ok, dems, comments?
file this one under the heading of "better late than never":
john edwards is (finally!) being prosecuted for the misappropriation of political donations towards the support and silencing of his mistress with whom he fathered a child, and then engaged a campaign aide to claim paternity in order to mitigate scandal while running for the presidency.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/john-edwards-prosecuted-alleged-campaign-law-violations-tied/story?id=13680079&sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4ddd23bfe18a98fc%2C0
it amazes me how rabidly some partisans will go after their ideological opposites for their lapses in morality, and barely murmur when it's one of their own. in the interest in better and more-ethical government, i believe it would help if we could all agree that an ethical person of coincident ideological difference is a far better choice at the ballot box than an unethical alternative regardless of political stripe.
unfortunately, while we all see party before we see the candidate, we're going to keep getting more of this. (right, ahnold?)
john edwards is (finally!) being prosecuted for the misappropriation of political donations towards the support and silencing of his mistress with whom he fathered a child, and then engaged a campaign aide to claim paternity in order to mitigate scandal while running for the presidency.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/john-edwards-prosecuted-alleged-campaign-law-violations-tied/story?id=13680079&sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4ddd23bfe18a98fc%2C0
it amazes me how rabidly some partisans will go after their ideological opposites for their lapses in morality, and barely murmur when it's one of their own. in the interest in better and more-ethical government, i believe it would help if we could all agree that an ethical person of coincident ideological difference is a far better choice at the ballot box than an unethical alternative regardless of political stripe.
unfortunately, while we all see party before we see the candidate, we're going to keep getting more of this. (right, ahnold?)
posted by kad barma at 12:02 PM
5 Comments:
Arnold is more "Hollywood" than politician, he had his own money with which to support his secret scandal. Money he, in part, earned as Govenor, yes, but it was his money nonetheless. Edwards was squarely in the presidential race, he used campaing contributions to do what he did. They are both on the egregious scale, but Edwards his much higher, in my opinion.
Ok, I'll play--
Schwarzenneggar/Edwards--Edwards.
Edwards/Sanford?
Maybe Arnold has a greater net worth, but John Edwards was not so poor he couldn't have paid this out of his own funds. The greatest punishment for John Edwards is losing his shot at the Presidency and NOT becoming one of the grand old men of his party—and not having some shtick, like environmentalism to fall back on.
This looks like a Dem on Dem "show trial" to me. I am slowly growing to the conclusion that such is the person who is our US Attorney General. I hope I am wrong.
Regards — Cliff
Show trials a la Ken Star are in nobody's best interest, but I'm at least encouraged that they're calling Edwards on the campaign fund misuse. (Though I'm also disappointed I didn't get to continue on from Mark Sanford to the real dirty ones--I always like to keep my aces in the hole in the sleaze comparison game).
As long as we reproduce the way we do and there is the Darwinian explanation there will be sleaze.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home