7 of 9, nope...6 of 9!Follow

http://robots.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/ryan.divorce/

Those crazy Republicans!

Eb

Wanna hear a joke?

Why was 6 afraid of 7?.........Cause 7 ate 9!


Good times, good times...

What was his scandal? I forget...(if I ever knew)

Eb

Word of advice to anyone thinking of seeking political office:

If you've been to a sex club, and a single person who was there or who may have been told about your visit is still alive, choose a different career path.

I'm always a bit surprised that people apparently believe this kind of information won't be dug up and used against them.

"Stop crying! I said STOP CRYING. You're wrecking this for me. Christ, what a turn off."

Who says romance is dead?

Hmmm... I have some serious issues with that article though:



Um. That depends on what you consider "embarassing". I don't think he was lying. The guy surely knew that the information was there. I think he believed that a couple trips to some clubs wasn't something that should prevent a man from serving in public office.

Believe it or not. All Republicans are not adherants to the Religious Right. There's no assumption that because you are a Republican, you must be some uber-religious fanatic, and going to a sex club is somehow automatically opposed to what your beliefs *should be*.

It's only an issue if Ryan is one of those Bible Thumping folks. If he's not, then there's nothing inconsistent about going to a sex club, and unless there's something illegal about it, what exactly is the problem? Since when do we assume that only Democrats like sex?





What!? It's dishonorable to seek public office because years ago, you went to a legal sex club? The only thing dishonorable is the people who assume that such a thing disqualifies someone for elected office.

The Europeans are going to make fun of us again for this. I just know it...

That's fine. It's an editorial, so obviously it's a matter of opinion.

No, I think the point is that it's dishonorable to seal your court records and then tell your party and the public there's nothing embarassing in there. Obviously GOP leaders feel that it was embarassing. In fact, GOP leaders are saying that he's being untruthful now in denying that he previously denied it. Heck, there's evidence that Ryan himself felt it would be:

But in September 2000, Anne Kiley, an attorney for Jeri Ryan, said in a court filing that one of Jack Ryan's attorneys had told her a few months earlier that Jack Ryan wanted parts of the file blacked out, removed or sealed because he was "concerned [it] would negatively impact his political aspirations and embarrass him."

That's what tthey're saying is dishonorable, not his visiting the clubs in of itself.

Take it easy, Gbaji. Nobody's bashing republicans, that I can see. Enjoy the respite.

What I was trying to convey is that in our current cultural climate, I think this type of information about any political hopeful would be damaging. No matter how legal the club is. No matter whether or not his ex-wife had enjoyed it. No matter if it had been 10 years or 2 weeks ago.

This country, for whatever reason, has some sort of standard of sainthood that seekers of political office are held to.

If a story can be exposed or twisted to tarnish an image of a candidate, it will be.

Perhaps if more candidates stepped up and said something to the effect of "Yes, the information is true. So what?" people would better draw the line of what's a legitimate public concern and what's private and none of our business.

Ah. Ok. Um... You are aware that the quote is from Jeri Ryan's attorney, right? They aren't quoting Ryan or his attorney's. They're quoting his ex-wife's attorney.

So it's dishonorable because your ex-wife's attorney says that your attorney's said that you did it to protect your political career. Hmmm... Not that I'm insisting that this isn't true or anything. I've never heard of this guy before today and really don't care if he get elected to anything or not. My issue is with the representation of the story.


You're taking the word of a filing by an attorney for his ex-wife *during their divorce* and creating hay out of it because it doesn't match his side of the story. Um. Her job is to make filings that imply that the other side is "bad". Her job is to make filings counter to the other guys claims. That's what she's paid to do. That's pure hearsay. What matters is what filings his attorney made. Everything else is pure speculation and accusation. Saying he's dishonest because his reasons don't match an adversarial claim about his reasons in the midst of a divorce is a bit of a stretch dont you think?

Actually, I kinda agree with Yanari. If more people took the "what of it" stance, those kind of things would become less of an issue to public life. We have this view/requirement that politicians shouldn't be involved in sexually open activities largely because we assume that most aren't.

However, as long as the bulk of politicians continue to maintain that illusion about themselves, the situation for the unfortunates like Ryan is that not denying it will hurt him. Same thing with Clinton. He could have just said: "Sure. I was banging an intern. What business if that of yours?". But he didn't. He didn't because by denying it there was at least the chance that no-one could prove the allegation. If he admitted it, he would be "guilty".


It's screwed up. But that's the reality that our politician have to deal with. The mere accusation of such a thing can destroy their careers. That's just silly IMO.

There's a difference between "making someone look bad" and outright lying. Are you saying Kiley chose to lie to the courts in writing about a quote from Jack Ryan's lawyers knowing that his lawyers would be reviewing it? You don't find that the least bit implausible?

Either Anne Kiley's 2000 statement was factual or else Jack Ryan and his attorneys are the biggest bunch of idiots on the planet to let her say that and not contest it.

Honestly, if there was nothing "embarassing" about the accusations, the thing to do would have been to be up front about it. If the accusations are lies, the thing to do would have been to confront them. Either way, the stupid thing to do would be to stand in front of the closet with your arms outstretched and say "Nope.. nothing in here. No need to look. Not a thing to see..." to both your own political party who is supposed to be supporting you and to the public.

Guess which option Jack Ryan picked?

This isn't even an "evil liberals are making this out to be something it's not" situation though Ryan would like you to think so, based on his comments about the judge. His own party is stepping back and asking him why the hell he wasn't upfront with this stuff before it was pried out into the open and made him look like a liar. Really, if you want to ***** about how unfair it is that suspicions should be cast upon a guy who lied about this, the folks to ***** are the Republicans.

You should. He's running for one of the seats that could swing Senate control to the Democrats this fall

Edit: Originally said the divorce was in 1995, based off another article. But yet another says she filed for divorce in 1998. Whatever.. heh

Edited, Thu Jun 24 01:00:24 2004 by Jophiel

It's not his sex life, it's the fact that he lied to both the voters and his own party leaders.

The fact that hes running for public office makes me dislike him.

The fact that he is a straight up sex freak makes me laugh.

The fact that he is stupid enough to think he can run for public office with that kind of history and then lie to everyone about it makes me think he has giant balls to be that brave/stupid. Which might also kinda explain the sex freak thing to.

Edited, Thu Jun 24 01:01:29 2004 by bhodisattva

The black guy has a point. Maybe Jacks just greedy, or he is bored and there are no russian nuclear subs that need defecting.

Edited, Thu Jun 24 01:34:35 2004 by bhodisattva

Edited, Thu Jun 24 01:35:06 2004 by bhodisattva