreme?
But no, he was screaming his fool head off about how the Senator was supposed to be about family values (a vibe I never really got from him, but ok) and all this other shit. It looks like the wacko right is actually ready to throw Ensign under the bus over this retarded thing.
So here's my question: Why would anyone "run on family values" in the first place? Isn't that just setting yourself up for future failure as a hypocrite? And what does it mean in practical terms? I mean, usually, a person running for office takes a position on a certain thing in order to use the power of the government office he's seeking to have an effect on that thing. So what's the stance for "family values" voters? What's the outcome there? Outlawing divorce, criminalizing adultery, what? Nothing like that is feasible. There is only a downside. It's stupid.
This moron was also all going on about how we have to keep our standards intact and blah blah and how the Democrats would not throw the guy under the bus, they'd circle the wagons. Apparently that makes Republicans better. :P Yeah, you have the most popular politician in the state, who everyone assumed would end up on a national ticket eventually and in a leadership position in the party, but you want to completely scrap all that for a stupid affair he had when he was separated from his wife? There's just no pragmatism in people like that. Here's an idea: don't run on a quixotic platform that will inevitably make you a hypocrite in the future if you ever make a mistake. Then, when you get caught tapping your foot in a bathroom stall, it won't wreck your whole life.
To be fair, a lot of callers were disagreeing with the fool, and most of them were also GOP, so they're not all retards. Maybe the host wanted Gibbons to appoint him to the Senate, I don't know.
Caveat: There are some rumblings about the chick in the affair being an employee and getting a lot more money after the affair started and other crap, so he might have some legal reason to step down after everything comes out anyway. I just don't think this zero tolerance attitude is warranted. Also, if you supported a guy like Ensign in the first place for family values reasons, I'm not sure why. I honestly don't remember him being Mr. Morality of the Senate or anything. Though I don't watch as closely as some.
Family Values is a popular thing to run on. Really all you have to do is keep your indiscretions secret and you sound like the voice of the moral majority. They aer a powerful voting bloc after all. The bigger question is why anybody would believe it.
Meh. Ensign's wife next to him. Cindy is the woman on the right. Not an upgrade. Note: 2001 picture.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.politico.com%2Fglobal%2Fnews%2F090624_shenans_400.jpg&hash=67724c7329d0ce8368ad16a4eddc10a8c0fa7a97)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 24, 2009, 11:46:19 AM
So here's my question: Why would anyone "run on family values" in the first place?
Hate sells, and with racism and antisemitism pretty much becoming toxic in modern politics, hatred of them damn homos desacrating our marriage and corrupting our youth becomes the last "legitimate" bigotry platform, at least as far as internal (i.e. not international) politics is concerned, these days.
In Europe you can also hate the rich and the immigrants (actually I guess the hatred of immigrants may become more acceptable in the US in future), so homophobia is not as necessary to make political headlines. :P
Edit: Of course (for those not bright enough to make the connection), family values is the code word for "bash the homos" as we probably all agree.
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2009, 03:15:09 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 24, 2009, 11:46:19 AM
So here's my question: Why would anyone "run on family values" in the first place?
Hate sells, and with racism and antisemitism pretty much becoming toxic in modern politics, hatred of them damn homos desacrating our marriage and corrupting our youth becomes the last "legitimate" bigotry platform, at least as far as internal (i.e. not international) politics is concerned, these days.
In Europe you can also hate the rich and the immigrants (actually I guess the hatred of immigrants may become more acceptable in the US in future), so homophobia is not as necessary to make political headlines. :P
Edit: Of course (for those not bright enough to make the connection), family values is the code word for "bash the homos" as we probably all agree.
"Family values" platforms encompass more than gay rights and were used long before gay rights were a political issue. I'd say the family values heydey was the Dan Quayle era of whining about single mothers.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2009, 03:22:50 PM
"Family values" platforms encompass more than gay rights and were used long before gay rights were a political issue. I'd say the family values heydey was the Dan Quayle era of whining about single mothers.
Thank you for the Murphy Brown flashback.
It must be affair season for American politicians.
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2009, 03:24:58 PM
It must be affair season for American politicians.
It is summer, and all the ladies are wearing next to nothing and a young man's fancy turns to love.
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2009, 03:24:58 PM
It must be affair season for American politicians.
Maybe we should have a running "Republican admits infidelity" thread, like the thread about detroit.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2009, 03:22:50 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2009, 03:15:09 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 24, 2009, 11:46:19 AM
So here's my question: Why would anyone "run on family values" in the first place?
Hate sells, and with racism and antisemitism pretty much becoming toxic in modern politics, hatred of them damn homos desacrating our marriage and corrupting our youth becomes the last "legitimate" bigotry platform, at least as far as internal (i.e. not international) politics is concerned, these days.
In Europe you can also hate the rich and the immigrants (actually I guess the hatred of immigrants may become more acceptable in the US in future), so homophobia is not as necessary to make political headlines. :P
Edit: Of course (for those not bright enough to make the connection), family values is the code word for "bash the homos" as we probably all agree.
"Family values" platforms encompass more than gay rights and were used long before gay rights were a political issue. I'd say the family values heydey was the Dan Quayle era of whining about single mothers.
Well, these days it seems to be mostly about it (oh and hating sluts, aka "pro life").
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2009, 03:28:05 PM
Well, these days it seems to be mostly about it (oh and hating sluts, aka "pro life").
It really isn't. In fact, it really isn't about anything. It is one of those buzzwords that everyone can be for, like a strong defense and better schools. The left has tried to reclaim family values with slogans like "Hate is not a family value" and "Pro Family, Pro Child, Pro Choice."
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 22, 2009, 10:50:41 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 19, 2009, 07:00:07 PM
Errr... in Nevada, people would have a problem with some guy cheating on his wife with another guy's wife? :blink:
Sure. It's almost as bad as a Senator from Lousiana sleeping with a hooker. :lmfao:
I thought he was a Republican too. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2009, 03:28:05 PM
(oh and hating sluts, aka "pro life").
Didn't you say that the fight over abortion would be the one element of the culture wars to continue indefinitely because there were merits too both arguments, or am I thinking of someone else?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 24, 2009, 03:48:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2009, 03:28:05 PM
(oh and hating sluts, aka "pro life").
Didn't you say that the fight over abortion would be the one element of the culture wars to continue indefinitely because there were merits too both arguments, or am I thinking of someone else?
That kind of subtlety and depth of thought would be out of character for Marti.
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2009, 03:51:19 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 24, 2009, 03:48:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2009, 03:28:05 PM
(oh and hating sluts, aka "pro life").
Didn't you say that the fight over abortion would be the one element of the culture wars to continue indefinitely because there were merits too both arguments, or am I thinking of someone else?
That kind of subtlety and depth of thought would be out of character for Marti.
Yeah, it surprised me so I remembered it.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=874.0
QuoteI think abortion is one of these rare issues that will indeed continue to divide people for decades if not centuries to come, because unlike other "moral" issues (gay marriage, assisted suicide, sex ed, contraception) it is a bona fide conflict of two strong ethical principles and not just an attempt by the bigots to preserve the social status quo.
Consistency is the last refuge of the dull.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 24, 2009, 12:03:02 PM
Family Values is a popular thing to run on. Really all you have to do is keep your indiscretions secret and you sound like the voice of the moral majority. They aer a powerful voting bloc after all. The bigger question is why anybody would believe it.
Once all the squeamish old people die off, we won't have to worry about shit like "family values" in politics any longer. Fortunately today's youth have no values whatsoever. :)
Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2009, 06:14:54 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 24, 2009, 12:03:02 PM
Family Values is a popular thing to run on. Really all you have to do is keep your indiscretions secret and you sound like the voice of the moral majority. They aer a powerful voting bloc after all. The bigger question is why anybody would believe it.
Once all the squeamish old people die off, we won't have to worry about shit like "family values" in politics any longer. Fortunately today's youth have no values whatsoever. :)
They'll turn into republicans when they turn 40.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 24, 2009, 06:17:30 PMThey'll turn into republicans when they turn 40.
Who do you think you are, Winston Churchill? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2009, 06:31:04 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 24, 2009, 06:17:30 PMThey'll turn into republicans when they turn 40.
Who do you think you are, Winston Churchill? :rolleyes:
mediocre and overrated?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 24, 2009, 06:42:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 24, 2009, 06:31:35 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2009, 06:31:04 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 24, 2009, 06:17:30 PMThey'll turn into republicans when they turn 40.
Who do you think you are, Winston Churchill? :rolleyes:
mediocre and overrated?
:o Blasphemy!
His fixation on soft underbellies and invading Greece makes him mediocre in my book.
Also, Patton was overrated, Rommel fucks dogs and Zhukov wasn't fit to to be dogcather, let alone a general.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 24, 2009, 06:45:18 PM
Also, Patton was overrated, Rommel fucks dogs and Zhukov wasn't fit to to be dogcather, let alone a general.
But God bless Sherman.
Quote from: PDH on June 24, 2009, 06:52:36 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 24, 2009, 06:45:18 PM
Also, Patton was overrated, Rommel fucks dogs and Zhukov wasn't fit to to be dogcather, let alone a general.
But God bless Sherman.
And Earl Van Dorn.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 24, 2009, 06:53:34 PM
And Earl Van Dorn.
If the world was right, he would have died in the saddle...so to speak.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 24, 2009, 06:45:18 PM
Also, Patton was overrated, Rommel fucks dogs and Zhukov wasn't fit to to be dogcather, let alone a general.
If being fit to be a catcher were a requirement, Red Army would be left without generals.