... footnotes!

Feb. 2008

Cindy

This is the most important letter I've ever written [1]. What I did with you was wrong. I was completely self-centered + only thinking of myself [2]. I used you for my own pleasure [3], not letting thoughts of you, Doug [childrens' names] come into my mind...I betrayed everything I believed in [4] and lied to myself over + over. I justified my actions because I blamed my wife.

Doug has been a great friend to me through the years [5] + I threw all of that away over wanting to feel good.

I take 100 % responsibility for my actions, plain + simple it was wrong; it was sin. God never intended for me to do this. I walked away from Him and my relationship with Him has suffered terribly. I know He loves me and He loves you. He wants to restore Doug and you [6].

More than that He wants to restore our relationships to Him [7].

Sincerely,

John

1. This letter shares its opening line with three other Ensign correspondences: a letter to the General Mills Co. complaining about Lucky Charms cereal (not "lucky"), a 1998 Christmas newsletter detailing the soccer accomplishments of Ensign's three children, and a 1968 Valentine to which we will refer henceforth as "Lindsey Jameson I lllllove you!"
2. The repeated use of the plus-sign is consistent with the typography of "Lindsey Jameson I lllllove you!" and helps to authenticate the letter. The only other possible writer is Las Vegas fourth-grader Jessica Arnold, whose connection to Cynthia Hampton has not been established.
3. It has been alleged that Cynthia Hampton is in fact an inanimate object. This view is bolstered by Doug Hampton's suggestion that his wife was "was powerless to prevent the continuing affair." Our own Megan Carpentier reports that Cynthia Hampton "has no autonomy or sexual desires of her own." Though no official photographs of Ms. Hampton have been released, rival paparazzi have snapped this and this.
4. Unlike the closing line of "Lindsey Jameson I lllllove you!" ("I will love you for ever and ever and never forget you"), this statement is actually true. Ensign's coveting of his neighbor's wife is at odds with his membership in the Promise Keepers organization, and his 2004 statement in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment: "Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation." Ensign also called for Bill Clinton's resignation in 1998, saying that after an affair with employee Monica Lewinsky, "He has no credibility left."
5. "Through the years" here apparently means "until the affair," after which point Doug Hampton tried to take Ensign to court, and, when that didn't work, gave the story to FOX News and may have begun a campaign of extortion.
6. God apparently enacted his plan of restoration via his agents, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and other Washington conservatives. Acting on behalf of God, Coburn suggested that Ensign pay the Hamptons in excess of $1 million so they could pay off their mortgage and moved to Colorado. This form of penance is found in Ecclesiastes 4:15, "whosoever shall covet his neighbor's wife, if he be a senator, shall pay for this wife to move to a Western state popular with both hippies and Christians."
7. In response to this, God wrote, "Whatever. You did not come through with the $$$ + Colorado thing. Going to FOX."

Ensign "Letter" To Mistress: I Used You For "Pleasure" [Politico]
Sen. John Ensign, Mistress' Husband Point Fingers At Each Other [LA Times]
Hampton Speaks Publicly, Says Ensign Paid Severance [Las Vegas Sun]

Earlier: Husband Of Senator's Mistress Will Go To Any Lengths To Get Revenge

NPR:

And thus a by-the-numbers rom-com is born. Alas, What Happens in Vegas ... limps through its first hour or so — where all the "com" is supposed to be — in a knockabout-slapstick mode for which director Tom Vaughan demonstrates no flair whatever. Still, casting will out, and the stars are appealing enough to make the making-up homestretch kinda sweet. No chemistry, mind, and precious few chuckles, but with the only romantic-comedy alternative at the moment being Made of Honor, things could definitely be worse.

Telegraph:

As premises go, it makes the heart not so much sink as shrivel. And yet, though it may indeed be synthetic pap with cynical mercenary undercurrents, I'll say this for the movie: we've seen much worse. Neither of the leads, Ashton Kutcher and Cameron Diaz, is a stranger to the slick business of lucrative high-concept comedies - if you catch them looking ecstatic at any point, you wonder if it's just at the box-office prospects.

Salon:

While Kutcher is reliably believable as a rumpled yet fun-loving slacker, Diaz is considerably less convincing as a steely, MBA-enhanced powerhouse. She may have the jittery energy of a woman who's a stranger to sleep, but with her giggly hair flips, smeary lip gloss and neon-bright micro skirts, she looks more like a party girl staggering home at dawn than a would-be titan of the stock market.

LA Times:

Hokey and forced as it is, What Happens in Vegas eventually settles into a rhythm, maybe because Diaz and Kutcher actually look like they have fun together. Which, unfortunately, is saying a lot. Most of the humor is derived from the same moldy men are from Slobland, women are from Planet Clean clichés, but the movie is just weird and disjointed enough to keep from feeling like an utterly soulless Hollywood product.

USA Today:

Apparently what passes for comedy today is a new form of toilet humor involving the creative use of sinks... What Happens in Vegas has a variation of a joke featured in Baby Mama, as well as a slew of stale riffs on gags and scenarios from a number of comedies, mostly of the romantic variety. It's a story that feels familiar at best, hackneyed at worst, which is surprising and disappointing, as director Tom Vaughan also made last year's Starter for 10, a charming British coming-of-age comedy.

Entertainment Weekly:

Ashton Kutcher and Cameron Diaz hate on each other with dynamite verve in What Happens in Vegas. The Punch and Judy fireworks get off to an early start, when the two wake up in Las Vegas only to learn that they got hitched during what should have been a sloshed one-night stand. To lay claim to a $3 million slot-machine payoff (one pulled the lever, the other provided the quarter), the two are forced to live together for six months as husband and wife, and I would say that the romantic hilarity just ensues from there, except that Kutcher and Diaz diss each other with such eye-rolling, fang-baring, sexually sarcastic conviction that you may think you've wandered into a dinner-theater revival of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? starring (and rewritten by) Jimmy Kimmel and Sarah Silverman.

Washington Post:

The best thing about the fight is how unfairly each wages it, and how the campaigns are based on the classical fault lines of boy-girl cohabitation. That one about the toilet seat (it always has to be down?): The movie addresses it in a clever scene in which Diaz's Joy McNally tries to explain the fundamental difference between the deep concepts of "up" and "down," as if she's explaining quantum theory to a chimp, which she basically is. It's a terrific little set piece, particularly for the expression on her face, which is an odd blend of pity, contempt, boredom, irritation and loathing, all without destroying the fact that she's staggeringly beautiful.

New York Times:

This digression may seem off the point of What Happens in Vegas, but because its director, Tom Vaughan, brings nothing of interest to the movie, including filmmaking, there isn't anything to say other than to note its insulting ugliness and ineptitude. The badly matched Cameron Diaz and Ashton Kutcher mug wildly, waving their limbs like upturned beetles. Ms. Diaz is particularly ill served by the material and the production; she's harshly, at times brutally, lighted and often unflatteringly costumed. It's disheartening that Ms. Diaz doesn't seem to realize that there's no upside to a role that strips away her dignity even as it peels off her clothes, especially when she's playing the shrew. It's no wonder Mr. Kutcher looks so relaxed.

What Happens in Vegas opens in theaters today

The Good:
Sorry — can't comment. Too distracted by Lake Bell's legs. So. Much. Leg.
Ooh Whitney Cummings' dress is cute. I would like a casual and sweet dress covered in little flowers like that. [Who is Whitney Cummings? -Ed.]
Cameron's dress is hot, even if Ashton looks douchey in his plaid dinner jacket.


The Bad:
Does anyone else love the color of Brooke Burns' dress but feel like the dress looks cheap? Not "trashy" cheap; "gonna fall apart on you after one wear" cheap.
Diablo Cody? Or a cupcake?
That's a whole lotta dress on the very small Eva Longoria. Also, what's with her shoes?
I like the shape of Michelle Krusiec's dress. It's too bad it's made from aluminum foil.
Tamara Mowry: Wow — where has she been? And where's her sister Tia? Anyway, she looks very nice. (If she were at an office and not on the red carpet.)
Punky Brewster! Why oh why are you wearing that?


The Ugly:
Some days, I'm just so grateful for Bai Ling. And the Band-Aids on her legs that match her dress.

[Images via Getty.]