To be fair, politicians often seem obsessed with the sex lives of their constituents, so turnabout is fair play. This is especially true when a politician is caught in a blatant lie; as self-selected leaders they should, in fact, be held to a higher standard than the typical schlub. If they don’t like that, they needn’t run for public office which such scrutiny is known and expected.
As for why John Edwards is so creepy, I recommend watching 2001: A Space Odyssey and noting the parallels between the H.A.L. 9000 computer and J.R.E. 2008.
I was responding to your attempt to compare eating babies and torture; the fact that some politicians support torture, and none support baby eating does matter. Either you chose a bad example, or you were attempting to handwave torture away as something we’d never do, which is provably false.
Is it that hard to conceive that other men can be different from you? My father was born when his father was 61. I doubt that my grandmother was twisting his arm. My dad was the youngest of thirteen in a blended family.
In what way to they get off the hook too easily? What should be done to them? Are you saying the father should not pay anything for the unkeep of the child because he is rich?
This is totally a guess, but I suspect that she’s doing it as therapy. It’s also a way to end speculation about what she knew and when and how she felt about it. When she’s gone, the record of how she saw the truth will be there. That may be especially important for her children.
It’s also a little bit of history.
The thing that I hated most was not just that he was cheating on his wife. But he was doing the one thing that she had asked him not to do and he was doing it while she is dying of cancer.
Just because he had an affair with another woman does not mean that he actually prefers the other woman. It meant that he had rather have an affair with the other woman than remain faithful to Elizabeth. That’s all we know.
I think that it’s quite possible that Elizabeth is staying with him because she loves him. And I think that it’s very possible that he loves her. Even after all he’s done.
No, it doesn’t. Let’s use another analogy and pretend a thread is called “Michele Obama’s Clothing.”:
OP: “I hate the sleeveless dresses that Michelle Obama wears.”
B: “I like her dresses.”
C: “I think her clothing is too young for her age.”
D: “She may dress poorly but at least she doesn’t consult astrologers.”
Persons A,B, and C were on topic. Person D’s comments were off topic and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The discussion was never about Nancy Reagan, nor was it about her belief in astrology. It was about Michelle Obama’s clothing choice. It’s not even a good tangential topic, because we have no idea what Michelle Obama’s position is on the merits of astrology.
E: She also doesn’t smoke crack, but I hardly see where her position on astrology is relevant.
F: That’s a stupid thing to say. NO ONE supports smoking crack. Many people practice astrology. Are you saying that they don’t? Because I have data that proves they do. And I don’t appreciate you being dismissive about astrology because I think it’s really important that a former First Lady actually practiced astrology, of all things, in the Oval Office.
You’re Person F. And it’s pretty clear that your anti-astrology agenda is clouding your logic.
Maybe it’s just me, but IMO, while the infidelity is unfortunate, the truly glaring error in judgement was becoming involved with the sort of person who would allow their relationship to hurt his family and derail his candidacy. You wanna screw married men, you should know your place, and your place is way, waaaaaaaaaaay off camera.
And I don’t believe for a second that Elizabeth Edwards is a “doormat”. They’ve been married for a very long time, who are we to decide what that’s worth to her? Add to that the fact that she’s dying, and a divorce seems rather a waste of tme and energy.
Your grandparents circumstances aside I’d still be willing to make a large bet that 99 percent of 56 year old successful, professional men men if approached by their 48-50 year old wives with a plan for making more babies that involved hormone shots etc etc. would ask if they were out of their minds.
This doesn’t mean they would not finally cooperate to make their wives happy, but I’m pretty sure it’s the wife’s plan not hubby’s in this circumstance. And yes IMO her going to such lengths to have additional kids at that age when you already have a 27 year old daughter means there’s a screw loose somewhere. How that factors into their personal dynamic I have no idea.
True… but when you start pumping yourself full of hormones and using fertility treatments to pop out two more kids (after you have had two already almost 30 years ago) so an 8 and a 10 year old can have a 60 year old mother and father my crazy needle starts jumping a a bit.
At the risk of hijacking, why is having an only child so bad? So bad that a person would undergo fertility treatments and a high risk pregnancy to prevent such a horror from occurring? I’m not being sarcastic-- I really don’t get it.
Well, lots of people like the idea of their kids having siblings. I think that especially if you’re having them at an advanced age, the idea of them having each other when you’re gone is comforting.
It’s not something I personally care about much (I have siblings, and don’t have much use for them), but I kind of get it.
If a politician is engaging in illicit sexual activities, it would concern me if he/she was placing health at risk, demanding behavior of others (through legal action in particular) that he/she cannot maintain, or mounting (sorry) aggressive coverup activities to conceal sleazy behavior.
The hypocrisy angle does bother me. And it’s not just in the arena of bedtime frolics. If you set yourself up as a spokesperson for the little people and flaunt huge wealth while requiring sacrifices of others who are far less advantaged, it has a bad smell.
Meantime, Elliot Spitzer is making noises about running for N.Y. governor again. It’s interesting how many Dems are salivating at the prospect of dumping Paterson, moral fellow that he is.
Cripes, for a moment there I thought you were dragging Manny Ramirez into the discussion.
I imagine for the vey same reason a lot of people have two cats or two dogs. They can keep each other company, and occupied, and in some ways lower the burden on the owners – er, I mean parents.
I’ve already responded to this, and the point I was making – I won’t even say attempting to make, because I think it was very clear – was neither the “either” nor the “or” you are wrongly alleging that it must have been.
Just because you missed my point doesn’t mean it wasn’t clear. If it’s just that you don’t get it when I say it, PunditLisa made the same point.
Well, you’ll have to ask her; I of course don’t know her agenda. I do know that some people would prefer not to raise an only child, feeling that it’s preferable for a child to have siblings. And I personally know two people who feel that way having been only children themselves: One thinks she would have better social skills (on dealing with conflict and picking up cues) if she had had siblings – questionable thinking, I know – and the other, having lost both his parents, is now truly alone and wishes he had a brother or sister, or both. I don’t know that either of them would consider their loving childhoods to have been “horrors,” though.
The situation is very similar to my own. My parents had two children, my brother and sister, about twelve years before I was born. My brother died in an accident when he was ten and my sister was approx. seven. If he hadn’t died, my parents would probably not have had any more kids.
After about a year, my mom (age 38) had my older sister. Because of the relatively large age difference between her two daughters (about eight years), my parents decided to have another kid – me – when my mom was 39 and my father 44. This was in the sixties, and most of the kids my age had parents a good ten years older than I did. Didn’t really matter to me.
Both mom & dad were very close to their own siblings, and I think they just wanted their kids had similar experiences.
Anyway, the point of all this is to say that I understand why Elizabeth wanted to give birth to two kids, especially if she was thinking she was under a ticking time bomb of cancer. She wanted her kids to be able to support and love each other and their dad. I don’t see this as crazy at all.
I wasn’t asking specifically Mrs. Edwards’ agenda, just about this general sentiment that it’s baaad to only have one child. I would think, especially if you have limited resources (which the Edwardses do not), it would be better to focus on the one you have. Thinking of Kid #2 as the Auxiliary BackUp Child is rather… odd to me.
Seems odd to me too, but then neither I nor AFAIK Elizabeth Edwards consider the second sibling in such scenarios to be an Auxiliary BackUp Child.
:: Shrug :: Some people think it’s better for kids to have siblings than to be raised alone. Seems a defensible POV to me, though certainly not the only defensible POV.
Well, perhaps it would be best if you didn’t take the comment with such utter humorlessness. It was a wry way of referring to a child you had just to keep the first one company. Or to replace a dead child, or just in case the first one dies. None of those seems to be a fantastic reason to have a kid, but whatever. I guess it’s not something I’m going to understand.
Don’t understand this either. I do have a sibling and I’m not sorry I do, but to view being an only child as some bad fate to be avoided if at all possible… a bit extreme. If we’re going with anecdotes, I know several only children who claim to be very glad they were, so there you go.
Apparently not, because I don’t know of one parent who had a second child who would say that the SOLE reason they had the second child was to keep the first one company, must less to replace a dead child, or in case the first one dies, the last two being things that absolutely no one in this thread has said anything about. People have kids, and then more kids, for lots of reasons, and often a combination of reasons. I doubt many parents would say the only reason they had a second child was for the sake of the first, as if the second child was not planned, or wanted, or valued (or some combination thereof) for it’s own sake as well. So I guess I’ll cop tto “utter humorlessness” at the same time that you cop to grossly oversimplifying a fairly non-controversial point, apparently for no other reason than to try to pick a fight.
