Now it’s official

AP – Republican Jack Ryan officially withdrew from the U.S. Senate race Thursday, nearly five weeks after a sex scandal forced him to abandon his candidacy. [Yahoo! News – Politics]

15 responses to “Now it’s official”

  1. Hit The Road JackJack Ryan has filed the paperwork. He's history. Now the GOP can select a candidate (I hear they may as early as Tuesday), if they can find one. It will be interesting to see their pick. My recommendation, and I…

  2. Not that it matters, but you didn't appear to read the link. Almost none of the details of the divorce are public. Of course, Kerry's first wife wasn't even mentioned last night.The more salient issue is Teresa's tax records…Good reporting from the convention, by the way. Obama gave a much better speech than Kerry, who looked sweaty and tired at the end (and he probably was).

  3. Kerry's marriage was dissolved mutually based on irreconcilable differences and their children were already adults, therefore, other than financial affidavits used to determine Julia Thorne's alimony (if there was any), there are no “divorce records” a la Jack Ryan's to reveal. Ryan's divorce was contested, hence there were likely depositions & other evidence collected. Big difference. Also, I believe both the Kerry daughters mentioned their mother. Finally, Teresa Heinz Kerry's finances are none of the public's business. She is not running for office. If think it should be the standard that a candidate's spouse must open his or her books, lobby to make it law.

  4. Interesting.”Sex scandal” = claims made by consenting, married adults about things that occured within the marriage during heated divorce.”Not a sex SCANDAL” = public official having intercourse with a subordinate outside his marriage, in a public building, then lying under oath about it.Guess Jack Ryan's downfall was the fact he knows the definition of “is”…?

  5. Allison said:”Finally, Teresa Heinz Kerry's finances are none of the public's business. She is not running for office. If think it should be the standard that a candidate's spouse must open his or her books, lobby to make it law.”I beg to differ. John Kerry used the mortgage on the home they share to borrow money for the campaign. Unless John Kerry can prove the multimillion dollar house is owned solely by him, then the fact is he borrowed against HER assets since they're joint. Therefore, her finances are as much a part of his campaign as his own – an issue brought forth by Kerry's loan and nobody else. If they're going to argue her finances are not comingled with his, then the loan (mortgage) against the house they own jointly should be considered a donation (for her half) from Teresa to the John Kerry campaign. Since the loan was roughly $6 million, she's violated the $2,000 donation limit.So which is it?

  6. Wow. It all comes back to Clinton. You impeach the guy, but that's not enough somehow. Get over it already – it was six years ago! (For the record, I wrote to my senators – then JFK and Ted Kennedy – and asked them to vote in favor of impeachment. And I was a Clinton volunteer in 1992.)And if you think the Ryan scandal is about sex any more than the Clinton scandal was about sex, you're missing the point. Ryan lost the support of his party after repeatedly (in private, up to the days before his records being unsealed) promising party leadership that there was “nothing embarassing” in the documents.I think it's safe to say that the records were at least marginally embarassing. And when the party leadership could no longer trust him, they made it clear he didn't have their support.There really is no clear corollary to the Clinton case (which, again, you guys really need to let it go). Clinton was attacked by politicians from across the aisle. He was vigorously defended by those within his party, and he left office with a higher approval rating than Reagan (among all Americans, not just Democrats).Ryan, on the other hand, was attacked by many within his own party for his misrepresentations about the content of the divorce files. *That's* why they dumped him.

  7. Thanks for the response, Rick. I'll get over Clinton when the Left gets over the 2000 election. See how annoying it is to hear things like that repeated ad nauseum?You don't see the correlation, because you don't want to. What you've even shown in your own post was that Republicans are not prone to defending the defenseless (even if it's NOT an issue for public consumption) while also showing Democrats put party above all else and defend to the death anything that tarnishes a party member (even when self-inflicted).We take out our trash. Can you say the same?

  8. Toricelli in 2002 is the first case that comes to mind. How many examples would you like?And for the record, you'll get no harping from me about 2000. Disagree with the court's decision, but life goes on. That's why we have another election coming up, and why I got involved in 2002 in the process.

  9. Which part of Torricelli was the Democrats “taking out their trash”? The part where “Democratic leaders had tried to dissuade him from his decision”? ( was it the part where Democrats were so focused on not losing control of the Senate, they ignored rules of law to introduce an untarnished replacement just in time to win the seat?Let me help you with the scenario. Remember Trent Lott? There were “persistent calls from some conservatives [for him] to step down”. ( And that didn't even involve illegal or immoral activities.

  10. Jason – We could play Google ping-pong to support our points all day long. For now, Trent Lott Should Have Our Support –, 12/17/01. Recall that calls for him to step down didn't start until Josh Marshall called attention to Lott's comments. (And are you really claiming that Lott's long-stated support of segregation doesn't qualify as immoral?)As for Democrats trying to persuade Toricelli to stay in the race, if you really think that the Democratic powers that be supported Torch in that race, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. There's more than one way to take out your trash.

  11. It's a beautiful moment when I see the Left start citing newsmax as some sort of authority. (even I don't do that) ;)Democrats decided they didn't want Torch in the race after it was evident he'd lose. Do you doubt they'd have defended him at all costs if he'd still been ahead in the polls?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.