I just feel like crying

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I'm seriously considering starting a huge fight with my own DH, with whom I almost never argue. I *used* to think he was practically perfect, but now he is guilty by association.

 

I'm just really surprised, and to be honest, it seems like it's sort of a "thing" that wives get breast cancer and their husband's get lovers. I just honestly could cry for EE.

 

I snarlingly told my husband that if he was going to screw another woman to please tell me first so I wouldn't have to read about it on the internet. Particularly if I were battling cancer. Golly. Shades of Newt Gingrich. And... others.

 

Now he has to live with himself.

 

People have affairs for lots of mixed-up crazy reasons. Some people that we would consider "good people" have affairs. People that would never in a million years imagine they could do such a thing do. But this sort of thing gets me in the most insecure places of my heart. It could happen to me. It could happen to ANY of us. And it (being betrayed) could happen to any of our husbands, given the right combination of circumstances.

 

Again it's impressed upon me that little choices and small steps determine which path someone ends up walking down.

[Mrs Mungo]

It could happen to ANY of us. And it (being betrayed) could happen to any of our husbands, given the right combination of circumstances.

 

Again it's impressed upon me that little choices and small steps determine which path someone ends up walking down.

 

I agree. I've seen more marriages fall apart (or amazingly stay together) after infidelity than I care to think about. And really, it starts with not putting yourself in a position to give in to temptation, ever.

[Laura K (NC)]

As if it's ever acceptable to do. It reminds me of the term "gentleman's club"-- What an oxymoron. "Gentleman" has a different meaning than it used to, even though people in powerful government positions have historically tended toward abuse of authority and moral amnesia. The exceptions in history are glorious and far between. George Washington comes to mind.

 

Yeah, I watched Edwards' voting record as a NC senator. There was no record of him voting as a NC senator. He was always curiously absent. :rant:

[Danestress]

Since John Edwards has been out of the race for a long time, I am not really thinking about politics. To be honest, I am not sure why I care so much, but it's definitely more of a personal thing than a voting decision. He isn't holding a public office at the moment.

 

And while I don't think you are callous at all, I do think that character still matters to me. Perhaps I am niave, but I still believe that leadership carries an obligation of high moral standards. And further, stupidity matters. Anyone stupid enough to think that sleeping with a staffer like that isn't going to come out doesn't need to be in elected office.

 

I know what you are saying though. I don't want to live in a culture dominated by news like this. It got pretty old with Clinton, and I do want to focus on the real issues that matter to the world.

[Danestress]

and I really wasn't feeling snarky. I'm sorry. I know you know I can care about more than one thing at a time:)

[DB in NJ]

Honestly, I'm not surprised. He has always seemed smarmy to me. I feel awful for his dear wife and children.

 

I wonder if this is part of his "two Americas" that he so loves to tell us about... :rolleyes:

 

Disgusting.

[Erica in PA]

Thomas Jefferson

FDR

Eisenhower

JFK

 

.... all of them had affairs.

 

Yes, and if I'd lived then, and known about it then, I'd have been disgusted with them as well. I know it's nothing new in politics, as I noted in my first post, but the depth of the arrogance of some people is still astounding.

 

Erica

[Erica in PA]

 

It's okay for politicians to steal, use their influence for profit, etc. etc. etc. but all of a sudden sex enters the picture and the masses are ready to hang someone.

 

No, I wouldn't want a president who has done any of those dishonest things, including adultery. I know what you're saying in that sometimes that one issue (adultery) is made larger than all the others, and I agree that it isn't necessarily worse than those. But I disagree with what you seem to also be saying: that it has no bearing at all on whether a person can do a good job as president. I do not agree that personal lives and professional lives are unrelated.

 

Erica

[DB in NJ]

Personally, I am sick of hearing about it already. It is none of my business what goes on in anyone's bedroom, nor does that have any bearing on any of the issues that are important in my state or country.

 

Another sensational story to distract the masses from the real issues....great.

 

See, but personal responsibility, maturity, and true character ARE real issues. I value those in my public servants, and to me -- and many others -- it truly really does matter. It's no longer a private, personal matter when a man is asking me to trust him to run my country when his own wife can't trust him to keep his vows to her.

 

It's a trust and character issue. The fact that he betrayed his wife is between the two of them. The fact that he has proven to be untrustworthy is only for public knowledge and consideration because he put himself out there, asking us to trust him and vote for him.

 

Makes me sick.

[Jami]

No, I wouldn't want a president who has done any of those dishonest things, including adultery. I know what you're saying in that sometimes that one issue (adultery) is made larger than all the others, and I agree that it isn't necessarily worse than them. But I disagree with what you seem to also be saying: that it has no bearing at all on whether a person can do a good job as president. I do not agree that personal lives and professional lives are unrelated.

 

Erica

 

 

I would add that adultery in many ways does seem worse to me. If this individual is willing to betray their spouse, to whom they have made vows before witnesses (and God if it's a religious ceremony), how much more are they likely to mislead or betray the American people to whom they vow to serve or the Constitution which they vow to uphold? I just would not trust the word of someone who cannot be faithful in the first relationship they say they prioritize.

[Happy]

See, but personal responsibility, maturity, and true character ARE real issues. I value those in my public servants, and to me -- and many others -- it truly really does matter. It's no longer a private, personal matter when a man is asking me to trust him to run my country when his own wife can't trust him to keep his vows to her.

 

It's a trust and character issue. The fact that he betrayed his wife is between the two of them. The fact that he has proven to be untrustworthy is only for public knowledge and consideration because he put himself out there, asking us to trust him and vote for him.

 

Makes me sick.

 

Bravo! Excellent post. I tried to rep ya, but couldn't.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

See, but personal responsibility, maturity, and true character ARE real issues. I value those in my public servants, and to me -- and many others -- it truly really does matter. It's no longer a private, personal matter when a man is asking me to trust him to run my country when his own wife can't trust him to keep his vows to her.

 

It's a trust and character issue. The fact that he betrayed his wife is between the two of them. The fact that he has proven to be untrustworthy is only for public knowledge and consideration because he put himself out there, asking us to trust him and vote for him.

 

Makes me sick.

 

I tend to agree, but is there a statute of limitations? Is there a point where we say, "That's ancient history" and give the person our vote anyway? (This assumes we agree with him on the issues.)

 

This is pertinent in this presidential election, I think.

[Jami]

See, but personal responsibility, maturity, and true character ARE real issues. I value those in my public servants, and to me -- and many others -- it truly really does matter. It's no longer a private, personal matter when a man is asking me to trust him to run my country when his own wife can't trust him to keep his vows to her.

 

It's a trust and character issue. The fact that he betrayed his wife is between the two of them. The fact that he has proven to be untrustworthy is only for public knowledge and consideration because he put himself out there, asking us to trust him and vote for him.

 

Makes me sick.

 

 

We were typing at the same time. But :iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

I tend to agree, but is there a statute of limitations? Is there a point where we say, "That's ancient history" and give the person our vote anyway? (This assumes we agree with him on the issues.)

 

This is pertinent in this presidential election, I think.

 

True.

 

McCain definitely treated his first wife badly. His treatment of her ended his long-standing friendship with the Reagans. Their story is really a touching one right up until he starts messing around on her.

[DB in NJ]

I tend to agree, but is there a statute of limitations? Is there a point where we say, "That's ancient history" and give the person our vote anyway? (This assumes we agree with him on the issues.)

 

This is pertinent in this presidential election, I think.

 

Well, that's a personal decision that each voter needs to make, no? Just like the Edwards affair a non-issue for Academy of Jedi Arts, it will be a major issue for others. Personal choice again.

 

As for this year's election....I have a feeling there will be many people staying home but even more holding their noses while they vote. Then coming home to shower. In very hot water. With extra soap. And bleach.

[tibbyl]

Statistically 50-70% of married men commit adultery at least once in their married lives. My personal guess is that the rate of adultery is higher among affluent powerful men since power is aphrodisiac. I understand why some men choose to lie about it when first confronted: to attempt to protect their families from hurt.

[Mrs Mungo]

Statistically 50-70% of married men commit adultery at least once in their married lives. My personal guess is that the rate of adultery is higher among affluent powerful men since power is aphrodisiac. I understand why some men choose to lie about it when first confronted: to attempt to protect their families from hurt.

 

I completely disagree. I've known a lot of families who have dealt with infidelity and most of them lie to protect *themselves* and their lifestyle. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

But I disagree with what you seem to also be saying: that it has no bearing at all on whether a person can do a good job as president.

 

How? How does having an affair negate someone's ability to make good economic policy, or environmental policy? It doesn't.

 

This is what big government counts on. People being so "disgusted" with the personal actions of those involved in government that they tune out of policy.

 

Some people have open marriages. Should those people not be allowed to run for office, even if they have some great ideas, because they don't meet someone else's standards of "moral"? "Morality" is in the eye of the beholder and I certainly do not want the government or anyone else trying to dictate to me or my family what "moral" is.

[WTMindy]

When the story first broke on the National Inquirer a few weeks ago I told my dh, "He could not possibly be that stupid. No one is THAT stupid!" Here he was being (marginally, at least) talked about as a VP candidate, his wife has cancer, etc.....Why would he risk that?

 

But, there is something about power that makes people think that, for some reason, they are above the laws (both moral and legal) that apply to others. I also feel very sad for him. On the other hand, I feel thankful for my dh rather than angry at him.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I'm sort of unclear on this. Why were the Reagans' so upset about MacCain's treatment of his first wife. Didn't Ronald have an affair on Jane Weyman?

 

No, my understanding is that Ms. Wyman had the affair.

[Mom to Aly]

I saw this yesterday, and had to sit there in shock and horror for the longest time! I adore him, and so wanted him for vice president 8 years ago, and president this time, even though he is too conservative for my taste.

 

And to do this right after they found out that his wife's cancer had returned and was incurable! My sister works with someone who left her husband, who was in the end stages of terminal cancer, last year. She said she sort of lost it, and left for someone else, and never went back. I think that is so horrible! And I think what he has done is so horrible.

 

There was an article today about the destruction of his career, and how he won't even go to the dem convention in Denver. So what? What about what his wife and fam has gone through, and is going through? I cannot imagine. Such a disappointment.

[dangermom]

How? How does having an affair negate someone's ability to make good economic policy, or environmental policy? It doesn't.

If a leader in government is (in theory) holding the trust of the people to do a good job, it does affect him. If a person who is willing to break the most important promise in life--to a spouse--then how can I expect him to be honest in his other dealings? Will he take bribes or favors to make bad policy? Will he act against the country's interest because he gets something out of it? Will he pardon criminals (like Ken Lay) because he wants favors out of them? Will he act dishonestly for money or power? I'm thinking yes--such a person is more interested in gratification than in doing what is right for others, like the people who elected him and want him to serve the public honestly.

 

Unfortunately, our government is full of people more interested in power and money and gratification than in serving the public honestly. But that doesn't make adultery irrelevant; it just makes it one of many problems.

[dangermom]

And, looking at this from the POV of the Dem. Party, Edwards has acted monumentally badly. He knew the whole country is sick to death of sexual scandals in politics. To redeem the Party's image, he presented himself as a dedicated family man and told people to judge him on it.* He ran for President on it.

 

He knew that if he won the nomination or the VP spot and then his affair came out, he would sink the election. But he put his ambition and gratification above everything else--including a Dem solution to the Middle East war.

 

I'm only a moderate who is technically registered as a Democrat--really I don't like anyone. But Democratic devotees ought to be ready to string Edwards up for this betrayal of their party loyalty (which I don't necessarily approve of in the first place, I'm just sayin').

 

 

 

*A quotation from this 2007 interview with Edwards:

But, I think every single candidate for president, Republican and Democratic have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation for America to engage in to look at what kind of human beings each of us are, and what kind of president we'd make.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I wonder if I will see the end of the "family values" era in politics before I die. Probably not. I can only hope my daughter will.

 

Edwards affair did not change my opinion of the man, but his quote encouraging the American people to use bad logic adds to my general opinion that he's a moron. :tongue_smilie:

 

It's all smoke and mirrors.

[Frontier Mom]

He sunk to a new low!!

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

How? How does having an affair negate someone's ability to make good economic policy, or environmental policy? It doesn't.

 

This is what big government counts on. People being so "disgusted" with the personal actions of those involved in government that they tune out of policy.

 

Some people have open marriages. Should those people not be allowed to run for office, even if they have some great ideas, because they don't meet someone else's standards of "moral"? "Morality" is in the eye of the beholder and I certainly do not want the government or anyone else trying to dictate to me or my family what "moral" is.

 

If the Edwards' had an open marriage, this would all be moot. He would not have promised her fidelity and made vows to have her as his "only," forsaking all others. His actions wouldn't have been my ideal for a relationship, but they wouldn't be breaking any promises.

 

This way, it's just sneaky and lying and disgusting. And like you said in a later post about a different issue, reinforces my general feeling that he's a moron.

 

(There needs to be an adjective before the word "moron" above, but this is a family board.)

[CLHCO]

Statistically 50-70% of married men commit adultery at least once in their married lives. My personal guess is that the rate of adultery is higher among affluent powerful men since power is aphrodisiac. I understand why some men choose to lie about it when first confronted: to attempt to protect their families from hurt.

Actually, that's the percent of those who do commit adultery who are men vs. those who are women, not the number who do over a life time. That number is closer to 22% for men and 15% for women.

 

It's not quite that bad so everyone can stop secretly accusing their husbands now. ;)

[gardenschooler]

See, but personal responsibility, maturity, and true character ARE real issues. I value those in my public servants, and to me -- and many others -- it truly really does matter. It's no longer a private, personal matter when a man is asking me to trust him to run my country when his own wife can't trust him to keep his vows to her.

 

It's a trust and character issue. The fact that he betrayed his wife is between the two of them. The fact that he has proven to be untrustworthy is only for public knowledge and consideration because he put himself out there, asking us to trust him and vote for him.

 

Makes me sick.

 

:iagree: Well said, Donna. Anyone who would do that is not worthy of my trust in any arena. Period.

[gardenschooler]

I tend to agree, but is there a statute of limitations? Is there a point where we say, "That's ancient history" and give the person our vote anyway? (This assumes we agree with him on the issues.)

 

 

 

Not for me.

[Kelli in TN]

Can I add one small bright spot to this dirty business?

 

I am not that concerned about his politics. But I ache for his poor wife and children. But, if there is any truth in reporting and any truth coming from the Edwards household, he confessed to this affair in 2006. Which would mean that for the last two years Mr. and Mrs. Edwards have been working through this and deciding that their marriage is worth saving. Now, it might all be smoke and mirrors and it might all be about the politics. Next week we might find out that he's had hundreds of affairs. I know that. But play along with my over active imagination for a minute.

 

But it might just be that somewhere behind closed doors is a good man who made a choice to be a bad man for a little while and then woke up, smacked himself upside the head and went home and began trying to regain that which he had squandered. And perhaps his wife, after recovering from the shock, looked at this man and thought to herself "He was a good man once, I think he can be a good man again. I am going to keep investing in this marriage even though I have lost so much."

 

In two years time they could be so past this and back in love with each other. Stranger things have happened. Much worse marriages have been healed.

 

I hope that he just drops from the public eye and lives out his days as a good man, a good father, a good husband. I hope he dedicates himself to giving his wife all that she wants and needs for the rest of her days. With his dying breath, what he did in his personal life is going to matter more to him than politics.

[tibbyl]

Based upon personal observation, it seems to me that adults often believe their own affairs are justifiable, unique and special, while everyone else's are sleazy. Back during the Clinton era, I remember a work colleague brandishing the righteous finger at Clinton a la Bob Livingston style when she herself had recently had a lengthy illicit affair with a co-worker. For those who will jump me to say.. she was not leading country, no she was not. But she did lead a teen girl group at church, where she was in part responsible for administering some sort of chastity program.

[mcconnellboys]

I believe he was thinking, like many middle-aged men in his same circumstance, "Hey, I'm cute, rich, powerful, and in the limelight. I can have lots of women. Why do I need my overweight wife who's home with the kids?" Ego is a mighty and powerful evil....

[Confuzzled]

Am I the only one that is bothered by the large amounts of campaign money he gave her to produce four YouTube videos? She had absolutely no experience at video producing and five days after forming a corporation she started receiving large checks from him. She reportedly made over $100,000 in a few short months.

 

Also, if the affair is over and he is not the father of the baby, then why was he visiting in the middle of the night last month?

 

There are still many unanswered questions in my mind.

 

Kris

[pqr]

You are missing the point. The debate should not only be about his adultery.

 

Originally Posted by Academy of Jedi Arts

How? How does having an affair negate someone's ability to make good economic policy, or environmental policy? It doesn't.

 

Alas Jedi, the point is not his economic policy or indeed anything else that he does. The fact is that he LIED to the American people! If you LIE to the people who you hired you that means that you are untrustworthy. Had he simply stated that "it is none of your business" he would have faced problems but those can be overcome. By telling a bald faced LIE he made himself unworthy of our trust.

 

I have to ask why with regard to your post.

 

You stated "I wonder if I will see the end of the "family values" era in politics before I die. Probably not. I can only hope my daughter will."

 

 

In today's day and age when the collapse of family values has led to a breakdown in our sociery, why on Earth would you support a further breakdown?

 

In 1960 about 5 percent of births were to unwed mothers; that figure is now a record high of nearly 40%. A child who is raised by a single parent

is unfortunately more likely to face problems with the law and with self esteem.

 

 

"A Detroit study found that about 70 percent of juvenile homicide perpetrators did not live with both parents. Another study found that of girls committed to the California Youth Authority (for serious delinquents), 93 percent came from non-intact homes. Nationally, seventy percent of youths incarcerated in state reform institutions come from single-parent or no-parent homes. A survey of juvenile delinquents in state custody in Wisconsin found that fewer than 1/6 came from intact families; over two-fifths were illegitimate." http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment050200c.html

 

Before I get hammered by all the instances where single parents have rasied superb children. I know...., I know... but the fact is that it is harder.

 

The fact that politicians attempt to adhere to family values is certainly better than those who mock these same values.

 

As for my daughter I certainly hope that she not only learns family values, but lives in a society which respects them.

[LMA]

I just heard about this. I am rather sad for his family. May they have the strength to work through this.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

In today's day and age when the collapse of family values has led to a breakdown in our sociery, why on Earth would you support a further breakdown?

 

In 1960 about 5 percent of births were to unwed mothers; that figure is now a record high of nearly 40%. A child who is raised by a single parent

is unfortunately more likely to face problems with the law and with self esteem.

 

"A Detroit study found that about 70 percent of juvenile homicide perpetrators did not live with both parents. Another study found that of girls committed to the California Youth Authority (for serious delinquents), 93 percent came from non-intact homes. Nationally, seventy percent of youths incarcerated in state reform institutions come from single-parent or no-parent homes. A survey of juvenile delinquents in state custody in Wisconsin found that fewer than 1/6 came from intact families; over two-fifths were illegitimate." http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment050200c.html

 

Before I get hammered by all the instances where single parents have rasied superb children. I know...., I know... but the fact is that it is harder.

 

The fact that politicians attempt to adhere to family values is certainly better than those who mock these same values.

 

As for my daughter I certainly hope that she not only learns family values, but lives in a society which respects them.

 

The "collapse of family values" is a myth IMHO. So many people want to live "back then" things were "better". Times have changed, but people haven't all that much. I am not one to subscribe to the grass is always greener theory.

 

The population of the US is growing by leaps and bounds. The crime rate, however, is declining. Our standard of living and literacy rates are higher compared to the past. Things are actually getting better, but you would never know that from listening to the mainstream media, who constantly inspire fear in everything from Mexican Americans to ground beef.

 

I do not consider having a child when one is single to be going against "family values". I would suppose that the reason the opinions on that matter are so skewed is that a number of these children born to single parent homes are also living in poverty. It is the poverty, not the absence of the 2nd parent that does the most harm, I think. I am more concerned with how high the percentage of African American males is in the correctional system than how many inmates were raised by a single parent. And people say racism is dead in this country.

 

I am more disgusted that a President can condone torture and poo on the Constitution of the United States, but still be admired because he mentions "God" and "family values" (and all those other buzz words that get the "moral majority" salivating like Pavlov's dogs) than I am any politician having a whole harem of women on the side.

 

I want my daughter to evaluate ideas based on the ideas themselves, not based on irrelevant information concerning the source. I want her to have the freedom to do what she wants in her own bedroom (after she is 18 of course) and grant others that same consideration.

[pqr]

The "collapse of family values" is a myth IMHO. So many people want to live "back then" things were "better". Times have changed, but people haven't all that much. I am not one to subscribe to the grass is always greener theory.

The grass is not always greener, but a world where children came home to a Mother and a Father, a world where divorce was rare, a world where children read books rather than watched South Park, a world where "da*n" was considered a really bad word and a world where the traditional family was the norm was actually greener. Let us also remember that that was the world where our children actually received an education in school rather than a condom in Sex Ed.

 

The population of the US is growing by leaps and bounds. The crime rate, however, is declining. Our standard of living and literacy rates are higher compared to the past. Things are actually getting better, but you would never know that from listening to the mainstream media, who constantly inspire fear in everything from Mexican Americans to ground beef.

If you believe that things are getting better then how do you make the comments about our President. Which one is it?

 

Few are trying to inspire fear of Americans of Mexican descent (lets get off this hyphenating of Americans, we should be American first) people are reasonably concerned about illegal aliens, many of whom are from Mexico, there is a difference.

 

Regarding crime rates I am afraid you are quite simply wrong.

 

1960 Violent Crime Rate per 100,000 - 160.9

2005 Violent Crime Rate per 100,000 - 469.2

 

1960 Property Crime per 100,000 - 1,726

2005 Property Crime per 100,000 - 3,430

 

Only murder has comprable rates, but 1960 was still lower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

 

The FBI web site lists one of the factors in crime as being

"Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness"

I do not consider having a child when one is single to be going against "family values". I would suppose that the reason the opinions on that matter are so skewed is that a number of these children born to single parent homes are also living in poverty. It is the poverty, not the absence of the 2nd parent that does the most harm, I think. I am more concerned with how high the percentage of African American males is in the correctional system than how many inmates were raised by a single parent. And people say racism is dead in this country.

 

Perhaps one is more likely to be born into poverty if one is born to a single parent who then has a hard time finding and holding a job which will get said parent out of poverty.

 

Perhaps Black Americans are in jail more because they commit more crimes. This certainly has nothing to do with their race, but perhaps because they are more likely to be raised without a father, currently the number is in the vecinity of 70%! (Surely you agree that this is not a good thing). The correlation is between boys without fathers (at home) and crime. This is NOT racism, what is racism is to argue that people should not be held accountable for crimes because of their race. I do not care what color people are, if they commit a crime put them away!

 

 

 

I am more disgusted that a President can condone torture and poo on the Constitution of the United States, but still be admired because he mentions "God" and "family values" (and all those other buzz words that get the "moral majority" salivating like Pavlov's dogs) than I am any politician having a whole harem of women on the side.

 

 

I am not part of the moral majority and I do not salivate, except when presented with a nice juicy steak, but I like my politicians to be moral. After all morality and family values also include things such as integrity, honesty, loyalty, respect and yes... being a good husband, wife, mother or father. What is the problem with this?

 

 

 

I want my daughter to evaluate ideas based on the ideas themselves, not based on irrelevant information concerning the source. I want her to have the freedom to do what she wants in her own bedroom (after she is 18 of course) and grant others that same consideration.

 

If you are going to make this argument, I might ask why 18? You are not trying to impose your family values on her are you:confused:.

 

Evaluating ideas based on ideas themselves is a sure road to a complete misunderstanding of this world.

Example: On the surface Communism may seem like a good idea, it is only when you include "irrelevent" information such as human nature and the results of it where it has been employed that we see what a horrendous failure it is.

 

Information is a way to refine ideas....you need it!

[TXMomof4]

I wonder if I will see the end of the "family values" era in politics before I die. Probably not. I can only hope my daughter will.

 

Edwards affair did not change my opinion of the man, but his quote encouraging the American people to use bad logic adds to my general opinion that he's a moron. :tongue_smilie:

 

It's all smoke and mirrors.

 

Gotta hate those family values.....:confused:

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

The grass is not always greener, but a world where children came home to a Mother and a Father, a world where divorce was rare, a world where children read books rather than watched South Park, a world where "da*n" was considered a really bad word and a world where the traditional family was the norm was actually greener.

 

In your opinion. We could also talk about stuff like the fact women had limited choices, and African Americans could not drink out of the same water fountain as my husband's white parents.

 

I like South Park. I don't swear, my husband doesn't swear. My daughter has heard every word in the book and doesn't swear.

 

Let us also remember that that was the world where our children actually received an education in school rather than a condom in Sex Ed.

If the only place a kid can get a condom is in sex ed, don't you think that's better than producing another single parent household? As for the state of education, in some places it is better than others, and here again, socio-economic background and race play a big role.

 

If you believe that things are getting better then how do you make the comments about our President. Which one is it?

In terms of quality of life, things are much much better than my parents and grandparents had it. We still have a long way to go, though. We are in a time now when our rights and the rights of fellow human beings are in jeopardy.

 

I find your views on single parent households to be very stereotypical. I assure you that my daughter's African American friend who is being raised by her single lesbian mother is going to turn out just fine, and probably much better than a lot of kids I know from "traditional families". My husband comes from a divorced home and turned out just fine.

 

I used the Dept. Of Justice as my source for crime rate stats. They only go back to 1973

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

 

After all morality and family values also include things such as integrity, honesty, loyalty, respect and yes... being a good husband, wife, mother or father. What is the problem with this?

None of these things are against the law and most of them are subjective. Some people think that letting your kids believe in Santa is lying. My definition of a good mother or father might be different than someone else's. Some people think homeschooling makes one a bad mother or father. That's why relative morality and the law should not mix.

 

If you are going to make this argument, I might ask why 18? You are not trying to impose your family values on her are you:confused:.

At 18 my daughter will be an adult and responsible for her own choices both sexually and otherwise.

 

Evaluating ideas based on ideas themselves is a sure road to a complete misunderstanding of this world.

Understanding is in the eye of the beholder. Just because I might not agree with some of your statements doesn't mean I would accuse you of misunderstanding the world. It also doesn't mean I would dismiss further statements, but instead would evaluate them individually.

 

Information is a way to refine ideas....you need it!

Pardon? :confused:

[Scarlett]

Can I add one small bright spot to this dirty business?

 

I am not that concerned about his politics. But I ache for his poor wife and children. But, if there is any truth in reporting and any truth coming from the Edwards household, he confessed to this affair in 2006. Which would mean that for the last two years Mr. and Mrs. Edwards have been working through this and deciding that their marriage is worth saving. Now, it might all be smoke and mirrors and it might all be about the politics. Next week we might find out that he's had hundreds of affairs. I know that. But play along with my over active imagination for a minute.

 

But it might just be that somewhere behind closed doors is a good man who made a choice to be a bad man for a little while and then woke up, smacked himself upside the head and went home and began trying to regain that which he had squandered. And perhaps his wife, after recovering from the shock, looked at this man and thought to herself "He was a good man once, I think he can be a good man again. I am going to keep investing in this marriage even though I have lost so much."

 

In two years time they could be so past this and back in love with each other. Stranger things have happened. Much worse marriages have been healed.

 

I hope that he just drops from the public eye and lives out his days as a good man, a good father, a good husband. I hope he dedicates himself to giving his wife all that she wants and needs for the rest of her days. With his dying breath, what he did in his personal life is going to matter more to him than politics.

 

Nice post Kelly. I don't want to come across as a JE fan, but I so hope for his family's sake that he has told all there is to tell. Also, if I read the info right and heard it right on tv last night, he had the affair BEFORE she was diagnosed. Or do I have that wrong.

 

I am curious to know why he was in the hotel room with the OW and baby if he isn't the father and the affair has been over for 2 years.

[Elaine]

Honestly, I'm not surprised. He has always seemed smarmy to me. I feel awful for his dear wife and children.

 

I wonder if this is part of his "two Americas" that he so loves to tell us about... :rolleyes:

 

Disgusting.

 

Yes, I agree. Smarmy is a good word. Plus, his hair is too perfect. That's just not right.:D

[Joanne]

The grass is not always greener, but a world where children came home to a Mother and a Father, a world where divorce was rare

 

As a divorced parent and a mom who was a single mom, how about.......

 

In a culture where thriving marriages are the overwhelming majority?

 

The focus on "divorce" misses the mark, IMO and elevates paper marriages above the quality of marriage.

[pqr]

Joanne,

 

Point well made.

 

As a divorced parent and a mom who was a single mom, how about.......

 

In a culture where thriving marriages are the overwhelming majority?

 

The focus on "divorce" misses the mark, IMO and elevates paper marriages above the quality of marriage.

 

In a culture where thriving marriages are the overwhelming majority....this is the optimum.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

What about single by choice parents? What about parents who by law are not allowed to get married? What about couples who choose not to get married? Divorce is not the only way a child ends up without two married parents.

 

Certainly one does not have to be married to raise a child well, or be a "moral" person.

 

The divorce rate spiked after WWII, then declined, rising again in the 1960's and 70's, and has been declining in recent years. So again, the grass is always greener theory goes poof.

 

Christians actually have more divorces than do any other faith, incuding agnostics and atheists. Within Christian groups, non-denominational Christians have the highest rate of divorce, followed by Baptists.

[sdWTMer]

What comes to my mind is that he is human and is subject to the same temptations that all the rest of us are. I feel for his wife and children.

[Vida Winter]

I always thought he looked a little too perfect for his own good, something that sends off "phony" warning bells in the back of my mind. And his "Two Americas" and professional ethics always raised questions as well. So politically this is no loss for me, better to have him out of the picture.

 

Personally, I am sickened by what he has done to his wife and family. Talk about kicking someone when they are down. (Her cancer was in remission when the affair started...)

 

If I had been an Edwards supporter I would feel absolutely betrayed as well. My prayers are with his wife and family tonight, and if I were a good Christian I would probably be praying for him as well. We'll see.

[pqr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pqr

The grass is not always greener, but a world where children came home to a Mother and a Father, a world where divorce was rare, a world where children read books rather than watched South Park, a world where "da*n" was considered a really bad word and a world where the traditional family was the norm was actually greener.

 

Reply by Jedi In your opinion. We could also talk about stuff like the fact women had limited choices, and African Americans could not drink out of the same water fountain as my husband's white parents.

 

 

By pqr: This is not zero sum game, just because necessary improvements have come to our lives, does not mean that we should dismiss all that came before. The traditional family has categorically been shown, through empirical data, to be the best formulae for society. Children who have two parents tend to grow up as more productive and law abiding members of society. I have already provided you links that demonstrate this.

 

You have provided me with exactly what data to contradict this?

 

 

Quote:

Let us also remember that that was the world where our children actually received an education in school rather than a condom in Sex Ed.

 

Reply by Jedi; If the only place a kid can get a condom is in sex ed, don't you think that's better than producing another single parent household?

I thought you were arguing that single parent households were no different and cetainly no worse than traditional families.

 

Surely it should be the choice of the parents if and when a child gets a condom. You do believe in choice don't you?

 

Jedi stated :I find your views on single parent households to be very stereotypical. I assure you that my daughter's African American friend who is being raised by her single lesbian mother is going to turn out just fine, and probably much better than a lot of kids I know from "traditional families".

 

pqr replies: Again there are literally thousands of studies that show that in general this is not the case. I hope your daughter's friend turns out well, but the truth is that it will be harder for her to do so than for a child in a traditional family. This is not to say traditional families do not fail, just that they fail at a lower rate.

 

I am not being stereotypical, I am basing my opinions on hard fact. What are you basing yours on? I am being a realist and you, alas, are being (this is not meant to be rude)"Pie in the Sky."

Reply by Jedi (from earlier post) The crime rate, however, is declining.

 

I used the Dept. Of Justice as my source for crime rate stats. They only go back to 1973

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

 

Reply by pqr: I provided data going back to 1960 and proved that you were wrong. The rate may have fallen since 1973 but since 1960 is over 100% higher (per capita).

 

 

Quote:

After all morality and family values also include things such as integrity, honesty, loyalty, respect and yes... being a good husband, wife, mother or father. What is the problem with this?

Reply by Jedi: None of these things are against the law and most of them are subjective. Some people think that letting your kids believe in Santa is lying. My definition of a good mother or father might be different than someone else's. Some people think homeschooling makes one a bad mother or father. That's why relative morality and the law should not mix.

 

Reply by pqr: How about relative morality in the sense of perjury, treason, the HATE portion of hate crimes, libel, contract law, laws against child abuse, pornography etc? We have to have moral standards that are enshrined in law. Honesty in a court, loyalty to a nation, honesty in contracts (even if one does not believe that their word should be their bond the law tells us that it is), age of consent etc may of not be important to the individual but they are to society and must be in law.

 

 

Quote:

If you are going to make this argument, I might ask why 18? You are not trying to impose your family values on her are you:confused:.

Reply by Jedi: At 18 my daughter will be an adult and responsible for her own choices both sexually and otherwise.

 

Reply by pqr: But in some places the age of consent is 16. While I agree that a child should abstain till at least 18, it would seem to me that when you argue for this you are imposing traditional "family values" on your child.

 

 

Quote:

Evaluating ideas based on ideas themselves is a sure road to a complete misunderstanding of this world.

 

Reply by Jedi Understanding is in the eye of the beholder.... It also doesn't mean I would dismiss further statements, but instead would evaluate them individually.

 

Reply by pqr: I provided evidence to support my views on family values, if you evaluate this and then dismiss it (as you have done in your replies) I would be interested to know what data you used.

 

I assume you now accept that you were incorrect in your beliefs on the crime rate.

 

 

Quote:

Information is a way to refine ideas....you need it!

Reply by Jedi: Pardon? :confused:

 

I had intended a collective "you." Sometimes I am less precise in my writing than I should be.

 

However, there is plenty of information to support the benefit of the traditional values I espouse. There precious little information to show that children from broken homes or single parent families perform in a "substantially equal" manner to those from traditional families. I wish these children were not disadvantaged but it is not the case. We use information to refine our ideas which is why I hold mine.

 

As it is not the case that children from single parent families perform on a "substantially equal" basis, we then do a disservice by statements such as you made when you stated "I wonder if I will see the end of the "family values" era in politics before I die. Probably not. I can only hope my daughter will."

 

This attitude hurts society and no one has yet provided any empirical evidence to demonstrate that I am wrong. Encouraging single parent families, as a norm does not help our society!

 

In cases where they exist all possible support should be offered, by family friends and church, but the single parent family is not the optimum.

 

 

Sincerely pqr

 

 

[DB in NJ]

Also, if I read the info right and heard it right on tv last night, he had the affair BEFORE she was diagnosed. Or do I have that wrong.

 

They say it was in-between EW's original diagnosis and her second diagnosis when she was told what she has is incurable; it was supposedly while she was in remission.

 

I am curious to know why he was in the hotel room with the OW and baby if he isn't the father and the affair has been over for 2 years.

 

Ah, see, now THAT is the question. If it was over 2 years ago, why sneak around in the hotel visiting her and her baby? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

1. The OW was living in an *amazing* house with a former JE aide, his wife, and children. The aide is rumored to be the father of the baby.....um, and this woman is living with him and his wife and kids? Don't think so.

 

2. John Edwards is all set to take a paternity test, right? Guess we're supposed to think that since he's so willing (and so honest) that we should just believe he's not the daddy. Problem: the OW is saying no way am I or my dd submitting to DNA testing. Of course not! And he knew that....which is how he could say with all certainty that yes, I'm ready to take a paternity test -- whatever it takes! He knew it was safe to say that because she was going to deny anyone access from the baby.

 

He's smarmy. I never did trust him or believe a word he said; still don't. I feel bad for his wife and kids, but....blech.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

What I meant by seeing the end of the "family values" era of politics is I hope to see politicians stop touting it from behind the podium- especially people like George Bush. It's amazing to me how many politicians tout "family values" then end up in some sex scandal, and the American public still doesn't see through the BS. Also when they talk about these "family values" it is often to trample on the rights of others- mainly gays and lesbians.

 

Sorry, but I do not believe that my friend's child, who is living in a 250k home, and going to one of the best private schools in my state (making good grades too) is going to have it harder than the two parent family down the street, who can barely pay their bills because mom refuses to work- 'cause it's against their "family values". As a matter of fact, their kids already have issues at very young ages.

 

If you do a little research, you will see that money and level of education negates your little studies there. (Nelson, 1993, I believe, is a good place to start) You do realize that I can find you stats to support pants being hazardous to your health, right? It's all still a matter of opinion. I do respect yours. No, I was not wrong about the crime rate, according to the Dept. of Justice it is on a steady decline.

 

As for the condom thing, I have met parents who would not give a child a condom if asked. They stress "family values" and "abstinence" and then the kids go out and do it without the fez on. As for my daughter's sex life, that's none of your business.

 

I take it you don't know many well-off, well-educated single parents. Many of the ones I know volunteer at the church and other organizations to help impoverished families- families with both one and two parents whose children are going to have a harder time.

 

This has been a fun discussion, but please let us just agree to disagree here. I will never take on your "family values" and I do not expect you to adopt mine. That's the beauty of America. We have laws to protect us from physical harm and to protect our property, but no one gets to dictate what is "moral" and what isn't. That's why it is so ridiculous for anyone to tout "family values" from the podium.

[DB in NJ]

It is the poverty, not the absence of the 2nd parent that does the most harm, I think. I am more concerned with how high the percentage of African American males is in the correctional system than how many inmates were raised by a single parent. And people say racism is dead in this country.

 

1. More than poverty and the absence of the 2nd parent, I think a lack of decency, integrity, and a strong sense of right and wrong is what does the most harm.

 

2. Tell me you aren't saying that the high percentage of African American males in correction facilities is due to racism. Please, tell me I'm reading this wrong.

 

I am more disgusted that a President can condone torture and poo on the Constitution of the United States, but still be admired because he mentions "God" and "family values" (and all those other buzz words that get the "moral majority" salivating like Pavlov's dogs) than I am any politician having a whole harem of women on the side.

 

Why either or? If things like legal torture of enemy combatants bothers you, why does it NOT bother you that a public servant would emotionally torture his own wife and children (and the voting public) by proving himself unfaithful and untrustworthy? Guess physical torture is wrong, but emotional shredding is acceptable.

 

I want my daughter to evaluate ideas based on the ideas themselves, not based on irrelevant information concerning the source. I want her to have the freedom to do what she wants in her own bedroom (after she is 18 of course) and grant others that same consideration.

 

So the affair is "irrelevant information"? Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. As far as I can tell all Americans do have the freedom to do what they want in their own bedroom. Nobody has threatened to throw JE or the OW or Bill Clinton (or JFK or Jefferson, etc.) in jail over their infidelity. They are free to do as they wish. The only reason why it is relevant for the rest of us is that they -- voluntarily -- are public figures. They are public servants. They -- BY CHOICE -- have sought the public's trust; they campaign for it and openly seek it. Then they prove untrustworthy. How is that irrelevant?