Watch What you Say, It may Come Back to Haunt You!
Sen. John Ensign admits late Tuesday that he had an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer over the course of nine months in 2007-2008.
During the height of the scandal surrounding Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, the Nevada Republican denounced the president's conduct as "an embarrassing moment for the country."
'I think we have to feel very sad for the American people and Hillary and Chelsea,' he said.
Weeks later, Ensign would call on Clinton to resign. "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," he was quoted saying at the time. "He has no credibility left," he added...
"It could have a dramatic effect on Democrats like (President Nixon's resignation after the Watergate scandal) had on Republicans in 1974," he said, according to a local AP article from September 14, 1998...
In 2007, he called fellow Republican Sen. Larry Craig a disgrace and urged the Idaho Republican to resign after Craig was arrested for disorderly conduct after allegedly soliciting sex in a men's airport...
In June 2006, Ensign voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have limited marriage in the United States to unions of one man and one woman.
What a hypocrite! ONE man and ONE woman?
I wish we could put each and every politician (Dem or Repub) under the SAME scrutiny as media and Republicans (some Democrats) did during the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. PAYBACK TIME!
How come we're not hearing all about the lady friend like we did Monica? Fair is fair isn't it?
You miss the point: "marriage" is a formal arrangement. Though it implies objection to bigamy, it says nothing against extramarital affairs.
Look at it as Newt Gingrich did when he was found to be having an affair with a staffer WSM (While Still Married, to a different woman): the staffer only performed orally, so he "never had sex with that woman" -- because anything other than intercourse ISN'T sex.
And that occurred pre-Lewinski, so Clinton -- as the Senate trial found -- wasn't lying: Newt said so in advance.
June 16, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard he was separated from his wife at the time of the affair.
Aren't you trying just a bit too hard to manufacture outrage here, with the marriage bit?
Now if he'd been President during the affair, that might be an "indecent" parallel to Clinton.
Do these guys think that their uh, seamy personal lives don't matter to their political aspirations? Or is it that they don't think?
June 16, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Manufacture Outrage? There should be no MAKING somebody outraged, it should come naturally!
If this were a woman or Obama, you can bet your sweet bippy all HELL would break lose media wise.
The REASON this guy told this story NOW......IRAN.
It's like reporting NEWS on Friday before a big weekend -- nobody is LISTENING....and he's getting away with it.
June 16, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and a lot of other people caught it. If he runs for office you know it will come up again, if there's any real dirt there.
June 16, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don’t know how much credence there is to this but it makes sense. Blackmail's a real danger for public officials (Ever see Advise and Consent?)
June 17, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have to call a spade a spade and let the chips fall where they may.
Promise Keepers!?! Seriously?
Congress can't keep their promise to keep their pants on and then they have the power to tell others don't even try for a legal relationship?
I want some of what they are smokin'
June 16, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know issues such as this speak to character. But would it be possible to worry less about what goes on behind the bedroom door and focus more on what a person does in their government office?
June 17, 2009 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Resistance, as soon as REPUBLICANS and their right winged counter parts agree to ignore stories like this on the Dem's side, I'll ignore those on the Rep's side.
What makes it worse for MOST Republicans is, they give off the SENSE that they are holy'er than tho and would do no harm to their loved ones. They imply their VALUES are stronger than any Dem --- then they go and do something like this.
June 17, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think either side should be exempt.
If a politician runs for office, and he wants to present himself as a squeaky clean Christian. Or he is seeking the Christian vote, then let the light shine upon their conduct.
In and out of office.
Forgiveness covers a lot of erors but covering them up and then getting caught is an entirely different matter.
We all make mistakes.
Christians are not perfect; but they should at least try to live by the Right standards they expect others to live by.
June 17, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this Senator claim to be a Christian?
In our culture if someone is married it signifies a Vow. A commitment.
To a Christian it is something sacred. Not to be dismissed lightly “WHAT God has yoked together let no man put apart.” (Matthew 19:6)
Just because a Christian man and wife separate, doesn’t allow for sexual relationship(s). The VOW is still in force until dissolved for the right reason.
According to Bible principles the only grounds for divorce was fornication, which included adultery.
For example: If Newt sought Divorce for a trivial matter; he may very well in the eyes of God be an adulterer.
Something to consider if he begins to seek the Christian rights vote.
In ancient Israel, the men would trump up charges or would treat their wife’s treacherously. Looking for any excuse to divorce their older wives, for someone new was a detestable thing.
So if a person were to seek to argue or fight with one’s mate in order to drive or force a separation, then finding the excuse “Our marriage just doesn’t work” that’s treachery.
Breaking a vow or commitment. Purposely, not trying to work things out in the marriage arrangement, because they choose not too, because they have found someone new, tats treachery.
How much trust can we put into a politician who claims he’ll serve and protect his constituents and swears and oath or vow, but he fails to keep the solemn oath to his spouse.
Her forgiveness of him is their business and we hope it works out and the healing within his family, but if the only reason he comes forth now, is because he has been caught. It is not a matter of sorry for the deed as much as it may be sorry I got caught. What is it?
June 17, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why doesn't Ensign follow his own advice and resign, not just from his leadership position, but from the Senate? Hasn't HE put America through enough? Ensign has no credibility left.
That's the trouble with people who throw stones, sometimes the stones bounce back and hit their own glass houses.
June 17, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink