any thoughts on the Jack Ryan divorce disclosure? Is this up there with Clinton’s “I didn’t inhale” response?
In regard to divorces, a very wise friend of mine once told me, “There are three sides to every divorce, his side, her side, and the truth.”.
All I can say about it is that reading that story must have made the day of many Star Trek geeks.
“Dude! That hottie who play 7-of-9 on Vogager goes to sex clubs!”
“Awesome!”
Seriously, I think that what Jeri is saying to cover for him is very nice(from a personal point of view, as opposed to destroying him, which many ex-es would do), but if the stories are true, I’m thinking that you might not want the guy to be in office.
Allegations and even testimony from divorce actions are usually at least exaggerated if not blatant lies.
It is reprehensible that a judge rolled over and set aside a confidentiality order, especially when the party making the allegations (Jeri Ryan) wanted to keep it in place.
Jim Ryan is toast and should bow out of the race ASAP. It might not be fair, but life isn’t always fair, especially in politics.
yes, but she wanted to leave! As for the subject at hand, does this make him any less qualified than before the public knew this (I am not invested in this race, nor am I eligible to vote in IL)? how much of one’s private life be made public? Clinton’s big folly happened while he was in office (in THE office), this guy is just running for office. which begs the question, knowing this, should he have run? I guess what I’m really asking is, what about the hypocrasy of the Repubs, who went all out after Clinton for sex issues? these guys are all lining up to proclaim Jack Ryan a saint. Actually, what I’m really wondering is whether or not Tom Clancy is running his campaign!
“…what about the hypocrasy of the Repubs, who went all out after Clinton for sex issues? these guys are all lining up to proclaim Jack Ryan a saint.”
I am not following the story that closely, but somewhere on the news I saw a story that indicated the opposite–e.g., that many Republicans are quietly urging him to bow out.
Actually the big cheese republicans are calling for him to quit the race. They aren’t standing by him, nor did they ever (Topinka and Edgar didn’t).
That being said I say who cares about the whole thing. So what is him and his wife went to a sex club. He even admitted that they went to one in Paris and were both uncomfortable so they left.
This also has no compaison to Clinton’s deal. I also couldn’t care less that he got hummers in the Oval Office, but he lied under oath about it. Therein lies the difference. Although Ryan could be lying too I don’t know.
What about the hypocrisy of the Democrats, who should all be lining up to say that this is his private life, that it has nothing to do with his qualifications, that should be pledging not to raise the issue during the general election campaign and that should saying that we need to put all of this behind us?
If I’m not mistaken, Jeri had an affair.
And not to defend pervitry, but even if the allegations were true,the guy didn’t want to have public sex with a goat, or even a 21 year-old intern, but with his wife.
But yes, he’s toast.
-bobo
“Clinton’s big folly happened while he was in office (in THE office), this guy is just running for office. which begs the question, knowing this, should he have run?”
-
- Politicians run for their egos as much as anything. Same reason they have sex.
“I guess what I’m really asking is, what about the hypocrasy of the Repubs, who went all out after Clinton for sex issues?”
-
- DANGER - DANGER - brainwashing alert!!! Clinton was NOT pursued for sexual issues but for CRIMINAL issues. The allegations against him were sexual assault, sexual harrassment, perjury and bank fraud.
“these guys are all lining up to proclaim Jack Ryan a saint.”
-
- Doesn’t matter. The smear machine has stained him, he’s a liability.
It is a matter of public record. Even divorce document are legal court docs, open to anyone unless sealed by the judge, and usually only in the case of protecting a child.
On another note, why are many of our politicians sexual deviants? What’s up with that? I don’t even have time to be sexually deviant or figure out how to get into that. How do they? They are supposed to be leading our cities, states, and nation???
yeah, you’re right, but I don’t see any Dems calling him out. this was done by the press, including the LA Times, like they had to know about an Il Senate race. No, I don’t think this has any bearing on whether or not he would be a good Senator. I think he’s an idiot for running, knowing this might come out. that’s the problem with politics these days - everything is out there.
The local Chicago news has been reporting that he will either step down based on pole numbers taken in the daily southtown (the other southside news paper that doesn’t make up its circulation numbers) or that the speaker of the house along with several state and federal RNC players will force him out because he obviously didn’t disclose this bit of trivia to the party prior to getting their backing.
I will say that if this guys last name were kennedy and it was 1964 and not 2004 that we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But 40 years has changed the way the press views the politicians and the amount of privacy anyone who strives for public office can expect.
To clarify somewhat, I have only read one story on this subject. It was the story run by cnn.com a few days ago. I do not know the entire history of the couple, or of their divorce or custody battle.
That said, what I recall from the story was that he took her to sex clubs in Paris and wanted her to have sex in front of other people. It also said that this was part of their testimony over visitation rights. As such, those records would be sealed. Family Court records, as opposed to divorce proceedings, are typically sealed because of potential damage to the children.
Anyway, I generally believe that a person’s personal life is just that. However, as we all know, when you put yourself under the microscope of public scrutiny(even one as small as this forum) you open yourself up to public scrutiny far beyond what most people might consider to be acceptable. Is it right? Perhaps not. But it is unlikely to change any time soon.
I agree that he is probably toast. Only Democrats can go to sex clubs and still win elections. Now, ahh, bring me anotha beah, Teddy! ;p
I don’t recall anyone going after Clinton for sex issues. I do recall false and misleading staements in a deposition by the chief law enforcement officer in the country. I do remember lying under oath to a federal judge that he had appointed. I do remember his being disbarred for all of the above.
Does anyone seriously think that Monica’s was the only blow job he ever got in the oval office? I guess a better questin would be does anyone care. I certainly don’t.
Good try on rewritng history though.
Art! I’ve been waiting for you to jump in. I’m not rying to rewrite anything, just asking questions. IMO, Ryan should have known this would be a problem. You guys should have gotten Hillary to dump Bill, then you could read all the dirt! lol
I don’t really know anything about the Ryan situation. So, he went to a sex club with his wife. That seems to be a step up from current Washington standards. He was actually married to the woman he wanted sex with. What a concept
Still, you do have to wonder about a male who has to go in public to get excited about having sex with that babe.
maybe he just wanted to show off!
I heard on Chicago radio that he’s still planning on staying in the race - I’m sure that will change before long though.
>Is this up there with Clinton’s “I didn’t inhale” response?
Exactly - something that really has no bearing on his ability to serve in public office.
No, this is not even close to “I didn’t inhale” or “I did not have sex with that woman Monica Lewinsky”. What everyone seems to overlook is that Ryan did nothing wrong; he didn’t break any laws, he didn’t cheat on his wife with an underage intern (like the former mayor of Portland, OR).
So now the Republican Party of Illinois is going to sink to the same low as the Democratic Party of New Jersey. You do remember the 2000 senate race don’t you? For those of you with short memory spans, the incumbent Democrat in that race came under heavy fire shortly before the general election. A criminal indictment was imminent, and the incumbent was far behind his Republican challenger in the polls. So what did the D’s do? Naturally, the incumbent was forced to bail out of the election. The D’s then put a very popular guy on the ticket; so popular he commanded a significant lead over the R candidate. The R’s challenged this all the way to the NJ Supreme Court, which ruled it was OK to replace the D candidate (even though this was a clear violation of state law). The D went on to win the election, and the US Senate went from R control to D control for 2 short years after a senator from the northeast switched from R to Independent.
The guy that won the election in NJ was none other than John Corzine who just happens to be a former coworker of Jack Ryan. They both worked together at Goldman Sachs.
So Ryan may be guilty of poor judgement, but the Republicans knew he had these sealed documents hanging over his head when they nominated him. The only way the Illinois Republican Party can rebuild any credibility with the public is to stick with Ryan and let him go down in flames in the general election. Since we all know this won’t happen, I recommend the following two candidates as possible replacements: Micheal Jordan or Mike Ditka. Both are seens as gods in Illinois (especially Chicago), and after all isn’t being popular with the public what really matters? Just ask St Billary.