Another Republican Sen. has a Dirty Little Affair
 

This is becoming laughable -- note this hypocritical sack of shiitte is, of course, a born again christian whose "morally superior" record is as follows:

* Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
* Voted YES on ending the set-aside of 10% of highway funds for minorities. (Apr 1998)
* Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
* Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
* Rated 11% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
* Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

* Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
* Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
* Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
* Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
* Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
* Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)

So, he thinks faggots and baby killers are the worse thing on the planet and he hides his extra marital affair until blackmail forces him to admit it.

And, this was going to run for the R ticket in 2012 :rolleyes:

I get that the D's have affairs -- it is just they are not so high and mighty about their personal life and so shtiittey to the non Refug christians while doin the cheatin :nod:
______________________________________________________________

Ensign admits affair; sources say blackmail involved
Manu Raju, Alexander Burns Manu Raju, Alexander Burns 1 hr 34 mins ago

Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign said Tuesday evening he is “truly sorry” about an affair he had last year with a campaign staffer, going public with an embarrassing admission about his marital infidelity.

The news certainly damages any hope Ensign has of running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 – he had fueled speculation about a presidential run with a recent visit to Iowa — and it may also hinder what has been a steady rise in Senate GOP leadership.

Political insiders in the Senate and in Nevada told POLITICO that Ensign began an affair with a staffer several months after he separated from his wife. When Ensign reconciled with his wife, the sources said, he gave the aide a severance package and parted ways.

Sometime later, a Nevada source said, Ensign met with the husband of the woman involved and had what this source described as a positive encounter. Sources said that the man subsequently asked Ensign for a substantial sum of money – at which point Ensign decided to make the affair public. In his Las Vegas press conference, Ensign declined to give specifics about the woman involved but did say she and “her husband were close friends and both of them worked for me.”

At the Tuesday press conference, a contrite Ensign admitted his affair, said his wife sought counseling after the episode, but added that he and his wife have reconciled. Ensign took no questions.

In the statement, the senator said: "I deeply regret and am very sorry for my actions." He added that he remained committed to his Senate duties.

“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. “If there was ever anything in my life that I could take back, this would be it. I take full responsibility for my actions.”

//
Ensign informed fellow Nevadan Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, about his situation earlier today.
"I don't know the details. I talked with him today,” Reid told POLITICO. “Of course, he's my friend. This is a private, family matter. I just hope that Darlene and he work things out."

Reid said he didn’t offer any advice on how to handle the situation. "I didn't give him any advice. I just told him he's my friend. I'm pulling for him. Anything I can do to help, let me know.”



Ensign, a born again Christian, is chairman of the GOP Policy Committee, making him the highest ranking Republican Senator in Nevada’s history. He has three children. Ensign’s wife Darlene, in a statement to the Las Vegas Sun, said: "Since we found out last year we have worked through the situation and we have come to a reconciliation. This has been difficult on both families. With the help of our family and close friends our marriage has become stronger," Mrs. Ensign said.

Ensign was absent on Capitol Hill Tuesday, skipping the weekly lunch that his committee hosts for GOP senators and its ensuing press conference where party leaders espouse their weekly message.

Word of his expected announcement stunned colleagues, who were preparing for this summer’s big battles over the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor and a health care fight but now have to contend with a drama hovering over one of their leaders.

Elected in 2000, the 51-year-old Ensign has moved up the leadership chain in the Senate. As chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2008, Ensign oversaw the devastating losses to GOP candidates. But his party largely spared him of blame, casting it instead on an unpopular president who dragged down the party’s brand. Since then, Ensign has sought to articulate conservative principles and is a mainstay at GOP press conferences deriding Democrats’ domestic policies.

Ensign ran for the Senate in 1998 against Sen. Harry Reid in a nasty, cliffhanger race that Reid – now the Senate majority leader – won by a razor-thin 428 votes. Reid and Ensign have since reached a détente; neither man criticizes the other back home by name.

A staunch fiscal and social conservative, Ensign has been considered a rising star in his party, recently making headlines by speaking at events in Iowa, raising speculation about his interest in a run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.

It’s not clear exactly how this affair will affect Ensign’s future in the Senate. When former Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested for soliciting sex in an airport men’s room in the summer of 2007, Ensign was among Craig’s toughest critics, saying he should step down since he had been charged with a crime. And during the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton, Ensign, then a Senate candidate, called on Clinton to resign.

John Bresnahan contributed to this story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/23813

He's entitled to believe what he wants to, and he's entitled to vote the way he judges to be right. He's a human being after all, not God. So I don't know why your reaction comes across as if you expected this man to be perfect.

Besides, you love it, otherwise you'd have nothing to complain about.

If it were me, and I were lobbying, I'd be more concerned about the dems and libs who aren't voting the way you want them to.

I love that you put the link in there.

I know. I actually could give a rat's a$$ about him or anyone having an affair. I just think it shows the true colors when the most self-righteous have one and then only expose it when, as here, they have to. This douchebag is no more sorry that he boinked the broad than a tick is on a well fed pig. He is just sorry he got caught. Maybe he'll go to rehab . so the other self-righteous hypocrites don't judge him by his own standards that he imposed on everyone else :rolleyes:

I got it too -- I actually like that party more than the two major ones. Sadly, I fell compelled to vote for the idiot D to keep the even worse R from being in office and completely destroying any free and/or good will that may have been left after the awful W years. I long for the day when a true less govt. candidate has a chance of winning. The problem is people say they want less govt., but they vote for a theocracy.

Actually, he a fukcing hypocrite :nod: All I am saying is he should be judged by the same impossible self-righteous BS standard he judged everyone else by :shrug:

aren't 99% of people hypocrites in some way?

Yes, but they are not using the law to promote their hypocritical ends (money and power) - while demonizing groups of good people. This fukcer wanted to put fags in jail based on his born again values that he shouted at any given opportunity -- maybe he shouted out for Jesus when he came in his whore during the extra marital affair :rolleyes:

Again, he is only sorry he got caught. If he were truly sorry and lived up to his own ideals, he would have admitted the dirty little affair before he got blackmailed into doing so.

Bah - go ahead. Any discussion is cool with me :cool:

As for Ron Paul - he is okay on some issues, but on others he sucks. Anyone who wants to ban abortion is not for smaller govt. In other words, although I may personally think abortion is wrong, as long as the fetus is dependent on the mother as a host, it is the mother's right to abort it. As horrible as that may be to some - if you are for autonomy, you have to be for that or at least the govt. staying out of that :shrug: But, anti-abortionist cannot see it that way.

Note - if the crazy religious right would actually allow discussions of safer sex in lieu of abstention only - abortions would be rarer. But, they just can't abode people fukcing out of wedlock - though, like Ensign - they likely did or are doing it. Again, hypocrites.

He's a politician. You ultimately can't trust any of them, I think...

Actually - he does support banning abortion because despite the states rights rhetoric, he supports defining life as beginning at conception, which would overrule Roe, which he says has damaged the Const. http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

I support several of those measures myself. But I'm always overjoyed to see a smarmy politician topple.

What is interesting is the advances in the world since 1776 make state's rights issues not really a workable solution. For example, what is Utah bans blacks and whites from marrying and/or cohabitating. They make it an offense pushable by 20 years in prison. bob the white guy is married to Jill the black girl. While flying to Los Angeles, their plane gets grounded in Salt Lake City, where they spend the night in a hotel. The Salt lake City police arrest and prosecute Bob and Jill, who are now spending 20 years in prison in Utah. That or some other incident like it could happen. So, there must be some hybrid of state's rights, which I suggest is the Fed. govt. guaranteeing basic rights so people can go from state to state without incident.

Me too - and it just amazes me that people think the next one is going to be any different.

me too - esp. the self-righteous ones :nod:

But from the anti-abortionist's point of view, abortion is murder. An anti-abortion stance can easily be reconciled with a desire for reining in government. Even the vociferous anti-statists consider outlawing murder a legitimate function of the State.

No, that is not the Libertarian position. The Libertarian position is that the mother has the right to expel the fetus from her body. In practical terms, the two procedures might amount to the same thing; but in philosophical terms, the distinction is extremely important.

A Federal law defining life at conception is the same thing. It would be next to impossible for a state to define it any other way because the 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The U.S. Const. guarantees Congress can pass laws. Therefore, once Congress passes that law, no state has the power to contravene it.

I know that is not the Libertarian position. I am saying it ought to be because it furthers the ideal of less govt. interference in our lives.

In the end, if the govt. and, more importantly, parents schooled their kids about how not to get preggers (it is so easy not to mind you) - the vast majority of unplanned pregnancies could be prevented. But, they never will. So, there must be the right to choose.

And - if the Libertarians supported the right to chose - they likely would gain tons of support.

As I've said before on this board, I'm opposed to libertarianism (which I once heard described as the political party for Republicans who smoke weed - I thought that was pretty funny, but my ex who is a card-carrying Libertarian, was not amused :laugh: ). Left to their own devices, most people simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

As for abortion, my opinion has changed since the last time it was probably discussed here. I'm pro-life, and couldn't give a rat's ass if Roe v. Wade is overturned (which it never will be, btw). The idea that a woman has a right to abort her unborn child is utterly repugnant to me.

Also, people like to act as if before Roe, abortion was universally illegal everywhere in all circumstances, which simply isn't true. If I have my facts right, many if not most states had a "rape or incest" exception (which I'm still not crazy about) prior to Roe, for example.

Ugh. My bf is all about Ron Paul (I don't think he knows half of what's in Paul's platform), but I think he's a fruitcake, to be quite honest. Didn't he want to do away with public schools or something crazy like that?

I thought they did. (I know you didn't make it up, but I despise the phrase "right to choose." Right to choose what? Whether or not you want pecans on your vanilla ice cream?)

They don't need to be "trusted." They need to be (largely) free of the looooong arm of the State.

Is that a bad thing?

I just heard a funny joke:
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: For a bailout.

It's not about you. It's about protecting other people's right to live their own lives without judgment from others. Put into another context that may hit close to home for you, what if the govt. passed a law that said being gay was a crime against nature (which it essentially was until about six years ago) and the majority of people said they could care a less if the law affected peoples' rights because gays were repugnant to them. That would not be fair. Another example would be that anyone who gets AIDS is on their own with no govt support because they got it though sex outside of marriage.


So, I say the fairer route is to get the govt. out of the decisions we make with our own bodies. I fully realize millions will see that as millions of innocent babies dying, but I cannot see any other way - save for the education of people and greater access to birth control.

The sole issue is the right to choose. You can not be for abortion, but still be for the right to choose because although you think it is a wrong and horrible thing, you recognize another person may not. So, I say who am I to tell them what to do with their own body. It is a hard pill to swallow because to many that means innocent babies will die. So, I say of you don't want an abortion then don't you get one. Just like I say of you don't want gay marriage than don't you marry a gay person. Almost everyone I know cannot lose that inherent judgment and want to control others' lives :shrug:

Whatever.

Well, unless you want a 25% literacy rate. :shrug:

And the poor likely staying well below the poverty line for centuries while the rich kids continue their parents domination of power. Moreover, it is likely free thought will no longer be nurtured. Having said that -- I fully recognize the current public school system for the most part sucks a$$.

I reject the idea that abortion and gay sex/gay marriage are morally equivalent, so as far as I'm concerned, the point is moot. :shrug:

And I *really* resent it when people (not talking about you) insist that because I'm gay I have to support abortion rights.

Actually, they are the same in the sense that they are about the right to live your life and use your body as you see fit without some other person's ideal being imposed on you. Again, who am I to prevent some woman from doing what she wants with her body even though I personally would not do it, found it a horrible thing to do and tantamount to murder, and would advise her not to do it. Another example is the right to die. But, people can't see that. They want others to conform to their ideal. So and again, I conclude if you want people to leave you alone to do as you please, you have to leave them alone in that regard as well.

Interestingly, your being anti right to chose puts you in bed with the very people who want you in jail for exercising your right to privacy (the same right that guarantees abortion) as a gay man. That is a strange place to find yourself :shrug:

Right ..and since you are a gay male it is a choice you'll never have to make..So to sit in judgement of someone who may have to does not even add up.

HAHA...Let's just have a free-for-all society. You know, anything goes! Like what was it...? Sodom & Gomorrah, right?

The way with which we seem to be fighting for such liberties as we feel we deserve, the lesser the world seems to become. Hasn't anyone noticed that things in the world are seemingly at an all time low?

You're right!:thumbsup:Let's bring back old testament biblical law!:blob1:

^

Actually, a review ofnthe facts indicates things are at an all time low because for the past 8 years, bush and his cronies raped us and we, sadly, cannot have an abortion. We must go the distance and pray it works out.

I love how the failures of President Clinton get repeatedly overlooked.

Bet he had unprotected sex. :distress:

Because your party is the paragon of moral vituosity?

Also, you motherfuking men can stay out of my uterus. Thanks. :wavey: