Can somebody here explain the difference between Ted Haggard and John Edwards?

[renie408]

Cause I am not getting it. Haggard is a sleaze who deserved all the glee we heaped upon his downfall. He was the worst of the worst. That asshole. He represented himself as anti-homosexual and above criticism while he was actually having flings with male prostitutes. I didn't hear a whole lot of people defending him and saying that his was a private matter for his family.

Edwards' situation is COMPLETELY different....HOW? WHY is it OK to slam Haggard, but if you say that you are disappointed in Edwards or that his running with this skeleton in his recent closet is wrong, you get kicked out of Liberal Club?

Jeez, people, I thought cognitive dissonance was for Republicans.

[glowing]

1. Well, using illegal drugs and sleeping with male prostitutes, all the while

trying to influence the "will of God" on people.. to tell them that being gay is blasphemy and un-natural under the rule of the Lord.. well, that's bad. People tend to look towards a spiritual leader as someone who is knowledgeable and someone who is trying to lead the "flock" righteously. The main reason I left a formalized religion was because I realized a lot of hypocrisy and un-natural, step-ford gleams in the eyes of many "flocked".

[Cassandra]

2. Was Edwards lecturing everybody else...

about how moral he is and how immoral everyone else is? Was he casting aspersions on gays and non-evangelicals? Was he advocating "moral" positions that restricted other people's civil rights?

I didn't think so.

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. No, no and no. Right... as usual..... and to the point..

Check your inbox.

[renie408]

12. Did Haggard run for President while representing himself as the perfect husband

the perfect family man, the perfect father and while saying that marriage was a sacred institute for men and women only? So, if Edwards had been with a prostitute, that would make it OK to comment? Or if he had smoked some weed and THEN been with her, THAT would make it OK to comment? You can't have it both ways. You don't like Haggard,his opinions or his political party, so when he got busted it was GREAT. Edwards is one of the home team and the knee jerk reaction is to defend him. But that doesn't mean that the people who say that they think infidelity is wrong or that they are disappointed in Edwards or that they are pissed that he ran with this in his very recent past are less of a liberal or whatever.

Look, I honestly don't think the infidelity is a big deal to ME, personally. That is between him and his wife. BUT...the fact that he chose to run KNOWING that this was in his very recent past, well, that pisses me off.

[Cassandra]

45. I wasn't supporting Edwards as the perfect husband...

but because I like his positions on the issues. I do not like Haggard's positions on anything.

In a public TV broadcast many years ago, Jeff Greenfield detailed the election between Grover Cleveland, who was an honest public servant accused a fathering a child by his mistress, and James G. Blaine, who was apparently a devoted family man but was a corrupt politician mocked as,"Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, the continental liar from the State of Maine!" The voters back then were capable of making the distinction between public and private behavior; why can't we?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. I have an even better idea:

Let it go.

[TexasObserver]

4. Better idea: Stop yourself from clicking on threads where others are discussing this.

Let go of your compulsion to annoy others who are talking about topics you don't approve.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Are you stalking me?

You have a serious bug up your butt this morning. Relax. I get to comment on threads just like everybody else. You are completely free to ignore my disapproval.

[TexasObserver]

9. No, and I wouldn't even if you begged me to do so.

It's a message board. There are topics. We are posting on the same topics. You are telling posters they should stop talking about Edwards and I'm telling you to use your own ability to ignore threads instead of telling others what they should and should not discuss.

If any of this is over your head, please ask others to help you understand it, others whom you're certain are not group stalking you.

[JBoy]

25. But it's OK to tell people to stop telling people to stop talking about something?

[TexasObserver]

30. It's ok to say "why do you want to stop others from discussing this topic?"

It's a simple concept that all but the simplest minds comprehend.

[JBoy]

38. Perhaps you should have asked that question, instead of telling someone what to do.

"I'm telling you to use your own ability to ignore threads instead of telling others what they should and should not discuss."

To me that translates to telling someone to shut up.

[TexasObserver]

40. Whatever.

Do you think I'm supposed to care if you're offended?

[LeftishBrit]

6. The difference is surely that Haggard made a profession of denouncing 'deviant' sexual behaviour

and generally telling other people how to live their lives. And there he was, anything but practicing what he preached!

So far as I know, Edwards has not been going around preaching 'family values'. So he isn't a hypocrite like Haggard.

It was a bad thing for him to do, but I don't think it's the same thing as when someone denounces others for doing all the things they do.

[TexasObserver]

11. Agreed. Edwards wasn't pretending to be straight, bedding a prostitute, doing meth, and preaching.

[renie408]

16. No, Edwards was running for President, pretending to be faithful and screwing

a paid employee.

Thanks for clearing up the obvious difference for me.

[TexasObserver]

17. Glad to be of service.

Glad to be of service.

[renie408]

21. You know the worst part? I absolutely do not care about the infidelity.

It doesn't effect me. That's between him and his wife. I don't think it makes him less capable of being a leader any more than I thought Bill getting blown made him a worse President. The thing that bothers me is that he ran with this less than a year in his past and there were apparently rumors about the affair from the start. That bugs me. It bugs me that he couldn't either A) remain faithful until he was out of the public eye or after the election was over and B) that if he was going to be unfaithful, he wasn't upfront about it back when it would have been less of a story and further away from the GE.

And I honestly don't think it makes somebody less of a liberal to feel like Edwards was wrong. It is okey dokey fine to voice your opinion if it happens to be "live and let live on this one issue". But if you think that lying to your wife/husband is wrong and you actually have the audacity to voice that opinion, you are a close minded knuckle dragger who shouldn't be in the Democratic Party.

[TexasObserver]

23. I do not approve of Edwards' conduct. I condemn him harshly for it.

I simply find it to be essentially different from Haggard's, mainly a difference in magnitude, however. They are both hypocrites whose hypocrisy involved sexual infidelity.

[renie408]

24. Ok. I can agree with that. Edited to add:

But I would also like to point out that most of the criticism of Edwards has been mild compared to that of Haggard. So, there are also degrees of disapproval as well as degrees of fault. The problem for me is that the majority here seems to think that ANY criticism of Edwards is wrong/anti-liberal.

[TexasObserver]

28. I promise you I've been far more harsh on Edwards than Haggard.

Edwards disappointed me. He duped me, and my grown sons. We backed him as long as he was in the race. We supported him.

Ted Haggard? I always thought he was another phony, in the closet GOP God Squader. But I try to avoid the threads that are quasi gay bashing every time some GOPer gets caught being tea bagged. I do so not because I cut any slack to the GOP, but because I get it when the gay/lesbian crowd feels the stings of those comments. And most importantly, Haggard didn't let me down, because I never believed in him.

[renie408]

31. I went to see him announce his candidacy in '04 in Robbins. sent him money

we could ill afford and defended him like a mother hen with one chick the whole time he was running. I do kind of feel like this is a personal betrayal because one of the things I found admirable about him was his wonderful relationship with his wife. And his timing really sucks eggs.

[TexasObserver]

35. Anyone who supported Edwards is entitled to be angry.

[KharmaTrain]

8. Does It Matter?

The similarities are both are human beings. Both are/were powerful men who let the wrong head do the thinking...thinking they were "smarter" than everyone else...that they could play with fire and think they could walk through it without getting burned. Some do, but in these cases, they didn't.

Trying to compare one personal tragedy to another is a silly game as each story has its own dynamic and those who want to play judge can and will do so accordingly. Haggert made his power from what now appears to be pure hypocrisy...and a sad lack of self-esteem and integrity that not only pushed him into living a lie, but to ensure his ultimate downfall. Edwards' biggest "sin" was risking an embarassing scandal that surely would have become a major issue/distraction in an election that is one of the most critical in decades.

One last comparison is the "risk factor"...the same qualities that put these people in the public light is a powerful aphrodisiac...and that in our society this is still the ultimate taboo that both repulses and titilates simultaneously.

[TexasObserver]

13. It matters because some DUers give a pass to Dems who cheat, but not others

[KharmaTrain]

20. It's Always Interesting In The Definition of "Cheat"

There is a definite polarization a revelation like this brings out in this community. I think it symbolizes the diversity of our lives and experiences. It's easy to broad-brush where the outrage comes from, but it tends to be reflective of one's lifestyle and the affect that scandal has on the individual...how close to home it hits.

The Haggerty case, just like Larry Craig and Mark Foley highlighted a hypocrisy that the LGBT community has fought against for years. With Edwards, like Clinton, you see this as a big issue to women...especially those who have been a victim of a cheating mate...the pain is very real and when its played out in public, so are their pains.

I don't see it as much of a pass as one's perspective.

Cheers...

[TexasObserver]

27. I look at this as a POLITICAL matter.

When a politician promotes his family, his wife, his marriage, when he sells himself as salt of the earth, when he runs for president, everything he does is political except his private conversations with his wife and kids.

He has a duty to his supporters. When he lies to the press about an affair, when he promises his top people there was no affair, when he contrives to pay campaign money to his paramour, when he contrives to move campaign money through his campaign's attorney, to launder it, to send hush money to his paramour, then it's political.

[renie408]

32. BINGO! That's where I am coming from. n/t

[KharmaTrain]

33. It's Still A Human Tragedy

The OP pertained to comparing the Haggerty scandal and the Edwards one.

I'm in firm agreement with you about the "nerve" Senator Edwards had in running his campaign with this ticking time bomb...and how his supporters, in specific, now feel used. It was both stupid and wreckless and his attempts to hide this (and IMHO he still hasn't come fully clean on this) has damaged what was a brilliant man and career. The ultimate loser here is John Edwards who has lost almost all credibility...a scarlet letter that will always be one of the "bylines" of his life.

Power is always political...and with it comes all the trappings and temptations. But it's also very human...the same drive and ambition that made Senator Edwards a great lawyer and politician was also the drive that found some challenge or fascination with taking what are always wreckless actions.

In the end, the biggest damage is to Senator Edwards' personal life and the long road I see for him, Elizabeth and his children in dealing with the media circus and enduring taint this sad affair will bring. Again...a sad tragedy...and a very human one. It wasn't the sex as much as the betrayal of trust.

[TexasObserver]

37. Edwards sought my support and I gave it. Haggard is just a guy.

I don't have any investment in Haggard. He's not one of my guys. He's just another jackoff GOP Bible thumper who can't accept his sexual urges and cheats on his wife and congregation.

[KharmaTrain]

42. Understood

As I posted, Edwards supporters are very justified in feeling used and I honestly don't know how he rectifies this with you. I also thought very highly of Senator Edwards and supported (and still do) many of the important causes and issues he brought to the election. His betrayal of your faith is a part of the tragedy...but it doesn't mean the causes he spoke out for nor his good works should be diminished.

I stayed neutral in the primaries...my focus was on Congressional and local races...maybe since I expected a lot of acrimony and distractions. Also, there's still a deep hurt inside about being a big supporter of Bobby Kennedy, at a young age, and his death has always kept me distant from Presidential primaries.

That said, I couldn't give a ratass about Haggerty either except for a tad bit of human compassion to those who were affected by his wreckless behavior.

[dajoki]

10. The impeachment of Bill Clinton...

helped bring out the skeletons in many of the repubs closets, and they are still showing up. However, weak morals of this type are not a Dem, repub issue, it happens to ordinary people also. You may say that pols should be held to a higher standard, well, they should be, but I think the voters should decide that standard.

[renie408]

14. What fine lines we can all draw. "This person's behavior is worthy of comment...but

that if you say anything about that one, you are OBVIOUSLY not a liberal and completely wrong."

So, if it is the evangelist, in the closet, with a male prostitute, it's OK to notice? But if it's the squeaky clean, 'happily' married hetero, in the hotel, with a female campaign worker, we just ignore it?


Yeah...that makes sense.

[WhollyHeretic]

15. No. I really doubt anyone can explain it so that you could understand it.

:eyes:

[renie408]

18. I might actually be capable of more understanding than you realize.

But instead of trying to see then point I am making or make an actual point of your own, you would much rather post innuendos about my intellectual capacity. I must obviously be less intelligent/politically correct/whatever than you are.

[WhollyHeretic]

19. Glad you at least see that.

[renie408]

22. Oooooo....BURN!!! You nailed me with your witty riposte!! n/t

[baby_mouse]

26. I'm gay and often tell people to shut up about the "hypocritical gay republicans"

I don't recall about Haggard in particular...

You're confusing two halves of DU with each other, I think. Have you checked to see that the people lambasting Edwards AREN'T the same people who lambasted Haggard?

I think it's cheap, personally.

[renie408]

29. Oh, good point. I haven't checked. I am not sure how to?

But I see your point.

I got irritated last night because someone posted a thread in which they said that they thought infidelity was wrong and that they didn't think that was an exclusively fundie/conservative position. They were promptly mutilated. It just bugged me. If 'we' decide that anybody that thinks infidelity is BAD shouldn't be a Democrat, we are going to have a hard time getting people elected.

[baby_mouse]

41. Quite so ,re your last sentence -

with *that* I agree entirely. Infidelity *is* wrong, and my position isn't that it's not significant politically, but that it *shouldn't* be.

I don't know of a quick way of showing who's being inconsistent in their approach short of searching through all the "gay republican threads" in the archives and identifying and comparing individual posters posts... something that other people here have done but I never have. It's awfully time-consuming and I do feel people are allowed to change their minds. Um. I've kind of tasked you with that searching in another thread in a slightly more confrontational way... sorry if I was snarky at you.

Certainly the fault of inconsistency that you indicate IS a fault.

[renie408]

43. It's Ok. I can't keep up with the people I am talking to from thread to thread

So if I answered you snarkily, I also apologize.

[Bill McBlueState]

34. Edwards speaks in support of Democratic ideals; Haggard does not

It's completely unsurprising that Democrats would be more forgiving of a fellow Democrat.

[No Elephants]

36. Same and Not the Same

Ted Haggard was living off contributions from his congregation. He told his congregation that homosexual sex is an abomination to God and they must never engage in it or they would grieve God. That kind of thing makes some sincere Christian gays want to commit suicide. On the other hand, I believe Haggard still believes what he preached.

John Edwards was getting campaign contributions bc people thought he was an electible candidate, which would include no October Surprise of this kind. However, John Edwards never harangued anyone about how wrong sex with a woman is. (Like Haggard, Edwards did have a religious issue with same gender sex, though, but, unlike Haggard, Edwards harangued no one about it.) If asked, I am sure Edwards would have said adultery was wrong, though. Again, however, he was not making a very nice living off condemning people who engaged in it.

Both were arrogant enough to think they could get away indefinitely with what they were doing. Both were willing to throw their wives and kids under a bus to gratify their sexual urges.

And so on.

There are similarities and there are differences.

[renie408]

44. I can understand the degrees of fault. Just as I think there were degrees of blame.

The thing that irked me about this whole thing is that other people seem to NOT see them. They immediately leapt upon any negative comment about Edwards as wrong, anti-liberal and un-Democratic. Again, one thread was simply saying that the OP thought infidelity was wrong and that poster got reamed. That poster, BTW, told me in a PM that they are leaving the DU. Is that what this place is about? "Think like me or I will force you the hell out"?? Cause I got news for everybody, if we force everyone out of the Democratic Party that thinks that infidelity is wrong, that is not only not very democratic, it is going to cripple us. Viewing infidelity negatively is not necessarily a fundie/GOP/conservative value....at all.

[panhead1961]

39. hypocrisy is still hypocrisy

The only tragedy is the media's vulture like appetite for this kind of crap instead of covering the impeachment articles or the war in Iraq and Afghanistan