Throw the book at him if true. No place for corruption in politics.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43260386/ns/politics-more_politics/?GT1=43001

The indictment contained six felony counts, including conspiracy, four counts of receiving illegal campaign contributions and one count of false statements for keeping the spending off the campaign's public finance reports.

It said the payments made with money from two wealthy supporters were a scheme to protect Edwards' presidential ambitions.

+1

I shutter in borrow sometimes when I think what would have happened to the Democratic Party had he won the nomination

Agreed.

Interesting point from Bill Maher last night. He said there were two politicians who cheated on their wives while they were ill. Edwards is condemned by everyone and Gingrich is held up as some kind of great American.


They're both slime in my opinion.

Ty Webb;790584 wrote:+1

I shutter in borrow sometimes when I think what would have happened to the Democratic Party had he won the nomination

It took me a moment, but I am guessing this is supposed to read: shudder in horror.

stlouiedipalma;790628 wrote:Interesting point from Bill Maher last night. He said there were two politicians who cheated on their wives while they were ill. Edwards is condemned by everyone and Gingrich is held up as some kind of great American.

They're both slime in my opinion.

Yes they're both slime for cheating on their wives. Yet while Gingrich is not a "great American" for being an adulterer, he at least hasn't been indicted on felony charges for illegally spending campaign contributions to hide his indiscretions.

Gingrich - while being politically astute and who would probably be a good president - will NEVER become POTUS because of his sliminess.

believer;790729 wrote:Gingrich - while being politically astute and who would probably be a good president - will NEVER become POTUS because of his sliminess.

Why not? How is Gingrich less slimy than Slick Willie? Or JFK? Oh, that's right, those 2 were Dems, so its just sex when it comes to them. There's no double standard in politics....right???

Gingrich is still slimy but he isn't a criminal (allegedly in the case of Edwards so far) yet.

BGFalcons82;790743 wrote:Why not? How is Gingrich less slimy than Slick Willie? Or JFK? Oh, that's right, those 2 were Dems, so its just sex when it comes to them. There's no double standard in politics....right???

Believe me, BG, I completely agree.

I'm just being pragmatic. Unless Gingrich can conjure up some remarkable and undeniable political savvy and mo-jo in the next 6 months like he enjoyed in the early 90's, the Republican command structure is highly unlikely to back Gingrich. He's "damaged goods" so to speak.

However, if by some long-shot he gets the Republican nomination, he'll still have my vote.

Believer, you will literally vote for anyone but Obama. I'd bet my house on it. So it doesn't matter who gets the nomination you already know who you're voting for.

I Wear Pants;791071 wrote:Believer, you will literally vote for anyone but Obama. I'd bet my house on it. So it doesn't matter who gets the nomination you already know who you're voting for.

True. Even a slimy Newt is a better alternative than the Anointed One.

I also have a hunch that millions of fence-riding voters who bought the Hollywood "hope & change" mantra the last time also already know who they're voting for....regardless of who the final candidate is.

Unless the opposition to Obama is a serial killer, they'll most likely get my vote.

Hope that didn't come off as a "you idiot you just hate Obama" thing (which you probably do but I digress). I was just thinking that it's interesting how you and others may not care who the GOP nominee is because you're voting for them anyway. Not trying to make a judgement out of it just an observation that people like me probably have a lot more invested in who the Republican nominee is than yourself. Because I'd absolutely love to have someone else to vote for. But I cannot and will not vote for a Palin type. Just how it is.

What if they only killed Democrats Writer?

Look, the Republican party sold their souls in order to pander to the Tea Party. Now it's time for the loonies in that movement to call in their markers. Because of that, the Republicans will not be able to have any kind of a moderate, with an excellent chance of winning the White House, run for President. The lunatic fringe which is the Tea Party simply will not allow it. As a result, they will probably lose the White House again next year and some of the more moderate Republicans in Congress will face Tea Party challenges in their primaries. As the Republicans go further and further into that la-la land of right wing extremism, they will alienate those moderates out there and the independent voters. 2012 will be an interesting year indeed.

I absolutely love how people who believe in less government intrusion and freedom are called "loonies" by people. Score one for media brain washing, I guess. The medium truly is the message these days.

stlouiedipalma;791394 wrote:... the Republicans will not be able to have any kind of a moderate, with an excellent chance of winning the White House, run for President. ...

I tend to agree with this statement. However, my complaint with the leadership of the Republican party has been that they have moved the party too much to the center in any attempt to try and appeal to the independents and moderate. It's why I have abandoned them.

I want to see more actions based on principles and core convictions. Significantly more conservative from a fiscal perspective as opposed to the words not followed by actions.

I have been an independent now for quite some time and will stay that way. Partisan politics is devastating to progress. I seek candidates that are willing to tighten up spending and follow the constitution. I'm still searching.

Con_Alma;791398 wrote:I tend to agree with this statement. However, my complaint with the leadership of the Republican party has been that they have moved the party to much to the center in any attempt to try and appeal to the independents and moderate. It's why I have abandoned them.

I want to see more actions based on principles and core convictions. Significantly more conservative from a fiscal perspective as opposed to the words not followed by actions.

I have been an independent now for quite some time and will stay that way. Partisan politics is devastating to progress. I seek candidates that are willing to tighten up spending and follow the constitution. I'm still searching.

I guess that umbrella has shrunk quite a bit over the years.

stlouiedipalma;791394 wrote:Look, the Republican party sold their souls in order to pander to the Tea Party. Now it's time for the loonies in that movement to call in their markers. Because of that, the Republicans will not be able to have any kind of a moderate, with an excellent chance of winning the White House, run for President. The lunatic fringe which is the Tea Party simply will not allow it. As a result, they will probably lose the White House again next year and some of the more moderate Republicans in Congress will face Tea Party challenges in their primaries. As the Republicans go further and further into that la-la land of right wing extremism, they will alienate those moderates out there and the independent voters. 2012 will be an interesting year indeed.

LMAO...While there may be a some truth in what you say, I can EASILY turn the tables on thse points and claim that the Democratic Party has already been hijacked by the left wing extremists in your own party. Hence, the best your party can do is Barrack Obama. If you want us to believe BHO is a "moderate" then you are beholden to the lunatic fringe in your own party.

If people who believe that the ever increasing growth of Big Government is the PROBLEM - not the solution - means they are extreme lunatics then there are a BUNCH of loons out there. Count me in............la-la-la

Writerbuckeye;791397 wrote:I absolutely love how people who believe in less government intrusion and freedom are called "loonies" by people. Score one for media brain washing, I guess. The medium truly is the message these days.

I believe in those things and think that a good amount of people who say they are in the "tea party" are loonies

Got any real proof besides you "think" LJ?

I know the left (and the media) love to paint all the tea party folks as lunatics, but I honestly have not seen what they keep screaming about.

Are these folks CONSERVATIVE? Yes. But I have yet to see any real proof Tea Party folks are (take your media talking point of the day here) racists, bigots, gun wielding militia, etc.

Oh and back on topic: why is it that the government has to prove John Edwards knew he was breaking the law to make their case? I always heard ignorance was no defense -- but this was a big point they were making in an NBC story I saw a couple days ago.

Writerbuckeye;791484 wrote:Got any real proof besides you "think" LJ?

I know the left (and the media) love to paint all the tea party folks as lunatics, but I honestly have not seen what they keep screaming about.

Are these folks CONSERVATIVE? Yes. But I have yet to see any real proof Tea Party folks are (take your media talking point of the day here) racists, bigots, gun wielding militia, etc.

Spend a good amount of time in rural Ohio and you will have the proof you need. My real proof is that I have run into plenty.

LJ;791486 wrote:Spend a good amount of time in rural Ohio and you will have the proof you need. My real proof is that I have run into plenty.

Your evidence is anecdotal. I have lived in rural Ohio all my life. Though many here in rural Ohio that want less government involvement in their lives are not as political astute as you and I, the vast majority I would hardly categorize as loons. I have met the loons and they are few and far between.

majorspark;791529 wrote:Your evidence is anecdotal. I have lived in rural Ohio all my life. Though many here in rural Ohio that want less government involvement in their lives are not as political astute as you and I, the vast majority I would hardly categorize as loons. I have met the loons and they are few and far between.

Come to the gun club in Sunbury next sunday and I will introduce you to all the loons.

LJ;791486 wrote:Spend a good amount of time in rural Ohio and you will have the proof you need. My real proof is that I have run into plenty.

C'mon LJ...really? You spend a little time in rural Ohio, you bump into a handful of good ol' boys who lack your elitist education, and you can now make a blanket claim that they're all Tea Party loons?

I've bumped into quite a few die-hard liberals in urban Ohio, but I'm not ready to claim that everyone who lives in Columbus is a leftist pin head.