Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Eliot Spitzer and John Edwards - both inmates in the Gary Hart Wing

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:38 PM
Original message
Eliot Spitzer and John Edwards - both inmates in the Gary Hart Wing
Of morally flawed Democrats. Two potentially great leaders taken down due to personal peccadilloes that will never be forgiven or forgotten. I mourn their loss and ours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. They could both start over and rebuild themselves.
The starting point is forgetting everything except being a good husband and father. They need to give up their public life, give up their ego, and surrender to the idea that their wife, not them, should be the family's focal point for a while. They both sucker punched the women who were devoted to them and their careers.

First, win back the wife and kids. Then get right with the world. THEN talk to me about being someone in politics again. First the obvious repentance and redirection, then the second chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I really think it's over for them, politically. They will still be very wealthy lawyers, tho.
So don't cry for them, Argentina.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwheeler31 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. The creepy guy .the felon.the loon. all protected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. Only Republicans can do that
An affair tends to be the Kiss of Death for Democratic politicians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Bill Clinton proves you're wrong about that.
That was him I saw on television in 1992 with his wife, pleading for mercy, wasn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. I think Clinton's bubba personality helped him there, I don't
think most people viewed him as pure as the driven snow and weren't that surprised or let down.JFK certainly hasn't lost his luster as an American icon even though the people know he was a serial cheater.I think Edwards lost the battle mainly because he was cheating on a sick wife,which rubs people the wrong way.That being said,I wish we could look past a person's love life and focus on their talents as leaders and politicians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwheeler31 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. David vitter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. Vitter got a standing ovation from his Republic colleagues
when he returned to the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalmuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's stupid.
Why can't we be more like France in this respect?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. At least Spitzer chose a
good lookin' one. I'm still trying to figure out where Edwards' head was at. It's bad enough he cheated on his lovely, seriously ill wife, but with that woman!? Please! John! Get your four-hundred dollar haircut head out of your ass!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
7. I think every politician should be required to post at least
one public photo set of them hosting an orgy and taking on all comers.

That way the lurid speculation and frank lust can be worked through early, and the average fitness level of politicians would improve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
8. It's all a bit arbitrary, but the way they handled things doomed them...
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 11:14 PM by liberalpragmatist
Spitzer's scandal was sort of the straw that broke the camel's back. As popular and dominant as he was when he was NY AG, he was a disaster in his year as governor. By the time the scandal broke, he had alienated all his potential allies in the legislature, his legislative agenda seemed dead, and his approval ratings were in the 30s.

Had he been more popular at the time and if he'd had allies to back him up, he very well may have survived the scandal.

Edwards' story is a little more complicated. Part of what hurt him was simply the heartlessness of it all -- cheating on your terminally ill wife? The fact that it happens all the time doesn't make it any more sympathetic. And yes, McCain cheated on his first wife who had been grossly disfigured in an accident -- but the fact that it happened 30 years ago makes people willing to consider it water under the bridge (for better or worse).

The other problem for Edwards was the whole cover-up aspect and the fact that there may well have been a child involved. If, as Edwards claims, the affair had ended in 2006, he may still have been able to remain a viable presidential contender and active in politics had he fessed up to it prior to declaring. Yes, it would have given him a short-term hit, but people seem to value contrition. Part of the reason Bill Clinton survived in the '92 primaries was his indirect admission (with Hillary beside him) that he had caused "pain" in his marriage. And David Paterson in NY hasn't been hurt one bit by his revelations of multiple affairs -- he admitted them up front and people were fairly forgiving.

In Edwards' case, people were pissed because aside from the whole heartlessness of it all, he had covered it up, knowing it would cause a huge scandal if he had been nominated. That would have destroyed the Democrats' chances of winning the election.

Another factor for Edwards was the perception that he wasn't telling the truth even after he admitted to the affair. If the affair ended in 2006, why was she still on his staff and on his payroll in 2007? And why did he visit her in Los Angeles in July? And why did Rielle Hunter move in with the "alleged" father of her son and his wife? (That would have been more than a little bizarre.)

Lastly, there's also just the fact that neither Edwards nor Spitzer were at the top of the totem pole. Clinton managed to survive partly because he has tremendous political skills. But it was also because he was president -- and given the increased importance of the position, there's a much higher threshold for removing or impeaching a president.

What was Edwards, at the end of it? An out-of-office, former one-term senator, two-time failed presidential candidate, and one-time failed vice-presidential candidate. Though his advocacy on behalf of ending poverty is admirable, there was nothing in his public service record for him to really fall back on.

I feel bad for him -- he made a mistake and I don't doubt his sincerity when it comes to his views on poverty. But he really has nobody to blame but himself.

Oh, as for Gary Hart: that was purely because he handled the fallout abysmally. The scandal really was fairly minor -- had he not goaded the press into falling him around, given them photos that were too good to be true, and then lashed out at them, he could have survived the episode.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shimmergal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. I agree with your lead sentence
and much of the rest of this post.

Edwards' manner of "coming clean" left a lot of unanswered questions. And a lot of his supporters feeling very betrayed. After all, some of us were still hoping he'd be in line for a cabinet position or etc. And by his awkward half-truths (or worse) he smashed those possibilities too. I'm sure in his law practice he wouldn't have let a client act so evasive!

Although certainly I hope he makes things right with Elizabeth and their children, he also needs to make some show of public penance. Sooner better than later, if he hopes to have _any_ future in the public arena. The affair was understandable, given the pressures he surely was under. His "after-affair" cageyness and denials aren't. If he thinks just not talking about it--as at his one recent public appearance--is going to work, it won't. If anyone who has his ear still reads DU, I hope they'll clue him in!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
9. I would make Spitzer, Deputy Attorney General
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Me too. He dug his own grave..
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
ad_icon

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer is governor of New York.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
11. Not to stir anything, but when was John E. a great leader?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
12. Spitzer really made my head spin. Damn, what a disappointment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tumbulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
13. I think all this to do about these affairs is ridiculous
the wrong wings kills, tortures, can't speak correctly, etc etc and their people just champion their faults as pluses. Why don't we do that as well?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 05:11 AM
Response to Original message
15. I seem them both as little more than giant phonies
who got what was coming to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 06:17 AM
Response to Original message
16. I don't feel sorry for Spitzer
He prosecuted people for prostitution. His hypocrisy of prosecuting people for an activity he was engaging was unforgivable. Its one thing to engage in activities its highly another to engage in them and send people to jail while your involved in that activity. I don't really care he saw a prostitute..its one of those activities that might reduce crime and disease if it was highly regulated and taxed...its the fact he thought the activity was dangerous enough to take away people's liberties for and than he did it himself.

Edwards and Gary Hart did what a good portion of the public does. They cheated. That is between them and their wives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. I really believed that Eliot Spitzer was the new Teddy Roosevelt
when he was AG of New York.I saw him as a major player in the future. I agree with you about the hypocrisy in prosecuting Prostitutes and I also agree it is unforgivable. He's just done as far as I am concerned, but I do see it as a great loss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. If his character was such
that he could engage in such outright hypocrisy...I'm glad we found out now before he gained more power.

I'm all for human failings but that kind of hypocrisy shows an arrogance that should never be allowed near public office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
D-Lee Donating Member (457 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
21. Well, up front admission of affairs worked for NY Gov Patterson
So, might be worth pondering alternate approaches that work for politicians if the matter is "old news" ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
23. Edward's loss? A phony hypocrite?
While many like to pretend that Edwards was 'taken down' by an affair, and imply that the prudish public should be more forgiving, I'd have to say he brought himself down due to lies and hypocrisy.
The whole thing skips the vital point that Edwards pontificated against equal rights for GLBT people (me) on the basis of marriage being 'sacred' and because of his 'Southern Baptist roots'. He took many occasions during his affair to object to my rights on the basis that his marriage was a holy thing to him. He stood there and said that bullshit, of his own free will, as a way to distract from his own amorality by pointing fingers at MY morality. There is simply no rationalization for that.
Dang, he could have all the women he'd like, let his freak flag fly. He did not do that. He is not some hip dude rejected by a prudish public. He's a liar and sexual hypocrite, whose public face has been a prude attacking others.
Edwards should stay at home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. I completely understand your point and don't disagree with it.
The thing I found valuable with Edwards is that he spoke the truth about 2 Americas and he wasn't afraid to say the P word - Poverty which is completely overlooked and underdiscussed. I liked his populism which was co-opted later by just about everyone and I also liked his stance of being adversarial when necessary.

I saw an ad or a clip the other day which showed all the initial Dem candidates walking together towards the camera and I remember being so proud of the entire group back then. But now I see John Edwards and I just think ugh! because Elizabeth was one of his greatest strengths and he behaved so disgracefully. I agree that he's done for good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. he spoke the truth and lived a lie. his disgusting hedge fund activities
his fucking 24,000 sq ft energy hog house. his cutting the support of anti-poverty and scholarship programs, the minute he dropped out. the fat fees he charges for talking about poverty. his sucky votes in the Senate.

He was a fucking scam artist. screw him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
25. Edwards a potentially great leader? Gimme a break
The guy was as phony as they come and long before he was busted with his affair. The only thing that got Edwards as far as he got was that he was a gifted orator, a con-artist extraordinaire. The writing should have been on the wall for anyone who followed him from his years in the Senate when he was one of the most conservative Democratic senators in the business to his run in the Primary when he conveniently changed his image to suck up to the base. I can't believe how many people were bamboozled by that fraud. People's candidate my ass. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 04:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC