More on Sen. John Ensign ....(sm)

Interestingly, not only did this guy have an affair, but he had an affair with an employee of his. During the time of the affair her salary doubled, and her 19-year-old son also managed to get on the payroll. When the affair ended, her salary went back to the normal rate. That little increase was paid for by you and me via tax dollars.

So, how do you guys feel about paying for his affair? Isn't there a word for it when sexual favors are bought? LOL.

It has now been reported that he's coming clean about the affair because the girl he was having an affair with and her husband (also an employee) threatened blackmail. But that was yesterday. Now there is a new little twist. See link.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

This is "very damaging stuff," Sanford declared at one point, when details of Clinton's conduct became known. "I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign)... I come from the business side," he said. "If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he'd be gone."

Explaining his decision to back impeachment articles against Clinton, he added, "I think what he did in this matter was reprehensible... I feel very comfortable with my vote."

Analysis: Ensign affair a shock GOP didn't need

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writer Wed Jun 17, 6:27 pm ET

WASHINGTON � It's just about the last thing the beleaguered Republican Party needed: a Christian conservative with national aspirations admitting to an extramarital affair with an ex-staffer.

Add Nevada Sen. John Ensign's infidelity admission to an ever-growing list of woes for the out-of-power GOP.

One senator's predicament hardly condemns an entire party. But the episode is an unwelcome distraction as the Republicans, their ranks shrinking, seek a turnaround after disastrous losses in consecutive national elections.

Since President Barack Obama took office, Republicans have struggled to counter his popularity and the Democrats' command of Congress.

The GOP's new national chairman, Michael Steele, got off to a rocky start. Moderate Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter defected to the Democrats. And Democrat AL Franken is favored to eventually be declared the winner of the disputed Minnesota Senate race over incumbent GOP Sen. Norm Coleman.

Now this.

"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," Ensign said Tuesday at a hastily arranged news conference in Sin City itself, Las Vegas.

He didn't name the woman, but Cindy Hampton came forward later to say through an attorney that she regretted Ensign's decision to "air this very personal matter." Federal records showed that she was on his political payroll and received a promotion and a pay raise around the time he said the affair began in late 2007.

There also was a report of a previous affair, in 2002, an indication that the drip, drip of dalliance details may only just be beginning.

On Wednesday, as fellow senators remained mum, Ensign resigned his leadership post. The skilled communicator and proven fundraiser was the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, the No. 4 Senate Republican.

Until his admission, Ensign was trying to raise his national profile. Popular in Nevada though virtually unknown elsewhere, he recently flirted with a 2012 presidential run, visiting the early voting state of Iowa and refusing to tamp down speculation of a bid.

Those dreams now seem dead.

Said Scott Reed, a Republican operative in Washington: "It's a setback for the GOP in that Ensign is an attractive Republican politician who has national potential but has probably been sidelined."

There is no shortage of ambitious Republicans angling to be the fresh face of a party that many voters consider stale. Yet, other prospects also seem to be falling out of favor.

Stunting one potential threat, Obama recently named a GOP rising star with White House interest � Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman � as the U.S. ambassador to China. Another Republican hopeful, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, has asked supporters to end efforts to draft him for a presidential run.

The 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, seems to be tangled in a new controversy every week. One week, it was an embarrassing high-profile back-and-forth with GOP House and Senate leaders over her attendance at a fundraising dinner. The next, she went after comedian David Letterman.

That said, there are others methodically positioning themselves to lead the GOP � and perhaps be the 2012 nominee. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty opted against running for a third term; confidants believe he'll run for president. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is fundraising for GOP candidates and criticizing Obama in anticipation of another campaign.

But the GOP is having trouble turning the page on the George W. Bush era. Polls show that it's the old-timers touting years-old messages � former Vice President Dick Cheney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich � who are identified the most as party leaders.

Since Obama won the White House and Democrats padded their House and Senate majorities last fall, Republicans have struggled to consistently challenge the new president. He's rolled out a bold agenda and is racking up successes. Republicans recently have seized on his sweeping government expansion and giant price tags. But, with fewer numbers in Congress and no singular leader, the GOP's ability to do anything more than gripe is limited.

Then there are the party's structural and philosophical problems. Polls show a dwindling percentage of people consider themselves Republican and the GOP has lost its grip on every part of the country but the South. It's obvious the GOP needs to attract new loyalists. But the party is in the midst of a family feud over whether to return to conservative roots or moderate its pitch to recruit a wider membership.

Sex scandals don't help, particularly for a party that's weathered its share in recent years and that's made up of staunch social conservatives who preach morality. They include Ensign, who is a member of the men's Christian ministry Promise Keepers, which calls itself committed to building strong marriages.

Over the past two years, Senate Republicans watched Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho plead guilty to charges in connection with an airport bathroom sex sting with a male undercover officer and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter apologize for a "very serious sin in my past" after his Washington phone number was discovered among those called by an escort service suspected of prostitution.

Electorally, the GOP's situation in the Senate has been disastrous; Republicans lost no less than a dozen seats in 2006 and 2008, when Ensign was in charge of electing GOP senators. And, 2010 is shaping up to be another tough year, with a wave of open seats Republicans must defend because of retirements.

House Republicans, too, sustained back-to-back shellackings. But the GOP has reasonable expectations of gaining seats there next fall; even Democrats say some of their members are in reliably Republican districts.

The GOP hopes its resurgence begins this fall by retaking governorships in Virginia and New Jersey � and even Democrats say they have a shot.

The party has plenty of revival plans. Barring more unpleasant surprises.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE � Liz Sidoti has covered national politics for The Associated Press since 2003.

I could feel a little sorry for him if he were not so mean and willing to do anything to win. For pete sake, he is 72 years old. he has few years left. He has a lovely family and many great homes. Whey does he not enjoy his final years getting to know his children? He was in Washington and only went home on the weekends. Sometimes we just have to realize that we are not going to achieve a dream. I have accepted I will never be a naturally thin person. It took 30 years, but I know it now. He has been honored for his service and had many years in Washington. he is putting so much wear and tear on his aging body with the physical demands of campaigning. He is doing damage to his cardiovascular system with the seething anger and contempt. If my grandfather at age 72 decided to run for mayor, I would say come on grandpa, that is ridiculous..

At 72 he still has quite a few years left, God willing. AND, he has more experience than Obama will ever have. He knows more about foreign policy, war, economy, everything than Obama will ever know. Obama with 143 days experience? He can't even talk without a teleprompter.

   You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.

    You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.

   You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.

   You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience.

   You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.

Finally spoke up for the American people. Only time will tell if it was soon enough. I hope it was. You showed us all that you care about us. You showed us you don't believe in socialism (redistribution of wealth). You validated our beliefs that you will fight for what is right for all Americans. You pointed out Obama's unfortunate beliefs and the people he associates with, the health care system he plans to socialize, the increased taxes, the slick lawyer talk. You reminded us that Biden was wrong in a lot of his votes and that most of the time Obama didn't even vote (called present). You showed us that despite the many socialist liberals in the country Obama is not the right person for the job.

I don't care what you look like John. I don't care that you can't "slick talk" us all. I don't care that you don't have a full head of hair and that you can't lift your arms above your head. I don't care that you can't play basketball well and look impeccable in a suit. What I do care about are your policies and your beliefs and how that will affect my life. So you may not be the prettiest of the bunch, but I know that a lot of people who say they don't care that Obama is a black man and continue to point out that they are not racists, are the same bunch that will point out that your not nice looking like Obama is.

So knowing that you have the American people's best interest at heart, and you care more about the people than your campaign. You fight to the end (and so does your running mate) for us because you believe it is the right thing to do.

*Voted to allow companies to cut and eliminate pensions for their long-term employees.

*Voted to weaken OSHA and workplace regulations designed to prevent injuries on the job.

*Voted to allow employers to hire permanent replacements during a strike (S.55) 7/13/94.

*Voted against granting collective bargaining rights for state and local police andfirefighters (H.R. 3061) 11/6/01.

*Voted against granting collective b argaining rights for TSA screeners (S.4) 3/7/07.

*Keating-5: Federal regulators wanted to seize control of the failed Lincoln Savings & Loan Association but McCain intervented to try to prevent that from happening.

*McCain claims he paid for the Keating for the flights to his private home in the Bahamas, but he conveniently could not produce the receipts. Keating donated $112,000 to McCain's campaigns for the House and then the Senate.

*His current campaign for president is essentially run by lobbyists with close ties to big oil companies, Fannie Mae, UBS and Blackwater. FedEx Corp, founder and CEO, Fred Smith is a close friend who Mccain views as a perfect candidate for U.S. Secretary of Defense.

*McCain voted to give tax breaks to companies that send American jobs overseas. He voted against overtime pay, against Davis-Bacon protections and against extending unemployment insurance.

* "I-the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed," McCain said on Meet the Press onJune 15, 2005. "And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement nad support of President Bush."

*McCain mirrors Bush in another important way: his indifference to the plight of Americans who fall victim to disaster. He voted twice against creating a commission to investigate the botched response to Hurricane Katrina--and later he said he voted for every investigation into Katrina's aftermath.

*McCain is the staunchest advocate fo free trade in the U.S. Senate. He voted for every disastrous free-trade agreement since NAFTA. He strongly supports a trade deal with Colombia. He's a leader in the effort to open the border to dangerous trucks from Mexico.

Just a note about Palin's Wasilla Police Department. Their employees voted 29-9 to join the Teamsters Local 959 by a vote of 29-9. The election was recently certified.

How any serious middle class American worker can vote for this man is beyond me.

McCain's body language just is not right.
McCain always comes across as poisonous, ready to explode. His eyes were almost popping out of his head.

I guess your body language would not be right either if you had every bone broken in your body in a concentration camp as he has had every bone broken in his body. I guess if his facial features and eyes are not to your liking, maybe you should be shut in a chamber and tortured and have every bone in your body broken. Not only that, but pulled up on a rope and have your legs tied behind you and around your arms so that your ribs start cracking, and you are hung suspended like that. I guess maybe your obama boy, smooth talking, prancing candidate could come and save you.... Maybe he could have a rally for you so Bruce can be there screeching "born in the USA, but love communism. Yeh, maybe they could do that for you.

Just something else to ponder. Is there a place for him in the admin? What is his special area of expertise?

I'm not thinking the cabinet, but just any position where he could do a good job?

He has a special tonight. It will be on too late for me to watch it, but he was on The View today and they questioned him on his views for MediCare and SS.

Now, for those young 'uns, I can see where he is coming from, but he made me furious. He thinks the elderly should fend for themselves because there won't be anything left by the time he's ready to retire. If they don't have savings, that's their problem, then they need to go to charities.

What he doesn't understand is that a lot of people of my generation and before did not have the money to save up like everyone can do now. We had families to raise on piddlin' little income and the same bills everyone has today...taxes, insurances, mortgages, car payments, etc.

There were no IRAs. Sure, there were pensions, but if the company went belly up, so did the pension. All we had were savings accounts. There were a lot of other reasons we could not save a lot of money, but now he thinks we shouldn't be allowed to get MediCare and SS even though we paid into it for over 40-45 years?

This is where our country is headed? Where is the respect for hard workers? Just because we were told we could rely on SS by the government growing up, now what? That nitwit!

On Monday, August 22, the Chairman of the Christian Broadcast Network, Marion Pat Robertson, proclaimed, on his 700 Club television show, that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be murdered.

More specifically, Robertson said, You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.

We have the ability to take him out, Robertson continued, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

Robertson found himself in the middle of a media firestorm. He initially denied he'd called for Chavez to be killed, and claimed he'd been misinterpreted, but in an age of digital recording, Robertson could not flip-flop his way out of his own statement. He said what he said.

By Wednesday, Robertson was backing down: I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,' Robertson claimed on his Wednesday show. 'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping.

No one bought that explanation, either. So Robertson quietly posted a half apology on his website. It is only a half apology because it is clear he really does not mean to apologize, but rather, still seeks to rationalize and justify his dastardly comment.

From the moment I heard Robertson's remark, on the radio, I thought of the federal criminal statutes prohibiting such threats. Do they apply?

For me, the answer is yes. Indeed, had these comments been made by a Dan Rather, a Bill Moyers, or Jesse Jackson, it is not difficult to imagine some conservative prosecutor taking a passing look at these laws - as, say, Pat Robertson might read them - and saying, Let's prosecute.

Examine first, if you will, the broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: Whoever willfully - (1) ... threatens ... a foreign official ..., [or] (2) attempts to... threaten ... a foreign official ... shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

The text of this misdemeanor statute plainly applies: No one can doubt that Robertson attempted to threaten President Chavez.

Yet the statute was written to protect foreign officials visiting the United States - not those in their homelands. Does that make a difference?

It would likely be the precedent of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that would answer that question; the Fourth Circuit includes Virginia where Robertson made the statement. And typically, the Fourth Circuit, in interpreting statutes does not look to the intent of Congress; it focuses on statutory language instead.

And in a case involving Robertson, to focus on language would only be poetic justice:

Still, since the applicability of this misdemeanor statute is debatable, I will focus on the felony statute instead.

The Federal Threat Statute: Fines and Prison for Threats to Kidnap or Injure

It is a federal felony to use instruments of interstate or foreign commerce to threaten other people. The statute is clear, and simple. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), states: Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (Emphases added.)

The interstate or foreign commerce element is plainly satisfied by Robertson's statements. Robertson's 700 Club is listed as broadcasting in thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia, not to mention ABC Family Channel satellites which cover not only the United States but several foreign countries as well. In addition, the program was sent around the world via the Internet.

First, Robertson said he wanted to assassinate President Chavez. His threat to take him out, especially when combined with the explanation that this would be cheaper than war, was clearly a threat to kill.

Then, Robertson said he was only talking about kidnapping Chavez. Under the federal statute, a threat to kidnap is expressly covered.

As simple and clear as this statute may be, the federal circuit courts have been divided when reading it. But the conservative Fourth Circuit, where Robertson made his statement, is rather clear on its reading of the law.

Does Robertson's Threat Count as a True Threat? The Applicable Fourth Circuit Precedents Suggest It Does

If Robertson himself were a judge (or prosecutor) reading this statue - based on my reading of his book about how judges and justice should interpret the law - he would be in a heap of trouble. But how would the statute likely be read in the Fourth Circuit, where a prosecution of Robertson would occur?

Under that Circuit's precedent, the question would be whether Robertson's threat was a true threat. Of course, on third reflection, Robertson said it was not. But others have been prosecuted notwithstanding retractions, and later reflections on intemperate threats.

Here is how the Fourth Circuit - as it explained in the Draby case - views threats under this statute: Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat is determined by the interpretation of a reasonable recipient [meaning, the person to whom the threat was directed] familiar with the context of the communication.

This is an objective standard, under which the court looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the communications, rather than simply looking to the subjective intent of the speaker, or the subjective feelings of the recipient. So even if Robertson did not mean to make a threat, and even if Chavez did not feel threatened, that is not the end of the story.

In one Fourth Circuit case, the defendant asked if [the person threatened] knew who Jeffrey Dahlmer [sic] was. Then the defendant added that, he didn't eat his victims, like Jeffrey Dahlmer; [sic] that he just killed them by blowing them up. This defendant's conviction for this threat was upheld.

In another Fourth Circuit ruling, the defendant, an unhappy taxpayer, was convicted for saying, to an IRS Agent, that in all honesty, I can smile at you and blow your brains out; that once I come through there, anybody that tries to stop me, I'm going to treat them just like they were a cockroach; and, that unless I can throw somebody through a damn window, I'm just not going to feel good.

Viewed in the context, and taking into account the totality of the circumstances, it was anything but clear that any of these threats were anything more than angry tough talk. The same could be said of Robertson's threats. Yet in both these cases, the Fourth Circuit upheld the defendant's conviction, deeming the true threat evidence sufficient to do so.

For me, this make Robertson's threats a very close question. President Chavez publicly brushed Robertson's threats off, for obvious diplomatic reasons, yet I suspect a little inquiry would uncover that the Venezuelan President privately he has taken extra precautions, and his security people have beefed up his protection. Robertson has Christian soldiers everywhere. Who knows what some misguided missionary might do?

If you have not seen the Robertson threat, view it yourself and decide. Robertson's manner, his choice to return to the subject repeatedly in his discourse, and the seriousness with which he stated the threat, all strike me as leading strongly to the conclusion that this was a true threat. Only media pressure partially backed him off. And his apology is anything but a retraction.

Will Robertson be investigated or prosecuted by federal authorities? Will he be called before Congress? Will the President, or the Secretary of State, publicly chastise Robertson? Are those three silly questions about a man who controls millions of Republican votes from Christian conservatives?

The Clintonites are now saying that John Edwards nomination is not that important. (what???)

If that is true then why did she campaign so hard to try to get him to endorse her? Why did she immediately after he dropped out of the race change her tone and try to mimick him. You know for a fact if he endorsed her she would be making this out to be the greatest victory in America.

The fact is this IS an important endorsement. As important as AL Gore's will be and as important as Bush's endorsement to the republicans.

She's just upset that it took away the limelight of her win in W.Virginia, which I believe was not as big as a win in Iowa, Washington State, Maine and other bigger states. Now they said that because Obama didn't win WV there is no way he'll win the election in November?....yeah right. Funny how they are completely missing all his big wins. Of course they are trying to spin it as if all of his wins are not important...only the ones she won. Brother give me a break!

So, was McCain sleeping with her, hoping to sleep with her, or being subconsciously manipulated by a cute young woman? It doesn't really matter. He was being led by his groin into ethical violations. Let's face it, he was 64 at the time and is 72 now. Whether he is still cheating or not, he seems to be led by his dick; witness the videos of McCain checking out Sarah Palin's butt during the speech where he introduced her.

not Bill Clinton. Our economy almost crashed last week and it may still. Things have not been this bad since the depression. Anyone who is planning on voting for John McCain should understand how deregulation (which he has supported throughout his politcal career) played a role in what happened last week. They also should understand what his involvement in the Keating Five scandal was and how that relates.

I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time. (John McCain, October 21, 2007, describing how he's ready to lead on day one, before selecting his running mate who was a mayor for a short period of time and a governor for a short period of time).

he is for smaller government and less government spending. He has more experience with foreign policy. He has been in the military and knows first hand what our troops go through. He won't raise taxes during an economic crisis. He won't tax businesses more which will help them survive and be successful therefore creating more jobs for Americans. He wants alternative energy sources which (once you get the crazy freaks who are environmentalists to shut up) will create even more jobs for Americans and keep money here in the USA instead of giving it to people who want us dead. I also in good conscience cannot vote for Obama because of his beliefs when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. I also believe that when it comes to party politics, John McCain will stand up to his own party if he doesn't see eye to eye with them and I just feel that is something Obama will not do.

This is excluding other feelings I have about Obama, particularly his associations that people refuse to see and acknowledge. One radical association is one thing, but Obama has many and I've always been raised to believe that birds of a feather flock together.

After seeing Cindy smooching some biker dude, maybe John should check in at home more often.

"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.