Another person who never liked him. From the first, I thought he was a conniving opportunist. As sorry as I am over what his family has had to go through, I admit to a certain sneaking satisfaction that my instincts about him have been proven absolutely correct.
For what it’s worth, among my own personal close friends, the ones that grew up as only children are the ones who are least able to play well with others as adults. Among other things they tend to be less willing to share (things and feelings), are very thin-skinned and easily offended, and at the same time tend to be undiplomatic and abrupt when dealing with others. That’s not a statistically valid observation, but it has definitely colored my views. When I encounter a new person who has some specific odd boundary issues and personality quirks I often have a moment of realization “Oh, yeah, he/she is an only child; that’s why he/she is weird like that.”
Why “opposed?” Is it too much to look for someone competent *and *with some modicum of integrity?
Given that politicians legislate on our sex lives / marriage possibilties / child rearing, I think we taxpayers (who pay their salaries) are entitled to know how they behave in these areas.
I also think that letting astrology have any effect on government policy is slightly worse - and that using torture is despicable and should lead to prosecution.
I guess it all depends on how much character you think is revealed by somebody having an affair. I know some folks think it is no big deal. In my mind, it is cowardly and disgusting and reflects poorly on the man as a whole. Keep in mind, leading and making laws is not only a intellectual exercise, it requires judgement. You cannot convince me that these things are not in question when a man (or woman) has an affair.
Whenever I see a statistic on infidelity, it seems to be in the range of 30 to 60 percent. I think it’s spurious to assume that such a common behavior is a marker for poor judgment in a position of public responsibility. Add to that that anyone in a position of public prominence is probably even more likely to be unfaithful if for no other reason that they have increased opportunity. And add to that the fact that we already know that so many of history’s most admired public office holders were unfaithful. You’d have to be almost willfully self-deceptive to think that unfaithfulness is in any way correlated to poor judgment as a public official.
Just to pick a nit, John Edwards is 4 years younger than his wife. Which would have made him 44 when the first of the two ‘bonus babies’ was born. Not all that uncommon an age to be having kids - sometimes even for the first time, as people tend to wait a bit longer now than they used to.
Losing a child is a life-changing, shattering event. It’s not at all unusual for people who have had something of that magnitude happen take their lives in a direction that they never would have anticipated prior to such an event. Priorities can change.
Well, there may be times when you have to set priorities.
Nothing wrong with having both, or looking for both, or even preferring to get both, but letting a libertine attitude toward sexuality be a deal-breaker in the most competent candidate seems to be short-sighted.
Oh gosh, I know we had something like this in our Logic class.
Ummm… Therefore, all wealthy people are repulsive?
Crap, I suck at math.:o
I’m sorry but when you get married you have rebuked a libertine lifestyle. It has nothing to do with having a libertine lifestyle and more to do with your life responsibilites that you have previously agreed to. If John Edwards wanted to go be with another woman, or a hundred other women, or a man, than he should have divorced his wife. I would have no problem with any of that.
I tend to make the assumption that any given politician would fit right into Tammany Hall and am rarely disappointed when it turns out they are corrupt. It makes the discovery that they are actually honest [occasionally] a nice surprise.
Of course, had he divorced his wife to be with a younger woman his political career would have been over right then.
This being the same wife that asked one thing of him; not jewels, not flowers, not expensive gifts of any kind, just one thing - fidelity.
He’s nothing but a snake oil salesman and always has been.
Here is his original reply. I think he was making a point about using apostrophes and punctuation not morality, that’s why it was a “hijack”.
From the very first post (the OP).
Politicians like to lecture about a lot of ahem) stuff. Duty, responsibility, all that durrrrrr stuff. Politicians like to run for offices that usually entail some sort of responsibility (even though they often tapdance and sidestep right past it). Edwards should step up to the plate. A man would step up and take responsibility for his actions.
Just to be the devil’s advocate here: is this definitely his child? Edwards said he’s willing to take a paternity test, but up until now, Rielle Hunter hasn’t allowed it. She says she will now. That should clear it up, but until paternity is established, what exactly is he supposed to do? He claims it’s not his kid, and without evidence to the contrary, I’m not sure what “stepping up” would entail.
Well, I wasn’t exactly discussing John Edwards; and while I may have chosen my descriptors poorly, it doesn’t harm my salient point that refusing competence for the sole reason that it is not accompanied by chastity is an irrational act.