• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi marries longtime aide

SlevinKelevra

Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
6,639
Reaction score
1,487
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi marries longtime aide - The Washington Post

Cochran, 77, married Kay Webber, 76, an executive assistant who first joined his office in 1981, in a private family ceremony in Gulfport, Miss., his office said in a one-sentence statement Monday.

Their relationship sparked a key dispute during his reelection campaign last year, as supporters of his challenger, state Sen. Chris McDaniel, pointed out that Webber had traveled with Cochran on dozens of Senate trips overseas.
Over the past 12 years, records showed that Webber had joined Cochran on more than 30 publicly funded international trips costing more than $150,000, the Clarion-Ledger reported in 2014.


well, it seems that perhaps Mr Cochran was telling us some fibs about this all along?
:shock:
 
Two words come to mind.

"Big" and "deal".
 
Sounds completely above board. Specifically, what's the gripe here? Cochran is permitted to take staff on such travels. His demented wife is dead. So?
 
Man marries woman he's known for 25 years.

News at 11.
 
Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi marries longtime aide - The Washington Post




well, it seems that perhaps Mr Cochran was telling us some fibs about this all along?
:shock:

I grew up in MS, and remember when Mr. Cochran was first running for office there. I didn't really think much of him then, and I really don't like him now (I am - to the shame of my family in MS - a progressive, after all)...

...but when it comes to who does what with whom when the lights are out, I've stopped being too judgmental. Was he hypocritical by boning her while his wife was in a rest home? Sure. But you know what? We really don't know what goes on behind closed doors, do we? Same thing with Clinton - maybe he and Hillary hadn't done the nasty for years, and maybe that's why he decided to find new uses for cigars with Monica. But we don't know, and we shouldn't know.

So I won't hold Mr. Cochran's family-values hypocrisy against him. I'd be quicker to condemn those anti-gay politicians who get caught playing with some other guy's one-eyed purple yogurt slinger.
 
I grew up in MS, and remember when Mr. Cochran was first running for office there. I didn't really think much of him then, and I really don't like him now (I am - to the shame of my family in MS - a progressive, after all)...

...but when it comes to who does what with whom when the lights are out, I've stopped being too judgmental. Was he hypocritical by boning her while his wife was in a rest home? Sure. But you know what? We really don't know what goes on behind closed doors, do we? Same thing with Clinton - maybe he and Hillary hadn't done the nasty for years, and maybe that's why he decided to find new uses for cigars with Monica. But we don't know, and we shouldn't know.

So I won't hold Mr. Cochran's family-values hypocrisy against him. I'd be quicker to condemn those anti-gay politicians who get caught playing with some other guy's one-eyed purple yogurt slinger.

I guess I'm missing it, but where in the story does it claim that Senator Cochran was "boning" his long-time aide?

The only hypocrisy I see here is from those who defended Clinton "it's only sex and nobody's business" and such as yourself who claim not to be concerned about what someone does when the lights are out but feel a need to fabricate an illicit scenario for your own jollies.

The Senator was married to his wife for 50 years - the last 12 as she suffered dementia and was in a care facility. I'd hardly call that a walk in the park. Rather decent, if you ask me, that he didn't take the me generation way out and divorce her the minute she was placed in the facility and walked away.

Since we're inventing scenarios with no factual basis, how about this one. His long term aide, supported him both in his professional life and in his personal life, showing compassion and empathy for his situation, and through the years they became emotionally attached and fell in love without anything physical occurring because he was a man of honour and honoured his wife while she was still alive. Once she died, he and his aide pursued their relationship and six months later decided to get married. A nice ending, don't you think? Two people, in their late 70s, finding love. No hypocrisy there.
 
I guess I'm missing it, but where in the story does it claim that Senator Cochran was "boning" his long-time aide?

The only hypocrisy I see here is from those who defended Clinton "it's only sex and nobody's business" and such as yourself who claim not to be concerned about what someone does when the lights are out but feel a need to fabricate an illicit scenario for your own jollies.

The Senator was married to his wife for 50 years - the last 12 as she suffered dementia and was in a care facility. I'd hardly call that a walk in the park. Rather decent, if you ask me, that he didn't take the me generation way out and divorce her the minute she was placed in the facility and walked away.

Since we're inventing scenarios with no factual basis, how about this one. His long term aide, supported him both in his professional life and in his personal life, showing compassion and empathy for his situation, and through the years they became emotionally attached and fell in love without anything physical occurring because he was a man of honour and honoured his wife while she was still alive. Once she died, he and his aide pursued their relationship and six months later decided to get married. A nice ending, don't you think? Two people, in their late 70s, finding love. No hypocrisy there.

I was referring to this quote from the article:

A political blogger who sneaked into the facility last year used photos of the bedridden woman taken without her permission to allege that the senator and Webber were having an affair. Cochran’s aides again said there was nothing inappropriate about the relationship.

It's not as if there weren't suspicions before his wife passed away. BUT if you'd really read my post, you'd have seen that I was saying that we should NOT be judgmental about Cochran. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Who cares? But I have been around long enough to be suspicious of any politician who runs a campaign big on "family values". Do I think Cochran was lying through his teeth? Yes, I do. But do I care? NO. As I said the first time, we don't know what's going on behind closed doors - it's not for us to judge.

FYI, I know Alzheimer's isn't a walk in the park. Until March of last year we were running an adult family home, specializing in dementia patients, including those with AD. I remember one husband named Ted - his wife was one of our residents with AD (very advanced), and he visited her every single day without fail until he passed away. The day after he died, she was reaching up towards the ceiling and whispering his name. We still take care of one in our house - her mom met her dad when her dad was part of Pershing's troop chasing down Pancho Villa. Yeah, she's that old. She's got dementia, too, but not AD.

So save your assumptions for where they belong, guy...and next time, read what's ACTUALLY in someone's post instead of seeing only what you want to see in that post.
 
I was referring to this quote from the article:

A political blogger who sneaked into the facility last year used photos of the bedridden woman taken without her permission to allege that the senator and Webber were having an affair. Cochran’s aides again said there was nothing inappropriate about the relationship.

It's not as if there weren't suspicions before his wife passed away. BUT if you'd really read my post, you'd have seen that I was saying that we should NOT be judgmental about Cochran. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Who cares? But I have been around long enough to be suspicious of any politician who runs a campaign big on "family values". Do I think Cochran was lying through his teeth? Yes, I do. But do I care? NO. As I said the first time, we don't know what's going on behind closed doors - it's not for us to judge.

FYI, I know Alzheimer's isn't a walk in the park. Until March of last year we were running an adult family home, specializing in dementia patients, including those with AD. I remember one husband named Ted - his wife was one of our residents with AD (very advanced), and he visited her every single day without fail until he passed away. The day after he died, she was reaching up towards the ceiling and whispering his name. We still take care of one in our house - her mom met her dad when her dad was part of Pershing's troop chasing down Pancho Villa. Yeah, she's that old. She's got dementia, too, but not AD.

So save your assumptions for where they belong, guy...and next time, read what's ACTUALLY in someone's post instead of seeing only what you want to see in that post.

The defensiveness of this post tells me I pegged the intent of your first post perfectly. You acknowledge you didn't like the man and you don't like him now. You then created an unfounded allegation with no basis or proof, presumably your dislike for the man helped out there, but you're not being judgmental (wink wink) - got it.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but what does this story have to do with nepotism?

"An employee who becomes related to his or her employing official may remain employed by the related official," the manual says.

Its nepotism statute, however, bars Webber
from receiving raises or promotions. She can get cost-of-living increases if they're applied across the board. Webber, who has worked in Cochran's office since August 1981, earns $140,000 a year, according to Legistorm.
Cochran bride to continue as staffer
 
The defensiveness of this post tells me I pegged the intent of your first post perfectly. You acknowledge you didn't like the man and you don't like him now. You then created an unfounded allegation with no basis or proof, presumably your dislike for the man helped out there, but you're not being judgmental (wink wink) - got it.

I'll be the first to admit I intensely dislike the man. The tactics he used in the last primary were disgusting, and completely divorced from the "man of honor" you suggest he might be. Men of Honor within the GOP don't race bait.

He was living in the woman's house while his wife was living in a home. I think the preponderance of evidence on this one is clear.
 

It's not like nepotism got her the job, but going forward, the Senate rule keeps nepotism from happening.

What exactly is your issue with this? Some old guy tragically loses his wife and finds love with a long-time assistant. As I recall, the assistant is a year younger than the elderly Senator so its not like he just found some hot 23 year old and gave the job to her.
 
I'll be the first to admit I intensely dislike the man. The tactics he used in the last primary were disgusting, and completely divorced from the "man of honor" you suggest he might be. Men of Honor within the GOP don't race bait.

He was living in the woman's house while his wife was living in a home. I think the preponderance of evidence on this one is clear.

You can assume all you want, based on your dislike for the man. However, according to the article attached to the OP, the Senator was renting a basement apartment in the home owned by his aide. Can you point out your citation for this being a lie? It would be interesting, because then you would potentially have proof that the Senator was defrauding the American taxpayer by claiming an expense that he wasn't actually incurring.

Perhaps you assume that every person who rents a basement apartment is having an illicit affair with the landlord or a tenant in another unit of the home. I have little reason to be as suspicious or dismissive of the man. I have even less reason to be suspicious or dismissive of a 70 some odd year old woman. From my limited experience, few septuagenarian women are harlots.
 
You can assume all you want, based on your dislike for the man. However, according to the article attached to the OP, the Senator was renting a basement apartment in the home owned by his aide. Can you point out your citation for this being a lie? It would be interesting, because then you would potentially have proof that the Senator was defrauding the American taxpayer by claiming an expense that he wasn't actually incurring.

Perhaps you assume that every person who rents a basement apartment is having an illicit affair with the landlord or a tenant in another unit of the home. I have little reason to be as suspicious or dismissive of the man. I have even less reason to be suspicious or dismissive of a 70 some odd year old woman. From my limited experience, few septuagenarian women are harlots.

Nope - that is a strawman of what we are saying, and you are smart enough to know it. But I do think that the case for someone who has demonstrated themselves to be unethical, who stays at the house of their "aid" with whom reports indicate he is having an affair, whom he then marries less than a year after his wife dies is more in favor of that particular thesis than not.

Nor do I think Senators get housing allowance. I could be wrong on that one, but I think that is one of the reasons why (for example) jr congresscritters often double or triple up on apartments in town and maintain houses in their districts.
 
Nope - that is a strawman of what we are saying, and you are smart enough to know it. But I do think that the case for someone who has demonstrated themselves to be unethical, who stays at the house of their "aid" with whom reports indicate he is having an affair, whom he then marries less than a year after his wife dies is more in favor of that particular thesis than not.

Nor do I think Senators get housing allowance. I could be wrong on that one, but I think that is one of the reasons why (for example) jr congresscritters often double or triple up on apartments in town and maintain houses in their districts.

Not a strawman, in my view, just a practical question. And if there's no housing allowance for members of Congress, there's no public interest in the "arrangement". Perhaps you're right, but as I said, I don't know any elderly women of means - and a woman with a $1.6 million home in Washington, DC, isn't likely looking for a sugar daddy - who participate in long term illicit affairs. If they were in a sexual relationship, I'd say they did a pretty good job of keeping it private since I'm sure every tabloid and sleazy publication, not to mention the left wing media, would pay handsomely for any evidence of such a relationship.

Innuendo and speculation don't cut it for me. As I suggested before, if you have citations proving your allegations, I'd love to see them and I'm prepared to admit I was wrong. Until then, it's just character assassination.
 
I grew up in MS, and remember when Mr. Cochran was first running for office there. I didn't really think much of him then, and I really don't like him now (I am - to the shame of my family in MS - a progressive, after all)...

...but when it comes to who does what with whom when the lights are out, I've stopped being too judgmental. Was he hypocritical by boning her while his wife was in a rest home? Sure. But you know what? We really don't know what goes on behind closed doors, do we? Same thing with Clinton - maybe he and Hillary hadn't done the nasty for years, and maybe that's why he decided to find new uses for cigars with Monica. But we don't know, and we shouldn't know.

So I won't hold Mr. Cochran's family-values hypocrisy against him. I'd be quicker to condemn those anti-gay politicians who get caught playing with some other guy's one-eyed purple yogurt slinger.


For that matter, his wife was 'gone' even though her body was alive long before her body died. That makes it 'his business, not mine'.

Although, the fact his 'aid' who he married was making so much money might be nepotism.
 
For that matter, his wife was 'gone' even though her body was alive long before her body died. That makes it 'his business, not mine'.

Although, the fact his 'aid' who he married was making so much money might be nepotism.

Maybe. But again, I don't see any reason to judge him on this matter. When it comes to extramarital affairs that are wrong and should be punished, I do agree that GEN David Petraeus deserved his punishment, for he did share operational details with his lover to which she should never have had access...and operational and information security is the primary reason why extramarital affairs are strictly prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

But then, that makes me a hypocrite if I excuse Clinton for his creative use of a cigar, because I personally believe that the Commander in Chief, whoever he or she is, should be subject to the UCMJ.

*sigh*

I hate these Gordian knots of ethics....
 
The defensiveness of this post tells me I pegged the intent of your first post perfectly. You acknowledge you didn't like the man and you don't like him now. You then created an unfounded allegation with no basis or proof, presumably your dislike for the man helped out there, but you're not being judgmental (wink wink) - got it.

If I were out to assassinate Cochran's character and were willing to make stuff up, the very fact that I spent all my formative years in MS means that it'd be simplicity itself to invent "personal observations" of whatever made him look bad. If I just wanted to make up accusations, I would have done so.

But chances are pretty doggone good that yeah, he was doing the nasty with her and as I said in so many words in my FIRST post on this matter, WHO THE HECK CARES IF HE DID???? I said that we are NOT to judge him, did I not?

It's only YOU who's blowing things out of proportion out of some imagined opportunity you have to pigeonhole me as whatever kind of person you want to believe that I am. I am not going to directly accuse you of trolling - that would be a violation of DP rules - but it sure as heck looks like it.

But I'm not so naive as to think that any of this will get through to you, so I'll let it be. You can have the last word - I won't reply.
 
If I were out to assassinate Cochran's character and were willing to make stuff up, the very fact that I spent all my formative years in MS means that it'd be simplicity itself to invent "personal observations" of whatever made him look bad. If I just wanted to make up accusations, I would have done so.

But chances are pretty doggone good that yeah, he was doing the nasty with her and as I said in so many words in my FIRST post on this matter, WHO THE HECK CARES IF HE DID???? I said that we are NOT to judge him, did I not?

It's only YOU who's blowing things out of proportion out of some imagined opportunity you have to pigeonhole me as whatever kind of person you want to believe that I am. I am not going to directly accuse you of trolling - that would be a violation of DP rules - but it sure as heck looks like it.

But I'm not so naive as to think that any of this will get through to you, so I'll let it be. You can have the last word - I won't reply.

You clearly don't see the problem with your first post. I have no problem with vast majority of it, and agree for the most part. But you say out of one side of your mouth you don't care and then out of the other side you create the scenario that he was "boning" his aide. And out of that fabrication, you then claim Cochran is a hypocrite because he's supposedly a family values conservative. I simply stated you're the hypocrite in that scenario.

If another poster pointing out the hypocrisy of your own posts is trolling, so be it.
 
Do I think Cochran was lying through his teeth? Yes, I do. But do I care? NO. As I said the first time, we don't know what's going on behind closed doors - it's not for us to judge.

Apparently it is OK for YOU to judge. You're convinced that he's a liar and are clearly judging him based on nothing more than your desire to see him as a liar. Just in case you were wondering what the term for this is - it's called BIGOTRY.
 
Apparently it is OK for YOU to judge. You're convinced that he's a liar and are clearly judging him based on nothing more than your desire to see him as a liar. Just in case you were wondering what the term for this is - it's called BIGOTRY.

I think he was saying judgment on his bedroom activities.
 
Not a strawman, in my view, just a practical question.

It is a strawman. No one is claiming that renting = adultery. We are pointing out that the evidence in this case which includes living together indicates an affair. The defense you've mounted (that he's a man of honor) doesn't stand up to the evidence of his actions (which were despicably dishonorable)

And if there's no housing allowance for members of Congress, there's no public interest in the "arrangement".

:shrug: Personally I think it's important when Politicians lie to the public they supposedly serve.

Innuendo and speculation don't cut it for me. As I suggested before, if you have citations proving your allegations, I'd love to see them and I'm prepared to admit I was wrong. Until then, it's just character assassination.

Quite the contrary - Cochrane assassinated his own character when he decided to descend to despicable race-baiting against other Republicans in order to win a primary. This is just sort of a "yeah, well, what'd ya expect?".
 
Back
Top Bottom