http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_go_co/us_ensign_affair

Republican, born again Christian, Promise keeper, champion of the GOP's religious base, family values, adulterer and hypocrite.

At least he's automatically forgiven and will go to Heaven, no questions asked.

This will take a bit of the wind out of his quest to be the 2112 GOP nominee...

Fish on...

Todd

Yeah, and when the dems are hypocrites they have a convenient set of rules that just explains things away.

And another......

Ah come on,,, BIG BRAINED mo fo like you, thats all you can come up with?

Pot meet kettle. I think it was your side (you included) who stated on here that what people should stay out of others bedrooms. I agree by the way. But unlike you I dont care which party they belong.
Not really anyones business unless they pay people off to cover it up(cover up is alway worse than the crime you know). I dont think much of pols in general and imagine there are few who dont have something on the side. Not exactly people to look up to. Sad really.

"WASHINGTON – Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada has stepped down from his leadership post one day after admitting he carried on a extra-marital affair with a woman who was on his campaign staff."

in a small victory for the GOP, at least this time it wasn't another man or a child.

I think the GOP is encouraging straight legislators that have had affairs with members of the opposite sex to step forward and admit it...strangely enough, I think it would bolster their image. It's pretty bad for the show when homosexual-self-haters like Larry Craig keep getting busted...

Fish on...

Todd

"Looks like rabbit chasin' time... complete with tin foil hat."

Exactly the same, 'ceptin' that Edwards wasn't an outspoken anti-everything that's not God and family guy like Ensign...it's bad enough to be an adulterer and a liar, it's worse when you spend a lot of time condemning other people for it before you get busted yourself.

Fish on...

Todd

That's the part the righties never understand. They just don't get it.

it's just one party with two types of rhetoric, they all suck. Except for Ron Paul

I shudder to think of Ron Paul's escapades.

He's a pitcher, not a catcher

You might be the biggest hypocrite on this thread, Marsha...



Indeed. Perhaps this ought to go on the joke thread?

Fish on...

Todd

Oh a politician saying one thing and doing another?

Lies, they are all lies I tell you!

Next you are going to be making up stories about them taking bribes and catering to lobbyists.

If only I were a centrist so I could righteously lob BSBombs from all angles...

Fish on...

Todd

Or dodge them from all angles...

...or talk out my ass, and be about as centrist as Pat Buchanan.

Fish on...

Todd

http://www.promisekeepers.org/

Promise Keepers’ mission is to to ignite and unite men to become warriors who will change their world through living out the Seven Promises. Promise Keepers’ vision is simply put in three words: “Men Transformed Worldwide.”

Based in Denver, Colorado, Promise Keepers has directly reached more than five and a half million men since its founding in 1990.

Multitudes more have been reached through books, music CDs, multi-media resources, the Internet, satellite and radio broadcasts.

In 1997, an estimated one million men gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. for “Stand in the Gap,” marking arguably the largest gathering of Christian men in modern U.S. history.

Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper

PROMISE 1

A Promise Keeper is committed to honoring Jesus Christ through worship, prayer and obedience to God's Word in the power of the Holy Spirit.

PROMISE 2
A Promise Keeper is committed to pursuing vital relationships with a few other men, understanding that he needs brothers to help him keep his promises.

PROMISE 3
A Promise Keeper is committed to practicing spiritual, moral, ethical, and sexual purity.

PROMISE 4
A Promise Keeper is committed to building strong marriages and families through love, protection and biblical values.

PROMISE 5
A Promise Keeper is committed to supporting the mission of his church by honoring and praying for his pastor, and by actively giving his time and resources.

PROMISE 6
A Promise Keeper is committed to reaching beyond any racial and denominational barriers to demonstrate the power of biblical unity.

PROMISE 7
A Promise Keeper is committed to influencing his world, being obedient to the Great Commandment (see Mark 12:30-31) and the Great Commission (see Matthew 28:19-20).

My ass and Pat Buchanan has got to be euphemism of some sort.

For a relative newcomer to The Dark Side, you pick up on things quick

Fish on...

Todd

So a circle jerk would have been okay? To stay pure. It's a little confusing.

you ever see a cat fall in a bathtub?

There are alot of people in this world that are in positions of power that believe the rules don't apply to them. Do as I say, not as I do. Usually when people begin to think they are better than others it's not long before they step in some stinky poo. That goes for both parties.

I think I like this Marz guy.

Fish on...

Todd

"There are alot of people in this world that are in positions of power that believe the rules don't apply to them. Do as I say, not as I do. Usually when people begin to think they are better than others it's not long before they step in some stinky poo. That goes for both parties."


And mods

Pride comes before a fall, is one thing... beating the drum of monogamy only to have the world realize it wasn't a drum at all but the head of a campaign aid thrashing against the headboard is another.

Dude, you lost me right there. Started sounding too much like a Larry Craig club.

.

LARRY! LARRY! There's an empty stall right next to me!!! YAY!!!

PS I'm in the Capitol Hill Club's men's room http://www.capitolhillclub.com/

I heard the same thing today, KK...I suspect that story will break tomorrow or Friday...

Hank, it does matter, at least somewhat...I agree that anyone who cheats on their spouse is putz, but someone who has self-righteously attacked others for doing the same is committing something more than adultery...they're committing severe hypocrisy, too.

Ensign said that President Clinton had no credibility after his affair with Lewinsky, and that Clinton should resign. He then was a full on supporter of Clinton's impeachment, perhaps the biggest waste of time and money on a witchhunt ever committed by any Congress.

He also said that Larry Craig was "a disgrace" and ought to resign when he was caught playing footsie with an undercover cop posing as a gay prostitute.

Strangely enough, Ensign had plenty of hypocrisy running long before he was busted on this one...he didn't think that David Vitter (R-LA) ought to resign when he was busted for cheating on his wife.

What are the differences?

Well, Vitter would have been replaced by a Democrat, since the Governor of LA was a Democrat at the time...political expediency over his faith and hard held beliefs? Clearly.

Of course, Larry Craig would have been replaced by another Republican...a perfect time to flex his [censored] righteous indignation. Plus, Craig's a homo, and that sure is a good way to get the Religious Right in a froth.

Maybe Ensign was already banging his aide when Vitter got busted, so envisioned a possiblity down the road when he would be in the exact same position, so softened his stance a bit?

Ensign has also made statement after statement about gay marriage...mainly that he hates it, those who might want it, and those who support...based on his overwhelming belief in the "sanctity of marriage"...in quotes because it's important to note that it's clearly not all that important to Ensign, at least not as important as hating gay people.

For a guy who has made his career as an ultra-socially conservative anti-anything that offends his marriage or his faith, he is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

Wait for the rest of the stories to come out...and they will...there have been rumblings about him banging aides since 2001 or 2002...long before, and during the time he was self-righteously banging others about the head with his Bible.

Fish on...

Todd

Yeah, sure, but remember, other than all that it's the same thing ethically as what Edwards did.

Well said KK, this loser comes to mind........



Mf

Hank, I agree that it happens to everyone, and I agree that anyone who does it is a putz.

However, the Religious Right wing of the Republican Party is happy to tell you, and campaign on, their faith and adherence to their somewhat Puritanical beliefs...and somehow have convinced approximately 50% of the electorate that they somehow deserve special treatment because of it, especially if said treatment includes votes and the right to be assholes to anyone they think isn't living their "pure" life.

Because of that, it does matter that it's another Republican taking the fall...though, to be honest, I doubt that the RWWJ's will ever hold them accountable for it, or at least demand that they stop claiming the high moral ground...check this very thread for the finger pointing, defense of the indefensible, and apologetic projection coming from a few of their supporters here.

Fish on...

Todd

See that forehead in the back on the left behind Blago's shoulder?

I think it's Donald Rumsfeld's.

Fish on...

Todd

So long as he doesn't go to Europe, he should be OK. Might get scowled at, maybe even spit upon, but will likely avoid being tried as a criminal.

He better not get off a plane in Europe anywhere, though...same goes for Bush and Cheney, too.

Now you dimwits get back on subject...making fun of the Religious Right and Sen. Ensign!

Fish on...

Todd

Good question Hank, in this case.

Inny Minny Miny Moe, catch a.....

Mf

So easy KK.....and yes I'm laughing....

Mf

Bobby Ayala

Zzzzzzzzzzing!!

Didn't you get the (talking points) memo?

White male Republicans are now an "oppressed minority"...I wonder how long 'til their change their tune on affirmative action, since in their infinite in ability to judge human character, they probably think they qualify now.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052709/content/01125109.guest.html

Begging for sympathy is another success-proof tactic sure to be employed by the RWWJ's in the upcoming years...I mean, the fact that the rest of the country is trying to ban Christmas and greatly endanger their "dear" marriages by allowing gays to hold hands in public, I can see where they're coming from...those arguments have sure expanded their appeal already, why not throw one more ridiculous projection out there?

Fish on...

Todd

Beat me to it. I was going to ask if this was masturbation or post count antics.

Can't really blame em for either.

"netw3rk @petehoekstra Someone walked in on me while I was in the bathroom. Reminded me of Pearl Harbor."

That's my favorite one.

Hank, where was that 66% majority in November? "LIberal" and "Conservative" are the terms that Rush Limbaugh and other RWWJ's use...

Aunty, for someone who starts her online lifestyle at 5am and keeps it rollin' until 9 or 10pm every night, I think you have precious little space to complain about how others use the medium...

Fish on...

Todd

Yeah, I didn't say that Rush made them up, just that he and his ilk like to use them the most...I prefer "progressive", as in "changing policies with the changing world and circumstances"...

Fish on...

Todd

Fiscally conservative and socially liberal seems to sum up many peoples political views these days so the spike in "independents" is no surprise.

Its like a fat kid eating cake on a treadmill.

It cracks me up that those clinging to the branch of social conservative values they themselves fail to adhere to, 40 years in the desert may do them some good.

How about a fiscally responsible government that keep its goddamm nose out of our personal lives, and leaves religion in the Church?

That would be a breath of fresh air.

Fish on...

Todd

So Todd, when was the last time the government stuck its nose in your personal life, or forced you to go to church?

WTF are you talking about, Vic?

When was the last time you were blown up by a terrorist? Does that mean you shouldn't have an opinion about it?

Fish on...

Todd

Hmm good point. I guess we should all be pissed off at Obama for supporting the Bush policies on wire taps then.

Oh like the 2nd amend. gun grabbing threads?

So when was the last time the Gov't tapped your phone?

They haven't taken my guns but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have an opinion about it.

Pot meet kettle.

kinda... yeah.

But it beats being held liable to a Saudi charity... isnt that what it was about?

Just trying to point out that hypocrisy isn't a 1 way street like some here believe.

I dunno, sometimes it seems to be a one lane dirt road on one side and a 4 lane highway on the other.

Guess it is a matter of perspective as to who has the 4 lane side, but at least we agree it runs both way

I have noticed a lot of finger pointing toward Obama when really it is catch 22 (not just here).

(Bailouts, etc.)

To support the stance of his predecessor to thwart lawsuits claiming that wiretaps were unconstitutional is not as much hypocritical as it is signifying that it was completely in line with the past administrations policy and well within the laws of the Patriot Act. I dont know that he is condoning the actions as much as he was defending them.

To me, preaching high moral standards and not upholding them really opens up a few lanes when compared to adhering to a more realistic (less puritan) morality. The hypocrisy could really be evened out if some of these bible thumping puritans would either STFU or keep there "hand out of the cookie jar". Or how about this, lead the puritan life instead of talking about it.

No one is expecting politicians to be Mother Theresa but when they start labeling themselves as such, the fall from grace is much farther.

To campaign on the promise of restoring civil liberties, and then rolling over seems hypercritical to me. At the very least it backs up what I have said here on a number of occasions, and that is that Obama and his administration are woefully unprepared.

I just wouldn't call defending GWB's actions the same as giving a wiretap order, it would have been rediculous and selfish to deem wiretaps unconstitutional if that was to allow the US to be liable for the past administrations actions that were "legitimate" under the Patriot Act (and please lets not get into that whole thing).

That's what I meant by the Catch 22, if he did deem them unconstitutional the lawsuits would be lining up, when he didn't deem them unconstitutional, he is a hypocrite.

but that's the ebb and flow of these type of discussions... you say tomato and I say clamato.

So what changed between the campaign and when he rolled over? Certainly the lawsuit issues were always there. If that is the case then, he is either a hypocrite, or had his head in his arse!

Either way, I appreciate the debate!

The government has been reading your posts and realised that tapping your phone would be an utter waste of their time.

To my knowlege he didnt condone wiretapping nor is he suppoting the government in doing so under his administration. He did defend the rights of the past administrations right to do so and this is the "alignment" that was talked about.

I just see a huge difference in

"I stand behind the past administrations right to execute wire taps under the Partiot act"

and

"I support government wiretaps under my administration"

I see this as a substantial cross partisan act of patriotism and support.

Kinda like the quote - "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Just because he defended the Bush administration, doesnt mean that he now has adopted their polocies.

KK if you reread the last couple of posts you will notice that Marz made the point that if the president hadn't supported the former president's policies on wire taps that there would be groups lined up to sue. I made the point that those legal issues were there the whole time. Then I said either the President was was making promises that he knew he couldn't keep, thereby being hypocritical, or he just didn't know and was woefully unprepared. Guess you can make up your own mind on that one.

Prior to that, when the Democratically controlled Congress refused to finance the closing of Gitmo, stating that Obama didn't have an adequate plan, I said I was concerned at how woefully unprepared he is.

When the president tried to appoint Daschel to a cabinet position and didn't check to make sure he was clean I said Obama was either grandstanding or was woefully unprepared.

Which brings me back around to Obama is a hypocrite for pounding his chest saying he didn't take money from lobbyist and wouldn't hire them to work in the Whitehouse. Now there are several in his cabinet.

As I mentioned during my exchange with Marz, I suppose it is all about perspective.

From my perspective, Obama campaigned on a holier than though platform. Especially regarding the war on terror, and restoring civil liberties, and since has flopped on several of his promises regarding these issues.

The legal issues were there the whole time but Obama snubbing the Bush admins actions by deeming them unconstitutional would have given them the abillity to actually win these lawsuits... and we all know, when one wins, the line just grows.

I got what you were saying. My point is he shouldn't have made such an issue of it if he knew he wasn't going to, or couldn't have done anything about it. Making an issue of it, and running your campaign on that, then not following though is hypocritical. He hasn't ever offered a reason (at least that I know of) for supporting the Bush policy leaving us to debate whether he is a hypocrite or unprepared.