Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Ensign admits extramarital affair
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) has admitted to having an extramarital affair with an also-married woman. Today he issued the following statement:
I came home to Nevada to come forward and explain to the citizens of our state something that I was involved in about a year ago. Last year I had an affair. I violated the vows of my marriage. It is the worst thing I have ever done in my life. If there was ever anything in my life that I could take back, this would be it. “I take full responsibility for my actions. “I know that I have deeply hurt and disappointed my wife Darlene, my children, my family, my friends, my staff and others who believed in me. To all of them, especially my wife, I am deeply sorry. I am truly blessed to have a wife who has forgiven me. We sought counseling last year and have built a stronger marriage — stronger than ever. “I will not mention any names but the woman who I was involved with and her husband were close friends and both of them worked for me. Our families were close. That closeness put me into situations which led to my inappropriate behavior. We caused deep pain to both families and for that I am sorry. “I am committed to my service in the United States Senate and my work on behalf of the people of NV. “Thank you.
(Via Marc Ambinder.)
Ensign’s wife also issued a statement saying that she loves her husband and that they have come to a reconciliation. The New York Times reports that Ensign is an evangelical Christian and actively involved in Promise Keepers.
UPDATE: Ensign has resigned as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, the fourth-ranking spot in GOP Senate leadership.
back to top65 Comments to “Ensign admits extramarital affair”
Promise
KeepersBreakerThis is the real threat to marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Shame on him. But just as with Dave Letterman, owning up and admitting your faults is the correct course of action. Light is better than darkness.
Report comment to moderator
That closeness put me into situations which led to my inappropriate behavior.
Men!
Alisa left out the part of the statement where Ensign refuses to take questions at the conclusion of his remarks.
No, the question everyone is dying to ask him isn’t, “What were you thinking?” Ensign needs to explain why he didn’t apologize to the Americans he insulted by making speeches on behalf of DOMA.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, if Ensign were a Democrat he would be praised for his indiscretion and would never lose an election again.
Report comment to moderator
Only a “Christian” like Xion could equate a bad joke with an extra-marital affair. Some sinners are more equal than others I guess.
Report comment to moderator
“why he didn’t apologize to the Americans he insulted by making speeches on behalf of DOMA. ”
You have got to be kidding. This guy was stumping for DOMA??? Unbelievable. Wait. No, it’s totally believable. He’s a Promise
KeeperReport comment to moderator
#4 TILT
Report comment to moderator
Of course, if Ensign were a Democrat he would be praised for his indiscretion and would never lose an election again.
Yeah, cause obviously John Edwards’ influence and power in the party has just shot up! /sarcasm off.
Is there ever going to be a comment thread where I don’t have to beg conservative to GROW UP?!
Report comment to moderator
BarbinMD over at Daily Kos has a great take on Ensign.
Ensign: “Marriage is an extremely important institution in this country and protecting it is, in my mind, worth the extraordinary step of amending our constitution.”
… because if we had, he wouldn’t have been forced have an affair with the wife of an employee.
And of course in the interest of consistency, we can expect Ensign to announce his resignation, given that he called for Bill Clinton to resign in light of his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky …
Report comment to moderator
This is precious, RPN.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, you’ve taken to calling me personal names, when the only thing I have done is questioned your brand of magic. But your two comments above demonstrate clearly to me that your faith is merely a brilliant cloak for your true identity — that of a petty, partisan hack.
Report comment to moderator
Hey, boys and girls, I doubt many here really want to talk about Ensign, so you might want to run over to WaPO and see what Obama has in mind for tomorrow. I guess it’s a “make-good” for the language in the brief supporting DOMA. But it will help. I have a couple of neighbors who could really use it right now.
Report comment to moderator
So freakin’ what? He is a politician and it is their nature to lie and lie again. Take him out of office and let him fade away
Report comment to moderator
Gee, all of a sudden liberals care about marriage and extramarital sex when a Republican violates it. Liberal morals only apply to conservatives. Conservatives on the other hand have the same standards for both.
Ensign admitted his mistake. Clinton pretended he made no mistake and liberals loved him for it. Barney Frank runs a gay prostitution ring out of his house and becomes a liberal icon who will continue to be elected until his death or perhaps longer.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, GROW UP!
Report comment to moderator
What Arcadia was refering to was this.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/16/obama_intends_to_extend_federa.html?hpid=topnews
Apparently we’ll now be paying for health benefits for Barney Frank’s “partner” now too. Yipee.
Report comment to moderator
Why is partner is scare quotes?
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and Ensign should NOT resign, unless he feels led by principles that it’s necessary. I’m probably hoping for too much from him to expect that though. I mean c’mon, Dems never do, why should he. Just use the same excuses they do, and in a couple of weeks no one will care. Works every time.
If he squared things with the Mrs., and she forgives him, then it shouldn’t matter publicly.
But if he was to live up to the standards he himself has set for others, he would resign. I won’t hold my breath. He is a politican after all. Just being realistic.
Report comment to moderator
#11 Arcadia “Xion, you’ve taken to calling me personal names, when the only thing I have done is questioned your brand of magic.”
I have not. I don’t dislike you in the least and I am sure we could even be friends if we saw each other regularly.
I have called you an anti-Christian bigot. You have admitted yourself on practically every topic that you are anti-Christian. I assume you would admit that you despise Christianity with every fiber of your being.
You spend a good portion of your life seeking out Christians to attack, belittle, ridicule and mock. You can’t admit that not a single Christian espouses the twisted interpretation of scripture you do. It makes no difference. You continue your campaign of disinformation undeterred.
As for bigotry, this should also be easy to see. Someone who prejudges others regardless of what they say or do, based on a twisted ideology of hate is a bigot.
I am not calling you names. I am merely pointing out your own heart to you. You don’t see it. You may never see it. But I mean nothing personal by it other than to provide a reflection of your own dark heart in the mirror hoping perchance you might snap out of it.
If I spent a good portion of my life seeking out and ridiculing everyone I disagreed with, you would call me mean. However, when you do it, you seem to think it is good. Your worldview is inverted. And you are wasting a good portion of your life in the nasty business of hate. Consider me a friend merely trying to point this out.
Report comment to moderator
17.
Because I like it that way! And I can. Free speech Rocks!!
Report comment to moderator
XION, the difference is, Democrats aren’t demanding that Ensign resign. We didn’t demand the resignations of Sen. Vitter, Sen. Craig, or any of the others, on account of sex.
You’re barking up the wrong tree. Democrats are not out on the hypocrisy limb. After all these threads, you should have learned the correct talking point. As a liberal, I shouldn’t be the one to have to remind you, but I’m a good guy. Listen up:
It’s a virtue of Republicans that they are hypocrites, because they have values that they don’t live by. It’s a vice of Democrats that they avoid hypocrisy, because they lack values that they live by.
Report comment to moderator
The ’solution’ of pagans here, as to the problem of people not keeping to high standards of conduct, is to have no standards at all? That is hardly an improvement.
The great attribute of Christianity properly done is that it gives both exceedingly high standards of conduct and a way to appropriately deal with the inevitable failings of peole to reach those standards.
Report comment to moderator
Well said, KRM.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Not just anti-Christianity… and you know that.
Your Muslim counterparts and Jewish fellow travelers, not to mention some Hindus and even a few Buddhists all are exceptionally good at doing bad in the name of good. Any time the gods take over mens’ minds, they allow themselves liberties with other mens’ freedom and all too often, blood.
But your comments above really do not strike me as those of a serious Christian; equating unfaithfulness in marriage to a bad joke by a professional comedian and suggesting that Dem’s peccadilloes somehow go unnoticed when in fact the last Dem Pres was impeached for such conduct is in my opinion the mark of a partisan not a serious promoter of any god’s word.
And you will note that nobody here on “the other side” is even suggesting that Ensign resign, much less be put on trial…
Report comment to moderator
#21 Scroop It’s a vice of Democrats that they avoid hypocrisy, because they lack values that they live by.
Hmmm. I essentially agree with that. I have said many times that Democrats aren’t held to standards because they don’t espouse any. However, they go ballistic whenever a Republican doesn’t meet their own standards.
Report comment to moderator
For heaven’s sake, KRM, you’re as bad as XION, forgetting your talking points!
Christians are Christians because they’re worse, and need Christ. Secular humanists are unbelievers because they’re ethically superior, maintain good behavior, and don’t need Christ.
I’m just reporting (here and at #21) the conclusions of past WorldMag threads, KRM. Search Marvin Olasky’s commentaries on adultery in politics and divorce among Christians.
Report comment to moderator
“It’s a virtue of Republicans that they are hypocrites, because they have values that they don’t live by. It’s a vice of Democrats that they avoid hypocrisy, because they lack values that they live by.”
Oh please. That is the spin created by the Republican Party during the 1990s when Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Robert Livingstone, Helen Chenoweth etc. were discovered to have committed extramarital affairs after having made Bill Clinton’s behavior their number one political weapon for years.
If there was virtue in being a hypocrite, then the Pharisees were extremely virtuous, weren’t they? Well, there is no virtue in hypocrisy, and evidence of this was when the hypocritical Pharisees rejected Jesus Christ and sent Him to the cross. Meanwhile, the demon – possessed, the prostitutes, the thieves, the tax collectors, the zealots (violent radical subversives who would be classified as terrorists by homeland security) were the ones who had no standards, and they were the ones who accepted Jesus Christ and were saved!
Show me a single instance where the Bible confers any sort of virtue on hypocrites. Quite the contrary, the Bible treats hypocrites worse than almost other sinners! Go to woes against Israel that Jesus Christ pronounced in Luke 10 and other places. He made it clear that the hypocrites in Israel would come under worse judgment than the Gentile pagans. Look at what happened to Jerusalem and the Jewish nation in A.D. 70 and then tell me what great virtue their is in hypocrisy!
It appears that both the “religious left” and the “religious right” cause Christians to ignore and reject what the Bible actually teaches. It is like the ending of Animal Farm, where you can look at all of them in a room and not be able to tell one from the other. This Ensign should resign just as he called Bill Clinton and Larry Craig to, because if Ensign won’t live by his own standards, then why should anyone else?
Report comment to moderator
#24 Arcadia equating unfaithfulness in marriage to a bad joke by a professional comedian
I didn’t equate the two. I praised both for manning up and apologizing.
Report comment to moderator
And of course in the interest of consistency, we can expect Ensign to announce his resignation, given that he called for Bill Clinton to resign in light of his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky …
I would like to see the actual words that Ensign said (i.e. the actual facts, not an interpretation). Clinton actually lied about his affair. In fact, he committed perjury, which is a crime. Here is what Ensign said about Clinton earlier that month.
Rep. John Ensign, R-Nev., thinks President Clinton should resign rather than face possible impeachment.
“I came to that conclusion recently, and frankly it’s because of what he put his whole Cabinet through and what he has put the country through,” Ensign said Thursday, becoming the first member of the Nevada delegation to call for Clinton to quit. “He has no credibility left.”
“Think about it. He sent taxpayer-paid staff out to lie for him, and that is a misuse of office,” Ensign said.
So at least in this case, Ensign focused on the dishonesty.
Sen. Craig was arrested for lewd conduct, and eventually pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, a lesser charge. He had committed a crime and Ensign was right to call for his resignation. (He also called for Ted Stevens to resign, after Stevens’ conviction). Democrats would have been right to do so as well. As for Vitter, he has been neither arrested, charged, nor convicted. As it stands, however, I would prefer that Vitter not run for re-election. I hope some Republican can come in and beat him in the primary. (<a href=”http://draftstormy.com/”Not this Republican, however).
Report comment to moderator
XION #25 — Don’t twist. Democrats go ballistic whenever they get preached at and legislated upon by Republicans who try to impose standards they don’t keep.
Report comment to moderator
What this world needs more of is truth, a gem rarely seen in politics.
Apologizing for one’s faults is coming into the light of truth. Being happy for this is not condoning it.
Report comment to moderator
I would like to hear Xion, AJ and anyone else address this:
#9: And of course in the interest of consistency, we can expect Ensign to announce his resignation, given that he called for Bill Clinton to resign in light of his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky …
#22: The great attribute of Christianity properly done is that it gives both exceedingly high standards of conduct and a way to appropriately deal with the inevitable failings of peole to reach those standards.
#27: Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Robert Livingstone, Helen Chenoweth etc. were discovered to have committed extramarital affairs after having made Bill Clinton’s behavior their number one political weapon for years.
Romans 2:1-3: Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.
But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?
Report comment to moderator
HEALTHELAND #27. I don’t think Marvin Olasky agrees with your critique of hypocrisy. He has spun it as a badge of honor because the hypocrisy depends on the capacity to have values and standards. He suggested that having a moral code is itself a virtue, even if you don’t live up to it. He also suggested that not having a moral code is itself a vice, even if you are a goody two shoes. Others here may have a better memory of the argument, or more flattering words for it, but that’s the basic idea.
Report comment to moderator
This is a shock and a disappointment. I know nothing but what I just read and it sounded like a repentant apology. Whatever happens, coming clean was the right thing to do. And whatever else happens, his family matters more than his political status. Beyond that, Jesus might now say…
“Let those who are without sin cast the first stone.”
But Jesus would ALSO say, “go and sin no more.”
Report comment to moderator
I can just imagine what JM and Xion would have said if Clinton had said, “Yes, she really did look good in that blue dress that evening. We were working late and that closeness put me into a situation which led to my inappropriate behavior“.
I’m sure JM’s would have read exactly the same as his in #34 above.
“repentant apology”
“right thing to do”
“let those who…”
“family matters more”
Would all have featured prominently…right??
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Uhh, I believe I already did in #18.
“But if he was to live up to the standards he himself has set for others, he would resign. I won’t hold my breath. He is a politican after all. Just being realistic.”
If he is to live up to his own standards, he must resign. Hope that clears it up for ya.
Scroop is kinda right though. If you have no standards, they can’t hold you to any. But if you do have standards, you can, and should, be held to them. It’s what seperates us from the godless masses. Yes it’s hard, but it is necessary.
Report comment to moderator
MATT Y: In fact, he committed perjury, which is a crime.
Our best customs don’t permit us to say that, because Bill Clinton was not convicted of perjury, despite a vast quantity of legal process and an impeachment trial. He was not indicted for perjury.
Although he was impeached for perjury, Republicans never tried to make their case for perjury, because they didn’t want to repeat the words that they believed were perjury. The words sounded too silly for a momentous proceeding. And of course the Senate acquitted.
We can say that a Judge held Clinton in contempt of court for false testimony in a deposition, but that did not amount to perjury, because the statements weren’t material to the lawsuit (which was dismissed). Not all lying is perjury.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: I’m not sure what you’re looking for.
But as for your first quote (from #9), I gave my thoughts on that in #29.
Regarding the four people you mentioned, if they did use Clinton’s extramarital affairs in the way you describe, I agree that they are hypocrites. (Oh dear. Have I judged them now?)
In response to your question on this quote,
The great attribute of Christianity properly done is that it gives both exceedingly high standards of conduct and a way to appropriately deal with the inevitable failings of peole to reach those standards.
…again, I’m not sure what you’re looking for. Failing to reach those high standards is sin. “All unrighteousness is sin.” Only the blood of Jesus can wash away sins, and it is only through receiving Him that we can be forgiven.
“Judge not” is one of those high standards. Also, it is possible to violate that command by judging someone for judging someone else. I doubt that anyone has never been guilty of judgmentalism.
Pointing out sin and calling people to repentance is not judgmentalism. Judgmentalism is to point out someone else’s sin while ignoring my own. It is to condemn someone else’s sin without recognizing/noticing my own sin, or without being willing to correct my own faults.
A caution: This does not mean that one has to issue a hurried caveat every time (”But I am also a sinner”). One just needs to be personally aware of his own sinfulness and open to correction. Also, it may happen that someone comes across as holier-than-thou without actually being judgmental in his heart. This can be due to miscommunication on the one person’s part and misunderstanding on the other’s part.
Just my two cents. Or, since it’s a long post, six cents. Or whatever.
Report comment to moderator
AJ: No, you really didn’t. You did say that he should abide by his own standards and resign, but you didn’t address Paul’s indictment of condemning others for things you do yourself. It’s not (for Paul) a matter of whether you’re willing to do what you recommended someone else do; it’s a matter of whether you commit the same acts you criticize in others.
I happen to think Jesus was pretty serious when he admonished people to judge not, lest they be judged. Our political scene is far too often a weird circus of people condemning others in the harshest ways possible and when they get caught doing the exact same thing, try to find some rationalization, however thin, to claim it’s somehow different. And their partisan fans are often all too willing to pretend to believe them, principle be damned.
The snarky “Well if he were a Democrat he’d be praised for his affair” comment are very very mild examples of what I’m talking about. Why do we immediately divide into polarized sides and start accusing the other side of the worst things we can think of every single time we have the slightest excuse to do so?
I think it’s a symptom of a pretty serious moral sickness that Christians are not immune from.
Report comment to moderator
#39 SteveG The snarky “Well if he were a Democrat he’d be praised for his affair” comment are very very mild examples of what I’m talking about.
That is merely pointing out the double standard. Democrats are held to a different standard, namely none. Scroop gave one reason why this is.
But no conservative here is holding Ensign to a different standard. We aren’t condoning his sin. We’ve pointed out that admitting it is better than lying about it. Isn’t that true? Ensign is a hypocrite for accusing others for what he himself has done. Who is rationalizing about that?
No liberal here would ask another Democrat to resign for adultery. No liberal asked Clinton to resign. He became more popular than ever. Kennedy kills a girl and Frank’s male prostitute runs a prostitution ring out of his house and it really doesn’t matter. Frank had a conflict of interest love affair for a decade with a Fannie Mae executive that played a major role in the banking crisis and he is elevated to a position of authority.
And Obama isn’t held to any standards whatsoever. Nor does he hold anyone else accountable for anything. He sends terrorists to tropical islands at taxpayer expense. Liberals exempt themselves from any moral standards while simultaneously judging conservatives. Napolitano has declared that merely being Republican means you are a potential threat to America.
As for what Jesus said about judging, he warned that people would hold you to your own standards. Isn’t that what is happening (at least to conservatives)?
Report comment to moderator
The wife and his constituents are the only ones who can execute any type of judgmt on this man.
Sen Vitter’s wife finally decided that she’d rather enjoy the high life in Georgetown even as the cheated-upon Senator’s wife than head back to Apalousas or Shreveport/Bossier. She had made great statemts during the Lewinski scandal about how SHE’D react to infidelity on her husband’s part.
If I’m not mistaken, even Gary Hart’s wife is still at his side despite the infamous “Monkey Business” and his imploded but promising prez candidacy.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP MOTH:
“I don’t think Marvin Olasky agrees with your critique of hypocrisy.”
Who are you obeying? Marvin Olasky or the Bible? You just keep ignoring what the Bible plainly says about hypocrisy, and on the day of the great white throne judgment when God decides who are the obedient sheep that inherit eternal life and who are the disobedient goats that get cast into eternal flame (and yes, Jesus Christ explicitly stated that the disobedient goats are professing Christians with “good values”), you tell the Lord, Ruler and Judge what Marvin Olasky said about hypocrisy, and see how far it gets you.
Go run a search on “hypocrisy” and “hypocrite” on any Bible website. Depending on the translation (I used the King James Version) and you will get about 37 results. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE SCRIPTURES GIVES ANY MERIT OR VIRTUE TO HYPOCRISY. THEY ALL CALL HYPOCRISY SIN AND HYPOCRITES SINNERS. Being a hypocrite is no better than being a pro-abortion pro-homosexual liberal. As a matter of fact, it is worse. Why? Because being pro-abortion and pro-homosexual is merely what you believe. It is not how you behave, what you are! For instance, Nancy Pelosi is pro-abortion and pro-homosexual. Yet the woman has been married to the same man for decades and has five kids. So she has never had an abortion, nor is she homosexual. She just advocates others who engage in those sins. But if you are a hypocrite, you are not just advocating the sins of others, as Pelosi is in the case of abortion and homosexuality. That is a sin that you personally individually commit.
And going back to the Bible, the apostle Paul in Galatians 2:13 stated that the apostle Peter committed hypocrisy (although the KJV uses another word, the newer translations like the NASB calls it hypocrisy) and that people were harmed by it. So if an apostle of Jesus Christ was denounced and rebuked in Holy Spirit inspired, infallible Bible which is the final authority for hypocrisy, and if scripture says that hypocrisy is a sin, and if Jesus Christ was never a hypocrite at any time, what gives Olasky, you, or anyone else the right to say that there is any virtue in it whatsoever?
Also, the whole conceit isn’t true anyway. Democrats are big time hypocrites too, just on other sets of issues. It isn’t that they don’t have “values”, it is that their “values” are different from yours, and when they betray those values they are being every bit as hypocritical, which means every bit as sinful.
So this is all Phariseeism. It is teaching the doctrines of men as if they were the commandments of God, and it is judging by external and man made standards. Either way, it is a form of godliness that denies its power. And enough with this “at least he admitted his behavior.” Lots of people with “bad values” admit their behavior. Does Barney Frank hide being homosexual? This is about Ensign setting standards for others that he has no intention of following himself.
Report comment to moderator
XION:
“We aren’t condoning his sin. We’ve pointed out that admitting it is better than lying about it. Isn’t that true?”
Read more about the story. “Ensign had the affair, from December 2007 to August 2008.” So … why didn’t he acknowledge the affair in 2008, or any point up until now? Well, here is the reason. “A Washington source said Ensign decided to announce the affair after he was approached by the husband of the woman involved. The man asked Ensign for a ’substantial’ amount of money with the implication it would buy the couple’s continued silence, according to the source.” This is according to http://www.lvrj.com/news/48240252.html and many other sources. So, no, this wasn’t just between Ensign, Ensign’s wife, and the other woman. This other woman had a HUSBAND, who was a FRIEND and SUPPORTER of Ensign, and their marriage will now very likely end in divorce. So much for being “pro-marriage” and “pro-family.”
So, Ensign only came clean in order to save a little bit of money. And keep in mind: Bill Clinton refused to come clean about his adultery for the same reason. He was being sued for a good bit of money in a sexual harassment lawsuit by Paula Jones. Paula Jones made his behavior towards and treatment of women a major part of her case against Clinton, and acknowledging a series of extramarital affairs would have made Jones’ case for her. But after he could no longer deny his adulteries that Jones was basing her case on, Clinton went ahead and paid Jones a large amount of money to settle the case. So Ensign’s motives were the same as Clinton’s: money. Also, by publicly depicting it as a consensual sexual relationship, he insulates himself from sexual harassment charges. Otherwise, the woman in this case could claim that Ensign exploited his position of power over her as her employer to coerce her into a sexual relationship, and that Ensign fired both her and her husband when she broke it off.
What powerful men LIKE ENSIGN learned from the Clinton case is that the best way to salvage your political career and inoculate yourself from lawsuits and other shakedown attempts is to admit the extramarital affair as soon as it becomes a problem and before the media or the other woman exposes you. It is 3 years before the next electoral cycle, and most people will have forgotten. So in terms of politics, adultery doesn’t cost you anything. But blackmail costs you a lot of money, and sexual harassment lawsuits cost you both money (even if you win you still have legal feeds into the hundreds of thousands) and can end your political career.
Report comment to moderator
If I was his pastor, I might indeed advise him to resign his leadership position. I often said the same thing about Bill Clinton. With Clinton, I always called for keeping the door open for his forgiveness, but that the fact remained that a profound trust was broken. Forgiveness for a leader an be given by citizens who AT THE SAME TIME hold for his resignation from a high office of leadership. I was for forgiving Bill Clinton while advocating for his removal from his high office of trust as a leader. Forgiveness does not entitle us to keep a leadership role.
Report comment to moderator
I recognize that conservative Republicans should be held to a higher moral standard. After all, they claim to have a higher moral standard for living faithfully.
Perhaps we should withdraw support for Republicans who betray our trust this way and thus erode whatever effective loyal opposition there remains in congress so that we can go ahead and enforce more government control over the means of production and service in America (the classic road to definitional fascism; which the Obama-ACORN administration is gradually but clearly taking us down), and increase taxation, borrowing and gov’t spending without restraint or opposition.
Perhaps we deserve this. Perhaps, America must re-learn the lessons our Founders taught us the hard way.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark:
Both parties have been taking us on the road to fascism. Benito Mussolini called fascism “the corporatization of government power.” Unless your position is that one of the leading advocates of fascism in history was wrong about his own movement, neoconservatism with their embrace of corporate welfare, no-bid contracts to friend and cronies, and huge transfers of taxpayer dollars to politically connected friends and contributors, and widespread corruption is very much fascist. How often do conservatives criticize the $800 dollar hammers and $2000 toilet seats and other excesses in defense spending during the Reagan administration, or the outright fraud, graft and corruption with Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, Blackwater, and other contractors in Iraq and New Orleans? Or Haley Barbour taking government money that was supposed to be used to help rebuild homes after Hurricane Katrina and giving it to a company that runs Mississippi ports?
And that is just domestic stuff. The truth is that both parties are in up to their necks with financial and political globalism: the international bankers, global corporations, the multinational NGOs, etc. But folks only pay attention when the other side does it, not when their own side does it. Like the folks going nuts over Obama’s entreaties to the Muslim world. Never mind that Bush claimed that Christians also worship the Muslim moon god, called Islam a religion of peace, enforced much political correctness towards Muslims, and also pushed very hard for a Palestinian state . It was pressure from the Bush administration that caused Sharon to pull out of Gaza, and Bush also tried to get Israel and the Palestinians to work together to establish a two state solution by 2007. Bush also let China into the WTO, was promoting international trade agreements right and left, and tried to use the financial meltdown as an excuse to create a global financial board with authority over securities and commodities trading and banking. Bush even endorsed a cap and trade system for “global warming” that would place the world economies under a single regulatory policy the last two years of his office. This, of course, built upon his father’s signing the Clean Air Act, which opened the door to regulating carbon emissions in the first place.
So why prefer one side over the other when both are wicked? And don’t talk about abortion: Ronald Reagan put two pro-abortion judges on the Supreme Court, and George W. Bush stated plenty of times that – just like his father – he opposed overturning Roe v. Wade. Bush put PLENTY of pro-abortion judges on the circuit and appeals court levels.
Report comment to moderator
HEALTHELAND #43 incorrectly assumes that I’m obedient. I categorically deny it. I never have been, am not, and with God’s help never will be.
Report comment to moderator
Well, there is my three prong test for these matters:
All men are alike.
If men were smart, they’d be women.
If you don’t expect much, you won’t be disappointed when you don’t get it.
Report comment to moderator
#48 NJL – sounds like you should find yourself a nice woman and settle down…
Report comment to moderator
My three-prong test:
* All men are NOT alike. That is as true a statement as humanly possible. So is, all women are NOT alike.
* If men were smart, they would keep their promises; thus more richly sharing mutual happiness with the woman they love and need.
* Love hurts. If you love, expect to be disappointed. But forgiveness is the key to relationships. God showed that to us so we could show it to each other.
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t it sad that President Clinton is the standard by which we will hereafter judge the conduct of other politicians?
If all Ensign did was fall in love with a woman in his circle of friends, I would not be quick to compare it to Clinton’s actions with Monica and the other young ladies. It is still wrong, and Ensign is right for admitting that it is wrong, but it is not quite in the same league as what the former president did.
I always felt that what Clinton did was more sleazy than just cheating on his wife because he used his position of power to take advantage of people who were well below him in status. Although an affair between two relative equals is wrong, somehow it doesn’t seem as “dirty” as a middle-aged man exploiting (or worse) a young woman who works for him.
Report comment to moderator
#46, Healtheland wrote; “Both parties have been taking us on the road to fascism.”
I’m not sure this is fair-minded, but to whatever degree it is, this could not happen without the support of the American people (who do and think pretty much whatever our media tell them to do and think). So, don’t just get mad at the “parties” when the problem is the voters and the national mindset that makes thses trends possible.
Your use of the term “neoconservatism” minimizes your credibility in my mind. It’s like you are not thinking for yourself. That’s just my impression. You seem to be overly focused on political ‘labels’ rather than objectively handling the trends and issues over which you are concerned.
You seem to be hung up on media talking points about selected groups or events like Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, Blackwater, and other contractors in Iraq and New Orleans. This seems a bit like political hobby-horses on your part.
That said, some of your points have merit. This is just my feedback, for what it’s worth to you.
You wrote; “And don’t talk about abortion…”
I didn’t. What’s bugging you so much, Healtheland? You seem wound far too tight, and seem to need a vacation from the news or something.
Report comment to moderator
#48
NJL,
For accuracy, I’d have to vote with JM on this one. But your description is often the prevailing attitude in family court. Ignore Scroop, go for a judgeship in that wretched institution instead.
Report comment to moderator
I see Mr. Ensign has resigned his leadership position (chairman of the Republican Policy Committee).
A good start, Mr. Ensign. Now go all the way (pun intended?) and resign from the Senate. You know it’s the honorable thing to do.
Report comment to moderator
As if a young woman can’t exploit — with the best of them.
Report comment to moderator
#48: Wow. Not too insulting.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: I just grinned and took it as a joke.
Report comment to moderator
“#48 NJL – sounds like you should find yourself a nice woman and settle down…”
LOL! It sure does sound that way, dudnit?
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK:
“This seems a bit like political hobby-horses on your part.”
Even if I did, precisely how that is different from the selective outrage of conservatives? I hold both parties to the same standards, and both are found wanting.
“Your use of the term “neoconservatism” minimizes your credibility in my mind.”
Because I can tell the difference between neoconservatives (who are globalists) and paleoconservatives (who support nation – state sovereignty)? Or neoliberals (who are globalists) and paleoliberals) (who try to put American workers first)? Look, the globalists control both parties, and for both parties the globalist agenda is much more important than any issue that you care about.
And I doubt that I read the news any more than you do. It is just that I choose not to filter it. When both sides promote the same policies, you judge them according to which side they on. Well, I judge them according to the policies that they are promoting.
Report comment to moderator
HEALTHE LAND; thank you for your reply.
That both parties are imperfect and “found wanting” is a given. What else is new? But that one party (the Democrat Party, in my view) is far more damaging and inrresponsible is clear from my perspective. Many disagree, I realize. But it is not intellectually credible to just be equally mad at both of them. That is letting emotion trump careful thinking. They ARE different and a fair-minded person is able to take a side even though that side may be quite impoerfect.
Sometimes I feel more respect for someone on the whole other side from me than someone who just lumps both sides into a blender to stay mad at both.
HEALTHELAND, if you think “both sides promote the same policies,” then you are simply not paying attention. Be a critical thinker, not a critical person.
___________
“Neoconservative” is just a talking point label that no real people actually claim or identify with. It is usually used irresponsibly.
HEALTHELAND, be part of the healing!
Report comment to moderator
“…you judge them according to which side they on. Well, I judge them according to the policies that they are promoting.”
You have misjudged my judgment. Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to be minimizing or blendig away the distinctions between the sides (you write such things as; “Both parties have been taking us on the road to fascism.”). That seems more cynical and angry than accurate. I merely recognize ditinctions between them and their policies, and I think the differences are important.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark is living in the past.
The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, Irving Kristol, is considered a founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.’”[5] His ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[12] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled “The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy”.[13][14] Kristol’s son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.
Report comment to moderator
GOPosaur?
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A:
Isn’t it sad that President Clinton is the standard by which we will hereafter judge the conduct of other politicians?
Explain again, what does this have to do with Ensign, except that he demanded Clinton’s resignation?
Although an affair between two relative equals is wrong, somehow it doesn’t seem as “dirty” as a middle-aged man exploiting (or worse) a young woman who works for him.
The reason it doesn’t seem “dirty” like Clinton is that at WorldMag we can’t use a transitive verb to say what Ensign did to the wife of one of his employees. But I’ll do my best: Explain why you think transitiving your worker’s wife is less dirty than having your ship of state sunk by loose lips. Please, kiss me on the monica. Please, spare us your outrage over Monica’s youth. You obviously care more about sentimental notions of innocence than you do about someone’s family.
Bossing an employee while cuckolding him isn’t the kind of personal interaction I’d care to maintain, not just due to the deception that may be required, but because of the farce that must be endured. Occasional fallatio (with or without a perjurious touching of the breasts) seems wholesome by comparison.
Ensign paid the woman to have sex with him, by doubling her two salaries during the term he was making her the object of a transitive verb. But that’s not all. He put her 19-year old son on the payroll.
If you’re really concerned about our youths, KYLE, you should wonder what it feels like to get money from Mom and Dad’s boss while he’s making Mom the object of a transitive verb.
And why do y’all fall for phony confessions? Ensign didn’t come clean, he was busted. He either was being blackmailed or was about to read his ex’s story in the papers.
What I’m saying is, stop trying to turn this episode of your Republican soap opera into another lesson about the moral deficiencies of liberals.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t try to defend him by comparisons to Clinton: Ensign’s out, though he may be permitted back in the game after being suitably rehabilitated in the time-out corner.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!