QuoteJohn Edwards Admits He Fathered Child During Affair
Former Presidential Candidate Made Statement Ahead of ABC Exclusive With Other 'Father'
By LEE FERRAN, BRIAN ROSS, and CHRIS FRANCESCANI
Jan. 21, 2010
Former presidential candidate John Edwards abandoned his long denial that he had fathered a child during an affair with a campaign aide and admitted today that he is the father of the almost 2-year-old girl.
"I am Quinn's father," Edwards said in the bombshell statement this morning. "I will do everything in my power to provide her with the love and support she deserves.
The former senator and presidential hopeful had an affair with campaign cinematographer, Rielle Hunter, 42, and she later give birth to Frances Quinn.
"I have been able to spend time with her during the past year and trust that future efforts to show her the love and affection she deserves can be done privately and in peace," Edwards statement said, referring to the little girl.
"It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me," the statement said.
"To all those I have disappointed and hurt, these words will never be enough, but I am truly sorry," he said.
The admission comes a day before the man who had claimed to be the baby's father, former aide Andrew Young, was scheduled to appear on ABC News' "20/20" in an exclusive interview.
Young recently penned a book called "The Politician" about the situation and there is widespread anticipation about what it could reveal about the former presidential candidate.
Edwards' lawyer, Harrison Hickman, bluntly told NBC today, "He lied."
Hickman said that Edwards has been visiting Quinn and paying child support for about a year. Edwards' wife Elizabeth learned last summer that Quinn was her husband's child.
In August 2008 Edwards admitted the affair with Hunter but denied fathering the child in an exclusive "Nightline" interview with Bob Woodruff. Edwards said he repeatedly lied about the extramarital affair with Hunter, a 42-year old campaign employee but strenuously denied being involved in paying the woman hush money or fathering her newborn child.
Edwards categorically declared it was "not possible" that the baby was his.
"I know that it's not possible that this child could be mine because of the timing of events, so I know it's not possible," Edwards said. "[I'm] happy to take a paternity test, and would love to see it happen.
"Two years ago I made a very serious mistake, a mistake that I am responsible for and no one else," Edwards said in the interview. "In 2006, I told Elizabeth about the mistake, asked her for her forgiveness, asked God for his forgiveness. And we have kept this within our family since that time."
Edwards, 55, said he told his entire family about the affair after it ended in 2006, and that his wife Elizabeth, who has incurable breast cancer, was "furious" but that their marriage would survive. The couple have three children, Cate, 25, Emma, 9, and Jack, 7.
Months after the confession, Elizabeth Edwards authored a book, "Resilience," in which she discussed her husband's affair. While promoting the book on The Oprah Winfrey Show in May, she said no paternity test had yet taken place.
But in the summer of 2009, the National Enquirer published reports that Edwards had taken a paternity test and the results confirmed he was the father.
Hunter gave birth to daughter Frances Quinn in February 2008, a month after Edwards ended his bid for the presidency January 2008. She listed no name for the father on the birth certificate, which created further speculation about who it might be.
Andrew Young, a close political aide to Edwards, originally claimed he was the father of Hunter's daughter, not Edwards. But Young -- who has two children with his wife, Cheri -- has since retracted that story and was expected to reveal more about the affair in the exclusive "20/20" interview Friday.
Ugh, gotta be the biggest jackass to run for the Presidency in decades.
In other news, zombie Hitler admits he has "a problem" with the Jews, and Al Sharpton admits he is black.
Maybe he should have tried Polyamory.
Actually, he did try polyamory. He just didn't check with his wife and campaign manager first about whether that was a good idea. :blush:
I thought he was a slimeball well before this
But did he use steroids?
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 21, 2010, 08:00:32 AM
I thought he was a slimeball well before this
Well, the guy was a tort lawyer. Duh.
Yes, but which one of these is a bigger liar and douchebag?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.treehugger.com%2Fedwards_convention_5.jpg&hash=71da3bc2cd1526746d05dbe70b7955d144d357b9) vs. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegarden.com%2Fevents%2Fmedia%2Fevents%2Fjohn-edward-wamu-328.jpg&hash=f353824dd087375309c0b64c691d196b174d7504)
No surprise. The big loser is his wife, though I guess she knew about the affair while he was running for President. Edwards tried to play on the fact of the caring husband with a sick wife; all the more he's a frigging jack ass, while trying to play up sympathy with the voters. Especially the reaction he'd get as it all backfired on him. <_<
One can only imagine the hilarity that would ensue had this con artist managed to con his way into the White House. :menace:
Say what you will, the man does have a beautiful head of hair.
One should think so, since he spends $400 on a haircut! :lol:
This man would have made one hell of a president-- imagine all the jokes he would have provided for our out of work comedians & comedic writers. We should have listened to Ide :(
Oh I forgot about that... Ide had a boner for this guy, right? :lol:
Who knew that a man with such a beatiful smile and beatiful hair could turn out to be so duplicious?
Maybe he didn't see the baby coming. :sleep:
I still say the guy reminds me of John Ritter.
LULZ, is Frances Quinn Hunter his..... Problem Child? *Bad to the Bone opening riff*
Quote from: KRonn on January 21, 2010, 08:10:19 AM
No surprise. The big loser is his wife, though I guess she knew about the affair while he was running for President. Edwards tried to play on the fact of the caring husband with a sick wife; all the more he's a frigging jack ass, while trying to play up sympathy with the voters. Especially the reaction he'd get as it all backfired on him. <_<
His wife doesn't come off too well either in that book with Reid's Negro. She's a depicted as a big time shrew.
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2010, 10:34:43 AM
His wife doesn't come off too well either in that book with Reid's Negro. She's a depicted as a big time shrew.
Yeah, I read that too. Kinda surprising, doesn't fit her public persona at all.
Oh, you all mean John Edwards the politician? I thought you were all speaking of John "Biggest Douche in the Universe" Edwards! :Embarrass: :P
That's John Edward, Drakken.
Actually, both John Edward and John Edwards are contenders for that title. :)
Quote from: Caliga on January 21, 2010, 01:28:09 PM
That's John Edward, Drakken.
Actually, both John Edward and John Edwards are contenders for that title. :)
I'm always mixing those two douches. :blush:
Who's John Edward?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2010, 01:35:10 PM
Who's John Edward?
http://www.johnedward.net/about_John_Edward.htm
An over mediatized psychic on par with Sylvia Browne for the size of their fraudulent schemes.
Quote from: Drakken on January 21, 2010, 01:36:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2010, 01:35:10 PM
Who's John Edward?
http://www.johnedward.net/about_John_Edward.htm
An over mediatized psychic on par with Sylvia Browne for the size of their fraudulent schemes.
My wife used to watch his show like crazy & believed it. My sister in law & her sister & mom actually went to one of his shows in Indianapolis. What do those 4 women have in common? All Catholix :rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on January 21, 2010, 01:51:45 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 21, 2010, 01:36:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2010, 01:35:10 PM
Who's John Edward?
http://www.johnedward.net/about_John_Edward.htm
An over mediatized psychic on par with Sylvia Browne for the size of their fraudulent schemes.
My wife used to watch his show like crazy & believed it. My sister in law & her sister & mom actually went to one of his shows in Indianapolis. What do those 4 women have in common? All Catholix :rolleyes:
:huh:
Spicy picks up a new bigotry each year as part of his character.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 21, 2010, 01:58:50 PM
Spicy picks up a new bigotry each year as part of his character.
Ah gotcha.
The whole Edwards thing is like Palin. They both had their chances and now they are done politically. The media needs to stop beating a dead horse.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 21, 2010, 01:58:50 PM
Spicy picks up a new bigotry each year as part of his character.
Yes, my views on Catholicism are a brand new thing this year :rolleyes:
In all seriousness, the most superstitious people I know tend to be Catholic women.
Quote from: derspiess on January 21, 2010, 01:51:45 PM
My wife used to watch his show like crazy & believed it. My sister in law & her sister & mom actually went to one of his shows in Indianapolis. What do those 4 women have in common?
You mean besides being all of them being related, all of them being women, and (presumably) all of them being Argentinian?
Quote from: Barrister on January 21, 2010, 02:17:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 21, 2010, 01:51:45 PM
My wife used to watch his show like crazy & believed it. My sister in law & her sister & mom actually went to one of his shows in Indianapolis. What do those 4 women have in common?
You mean besides being all of them being related, all of them being women, and (presumably) all of them being Argentinian?
Just one of the four I mentioned above are Argies. My brother's wife & her family are native Cincinnatians of German descent.
Beyond those 4, I can think of about 10-15 other Catholic women who seemed to be particularly superstitious. This includes an ex-girlfriend & her family, past co-workers, and yes, some of my Argie in-laws.
LOL! Check out this headline on FOXNews about the admission:
QuoteSurprise ;o) Edwards Is the Daddy
This is news? ;)
Quote from: derspiess on January 21, 2010, 02:25:13 PM
Beyond those 4, I can think of about 10-15 other Catholic women who seemed to be particularly superstitious. This includes an ex-girlfriend & her family, past co-workers, and yes, some of my Argie in-laws.
Yeah, my mother in law and her sisters are really superstitious (Mexican Catholics).
Edit: So are my wife's sisters, but they're not as bad. I'm really glad the wife isn't like that. OMG SOMEONE DIED COVER UP THE MIRRORS AND STAY AWAY FROM THE TV FOR A WEEK OMG
How on earth did a person who had a secret like this think it would stay hidden through a run for the Presidency? :huh:
Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2010, 05:50:00 PM
How on earth did a person who had a secret like this think it would stay hidden through a run for the Presidency? :huh:
Especially after Clinton showed him how to have affairs and not have children out of them.
Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2010, 05:50:00 PM
How on earth did a person who had a secret like this think it would stay hidden through a run for the Presidency? :huh:
Indeed. How could he run? How could his wife tour the country campaigning for him knowing the truth? I find the whole thing extraordinary.
Well that possibility is that such extra-marital affairs are far more common than we know of, and people beiong caught (like Edwards, CLinton, or Tiger) are the rare exception. :tinfoil:
Quote from: derspiess on January 21, 2010, 01:51:45 PM
My wife used to watch his show like crazy & believed it. My sister in law & her sister & mom actually went to one of his shows in Indianapolis. What do those 4 women have in common?
All married to morons?
Quote from: Barrister on January 21, 2010, 06:29:40 PM
Well that possibility is that such extra-marital affairs are far more common than we know of, and people beiong caught (like Edwards, CLinton, or Tiger) are the rare exception. :tinfoil:
I think such affairs may be common among very rich, famous, and/or powerful men. I doubt very much that your average Joe has 12 secret lovers hiding in the weeds a la Tiger. ;)
What surprises me is the sheer hubris of a man running for, or in, such a public office doing that sort of thing. They must know that they are going to be subject to the most intense scrutiny.
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2010, 06:47:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 21, 2010, 01:51:45 PM
My wife used to watch his show like crazy & believed it. My sister in law & her sister & mom actually went to one of his shows in Indianapolis. What do those 4 women have in common?
All married to morons?
:lmfao:
I'd cheat if I was married to that cunt he has for a wife.
I'd care less if she had cancer.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 21, 2010, 01:58:50 PM
Spicy picks up a new bigotry each year as part of his character.
It doesn't change the fact that Catholic people are more superstitious and less intelligent that Protestants, atheists or Japanese. Italy, Portugal and Spain are still far behind the civilized world.
Just watching the way he acted in front of a camera, he seemed like a weasel. I never understood the appeal of the guy.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 21, 2010, 07:32:01 PM
I'd cheat if I was married to that cunt he has for a wife.
I'd care less if she had cancer.
Given his already revealed idiocy (fucking that loopy loser without protection, his laughable scheme to try to conceal the baby's identity) I wouldn't be surprised if the next revelation is that he tried to put a hit on his wife. :menace:
Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2010, 08:29:57 PM
Just watching the way he acted in front of a camera, he seemed like a weasel. I never understood the appeal of the guy.
Agreed, but there are also tons of moronic tools who give money to Pat Robertson, so go figure.
So glad I don't have to listen to him spout his idiotic populist BS every Presidential election season anymore at least.
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2010, 06:47:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 21, 2010, 01:51:45 PM
My wife used to watch his show like crazy & believed it. My sister in law & her sister & mom actually went to one of his shows in Indianapolis. What do those 4 women have in common?
All married to morons?
OUCH
You guys realize Edwards could be doing some serious jail time sometime in the near future, right? He's been accused of defrauding his campaign donors by using their funds to pay this Hunter wacko off. She was paid something like $144,000 for her "videography" services, which she performed during his campaign, but the results of which were never used at all. I'm sure her interview consisted of giving Edwards a blowjob and IIRC she had no resume that suggested she was remotely qualified to do a job like that.
Quote from: Caliga on January 22, 2010, 06:37:06 AM
You guys realize Edwards could be doing some serious jail time sometime in the near future, right? He's been accused of defrauding his campaign donors by using their funds to pay this Hunter wacko off. She was paid something like $144,000 for her "videography" services, which she performed during his campaign, but the results of which were never used at all. I'm sure her interview consisted of giving Edwards a blowjob and IIRC she had no resume that suggested she was remotely qualified to do a job like that.
Damn, he would have been Clinton x100. Only thing he lacks is a Hillary.
Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2010, 11:21:49 PM
So glad I don't have to listen to him spout his idiotic populist BS every Presidential election season anymore at least.
Sure, easy for you to say, you live in the nice America.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2010, 08:29:57 PM
Just watching the way he acted in front of a camera, he seemed like a weasel. I never understood the appeal of the guy.
That's always been my view. Just thought he was a slick, weaselly, somewhat untrustworthy politician. Never understood why he got so far, and enjoyed reasonable amounts of favor with voters.
Quote from: Caliga on January 22, 2010, 06:37:06 AM
I'm sure her interview consisted of giving Edwards a blowjob
Pretty sure you cannot make illegitimate children that way.
Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2010, 11:46:26 AM
Quote from: Caliga on January 22, 2010, 06:37:06 AM
I'm sure her interview consisted of giving Edwards a blowjob
Pretty sure you cannot make illegitimate children that way.
Reminds me of perhaps the most obnoxious thing one could possibly buy as a gift for a baby shower:
A onesie for a newborn with the slogan "Daddy shoulda asked for a blowjob". :D
Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 12:09:09 PM
Reminds me of perhaps the most obnoxious thing one could possibly buy as a gift for a baby shower:
A onesie for a newborn with the slogan "Daddy shoulda asked for a blowjob". :D
I've seen that one as "All Daddy wanted was a blowjob."
Quote from: ulmont on January 22, 2010, 12:15:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 12:09:09 PM
Reminds me of perhaps the most obnoxious thing one could possibly buy as a gift for a baby shower:
A onesie for a newborn with the slogan "Daddy shoulda asked for a blowjob". :D
I've seen that one as "All Daddy wanted was a blowjob."
My, that must have been an exciting baby shower. :D
Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 12:25:38 PM
Quote from: ulmont on January 22, 2010, 12:15:45 PM
I've seen that one as "All Daddy wanted was a blowjob."
My, that must have been an exciting baby shower. :D
Given that it was the father who gave that gift, yeah.
Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 12:09:09 PM
Reminds me of perhaps the most obnoxious thing one could possibly buy as a gift for a baby shower:
A onesie for a newborn with the slogan "Daddy shoulda asked for a blowjob". :D
OH SNAP, I wish I knew about this when my niece had her first birthday party. :(
Quote from: Caliga on January 22, 2010, 03:25:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2010, 12:09:09 PM
Reminds me of perhaps the most obnoxious thing one could possibly buy as a gift for a baby shower:
A onesie for a newborn with the slogan "Daddy shoulda asked for a blowjob". :D
OH SNAP, I wish I knew about this when my niece had her first birthday party. :(
My mother actually gave Carl a hat that said "Chick Magnet" on it.
She was horrified when my wife explained what that meant. :lol:
What did she think it meant? :huh:
Poultry attracter.
I would guess she thought it meant "Carl attracts chicks (maybe just female babies?) to himself because he's so cute", not "Malthus can get pussy because he's walking around with a cute baby".
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 22, 2010, 03:55:58 PM
What did she think it meant? :huh:
It had a picture of a cute cartoon chick on it (the small yellow baby bird variety).
She thought it meant some sort of babyland vision of toddlers playing with little chicks, who would be attracted by their cuteness or something like that.
Keep in mind, she's over 70. ;)
Folks, never in my wildest dreams did I think this story would get any better.
BUT IT DOES.Yeah, I know this could be untrue... but I hope to Hod it isn't. Not because I want to see that nasty Realian chick nude, but purely for the LULZies.
QuoteJanuary 27, 2010 | 11:16 AM ET
John Edwards, Rielle Hunter sex tape made when she was pregnant?
(AP/National Enquirer)
Andrew Young, one of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards' former aides, has written a book, "The Politician," due to hit bookshelves on February 2.
In it, Young reveals how he was pressured into claiming paternity for Rielle Hunter's daughter, Francis Quinn, the child who Edwards admitted last week to fathering.
Young also includes descriptions in the book of a sex video featuring Edwards and Hunter that he says he saw, a source tells Fox411.com exclusively.
"It is not a coincidence that John announced that Francis Quinn is his biological daughter with Rielle," said the source. "He knows many secrets are coming out this week and with the book. There will be a lot of surprising things revealed over the next few weeks."
The source said Young believes the sex video, which he described as very graphic, was filmed when Hunter was already pregnant.
The insider also said that Edwards will do his best never to let it be seen, unless he needs the money.
More details will be likely be revealed on "20/20" Friday night, when Bob Woodruff interviews Young about the book and working for John Edwards, the source adds.
Edwards said on Thursday that he would "do everything in my power to provide her (Frances) with the love and support she deserves," adding that "it was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me."
- Kelly Will
Oh, wow. Edwards looks like a douchebag even when he apologizes for being a douchebag. I hope he's sued for all his money, and can't make a dishonest living anymore.
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2010, 01:25:29 PM
and can't make a dishonest living anymore.
Oh, I'm sure he can go back to being a plaintiff's lawyer. :rimshot:
Quote from: Barrister on January 27, 2010, 01:29:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2010, 01:25:29 PM
and can't make a dishonest living anymore.
Oh, I'm sure he can go back to being a plaintiff's lawyer. :rimshot:
The "not make" part was also a wish. Can't he be disbarred if he's convicted of some wrong-doing?
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2010, 01:32:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 27, 2010, 01:29:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2010, 01:25:29 PM
and can't make a dishonest living anymore.
Oh, I'm sure he can go back to being a plaintiff's lawyer. :rimshot:
The "not make" part was also a wish. Can't he be disbarred if he's convicted of some wrong-doing?
Yes, but lying about a mistress is not something that would attract that kind of sanction (or any kind of sanction).
Quote
The insider also said that Edwards will do his best never to let it be seen, unless he needs the money.
:lol:
I would love to see the day John Edwards is so broke he's selling old sex tapes on the internet
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 27, 2010, 02:09:32 PM
Quote
The insider also said that Edwards will do his best never to let it be seen, unless he needs the money.
:lol:
I would love to see the day John Edwards is so broke he's selling old sex tapes on the internet
Once upon a time, I'm sure a handful of people said that about Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee.
Wow, this just gets more and more bizarre. He could have gotten less grief over fathering the kid if he had owned up to it early on. It would have hurt him politically, no President or VP, but wouldn't have been the horror show for him that he faces now. That is with the cover up, possibly including misuse of campaign funds, people lying for him which may wind up being added criminal charges, then later on coming clean on things, in the face of a book coming out about it all forcing him to do so.
Quote from: Barrister on January 27, 2010, 01:44:14 PM
Yes, but lying about a mistress is not something that would attract that kind of sanction (or any kind of sanction).
No, but paying her off from the campaign funds might.
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2010, 03:31:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 27, 2010, 01:44:14 PM
Yes, but lying about a mistress is not something that would attract that kind of sanction (or any kind of sanction).
No, but paying her off from the campaign funds might.
:yes:
Like I said earlier, this is what a grand jury is currently reviewing and could land him some serious jail time. I think that would result in him being automatically disbarred.
Quote from: Caliga on January 27, 2010, 04:22:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2010, 03:31:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 27, 2010, 01:44:14 PM
Yes, but lying about a mistress is not something that would attract that kind of sanction (or any kind of sanction).
No, but paying her off from the campaign funds might.
:yes:
Like I said earlier, this is what a grand jury is currently reviewing and could land him some serious jail time. I think that would result in him being automatically disbarred.
Hey, with any luck the sex tapes will be seized as evidence in his trial and find their way from there onto the internet. :P
How would an Edwards aide come to see the video anyway? I don't recall ever having a meeting with my boss where he showed me a sex video starring himself.
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2010, 05:09:08 PM
How would an Edwards aide come to see the video anyway? I don't recall ever having a meeting with my boss where he showed me a sex video starring himself.
Yeah, and what with your
extensive experience of covering for your boss by claiming that you are the father of his children ... ;)
Yeah, point taken. But still, how exactly did it happen. Was he shown the video just so that he would know exactly what he's copping to?
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2010, 05:39:49 PM
Yeah, point taken. But still, how exactly did it happen. Was he shown the video just so that he would know exactly what he's copping to?
Or Edwards was that special class of idiot who keeps it where it's "accessible" for him to watch in the office and the guy managed to find it when he was asked to run into the office for something. There's really a lot of possibilities as to how he happened by the tape, actually.
Not sure about disbarment. I know that a lot of states make sure a felony conviction will disqualify you from
applying for membership in the bar association, but I don't know which, if any, automatically eject you for a felony. That said, given the
nature of the accusations, I think it's a fair assumption that if he's convicted, he'll be disbarred.
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2010, 05:39:49 PM
Yeah, point taken. But still, how exactly did it happen. Was he shown the video just so that he would know exactly what he's copping to?
QuoteLater, after Hunter delivered the baby, Young and his family moved to a different home in California.
While he was unpacking, Young discovered a videocassette, according to the book pitch. Hunter had been hired by the Edwards campaign to videotape the candidate's movements, but this one is said to have shown him taking positions that weren't on his official platform.
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/06/28/2009-06-28_aides_tale_of_john_edwards_sex_tape.html
I saw another story that said he found a DVD, not a videocassette. YMMV.
@ Banana
If I am remembering this correctly, my dad's cousin (who is a lawyer with his own practice in York, Pa.) had a guy working for him as a paralegal who had formerly been admitted to the Pennsylvania bar. He was convicted of something akin to spousal or child abuse--don't think it was sexual assault--and whatever it was landed him in prison and got him disbarred. After he got the job with Robert, he had to apply for readmission and Robert served as a character witness for him. IIRC he was readmitted.
Actually, here's the case in question:
http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/disciplinaryboard/dboardopinions/35DB2001-R-Sangiamo.pdf (http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/disciplinaryboard/dboardopinions/35DB2001-R-Sangiamo.pdf)
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2010, 05:39:49 PM
Yeah, point taken. But still, how exactly did it happen. Was he shown the video just so that he would know exactly what he's copping to?
Hey, what good would his alibi be, if he couldn't name personal details and favorite positions?! :D
FWIW, I fully support John Edwards during these trying times.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 27, 2010, 02:09:32 PM
Quote
The insider also said that Edwards will do his best never to let it be seen, unless he needs the money.
:lol:
I would love to see the day John Edwards is so broke he's selling old sex tapes on the internet
Is there a market for unattractive old people on camera?
Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, John Edwards. To think that all those people were vice-presidential candidates in the last 5 years.
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2010, 06:57:39 PM
Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, John Edwards. To think that all those people were vice-presidential candidates in the last 5 years.
What do you have against Biden!?
http://politics.comedy.com/2010/01/12/joe-biden-hennessy/
The embezzlement of campaign money is bad but the rest of it - why is it even relevant? It's the guy's private life.
Quote from: Martinus on January 27, 2010, 07:08:24 PM
The embezzlement of campaign money is bad but the rest of it - why is it even relevant? It's the guy's private life.
There is also an issue of running a campaign and soliciting donations when you know you've got a PR time bomb waiting to go off. Not illegal, but highly inconsiderate, to say the least.
Quote from: Martinus on January 27, 2010, 07:08:24 PM
The embezzlement of campaign money is bad but the rest of it - why is it even relevant? It's the guy's private life.
It shows the American public that Edwards has no self control, poor judgment, zero loyalty to the people who care about him, and is a shameless liar... traits we don't really like to see in our elected officials. Strangely, many still exhibit those traits anyway. Actually, maybe we DO like to see those traits in our elected officials after all. :wacko:
Quote from: Caliga on January 27, 2010, 08:41:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 27, 2010, 07:08:24 PM
The embezzlement of campaign money is bad but the rest of it - why is it even relevant? It's the guy's private life.
It shows the American public that Edwards has no self control, poor judgment, zero loyalty to the people who care about him, and is a shameless liar... traits we don't really like to see in our elected officials. Strangely, many still exhibit those traits anyway. Actually, maybe we DO like to see those traits in our elected officials after all. :wacko:
The public perception of his wife as nice and loyal is also a huge strike against him for his behavior.
I'm sure that one of the main reasons Clinton got away with his cheating was many people thought Hillary was a shrill bitch and they couldn't possibly love each other.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 28, 2010, 12:09:26 AM
The public perception of his wife as nice and loyal is also a huge strike against him for his behavior.
I'm sure that one of the main reasons Clinton got away with his cheating was many people thought Hillary was a shrill bitch and they couldn't possibly love each other.
Interestingly enough, the public perception appears to be greatly mistaken. The book that's about to come out is not nice to her, according to those who read the advance copy. That's the second book in a row that's not exactly extolling her virtues.
The tape has been given to the FBI.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32611.html
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 06, 2010, 03:43:55 AM
The tape has been given to the FBI.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32611.html
Cool. That means I'll be downloading the torrent next week. :)
Quote from: Caliga on February 06, 2010, 07:53:08 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 06, 2010, 03:43:55 AM
The tape has been given to the FBI.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32611.html
Cool. That means I'll be downloading the torrent next week. :)
Why the fuck would you want to see that? :yuk:
Surprised? You're talking to the world's greatest Matt Ramsey fan.
I really wish people would leave him alone.
Why?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 07, 2010, 01:04:29 AM
Why?
Because it's his private life and he did not do anything illegal? :huh:
In some states adultery is illegal. :lol:
But I wish people would leave him alone just because I'm tired of hearing about it.
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2010, 04:34:16 AM
Because it's his private life and he did not do anything illegal? :huh:
Misuse of campaign funds is a variety of fraud and thus illegal.
Quote from: Martinus on January 27, 2010, 07:08:24 PM
The embezzlement of campaign money is bad but the rest of it - why is it even relevant? It's the guy's private life.
His behaviour was at absolute odds with his public image - he made a deal of being the loyal husband supporting his wife with cancer, for example.
Edit: Also I don't like this private life stuff.
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2010, 04:34:16 AM
Because it's his private life and he did not do anything illegal? :huh:
Public officials are elected on the basis of character and trustworthiness as much as anything else. If you're going to run for political office, you need to be prepared to live in a glass house. If that elected official's judgment is that questionable in private matters, how can you trust that it'll be any more reliable in public affairs?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 07, 2010, 10:16:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2010, 04:34:16 AM
Because it's his private life and he did not do anything illegal? :huh:
Public officials are elected on the basis of character and trustworthiness as much as anything else. If you're going to run for political office, you need to be prepared to live in a glass house. If that elected official's judgment is that questionable in private matters, how can you trust that it'll be any more reliable in public affairs?
Disagree. I much prefer the European culture of politics to the puritan Anglosaxon one. Public officials should be judged on the basis of one thing only: competence (including past track record in performance of the duties). Their non-office-related conduct should only matter if it involves a criminal activity and/or misuse of power.
Of course the fact that he used campaign funds etc. is another story whatsoever, but the fact that he had an extra-marital affair and a kid with his mistress should be nobody's concern.
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2010, 10:26:39 AM
Disagree. I much prefer the European culture of politics to the puritan Anglosaxon one.
Well in the UK an affair isn't a resigning issue anymore unless it's seen as going against your political personality or money's involved. And in the UK it's not puritanism, it's prurientism.
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2010, 04:34:16 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 07, 2010, 01:04:29 AM
Why?
Because it's his private life and he did not do anything illegal? :huh:
As was said before by me as well as others, that's not a settled question yet. In US, it's illegal to pay off your lovers with funds that you solicit for running a campaign.
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2010, 10:26:39 AM
Disagree. I much prefer the European culture of politics to the puritan Anglosaxon one. Public officials should be judged on the basis of one thing only: competence (including past track record in performance of the duties). Their non-office-related conduct should only matter if it involves a criminal activity and/or misuse of power.
Of course the fact that he used campaign funds etc. is another story whatsoever, but the fact that he had an extra-marital affair and a kid with his mistress should be nobody's concern.
Really? At the very least, it's fiscal stupidity, since then there's child support and what-not potentially involved. The fact of the matter is that a politician is elected based on their perceived ability to uphold the ideals of a given community. We've got a few "puritanical" ideals to work around that Euros don't seem to have.
For example, if this had been an NJ-specific case, the guy would have had to promote his own fiscal responsibility while trying to explain $435 a week in child support payments (based on Senate salary, no supplemental income or deductions, and the latest versions of the child support tables)
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2010, 10:26:39 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 07, 2010, 10:16:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2010, 04:34:16 AM
Because it's his private life and he did not do anything illegal? :huh:
Public officials are elected on the basis of character and trustworthiness as much as anything else. If you're going to run for political office, you need to be prepared to live in a glass house. If that elected official's judgment is that questionable in private matters, how can you trust that it'll be any more reliable in public affairs?
Disagree. I much prefer the European culture of politics to the puritan Anglosaxon one. Public officials should be judged on the basis of one thing only: competence (including past track record in performance of the duties). Their non-office-related conduct should only matter if it involves a criminal activity and/or misuse of power.
Of course the fact that he used campaign funds etc. is another story whatsoever, but the fact that he had an extra-marital affair and a kid with his mistress should be nobody's concern.
You kind of have a point, but the guy was having an affair while his wife was battling cancer--and apparently discussing getting married once she died. Even in Europe there are limits to what will be tolerated.
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2010, 10:26:39 AM
Disagree. I much prefer the European culture of politics to the puritan Anglosaxon one. Public officials should be judged on the basis of one thing only: competence (including past track record in performance of the duties). Their non-office-related conduct should only matter if it involves a criminal activity and/or misuse of power.
Of course the fact that he used campaign funds etc. is another story whatsoever, but the fact that he had an extra-marital affair and a kid with his mistress should be nobody's concern.
In Europe aren't you typically voting for a party rather than an individual?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2010, 02:44:19 PM
In Europe aren't you typically voting for a party rather than an individual?
That varies from country to country. I think France, Germany and, of course, the UK all have some element of a direct constituency election - France has individual leaders too, of course.
However I believe most PR systems used in Europe allow you to vote for individual candidates or for a party.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2010, 02:55:26 PM
That varies from country to country. I think France, Germany and, of course, the UK all have some element of a direct constituency election - France has individual leaders too, of course.
However I believe most PR systems used in Europe allow you to vote for individual candidates or for a party.
And in those countries with direct constituency elections, how often do people vote based on party affiliation?
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2010, 04:34:16 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 07, 2010, 01:04:29 AM
Why?
Because it's his private life and he did not do anything illegal? :huh:
Some things are wrong. Like being gay.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2010, 03:04:05 PM
And in those countries with direct constituency elections, how often do people vote based on party affiliation?
It depends. I imagine about as often as in the US. According to polls their people who identify as Republican or Democrat vote for their party around 75-85% of the time. Of independents two-thirds lean one way or another and those leaners vote for one party or the other as often as self-identified partisans. 10% of the electorate, roughly, in the US are true centrist independents who are swing voters.
In the UK your vote is generally determined by national political story - do you like Gordon Brown/the government? - and a tribal sympathy/antipathy to one party or other. In certain circumstances such as a corrupt MP (and our definition of corruption is considerably narrower than in the US) then people will often vote against that party - or if someone runs a nasty campaign (for example Labour running a class war campaign in Crewe), or the party is perceived be disrespecting the area (for example Labour trying to parachute a party loyalist into a safe seat over a respected local figure).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2010, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2010, 02:55:26 PM
That varies from country to country. I think France, Germany and, of course, the UK all have some element of a direct constituency election - France has individual leaders too, of course.
However I believe most PR systems used in Europe allow you to vote for individual candidates or for a party.
And in those countries with direct constituency elections, how often do people vote based on party affiliation?
About the same as in the US - i.e. in national elections people tend to vote based on party affiliations, less so in local elections.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 07, 2010, 06:40:12 AM
In some states adultery is illegal. :lol:
Sorry, was using the Western democracy standard. I bet a lot of stuff that politicians do is also illegal in Iran or Saudi Arabia (e.g. drinking).
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2010, 03:13:00 PM
It depends. I imagine about as often as in the US. According to polls their people who identify as Republican or Democrat vote for their party around 75-85% of the time. Of independents two-thirds lean one way or another and those leaners vote for one party or the other as often as self-identified partisans. 10% of the electorate, roughly, in the US are true centrist independents who are swing voters.
In the UK your vote is generally determined by national political story - do you like Gordon Brown/the government? - and a tribal sympathy/antipathy to one party or other. In certain circumstances such as a corrupt MP (and our definition of corruption is considerably narrower than in the US) then people will often vote against that party - or if someone runs a nasty campaign (for example Labour running a class war campaign in Crewe), or the party is perceived be disrespecting the area (for example Labour trying to parachute a party loyalist into a safe seat over a respected local figure).
Taking into account the fact that in some cases Europeans are voting for party lists and not individual candidates, and that the US has primaries in which party loyalists must choose between members of the same party, it seems there are some structural reasons for Europeans to be less concerned with the character and personal foibles of their representative.
You are confusing two things here. When people vote for party lists, they still vote for individual candidates on these lists, and the ones who received most votes are the ones who get in from the list in question. The only difference is that it is possible for someone with less votes get in over someone with more votes, because the guy who gets in was on a list that got more votes in total.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2010, 03:40:01 PM
Taking into account the fact that in some cases Europeans are voting for party lists and not individual candidates, and that the US has primaries in which party loyalists must choose between members of the same party, it seems there are some structural reasons for Europeans to be less concerned with the character and personal foibles of their representative.
Yep, but as I say having to vote for a party list isn't the European norm.
But I'd counter that in the US there are more structural issues to enable and to tolerate corruption, which is worse than getting your end away and whatever that tells you about someone's character.
"Getting your end away?" :unsure:
Does that mean getting your Zeb wet?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2010, 04:27:06 PM
"Getting your end away?" :unsure:
Does that mean getting your Zeb wet?
Yep :)
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2010, 03:43:18 PM
You are confusing two things here. When people vote for party lists, they still vote for individual candidates on these lists, and the ones who received most votes are the ones who get in from the list in question. The only difference is that it is possible for someone with less votes get in over someone with more votes, because the guy who gets in was on a list that got more votes in total.
I was taught in college that in party list systems the party orders their candidates in preference order, and the top X percent of the list get seated depending on how much of the national vote they win. But if you say it doesn't work that way, who am I to say no?
So what happens if one party gets, say, half the national votes but all of them are assigned to one candidate?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2010, 04:47:41 PM
I was taught in college that in party list systems the party orders their candidates in preference order, and the top X percent of the list get seated depending on how much of the national vote they win.
That's only the case in certain party list systems. In others I think it's as Marty describes and I believe in some you can vote for a party list or for individuals on party lists.