![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by fayeroe on August 10, 2008, at 11:46:49
I know that alot of politicians (and the general population) have affairs when married.
Generally, I don't get too interested in knowing that Joe Blow strayed as I think it is between he and his wife.
HOWEVER, when that man runs for President of the United States and lies repeatedly about the affair, I start paying attention to the story.
John Edwards admitted to the affair Friday night on ABC news but I don't believe that the story is over. I think that there is more. In other words, I think he probably skirted around the full truth with Bob Woodruff during the interview.
I did not like it when he said that his wife's cancer was "in remission" during the affair because I wonder what that has to do with anything? Sounded like he is trying to convince people that what he did could have been worse?
This man ran for President and his wife stood with him and they talked about family values (on and on) and pretty much convinced me that they were telling the truth about their committment to importance of a stable family.
How could a family want to be in the white house so badly that they could sell out just to get there? What about their children, families and the countless people who supported the run?
Truth and trust are thrown out with the dishwater? Or in this case, with the webstories? I am so disappointed and p***ed off at both of them. How could either of them think that they were going to get by with the deception?
If you are running for President of the United States, from either party, and you lie about something (car wreck, smoking pot, stealing kitchen mitts) before the election, how likely is it that you'll lie again about something even bigger?
I think ultimately that this falls back on us, the American people, for not holding politicians to higher standards. I'd rather set the bar too high than too low.
End of rant.
Posted by caraher on August 10, 2008, at 12:24:31
In reply to Edwards, posted by fayeroe on August 10, 2008, at 11:46:49
I understand ABC did a fair amount of editing on the interview, and that Edwards spent considerable time discussing McCain's own affair. See, for instance, the discussion at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6615093
So a lot of apparent non-sequiturs (like the comment about Elizabeth's cancer being in remission) may have made more sense in the context of his comparing what he did to what McCain did while married to his first wife.
Edwards seems most concerned with answering the question, "How could you have run for President with this affair in your past when you saw what political damage resulted from Clinton's actions?"
None of this makes Edwards' actions OK; I'm just glad he's not the nominee, even though when the Democratic race was down to three he was probably my first choice. But this is a good reminder that politicians of all persuasions are usually highly ambitious and routinely behave in self-serving ways.
Posted by fayeroe on August 10, 2008, at 13:22:46
In reply to Re: Edwards, posted by caraher on August 10, 2008, at 12:24:31
> I understand ABC did a fair amount of editing on the interview, and that Edwards spent considerable time discussing McCain's own affair. See, for instance, the discussion at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6615093
I don't see how McCain's affairs could affect Edwards having one and I sure don't understand why he brought it up. Served no purpose with me.
>
> So a lot of apparent non-sequiturs (like the comment about Elizabeth's cancer being in remission) may have made more sense in the context of his comparing what he did to what McCain did while married to his first wife.Her being in remission means what? That would be like a cheating husband saying "well, the baby had been born" to justify his having an affair while his wife was hospitalized for the delivery.
>
> Edwards seems most concerned with answering the question, "How could you have run for President with this affair in your past when you saw what political damage resulted from Clinton's actions?"Maybe he felt as if he is smarter than Clinton.
>
> None of this makes Edwards' actions OK; I'm just glad he's not the nominee, even though when the Democratic race was down to three he was probably my first choice. But this is a good reminder that politicians of all persuasions are usually highly ambitious and routinely behave in self-serving ways.Yes, I still maintain if we paid more attention to a politician, we could prevent some of them getting into office.
I will go to the site for the discussions now.
Pat
Posted by caraher on August 10, 2008, at 14:31:28
In reply to Re: Edwards » caraher, posted by fayeroe on August 10, 2008, at 13:22:46
> I don't see how McCain's affairs could affect Edwards having one and I sure don't understand why he brought it up. Served no purpose with me.
There are two reasons I can think of to bring up McCain. One is to make the argument that it shouldn't necessarily mean the end of his political ambitions. I guess whether that is true is ultimately up to us as voters.
The other is to try to look better by bringing up something arguably worse. I guess somehow it was less bad if Elizabeth was not actively fighting cancer at the time? Whereas McCain's first wife was not going to improve any more after her auto accident? The logic escapes me as well; but it does seem to be about self-justification.
Meanwhile, I'm not sure what to make of the level of coverage for the Edwards situation. He's not actually running for anything right now save perhaps the VP slot, and that's clearly a non-starter. Meanwhile, what about this war in Ossetia?
Posted by fayeroe on August 10, 2008, at 14:35:13
In reply to Re: Edwards, posted by caraher on August 10, 2008, at 14:31:28
> > I don't see how McCain's affairs could affect Edwards having one and I sure don't understand why he brought it up. Served no purpose with me.
>
> There are two reasons I can think of to bring up McCain. One is to make the argument that it shouldn't necessarily mean the end of his political ambitions. I guess whether that is true is ultimately up to us as voters.
>
> The other is to try to look better by bringing up something arguably worse. I guess somehow it was less bad if Elizabeth was not actively fighting cancer at the time? Whereas McCain's first wife was not going to improve any more after her auto accident? The logic escapes me as well; but it does seem to be about self-justification.
>
> Meanwhile, I'm not sure what to make of the level of coverage for the Edwards situation. He's not actually running for anything right now save perhaps the VP slot, and that's clearly a non-starter. Meanwhile, what about this war in Ossetia?"
Meanwhile, what about this war in Ossetia?"Unbelievable to me that he is getting much more coverage than the war is getting.
I am going to eat homemade HOT salsa now and drink a Shiner Bock and watch the Olympics. :-)
I can't take anymore!!!
Posted by Sigismund on August 10, 2008, at 15:28:29
In reply to Re: Edwards » caraher, posted by fayeroe on August 10, 2008, at 14:35:13
I see the Russians bombed Gori, where Stalin was born. I very much enjoyed "In the Court of the Red Tsar", which was about what they all thought they were doing.
I must get "Young Stalin", by the same bloke.
Posted by Sigismund on August 10, 2008, at 15:30:23
In reply to Re: Edwards, posted by Sigismund on August 10, 2008, at 15:28:29
"In the Court of the Red Czar"?
Nope.
Posted by 10derHeart on August 10, 2008, at 18:07:00
In reply to Re: Edwards, posted by Sigismund on August 10, 2008, at 15:30:23
"Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar (Paperback)"
silly, fickle thing...it *demanded* adding the word paperbackGood thing I'm a bit obsessional sometimes ;-)
Books look really interesting...
Posted by Sigismund on August 11, 2008, at 14:51:06
In reply to think I've got it » Sigismund, posted by 10derHeart on August 10, 2008, at 18:07:00
Posted by Sigismund on August 11, 2008, at 16:43:15
In reply to Re: Edwards » caraher, posted by fayeroe on August 10, 2008, at 14:35:13
If you have to live next door to Russia, you need to be very careful.
I wonder if the Georgians miscalculated?
One of the Georgian olympic teams is made up of naturalised Brazilians. Free trade?
Posted by fayeroe on August 11, 2008, at 18:50:22
In reply to Over there, posted by Sigismund on August 11, 2008, at 16:43:15
> If you have to live next door to Russia, you need to be very careful.
walk very, very slowly.
>
> I wonder if the Georgians miscalculated?afraid so.
>
> One of the Georgian olympic teams is made up of naturalised Brazilians. Free trade?which sport?
>
Posted by Sigismund on August 11, 2008, at 19:27:26
In reply to Re: Over there » Sigismund, posted by fayeroe on August 11, 2008, at 18:50:22
It was on the news this morning, but I missed it most of it.
Apparently there is one in the beach volleyball team.
Posted by Sigismund on August 13, 2008, at 16:32:05
In reply to Re: Edwards, posted by Sigismund on August 10, 2008, at 15:28:29
Are you familiar with him?
The prisonplanet website bloke?
Well anyway, he came to mind because someone came into the station wanting a program based on that, and I knew of the site.
Not much, but enough to know I was not on familiar ground.
I thought: Oh, it's one of these American things where things are mixed up a little differently; perhaps it's libertarian?Anyway, he is saying that the Georgian attack on South Ossettia was to provide a cover for the build up for a US attack on Iran.
If this was so it should be in the news.
Is it?
Posted by fayeroe on August 13, 2008, at 16:55:18
In reply to Alex Jones, posted by Sigismund on August 13, 2008, at 16:32:05
I found this..http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117990468.html?categoryid=14&cs=1
and this...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/13/mccain-in-the-21st-centur_n_118759.html
and this.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/how-the-bush-administrati_b_118580.html
In a quick scan, I found nothing about Iran....my daughter told me about Alex Jones today and I did a brief glance at it. I'm not sure about him.
P
Posted by Dinah on August 13, 2008, at 17:15:42
In reply to Alex Jones, posted by Sigismund on August 13, 2008, at 16:32:05
I wouldn't think it likely. I haven't heard any of the public relations buildup that would precede any sort of action. I can't imagine that being spread thin already, and public opinion being negative, the US would want to attack Iran.
I wouldn't think the sort of attack that could be made like the targeted airstrike against Libya in the eighties.
I'd be enormously surprised. But then I'm occasionally enormously surprised.
Posted by Sigismund on August 13, 2008, at 18:41:55
In reply to Re: Alex Jones, posted by Dinah on August 13, 2008, at 17:15:42
I don't know how reliable this outlet is, but it was in my Inbox.
Posted by fayeroe on August 13, 2008, at 19:01:54
In reply to Re: Alex Jones, posted by Sigismund on August 13, 2008, at 18:41:55
Remember, this is a No-Risk Offer PLUS get a FREE Emergency Radio a $30 value
sounds like i'm going to need that radio.
looking at their writers, my take is run, children, run......from the writers.
Posted by Sigismund on August 13, 2008, at 20:39:08
In reply to Newsmax » Sigismund, posted by fayeroe on August 13, 2008, at 19:01:54
I don't know these Newsmax people either.
They just appeared in my inbox, along with all the other unsolicited stuff.
They did seem very right wing.
Interestingly though, Truthout is saying something along the same lines.
http://www.truthout.org/article/georgia-war-a-neocon-election-ploy
Posted by fayeroe on August 14, 2008, at 9:13:43
In reply to Re: Newsmax » fayeroe, posted by Sigismund on August 13, 2008, at 20:39:08
________There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, an invasion that clearly was expected to produce a Russian counterreaction? It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain's presidential campaign.
Starting what they did makes me think of something that I have seen over and over at rodeos. The "pickup" man (horseback) will have difficult getting a big bull back into the pens and finally he ropes it. I would always stand there and wonder "now what are you going to do with it?"...The bull will either go quietly (ha!) or charge the horse. Horses are very smart..they rarely stick around for the party. And sometimes cowboys aren't very smart.
I did wonder why they would do that without someone "bigger" helping out.....very interesting.
Boy, our government officials sure have friends in interesting places. :-)
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.