Why do some people think that because we're liberals we have to tolerate infidelity?

I just found out about the whole Edwards fiasco, and I'm very, very disappointed in him, and feel truly awful for Elizabeth and their kids. Perusing the DU threads, I can't count the number of comments in the vein of "well, I don't care where politicians put their penis" and "why can't we be more like Europe and not care about this" and "men like to have sex with lots of women, it's stupid to get outraged by this" etc.

Excuse me, but since when did being liberal mean condoning infidelity? I do not have a partner, but when I do, I will expect nothing short of absolute monogamy - and would never consider straying myself. If I were in a committed relationship and felt compelled, for whatever reason, to cheat, I would end my relationship first. It's really not that hard. It's amazing that so many people on DU typically like to think of themselves as enlightened progressives who have transcended their baser animal natures, scoffing at war, aggression, and tribalism, but yet when it comes to sex, suddenly it's not only acceptable, but somehow "liberating" to embrace our animal instincts.

Most people here would say that rape is heinous, and rightly so; but is it not, on some level, "instinctive" as well, driven by a Cro-Magnon desire to assert power and authority and to demonstrate dominance and spread one's potential genes. Yet we have no problem correctly assessing that it is a deplorable and evil act. However, anyone who expresses disapproval of infidelity is a puritan adhering to "Christian fundamentalist Taliban" morals. I strongly suspect that these people have never been cheated on, or, perhaps more likely, are cheaters themselves desperately attempting to rationalize their betrayal. Because that's what infidelity is. It is a BETRAYAL. A betrayal of trust, loyalty, and honor. Why should anyone ever take a cheater as his/her word again, if they've demonstrated that they cannot keep one of the most important promises they've ever made to one of the most important people in their lives?

But it's "human nature," the apologists argue. Big fucking deal. Lots of things are "human nature." Racism/ethnocentrism/tribalism is "human nature." Aggressive territorialism is "human nature." Conformity is "human nature." Violence is "human nature." We don't tolerate or make excuses for those things, so I utterly fail to see why infidelity should be given a pass.

Obviously monogamy isn't for everyone. That's fine. But people who cannot or do not wish to be monogamous should not LIE and enter into a monogamous contract like marriage if they have no intention or desire or willpower to uphold the vows they made to their spouse. I don't have a problem with people who are HONEST and UP FRONT about their sexual practices.

So yes, I "care" when a politician, or anyone, is unfaithful. It speaks a great deal to their character that they would lie and deceive and hurt the person they profess to love most. That doesn't mean they aren't good public servants or that we shouldn't vote for them. But let's stop making excuses or pretending that it's okay or that only conservatives have a moral problem with dishonest sexual promiscuity.

The one thing I do agree with is that it's absolutely not our business. But unfortunately, the media circus and the ensuing DU frenzy have rather made it our business, and it bothers me to see so much flippant dismissal of a seriously terrible act here.

It's as if people think that if we condemn one of our own for it then that automatically means we must not be condemning those on the other side who do the same thing, and that's just not the case at all. McCain was worse than Edwards in regards to what he did to his first wife, especially marrying the rich nutball Cindy barely a month after dumping Carol, who'd stood by him all the years he was a POW, for having the gall to be seriously injured in a car accident and thus losing her "willowy" figure that he liked. Yet you never hear a word about that on the MSM, even when he's yammering on and on about "family" values. But that doesn't mean Edwards doesn't deserve shit, either. What a slimeball, especially with his wife being sick at the time.

Only Elizabeth is tolerating it, for the rest of us, it's really not our damn business. I admit to taking a certain gleeful pleasure when another repuke is caught in a sex scandal, but they earned the scorn by holding themselves out to be holier than thou. Edwards fucked up (literally and figuratively) and is now paying the price but it doesn't affect whether or not I can afford to go to the doctor, send my kids to college or have to worry about my bridge crumbling when I am on the way to work. I save my outrage for the bigger things....

What springhill said.

and he ran. while having an affair, well aware he could be caught giving the white house to a repug again.

so yes... it could have effected us all.

You explained it better than I did.

And THAT, I believe, is where it should matter to every one of us.

Oh, wait...that's different

How sad for the cheated on and how terrible for the cheatee for the cheatee will pay in many, many ways. (barring sociopathy)

This type of behavior is ruinous for relationships, it's a very sad and hard row to hoe.

I will support the victim without harming the victimizer. They will both have a tough time with this for the rest of their lives. Forgiveness will come much easier than trust ever will.

Poor families that this happens to, I know, it happened to me. :hug:

and I agree with you, it is ruinous for the entire family. Fidelity is about trust, and obviously infidelity breaks that trust. Once lost, it is hard, if ever, to regain.

As a public figure in modern USA, Edwards affair affects all of us Democrats because of the if factor. If he had become the nominee, right now we'd be in complete disarray, easy pickins for the repukes and their media mouthpieces.

that your sexual orientation, your religion and your family life is yours?

What part of "privacy" is unclear to you?

it's none of my business. It has nothing to do with politics. It's human nature.

That doesn't make them OK.

And no, it's none of my business and no it has nothing to do with politics. I have very little interest in this as a "story." However, all the "infidelity isn't a big deal" posts on DU were starting to piss me off.

50% of marriages deal with infidelity at some point. It's a big deal to the people involved, but not to outsiders.

At least the Edwards are working on keeping their marriage together, as did the Clintons. I think that's a good thing.

I'm sorry...I just don't get it. I'm not saying infidelity is okay, unless both parties in a relationship agree to have an open arrangement. Other than that, it's none of my god damned business. Yes it happens and yes it's painful when it happens, but it's more or less a fact of life.

it is really none of our business to begin with.
Some here act like a they're one of a bunch of little old ladies and the Edwards scandal is the best thing to come along in months. Talk about busy bodies. They are here on DU in spades this evening.

They want to keep his political aspirations alive so he can arise like a phoenix from the ashes.

Chastened but surviving.

"The one thing I do agree with is that it's absolutely not our business. CORRECT!!!! Unfortunately you continue with "But unfortunately, the media circus and the ensuing DU frenzy have rather made it our business"

That is where you are wrong. It is a private matter and absolutely NONE of our business. The media circus is trying to distract everyone from Suskind, and the crimes committed by GWB and his administration. Edwards is a private citizen. He is NOT in office. His mistake is a matter for he and his family to deal with.

As to whether monogamy is for everyone, and your rather pompous statement that " people who cannot or do not wish to be monogamous should not LIE and enter into a monogamous contract like marriage if they have no intention or desire or willpower to uphold the vows they made to their spouse." Hell - I doubt anyone enters marriage thinking - 'cool - I can be unfaithful. Sweet!'

:eyes: How much windex does it take to polish the walls in YOUR glass house? Must be wonderful to know you are so perfect and it must be so fabulous to be anyone associated with you - who knows how judgmental and unforgiving you are.

So it's "pompous" not to endorse being a lying cheating asshole? You must have a very low threshold for acceptable behavior, I guess.

The hypocrisy of people like you makes me cringe. As if the vast majority of DU isn't shrill and judgmental on everything from the war to environmentalism to everything in between. I guess it's okay to be judgmental and unforgiving against people who are pro-war or who drive Hummers or who do any other number of things that violate the DU verboten list, but oh God forbid someone disapprove of dishonesty and cheating. Please, save your faux "tolerance."

The fact is that YOU can't seem to see the difference between things which affect us ALL versus private family matters.

:eyes:

I expect such "perfection" and "my shit don't smell" more from fundies than from liberals. As I said - wildeyed may fit - but "liberal"? Not so much.

:eyes: yourself.

And, gee, look who's judging now? You are fully prepared to make the judgment that I'm not a liberal because I posted that I think cheating is bad? Wow. What a stunning hypocrite you are. And you don't even appear to grasp the irony. Self-righteous, judgmental, pompous - look in the mirror. Christ.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the internet??

are given information, it is natural that they will form opinions. Also, public figures do not have the same expectation of privacy that regular citizens may assume.

As for the rest of that crap you wrote...what are you, twelve? No, wait, my twelve year old wouldn't have written anything that nahney nahney boo boo sounding.

LOL!

This infidelity is a private matter for the Edwards family. How does it affect YOU personally?

The OP was extremely judgmental about infidelity. When confronted (personally) with the frailties of humankind one has the choice to judge and condemn people for their indiscretions, or to forgive. The OP has chosen the so-called "high moral ground" of condemning someone she doesn't know for doing something that the "victim" has already forgiven him for.

illustrating it.

When 'confronted' by the OP's 'frailties', you turned back into an eighth grader. How is that forgiving or displaying any desire to understand where they were coming from??

And no, it doesn't effect me personally. The consequences effect me. And you, BTW. Because JE just made our road to the WH a little harder than it had to be. And what I read the OP saying was that infidelity is wrong and that you don't have to be a conservative to think so. What is wrong with that? She didn't say she felt personally betrayed. She said that she didn't think that condoning infidelity was part of the Liberal manifesto. And it isn't. It isn't 'liberal' to condone liars. And it's OK to say that you think lying is wrong. You can say that you think something is wrong without feeling personally involved.

As for glass houses...again, irony much? And no, the infidelity thing doesn't strike close to home for me.

:banghead: :shrug: :thumbsdown: :boring: :think: :crazy:

ROFLMAO...LOL...ha ha...LOOK!! I can use the smiley table and be smugly amused on the internet, too!!

You can say that as many times as you want, but it won't make it true.

I think that means this is public.

Now, you can argue about whether it SHOULD be private, but that's a little moot at this point.

Having been cheated on in my first marriage I know the toll it takes in a thousand ways. I adore Elizabeth Edwards and she has had enough pain in her life without having this additional betrayal. I can't imagine what it cost her to have to post on kos tonight. To have her private pain laid out for the world to see.

I don't care if anyone else disagrees, I am allowed my opinion. I take things like marriage vows seriously and if he had fallen in love with someone else would be easier to understand. But he did not and after she forgave him, he betrayed her again and put his family through this. He made vows to her. If he did not want to keep them, he should have divorced her. I believe in keeping the promises I make. That is my personal prism on how I see the world. I don't believe in cheating and lying to the person I love.

Everyone has their own standards and those are mine and yes, I judge him by my standards of honesty.

lives a certain way, well then, EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE TO. That's bullshit. Pure and simple.

Marriage is between two people. Everybody else stay the fuck out.

This reminds me of a bunch of Southern Baptist old maids sitting around whining about all the sins being committed by everybody but them, of course. Pathetic.

Liberals probably embrace a larger range of behaviors as acceptable, but there's no question Edwards is in a committed relationship where monogamy was part of the bargain -- and he cheated.

I haven't read all the threads (I'm more concerned about World War V starting in Georgia), but the tone I've extracted is one of disgust at the reporting by the MSM of this highly personal failure as if it's really.big.news in a world where the Iraq war still rages, new wars are sprouting up, Afghan women and children are raped with impunity for those who assault them, America is on the verge of selecting hopeful new leadership (or not!), and the climate is changing in a way that might trigger a massive die-off of species, including humans.

In a rational world, Edwards' failure would be a matter for him to deal with in the compass of his own family, and not a pecksniffian spewgasm by slavering talking heads. THAT'S pornographic. THAT'S profoundly damaging to American integrity in a way that one man -- out of public office for years -- who lied to his family and to the American public could never be.

Should liberals "tolerate" lies and infidelity? No. Is it the most important thing going on today? Not by a country mile.

It's stupid that this is even news at all. My OP is more about certain reactions I've seen on DU than it is about the Edwards scandal itself. Yes, it's none of our business and it's bullshit that it's in the news, but some of the comments here go beyond that into saying that not only is it none of our business, but it's not even really that bad. I beg to differ because I don't like to see infidelity minimized. But no, it shouldn't be national news.

"If I were in a committed relationship and felt compelled, for whatever reason, to cheat, I would end my relationship first"

It's cliche, but before doing that you would want to think about your children if you had them. That's not so simple.

Other than that, I am willing to scold a bit.

I am a long time faithful spouse. Marriages have better times and worse times. You work through it and you know not to cheat. All of us could cheat, and some of us really do choose not to take the easy way out. If we want to not condemn the cheaters, I guess we can't praise those who stick it out. Well, I'm proud of doing that.

Because liberal men like those things just as much as the conservative ones do.

And amen on the "human nature" thing. Biological essentialism used to justify assholery, IMO. When some guy tries to pull that "but I can't help it, it's a natural urge!" garbage I point out that so is taking a dump but you don't see me doing it in the middle of your living room do you? The whole point of civilization is to control your natural urges.

It's between that person and their spouse. The only person to whom the question of "tolerating" an affair is relevant is the spouse, no one else.

As a liberal, I believe in personal privacy. Someone's personal morality in their private life is not my concern, as long as it doesn't affect public policy. I believe that's a good, solid liberal stance.

sw

Just imagine if he was Obama's Attorney General, and instead of this story becoming public, he was blackmailed into not pursuing the crimes of the Bush Administration. This is why the personal lives of public figures can affect more than just their spouse.

Lets just deal with the actual facts; not farfetched, hysterical hypotheticals: OMG!!!11 BLACKMAIL!!!1!!1!!

I stand by what I wrote.

sw

the World are facing, don't you think? I think that a seriously terrible act is 935 LIES that have resulted in 100s of 1000s of innocents being killed and 4400 US and coalition troops being killed and 10s of thousands more being wounded. That is what I care about. Not some ex politician being caught up in a corprat media frenzy extramarital affair. Color me stupid! :silly:

in regards to other people's relationships?

I think as a society we've moved beyond the scarlet letter thing.

(edited for fast typing errors)

I have no doubt that the tone would be far different around here if it was "discovered" by the media that dotes on such things that some female, Democratic, politician had had an abortion and then lied about it.

If you were, the only people whose sex lives that mattered to you would be your own and whomever you are screwing. To inject your "feelings" about what constitutes monogamy into the lives of others - and to attest that because it has been made public that it makes it a matter you must pass judgment on - proves otherwise.

who is liberal and who isn't; a person can believe passionately in progressive politics and inclusive economics while still holding deeply to the notions of committed, monogamous relationships and fidelity to your spouse.

Liberals do not.

that is going to clean the DU right out.

I would also like to add that the OP doesn't have to 'inject' their definition of monogamy into anything. 'Monogamy' was well defined before they ever wrote their post. Now, I don't *think* it is necessarily true that marriages have to be monogamous to be legitimate. That comes under the heading of different strokes for different folks. But it is pretty evident that in Edwards' case, they had one of the supposed-to-be-monogamous marriages.

and denigrated anybody who said otherwise or had any other definition of marriage. He is obviously a despicable hypocrite.

Apples and oranges.

John Edwards marriage, monogamous or otherwise, is no business of anybody else.

Edwards DIDN'T use his wonderful relationship with his wife and his picture perfect nuclear family to represent himself as the perfect candidate?? Edwards didn't proclaim that marriage was a holy institute?

Oh shit, that is just funny.

for someone with such a strong and simple view on the subject, I was wondering where it was coming from. Have you? How long were you two together?

All relationships, committed or non, are unique.

None of us were in this relationship.

It's. None. Of. Our. Business.

Right or wrong, he opened his private life up for scrutiny. He isn't retarded, he knows what it means to run for President in this country.

And why is saying that infidelity is wrong a BAD THING?? I gotta tell you, as a general concept I think infidelity is wrong.

while they may be opened for scrutiny - and gossip - they are not anybody's business but those directly affected.

This country is being led by a lawless regime and people still stupidly think that personal sexual pecadillos of non-leaders are sooooo relevant while war crimes are not. It boggles the mind that anybody is wasting any much needed outrage on this non-issue.

but it isn't our business? O-Kay....

And you know, I do tend to agree that the affair is a non-issue. It does make me think less of Edwards as a person, but I doubt if it would effect his performance as a leader. The thing that really PISSES me off is that he should know better. He should know that people were going to find out and that it was going to be a major distraction. He should have fessed up in the beginning or not run. Now, because he denied it and tried to hide it and it looks like she was paid off...blah blah blah...it is going to take attention away from where it should be. And that is just really annoying.

and the attention is being deflected by assholes like you.

I was a city councilperson for 12 years. If I felt that running for office would abdicate any right to privacy in my relationship with my wife, I would never have ran.

Is infidelity wrong? In me? Yes. In my wife? Yes. Those are the only two people whom I have any right to have personal expectations.

In you? In Elizabeth Edwards? In John Edwards? I couldn't f'ing care less, and I'm not qualified to judge. I'm not entitled to "tolerate" any aspect of anyone's private life.

YOU MAY GET A COOKIE!

I will also say that simply attacking me and providing absolutely no argument of your own is fairly intellectually lazy, also.

totally negates my entire argument :eyes.

superior intellect. In which you misspelled a word. Ironic, huh??

the same mindset of folks who excuse Edward's infidelity mirrors the mindset of the conservatards who IGNORE the obvious sheer hypocrisy of Ted Haggard, that obviously gay senator from Minnesota and GWB and Cheney's lust for blood...EXCEPT that those on the right make excuses while leftists, true to form, hold people accountable.,,no matter their stripes.

Someone tell me I'm wrong here...

and nary a 'Oh, leave that man alone. It isn't any of our business' post.

I guess Dems can be just as hypocritical as Repukes.

He was ultra hypocritical! Edwards was only slightly hypocritical in that he talked a lot about values and telling the truth. I would agree that Edwards deserves a little but of scorn but not nearly as much as Haggard.

deserve scorn...thats my point.

unfortunately the typical idiotic redneck watching fox news doesnt bother getting him/herself informed about the issues...thats my point.


i have little faith in this nation anymore...forgive me for my bitterness

maybe not repuke but Christian like, we as liberals should have nothing to do with any value system that holds us back from what we like/want to do.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

goers", I'd say that morality doesn't belong to a single group. Divorce, child abuse, wife beating and infidelity is HIGHEST in the rural South, where people are the MOST conservative.

Read "deer hunting with Jesus" for a little enlightenment.

Yeah, I support infidelity because I think Christianity sucks. :eyes:

I would presume people say what they think, and why not? Isn't that what a message board is for?

For my part, I find it hilarious that anyone still takes "marriage" seriously, in light of all the evidence to the contrary; not to mention considering it to be an inherently oppressive and abusive institution, as is the entire nuclear family structure. But that's what I think - obviously, vast numbers disagree with me. Should I get myself in a swivet because others disagree? On a message board?

Your post boils down to "others on this message board disagree with me over the significance of infidelity." Sure would be boring around here if that were not the case.

OK, my husband is laughing his ass off. He says he DEFINITELY agrees that marriage is oppressive and abusive. Asshole. (Him, not you.)

I am interested in the 'nuclear family as inherently abusive and oppressive institution' viewpoint. Marriage, too, for that matter. I personally don't think they are either of those things. I think there are oppressive and abusive people who get married and have kids. THOSE families and marriages are probably abusive and oppressive.

Ok, I have to go beat my husband and oppress my kids. I hope I can find this thread the next time I get on here. I would really like to hear why you think the way you do.

why do i have to believe the politicians personal life is my business to be a liberal?

why do i have to pretend that i have never loved someone who has not cheated to be a liberal?

with totally different meanings? What I got out of it was that the OP did not think infidelity was a good thing and that it saddened her to hear that Edwards' had committed adultery. And that she didn't think that meant that she wasn't a liberal. Which I tend to agree with. I think you can feel strongly about fidelity and that doesn't make you a fundie or a conservative. I do and I am a liberal atheist.

Where did the OP say that Edwards' personal life was her business? She said that she believed that marriage was a serious deal and that she thought it was important to adhere to vows. She stated that if she personally should get married, she would expect fidelity.

And where did 'pretend that i have never loved someone who has not cheated' come from? I reread the OP and didn't get any of that.

She isn't saying what YOU should do. That's the point. She is saying that condoning or ignoring infidelity isn't a requisite for being a liberal. That's all.

well at least that's how she made it sound in a blog entry I read. It seems like they are on the road to healing.

If Mrs Edwards can forgive him, why can't we? :shrug:

I haven't heard many people who are outraged by the affair per se. I know that, personally, the affair in itself (while startling to me) doesn't bother me that much. Isolated, it wouldn't effect me. BUT, due to Edwards' high profile in the Dem party, the consequences of his affair and subsequent attempts to cover it up will effect me. THAT is what pisses me off.

person. Or women for that matter. I think it's actually completely going against nature. We don't get angry when a Bull has sex with 10 cows. Thats the way nature works.

Some people are able to be faithful and some are not. It's not about morals but evolution and nature. If there were more open marriages people would probably be a lot happier in their marriage.

I am the type to be faithful but I also believe in science and evolution and nature. I just observe nature and that is the conclusion I have come to. The concept of Marriage is a Christian concept or Religious concept. Nature does not dictate that we should get married, culture does.

You tell me, "liberal".

He was a hypocrite in that matter. Other than that I could care less about the infidelity though I feel for Elizabeth because I am sure it was very painful for her.

Personally, I stay out of other people's private lives. Not for me to judge.

No one is talking about stoning Edwards to death.

so it is not a straw man.

thing in your mind?

I think Edwards is a douchebag for cheating on his cancer-stricken wife and hiring his unqualified girlfriend to work on his Presidential campaign while lying outright about the whole thing to his staff and the media. I don't want to kill him, nor do I think his sexual affair was a crime. See the difference?

Thank you for some sanity on this issue. Betrayal may be one of the most painful act committed by a loved one.

I agree 100%. It isn't a question of whether monogamy is better than promiscuity, or more "natural," or whatever. It's a question of integrity. If you make a promise, you keep it. If you can't, well that reveals something about your character. When a person is running for public office, the most important quality people look for is integrity. That's why this kind of thing matters.

I sometimes think that liberals have such a visceral hatred of anything resembling moralism, that they veer to the opposite extreme, thinking that all moral judgements are inappropriate. That attitude is very dangerous to a democracy.

"If you make a promise, you keep it. If you can't, well that reveals something about your character."

Married people cheating... I'm shocked shocked I say...

Where's the Taliban when you need them?


Geez...

Doug D.

But, you know, this guy is NOT the Democratic nominee for president, so who the fuck CARES? Hell, maybe if Georgie boy could get his rocks off in the bedroom, he wouldn't go around trying to prove his "manhood" by invading other people's countries just so he can parade around on an aircraft carrier with a codpiece.

To this day, there are judges in this country who will go easy on a man who murders an unfaithful wife. But women are expected to be "understanding".

Be specific. The tolerance doesn't work both ways.

I think you missed the point.

It doesn't mean I tolerate it.

:wtf:

Simple as that.

Keep your nose out of other people's crotches.

in the Middle East, setting off a chain of catastrophic events that could likely lead to the collapse of the global economy and a worldwide depression that might even bring an end to the prosperous American life, forever.

Who is sleeping with who among people I do not even know and will probably never, ever know is way, way, way down my list of concerns.

something I have wondered too. Good post :thumbsup:

We're too willing to blindly and unquestionably hold politicians in high esteem when very few have earned it. I can't think of one today who hasn't fallen in some way.

Make him wear a scarlet A? Send a letter from the Harper Valley PTA? I don't think we need to "tolerate," I think we need to butt out and let the concerned parties handle it.

Furthermore, have you considered the value of perseverance and forgiveness? Do you know for a fact that you'll never do the same? Should everyone's marriage be so fragile as you demand?

no if ands or buts. pretty easy. pretty simple.

now, does that have anything to do with edwards? not really. just thought i would give you an answer to your question

Consider that a legion of others, quite possibly including Mr Edwards, assured themselves of the same and proved themselves wrong. You can only say that with certainty at the end of life. With that in mind I suggest tempering your outrage with compassion and humility. That, not tolerance, is what sets us apart as liberals.

to say, yup.... i wont murder anyone. sure enough, i am right

i have 47 yrs of living to know i wont fuck around on my mate. period. not tough

you asked a question.

i amswered.

obviously not the answer you want

i dont sit in judgment. i dont give a shit. i dont know the people. they are not friends or family. has nothing to do with me. not my issue

my issue is simply him being so selfish and self centered as to feel he could have the affair and run for president and put the whitehouse in jeapordy of the election. otherwise i dont give a shit

but knowing whether or not i would screw behind hubby back, ya i know

says a lot.

In fact you do sit in judgement.

am not capable of.

i have to wonder though why you insist EVERYONE be capable of cheating on their mate. what right do you have to give everyone a misdeed without them having done anything.

you dont get it. i dont care about his affair. i care about the repercussion to the race and the white house and election. you keep bringing it to the "affair". why do you have to normalize the behavior.

you asked a question. i answered. had nothing to do with edwards and i clearly stated it. BUT you want me to own that i could cheat on hubby. and i cant, wont. then you say i judge edwards. NOTHING to do with the man. and still i wont cheat on hubby

you make light of an affair. that all are potentially capable. no more or less.... dont judge

after over 40 yrs of marriage my father paid a 23 yr old girl for two years to do whatever cause he was old and couldnt get it up and fearing a loss of his manhood. had nothing to do with my mom who had been good to him and us all her life. but she couldnt handle it. she did not know how to finish her old age alone and not married anymore. day after christmas at 59 she killed herself though she had so much to live for.

so as we make light of an affair, maybe you ought to think twice for the victim

and as you point the finger at me lacking compassion. i have been there for my father ever since in his guilt of what he did to a good woman he loved and he will never be able to make that up not to mention the loss of a mom to his kids

and as you tell me i am just as capable.... no i am not

We are all imperfect, but we should not become a party that defends cheating on one's mate.

I've done the defending and I'm finished with it.

Here we are stuck yet once again with a cheating male with an oversized ego who hurts his wife and children and betrays those that were loyal to him politically.

Americans are tired of Democrats running to microphones to defend cheating. I'm tired of it, too.

Democrats value families and children. The GOP pretends to.

Being faithful to your mate is honorable. We should run to the microphones and defend that a little bit more.

This is not a simplistic "puritanical vs. liberal" argument. The issues in this case are much more complex. We are dealing with significant questions of character and judgment. Edwards jeopardized the future of our party, betrayed a terminally sick wife, put himself in a position to be blackmailed and possibly gave his girlfriend a high paying job in the campaign.

It's serious stuff, and we ought to expect much better from our Democratic leadership. Personally, I feel the people defending him need to have their heads checked. When did we become a bunch of dittoheads?

ergo i must be sympathitic. i mean wtf...

people that are defending this must be the screwees or screwers and defending their own position to insist we are all potentially capable of fucking behind mates back. and that isnt EVEN the issue

not for me anyway

it is as you say, jeapordize run for whitehouse and paying the woman with campaign money

Marriage for me is a choice that comes after romance, friendship, bonding, and all of the emotional wonders that come with meeting a person that you might just possibly want to spend your life with.

The relationship itself can include the deep emotions, but the act of marriage is a rational act of choosing a type of commitment.

Once upon a time, people actually meant marriage vows. They are all about the choice to commit and they spell it all out....

For better or worse....
For richer or pooer...
In sickness and in health...

If you don't mean these things, don't get married! Marriage isn't about believing that every single minute will be rainbows and gumdrops. It's about deciding that you want to go through the bad times that you'll go through with your partner - and that you'd rather face hard times with your partner than face them alone or face them with someone else.

Marriage is an investment - its a choice to invest yourself into one person. Forsaking all others - its a choice, knowing that there are others out there, other relationships you could have, other experiences you could chose - but deciding that you want to devote your life to cultivating this one relationship, with all its flaws.

Sometimes despite best intentions and despite most sincere committments marriages fail. But they can fail with honesty. They can end with open communication, fidelity, and sincere attempts to make it work. They can end then in divorce.

What there isn't an excuse for, is giving your word to a commitment, then lying and hiding your betrayal of that commitment. If you want to go back on your word, at least have the guts to give your partner the honestly he or she is owed. Even the cold, heartbreaking confession "I don't love you anymore" is not nearly as much of a betrayal as pretending to honor your marriage while cheating.

and you speak for me too!

:pals:

I do not give him a pass for his infidelity, but this is far more than he cheated on his wife.

He put her on the campaign payroll. He spent $114,000 of other people's money to keep her around.

He lied repeatedly when asked about the relationship last year.

He pretended to be a guy totally devoted to his sick wife, when he was not.

He misused campaign contributions.

He suckered his supporters and contributors into backing him based upon false pretenses and lies.

"All liberals HAVE to tolerate infidelity" posts.

I was following your point until the first sentence of the second paragraph. I backed up several time and made a couple of runs at it, but still can not make that leap.

I think that John Edwards' infidelity makes him a bad - or at least a worse - person.

I don't think it has any impact on his ability to govern the country.

And I think politics is too important to take anything other than that ability into account when voting.

His adultery would make me less willing to shake his hand or have him to dinner, though.

There is quite a lot of middle ground, and if you ask people who have successfully lived polyamorously you'll find that there are quite a few rules governing behavior. Not the same as monogamous rules, but rules just the same.

Sorry. Got a bit loud there.

:hide:

As a news item, this is wholly and utterly irrelevant to anything happening in the world. It should NOT be news, period. The MSM is disgraceful.

My post is more a reaction to some DUers' reactions than a reaction to the Edwards story itself.

I've only been poking about in the threads that specifically address the media angle, so don't know what folk have said.

and how it was a distraction from something bigger in the air (remember? 9-11?)

Nobody's "infidelity" outside of my own marriage is ANY of my business, and anyone who concerns themselves with other people's sex lives is an idiot and a busybody, IMO.

I don't think that married people should have to be monogamous, unless that is what both partners want. The only people with a say in this are the people involved, and that ain't us.

The same was true for Clinton (who I suspect has an open marriage). My only problem with what he did was that it showed a lack of judgment.

I don't condone infidelity, nor do I condemn it, because I don't deserve ANY say in anyone else's sex life, and nobody deserves a say in mine but me.


I'm glad Edwards' affair came out when it did, before it might have sunk a campaign. But I don't condemn him for it at all. It was just a dalliance. It happens. Grow up.

you are probably right that your marriage is your business.

If you ran for President and took time, money and support from people while saying that marriage was a sacrament for only a man and a woman and presenting yourself as a happily and faithfully married man and then lied for ten months about the extramarital affair you had with a highly paid campaign worker...well, then I think it might get to be the business of other people. Maybe that's what you mean by lack of judgment. But it seems to me that it was EDWARDS himself who made his marriage public business.

I can assure you that if I ever ran for office, the last thing I would ever run on would be something as idiotic as "the sanctity of marriage".

I love my wife dearly, and have never cheated thus far, but marriage is not the be-all-end-all, and the notion that one person can satisfy another person in every way for the rest of their days seems absurd to me.

I think it's sad that any politician finds it necessary to make pious statements about marriage in the first place. Such topics have no place in the political arena whatsoever.

I also think that most of the 'discussion' about this issue is pretty much like two blind people trying to play tennis. Each one understand what is happening on THEIR side, but can't seem to read the other side accurately. I didn't see the OP saying that Edwards affair was her business. I haven't said that. But we are getting attacked on that basis anyway. The OP said that she thought that infidelity was wrong and that she would not tolerate it in her personal life and that it changed the way she thinks about Edwards. She also said that believing that infidelity is wrong does not make her a fundamentalist. What is wrong with any of that? Nothing. I keep saying that couldn't give two shits about his having an affair, its the political fall out that he had to KNOW would come to roost that pisses me off. What responses do I get?? "why is it your business that Edwards had an affair??", "You must be so perfect to judge others."...blah blah blah.

Hey, if you did happen to become seriously sexually attracted to another person, how do you think that should be handled? Be upfront with your wife and explain to her your feelings and see what you work out while at the same time carefully considering your place in society and the implications of your behavior on your public life? Or sneak around behind her back and lie about it for ten months?

if it stayed hush, if it didnt more than effect his chance to win then so what. kinda like with clinton. he had the job. an affair.... so what.

the issue is it will effect the run for office and edwards knew and still ran. we dodged the bullet that he didnt win the primary

that is the ONLY reason.

not that it is right that it would effect the election. but because it would effect the election

..movement, "open marriages," or whatever you want to call it, has been labeled as liberal.

if my other half did this to me, I'd break up with her....

As for others who cheat on their spouses or partners, that's their problem, not mine nor is it yours.

words have meaning, and the kind of folks who want to peep and pry into other people's sex lives are not liberals under any circumstance

you may like to pretend you're a liberal, you may like the self-image of kidding yourself that you're a tolerant but, where the rubber hits the road, you're a limited blinkered reality-denying troglodyte like everybody else who thinks what god said in a book 6,000 years ago is more valid than human biology

i'm sorry you don't like the facts of human biology

maybe in some bright shining future every man of initiative and action will have the testosterone drained from his body and this type of thing won't happen, but i wonder if you'd want your son to live in that future

you may "expect" absolute fidelity for a lifetime, and your expectation may very well be why you will not have a lifetime relationship, people who have unrealistic expectations make themselves and everybody around them miserable -- if you talk to people who have long successful marriages, i think you'd be amazed at what people have overcome, if you talk to people who have been married five times (i had a relative who was married 8! times) these are the people who flounce out the door every time there's a little problem

or the rest of the politicians who make the same mistake? and how's about the gazillions of husbands across the land who have looked their wives straight in the eyes and said "No...I didn't have sex with that woman" only to eventually be caught by the truth? Not to mention the women also committing this "heinous" act.

The stats are compelling enough to suggest that only Christ could live up to the expectations of a certain portion of the population - Peggy Vaughan, author of The Monogamy Myth, estimates that 60 percent of husbands and 40 percent of wives will have an affair at some point in their marriage; however, less than 10 percent of people who have affairs divorce and marry their lovers.

And politicians are MORE tempted to stray because of things like the amount of time they spend away from spouses, stress (a major cause for infidelity according to researchers), and the availability of partners.

Marital infidelity is the business of the two people who have bound themselves by contract, and ONLY theirs.

I'm a lot more concerned with people who kill people, or who lie about BIG things like global warming, starting wars, etc. And many of those same people (committing truly heinous deeds) try to deflect attention from their acts by pointing to the sexual infidelity of others as if it was the supreme test of morality.

One can't really say what goes on in a marriage between two people, and whether or not straying is tolerated as long as it's discreet; a lot of married couples have such arrangements. If infidelity is intolerable, why does Bill Clinton have so many defenders?

edwards wouldnt have had the job and a race would probably of lost the whitehouse because of the affair, hence peoples issue.

edwards having an affair is no ones business now that he is not the candidate to go against mccain. IF he had won the primary it would eb a different story adn that is why people are pissed. not cause of infidelity

Amerika is second only to the Taliban when it comes to uptight sex. That is very unhealthy and is sometimes dangerous when the idea of sex becomes so twisted. Check out Bill O'Reilly and his ranting about sex while he shows the video in the background.

We don't have to "tolerate" infidelity on a national scale anymore than we have to condemn it as a national news story. It is not an either/or like that though it often seems that if we don't rant about something we must condone it.

If Nancy Grace didn't nostrilize crime would that mean everyone condoned it or tolerated it? Maybe a better question is why do so many tolerate someone who openly wants to decimate the Bill of Rights. Maybe a better question is why pronouncing judgment so self-righteously is so popular.

conservative, not least concerning libido-driven adultery, but I know that, as well as being between the family and God ONLY, it has nothing to do with political judgement at all. But all this hoo-ha is a political stunt.

As for its reflecting poorly on John's policial judgement, on the contrary, it almost seems a rule that some of the best and most humane leaders of our nations have had an Achilles heel of just this nature.

If you're a wild-eyed liberal, I'm an economic conservative in the Milton Friedman mould!

"Corporatist government and the Adam Smith Institute - Adam Smith's worst nightmare."

Good one. Are you familiar with the American Legislative Exchange Council?

From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch, sponsored by the American Legacy Foundation. Help expose the truth about the tobacco industry.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was established in 1973 by Paul M. Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation. It is a membership organisation of state legislators across the U.S. that drafts "model legislation" that is then often drafted into law.

ALEC is a conservative organisation that pushes legislation that favours big business and rollbacks environmental regulations. ALEC says that its membership exceeds 2,400 state legislators from both political parties, which is over 30 percent of all state lawmakers in America.

In 2002, two environmental groups, Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council, described ALEC as "corrosive, secretive and highly influential" and a "tax-exempt screen for major U.S. corporations and trade associations that use it to influence legislative activities at the state level."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Legislative_Exchange_Council

Tobacco or not, these guys have their mitts in EVERYTHING.

It's so difficult to grasp the full meaning of "shamelessness". We automatically think within certain limits of decency, and are unwilling at a very deep level to believe human beings inhabit certain abysses of moral turpitude and depravity.

It is absolutely ASTONISHING that those crooks ever had the NERVE to claim Smith as their guru, when he is actually, very clearly the great prophet of the mixed economy and welfare state, long predating Marx, Keir Hardie et al!

Let me see...
You can't count "I don't care" posts,
therefore liberal means tolerating then condoning infidelity to the degree that being liberal means "we have to tolerate infidelity."

So, why do you think that because we're liberals we have to tolerate infidelity?

Just because you can't count some number of posts?

BTW a reason we have to tolerate it is DEMOCRACY in the USA. We had two presidential candidates who were flaky, one's still running, and he's the flakier one. That's the brand of democracy we have. Our choice is to dump democracy for the Republican brand of fascism.

Why would you tolerate the press letting McCain have a free ride by letting readers see this post without you acknowledging McCain's infidelity?

It seems to me your concern for the death of thousands of our soldiers for a lie is nothing compared to the short-lived lie of an infidelity. That does not excuse infidelity.

But, as well, you are not excused.

I don't see you "concerned liberals" posting post after post when that happpens.

I don't see you calling the cops on your neighbor's mistress.

Or maybe that's because it's not on TV when McCain or your neighbors do it,

so it's "tolerable" because you're not being TOLD it's an issue.

Me, I didn't even know (or care about) this -- I don't watch cable news,
so I don't get the mental pollution you are sucking up.