Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Washington (CNN) -- Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who is under an ethics investigation by the Senate, announced Thursday that he will resign his seat on May 3.

Ensign had previously said he would not run for re-election in 2012 following revelations that he had an affair with a female aide who was the wife of another top aide, and that his parents subsequently gave money to the aides' family.

"While I stand behind my firm belief that I have not violated any law, rule, or standard of conduct of the Senate, and I have fought to prove this publicly, I will not continue to subject my family, my constituents, or the Senate to any further rounds of investigation, depositions, drawn out proceedings, or especially public hearings," Ensign said in the statement.

"For my family and me, this continued personal cost is simply too great."

Ensign has admitted to having an affair with Cindy Hampton, a campaign aide and the wife of Ensign's former chief of staff, Doug Hampton.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/21/ ... 1&iref=BN1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

seemed like the inevitable outcome of all of this.

Doesn't really mean anything. The seat will stay red.

93henfan wrote:Doesn't really mean anything. The seat will stay red.

This actually helps keep it red, likely. Nevada is a purple state - so getting a new Republican in there to get exposure will only help the reelection. Also will likely short-circuit a messy primary.

What is significant about 03 MAY that he would step down on THAT date? It's a Tuesday, which seems weird.

SuperHornet wrote:What is significant about 03 MAY that he would step down on THAT date? It's a Tuesday, which seems weird.

Because he is busy on the 2nd...

https://pnciowa.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/76/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


International Pagan Coming Out Day May 2nd, 2011
Posted on February 15, 2011
by pnciowa| Leave a comment
What started as an idea has now become an international event. May 2nd will serve as an International Pagan Coming Out Day. The event is hoping to serve our community by providing support and encouragement for those who want to take their religion out of the broom closet. The organization (IPCOD) is a not-for-profit “working to achieve greater acceptance and equity for Pagans at home, at work, and in every community.”

Two questions-

1) Was she hot?

2) Will Rangel and Waters follow suit? I doubt it.

Good riddance!

CID1990 wrote: ...2) Will Rangel and Waters follow suit? I doubt it.

Big difference CID...

Ensign didn't violate any law and his "offense" was a personal/familial matter. Having character, he chose to resign in a remorseful manner to preserve the decorum of his post

Rangel and Waters violated criminal law and have no character.

See how that works?

travelinman67 wrote:

CID1990 wrote: ...2) Will Rangel and Waters follow suit? I doubt it.

Big difference CID...

Ensign didn't violate any law and his "offense" was a personal/familial matter. Having character, he chose to resign in a remorseful manner to preserve the decorum of his post

Rangel and Waters violated criminal law and have no character.

See how that works?

Yeah, Ensign thought he'd step down before the ethics investigation cleared him.........

The good news is that one more Republican sex scandal involving females and we'll have a genuine trend......


Boning your campaign managers wife.......

travelinman67 wrote:

CID1990 wrote: ...2) Will Rangel and Waters follow suit? I doubt it.

Big difference CID...

Ensign didn't violate any law and his "offense" was a personal/familial matter. Having character, he chose to resign in a remorseful manner to preserve the decorum of his post

Rangel and Waters violated criminal law and have no character.

See how that works?

So you're saying cheating with a married woman, giving her family hush money, getting her husband a lobbying job, and then allowing him to lobby you in violation of Senate rules is good character.

OK.

CID1990 wrote:Two questions-

1) Was she hot?

This.

Can someone get some pictures of this Cindy Hampton? Cindy is a hot name, this story has potential.

I presume the chick on the right is Cindy.

The accompanying article says that Cindy was Ensign's wife's BFF from high school. Really? You just don't do that to your BFF.

93henfan wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Big difference CID...

Ensign didn't violate any law and his "offense" was a personal/familial matter. Having character, he chose to resign in a remorseful manner to preserve the decorum of his post

Rangel and Waters violated criminal law and have no character.

See how that works?

So you're saying cheating with a married woman, giving her family hush money, getting her husband a lobbying job, and then allowing him to lobby you in violation of Senate rules is good character.

OK.

Umm...

...hiring as a former lobbyist as a staffer, or allowing a former campaign worker now employed as a lobbyist to lobby an elected congressman, is NOT a direct ethics violation. Dozens, if not hundreds, of congressmen do it currently.

http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/reverse.php

Despite Obama's "promise" to remove the revolving door, this practice is still alive and well.

Ensign's allowing his former campaign chief, now lobbyist, to lobby him, is normal. If congress added this to their list of no-no's, half of congress would be in violation.

Ensign's resignation resulted from his personal/familial offense, not potential ethics violation.

travelinman67 wrote:

93henfan wrote:
So you're saying cheating with a married woman, giving her family hush money, getting her husband a lobbying job, and then allowing him to lobby you in violation of Senate rules is good character.

OK.

Umm...

...hiring as a former lobbyist as a staffer, or allowing a former campaign worker now employed as a lobbyist to lobby an elected congressman, is NOT a direct ethics violation. Dozens, if not hundreds, of congressmen do it currently.

http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/reverse.php

Despite Obama's "promise" to remove the revolving door, this practice is still alive and well.

Ensign's allowing his former campaign chief, now lobbyist, to lobby him, is normal. If congress added this to their list of no-no's, half of congress would be in violation.

Ensign's resignation resulted from his personal/familial offense, not potential ethics violation.

rare moment where i half agree with T-Man.

The Hill is flush with lobbyists who "cashed out" after serving as Congressional staffers. I don't really see too much wrong with that either, I disagreed with candidate Obama about the need to "sweep out the lobbyists and end the revolving door" because the problem is patently overstated. Lobbyists aren't responsible for pork-barrel spending - Congressmen who realize that the fastest way to ensure re-election is to bring home the bacon (and the voters who love them) are.

However - Ensign's resignation is far from some high-minded and noble deed worthy of a Frank Capra film. He resigned now to limit the damage to his party, and to ensure that his party retained the seat in the Senate. A bit cynical, but frankly I don't think less of him for being tactical in that regard. He held on as long as he likely could without causing real damage. Had he been a "man of character" he would have resigned when it first came to light... or, more accurately... wouldn't have f'd his wife's best friend. (also, dangerous move as a candidate - making your friend a campaign manager... a CM has to be someone you can fire, but also someone who can thoroughly kick your ass when you need it)

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Umm...

...hiring as a former lobbyist as a staffer, or allowing a former campaign worker now employed as a lobbyist to lobby an elected congressman, is NOT a direct ethics violation. Dozens, if not hundreds, of congressmen do it currently.

http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/reverse.php

Despite Obama's "promise" to remove the revolving door, this practice is still alive and well.

Ensign's allowing his former campaign chief, now lobbyist, to lobby him, is normal. If congress added this to their list of no-no's, half of congress would be in violation.

Ensign's resignation resulted from his personal/familial offense, not potential ethics violation.

rare moment where i half agree with T-Man.

The Hill is flush with lobbyists who "cashed out" after serving as Congressional staffers. I don't really see too much wrong with that either, I disagreed with candidate Obama about the need to "sweep out the lobbyists and end the revolving door" because the problem is patently overstated. Lobbyists aren't responsible for pork-barrel spending - Congressmen who realize that the fastest way to ensure re-election is to bring home the bacon (and the voters who love them) are.

However - Ensign's resignation is far from some high-minded and noble deed worthy of a Frank Capra film. He resigned now to limit the damage to his party, and to ensure that his party retained the seat in the Senate. A bit cynical, but frankly I don't think less of him for being tactical in that regard. He held on as long as he likely could without causing real damage. Had he been a "man of character" he would have resigned when it first came to light... or, more accurately... wouldn't have f'd his wife's best friend. (also, dangerous move as a candidate - making your friend a campaign manager... a CM has to be someone you can fire, but also someone who can thoroughly kick your ass when you need it)

Hey T, is Ensign related to the Ensign-Bickford Company?

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Umm...

...hiring as a former lobbyist as a staffer, or allowing a former campaign worker now employed as a lobbyist to lobby an elected congressman, is NOT a direct ethics violation. Dozens, if not hundreds, of congressmen do it currently.

http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/reverse.php

Despite Obama's "promise" to remove the revolving door, this practice is still alive and well.

Ensign's allowing his former campaign chief, now lobbyist, to lobby him, is normal. If congress added this to their list of no-no's, half of congress would be in violation.

Ensign's resignation resulted from his personal/familial offense, not potential ethics violation.

rare moment where i half agree with T-Man.

The Hill is flush with lobbyists who "cashed out" after serving as Congressional staffers. I don't really see too much wrong with that either, I disagreed with candidate Obama about the need to "sweep out the lobbyists and end the revolving door" because the problem is patently overstated. Lobbyists aren't responsible for pork-barrel spending - Congressmen who realize that the fastest way to ensure re-election is to bring home the bacon (and the voters who love them) are.

However - Ensign's resignation is far from some high-minded and noble deed worthy of a Frank Capra film. He resigned now to limit the damage to his party, and to ensure that his party retained the seat in the Senate. A bit cynical, but frankly I don't think less of him for being tactical in that regard. He held on as long as he likely could without causing real damage. Had he been a "man of character" he would have resigned when it first came to light... or, more accurately... wouldn't have f'd his wife's best friend. (also, dangerous move as a candidate - making your friend a campaign manager... a CM has to be someone you can fire, but also someone who can thoroughly kick your ass when you need it)

Which takes me back to my original contrast with Waters and Rangel: Is he not the "better man" for taking a dive to protect his party, regardless of the seriousness of the offense? Much of what caused the change of power resulted from old-blood stubborn dems failure to fall on their own sword when they were caught screwing up. I don't think it's even arguable that the PRIMARY cause was not the substance of Obama's policy changes, but how they were implemented by Pelosi and Reid. Had P and R demonstrated even a modicum of consensus building or compromise in their legislating, Americans wouldn't have become so angry.
As you well know, TTBF, one of the key elements of winning an election is the portrayal that the politician is LISTENING to the constituents (whether genuine or faked). Pelosi and Reid made it abundantly clear they didn't give a damn what the voters or Republicans had to say. And while that played well with the 24% hardcores, the middle 12% wants to see progress, not partisanship.

travelinman67 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
rare moment where i half agree with T-Man.

The Hill is flush with lobbyists who "cashed out" after serving as Congressional staffers. I don't really see too much wrong with that either, I disagreed with candidate Obama about the need to "sweep out the lobbyists and end the revolving door" because the problem is patently overstated. Lobbyists aren't responsible for pork-barrel spending - Congressmen who realize that the fastest way to ensure re-election is to bring home the bacon (and the voters who love them) are.

However - Ensign's resignation is far from some high-minded and noble deed worthy of a Frank Capra film. He resigned now to limit the damage to his party, and to ensure that his party retained the seat in the Senate. A bit cynical, but frankly I don't think less of him for being tactical in that regard. He held on as long as he likely could without causing real damage. Had he been a "man of character" he would have resigned when it first came to light... or, more accurately... wouldn't have f'd his wife's best friend. (also, dangerous move as a candidate - making your friend a campaign manager... a CM has to be someone you can fire, but also someone who can thoroughly kick your ass when you need it)

Which takes me back to my original contrast with Waters and Rangel: Is he not the "better man" for taking a dive to protect his party, regardless of the seriousness of the offense? Much of what caused the change of power resulted from old-blood stubborn dems failure to fall on their own sword when they were caught screwing up. I don't think it's even arguable that the PRIMARY cause was not the substance of Obama's policy changes, but how they were implemented by Pelosi and Reid. Had P and R demonstrated even a modicum of consensus building or compromise in their legislating, Americans wouldn't have become so angry.
As you well know, TTBF, one of the key elements of winning an election is the portrayal that the politician is LISTENING to the constituents (whether genuine or faked). Pelosi and Reid made it abundantly clear they didn't give a damn what the voters or Republicans had to say. And while that played well with the 24% hardcores, the middle 12% wants to see progress, not partisanship.

The difference between Rangel and Waters and Ensign is that the districts they are in are so safe that there is no risk of them losing those seats because of their problems. Rangel was censured by the House... but my guess is, his district won't replace him... which is their choice. Same with Waters (who I can't stand) - she'll face the voters, and likely win...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Which takes me back to my original contrast with Waters and Rangel: Is he not the "better man" for taking a dive to protect his party, regardless of the seriousness of the offense? Much of what caused the change of power resulted from old-blood stubborn dems failure to fall on their own sword when they were caught screwing up. I don't think it's even arguable that the PRIMARY cause was not the substance of Obama's policy changes, but how they were implemented by Pelosi and Reid. Had P and R demonstrated even a modicum of consensus building or compromise in their legislating, Americans wouldn't have become so angry.
As you well know, TTBF, one of the key elements of winning an election is the portrayal that the politician is LISTENING to the constituents (whether genuine or faked). Pelosi and Reid made it abundantly clear they didn't give a damn what the voters or Republicans had to say. And while that played well with the 24% hardcores, the middle 12% wants to see progress, not partisanship.

The difference between Rangel and Waters and Ensign is that the districts they are in are so safe that there is no risk of them losing those seats because of their problems. Rangel was censured by the House... but my guess is, his district won't replace him... which is their choice. Same with Waters (who I can't stand) - she'll face the voters, and likely win...

Looking at the people who make up their districts, thats not surprising.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Umm...

...hiring as a former lobbyist as a staffer, or allowing a former campaign worker now employed as a lobbyist to lobby an elected congressman, is NOT a direct ethics violation. Dozens, if not hundreds, of congressmen do it currently.

http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/reverse.php

Despite Obama's "promise" to remove the revolving door, this practice is still alive and well.

Ensign's allowing his former campaign chief, now lobbyist, to lobby him, is normal. If congress added this to their list of no-no's, half of congress would be in violation.

Ensign's resignation resulted from his personal/familial offense, not potential ethics violation.

rare moment where i half agree with T-Man.

The Hill is flush with lobbyists who "cashed out" after serving as Congressional staffers. I don't really see too much wrong with that either, I disagreed with candidate Obama about the need to "sweep out the lobbyists and end the revolving door" because the problem is patently overstated. Lobbyists aren't responsible for pork-barrel spending - Congressmen who realize that the fastest way to ensure re-election is to bring home the bacon (and the voters who love them) are.

it)

Doesn't the same cash out situation work for congressman too?

Lobbyists may not be responsible for pork barrel spending, but there must be some reason there are 40,000 of them and billions are spent on their efforts.

I have a buddy who is a pharma rep. They've limited this somewhat now, but back in the day he'd really wine and dine Doc's, take them on guided flyfishing trips, golf outings etc. This of course had a shitload to do with which anti-depressant or reflux drug your doc was likely to subscribe to ya and too often less about which was the right one for your particular circumstances.

So yes it might be the way things are but it doesn't make it effective or right.

kalm wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
rare moment where i half agree with T-Man.

The Hill is flush with lobbyists who "cashed out" after serving as Congressional staffers. I don't really see too much wrong with that either, I disagreed with candidate Obama about the need to "sweep out the lobbyists and end the revolving door" because the problem is patently overstated. Lobbyists aren't responsible for pork-barrel spending - Congressmen who realize that the fastest way to ensure re-election is to bring home the bacon (and the voters who love them) are.

it)

Doesn't the same cash out situation work for congressman too?

Lobbyists may not be responsible for pork barrel spending, but there must be some reason there are 40,000 of them and billions are spent on their efforts.

I have a buddy who is a pharma rep. They've limited this somewhat now, but back in the day he'd really wine and dine Doc's, take them on guided flyfishing trips, golf outings etc. This of course had a shitload to do with which anti-depressant or reflux drug your doc was likely to subscribe to ya and too often less about which was the right one for your particular circumstances.

So yes it might be the way things are but it doesn't make it effective or right.

Members have to wait now... i think it's three years... to begin lobbying.

however - of course there are 40,000 lobbyists in DC... think about it... it's the seat of government for the most powerful nation on earth - a government that Constitutionally guarantees the right to petition and protect political speech. they literally represent the entire gamut of political speech at that. from people representing the cancer society, to the tobacco industry, to national cheesemakers, to exotic dancers, to people concerned about RC aircraft or online poker. you name the group or profession or notion - and odds are someone is in DC keeping an eye on Congress making sure the point of view of those people is heard. and that's as it should be.

people bemoan and demean lobbyists - and assume that shit still works like it did during Tammany Hall... guy shows up with a briefcase of cash on a golf course, takes the congressman to a steak dinner with a $2,000/hr call girl for dessert... shit like that is largely a fantasy (and a relic of the old days)

these days, the lobbyists set up meetings (usually with the staffers) make their pitch on this bill or that currently sitting in committee, explain why they think it's good for the district or the country or whatever... and that's that. The member then has to decide for themselves where their vote will go. It's not like how it used to be in one other key way... these days there are donations to be had on either side of any issue... so while a members vote on a bill might net them contributions... odds are very good that voting the other way would have too. while there are still "votes for sale" congresspeople out there... they are largely the exception, not the rule. these days, lobbyists make donations to retain members who already support their point of view - and invest in candidates who are running against people who oppose it.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Doesn't the same cash out situation work for congressman too?

Lobbyists may not be responsible for pork barrel spending, but there must be some reason there are 40,000 of them and billions are spent on their efforts.

I have a buddy who is a pharma rep. They've limited this somewhat now, but back in the day he'd really wine and dine Doc's, take them on guided flyfishing trips, golf outings etc. This of course had a shitload to do with which anti-depressant or reflux drug your doc was likely to subscribe to ya and too often less about which was the right one for your particular circumstances.

So yes it might be the way things are but it doesn't make it effective or right.

Members have to wait now... i think it's three years... to begin lobbying.

however - of course there are 40,000 lobbyists in DC... think about it... it's the seat of government for the most powerful nation on earth - a government that Constitutionally guarantees the right to petition and protect political speech. they literally represent the entire gamut of political speech at that. from people representing the cancer society, to the tobacco industry, to national cheesemakers, to exotic dancers, to people concerned about RC aircraft or online poker. you name the group or profession or notion - and odds are someone is in DC keeping an eye on Congress making sure the point of view of those people is heard. and that's as it should be.

people bemoan and demean lobbyists - and assume that **** still works like it did during Tammany Hall... guy shows up with a briefcase of cash on a golf course, takes the congressman to a steak dinner with a $2,000/hr call girl for dessert... **** like that is largely a fantasy (and a relic of the old days)

these days, the lobbyists set up meetings (usually with the staffers) make their pitch on this bill or that currently sitting in committee, explain why they think it's good for the district or the country or whatever... and that's that. The member then has to decide for themselves where their vote will go. It's not like how it used to be in one other key way... these days there are donations to be had on either side of any issue... so while a members vote on a bill might net them contributions... odds are very good that voting the other way would have too. while there are still "votes for sale" congresspeople out there... they are largely the exception, not the rule. these days, lobbyists make donations to retain members who already support their point of view - and invest in candidates who are running against people who oppose it.

Why bother running for office if that's the case?

travelinman67 wrote:

CID1990 wrote: ...2) Will Rangel and Waters follow suit? I doubt it.

Big difference CID...

Ensign didn't violate any law and his "offense" was a personal/familial matter. Having character, he chose to resign in a remorseful manner to preserve the decorum of his post

Rangel and Waters violated criminal law and have no character.

See how that works?

Believe me, T-man... I KNOW there's a big difference. I'm just considering the irony that Ensign resigns over something comparably minor, while Rangel and Waters (and the CBC) are pulling out all the stops, playing the race card and fighting bitterly (and maintaining their total innocence).

CID1990 wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Big difference CID...

Ensign didn't violate any law and his "offense" was a personal/familial matter. Having character, he chose to resign in a remorseful manner to preserve the decorum of his post

Rangel and Waters violated criminal law and have no character.

See how that works?

Believe me, T-man... I KNOW there's a big difference. I'm just considering the irony that Ensign resigns over something comparably minor, while Rangel and Waters (and the CBC) are pulling out all the stops, playing the race card and fighting bitterly (and maintaining their total innocence).

That's racist!!

CID1990 wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Big difference CID...

Ensign didn't violate any law and his "offense" was a personal/familial matter. Having character, he chose to resign in a remorseful manner to preserve the decorum of his post

Rangel and Waters violated criminal law and have no character.

See how that works?

Believe me, T-man... I KNOW there's a big difference. I'm just considering the irony that Ensign resigns over something comparably minor, while Rangel and Waters (and the CBC) are pulling out all the stops, playing the race card and fighting bitterly (and maintaining their total innocence).

and again, if Ensign had resigned when all of this came to light... you'd be correct. he didnt. he held on as long as he could politically. given he represented a purple state... that time is significantly shorter than it is for waters or rangel...