John Edwards: Why His Affair Matters
Not that it comes as any great surprise by now, but the confirmation that John Edwards lied about an
extramarital affair that started during his campaign is certainly a saddening disappointment.
It’s easy to say that a politician’s sex life is his own business. That it’s a personal matter. That it’s something to be sorted out between himself and his family and his therapist. And that if he lied about it, so what? After all, he was only lying about sex (Wow, this all sounds familiar, doesn’t it?).
Well, you and I might (or might not) think all of the above. But millions of voters definitely do not. And when you run for the office of president of the United States and you are counting on all of those votes, then you know this as one of the basic facts of life.
And that’s what is so worrisome and saddening about the Edwards affair. I liked Edwards. I liked his wife even more. His kids — which were thrust out on the stump– were adorable. I suppose the fact that he betrayed them is arguably his own business (though it hardly evokes much sympathy for the man).
The much more salient point is how Edwards flagrantly betrayed the trust of the millions who voted for him and who wanted this guy to become President. This wasn’t some youthful dalliance nor even a recently concluded episode. It was a relationship initiated during and as a result of his campaign and which involved the payment of more than $100,000 to his lover’s firm for web spots that were never deployed.
In other words, it was politically fatal if exposed. Edwards knew this but was not deterred. And that is why he lied to cover it up. Imagine if he had won the nomination and this became public now.
He was willing to put in play the interests of his constituencies and of his country in order to pursue his personal pleasures. Just like Bill Clinton for whom we can thank mightily for contributing to the erection of the Age of Bush.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Marc: That is exactly the point.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
It’s hard for me to accept this. I think that Edwards preferred boys.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
All wrong. Cut a human being some slack. Do you think your idol Obama is some kind of Ralph Nader?
The puritannical quest to investigate politicians’ sex lives is a lousy substitute for substantial politics. We should be trying to raise the level of political discourse so that Americans are more ready to consider meaningful change in place of the muck of gossip and scandals that passes for political culture here. Your argument that, since the yahoos think politicians’ affairs are significant, therefore they are, is evasive. You’re a pundit, not a news reporter. You should talk about whether *you* think marital fidelity is a qualification for a politician, not whether old ladies in Peoria thinks so.
But, on the bright side, now you have the green light with Edwards’ wife.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
>I think that Edwards preferred boys
Woody, do you think maybe Edwards fabricated this scandal to put to Ann Coulter’s accusations to rest?
August 8th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
If Edwards were the nominee, I would still vote for him in November.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
If Edwards were the nominee, I would still vote for him in November.
Of course, because everything he has ever said about everything else, well, you can take it to the bank.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
How unexpected that Edwards waited until a Friday afternoon and the start of the Olympics to announce this….
At least Newt Gingrinch had the decency to divorce his wife with cancer rather than carry on behind her back.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I thought the timing of his dropping out was a little weird…
August 8th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Who is the real John Edwards?
August 8th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
“Of course, because everything he has ever said about everything else, well, you can take it to the bank.”
There is not one word from McCain’s mouth I would ever take to the bank. Edwards was always honest about policy and the plight of the less fortunate. Of course, I always vote on policy, not personal lives, and Edwards vs. McCain is a no-brainer.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Has Woody ever said anything even remotely relevant and non-antagonistic?
August 8th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
As the New Left and the feminists used to say, the personal is the political, except when it’s not.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
“Just like Bill Clinton for whom we can thank mightily for contributing to the erection of the Age of Bush.” – LOL Marc.
“The puritannical quest to investigate politicians’ sex lives is a lousy substitute for substantial politics.”
I don’t think most people would consider the National Inquirer puritannical, Stu. And I don’t think most people would consider cheating on your wife, a sick wife you drug around all over the country to vouch for your character in order to promote your ambitions, would consider this substantial politics.
It was substantial selfishness, substantial arrogance, substancial dishonesty, and substancial sleeziness. Not exactly what the average person would ‘vote’ for.
You’re right Stu, it’s not about f–king sex. It’s about a figuratively f–king character.
PS: And who thinks this character would not have thought one second about accepting a VP offer from Obama, knowing this bombshell lie in his background waiting to explode in his party’s face. Anyone………I didn’t think so.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Okay, Howie, it says a lot about Obama’s poor judgment and choice of friends that he is constantly shocked and dismayed to find that they may have said or done something that bothers most Americans but that Obama “had no idea that they were really like that.”
It’s getting to the point that the space under the bus is getting pretty crowded…Tony Rezco, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Father Michael Pfleger, Wesley Clark, Louis Farrakhan, Muslim women in camera view, Floyd Mayweather, Rashid Khalidi, Frank Marshal Davis, Jim Johnson, Ludacris, Mazen Asbahi, and, now, sadly, John Edwards.
With what Edwards is going through, it really makes you feel sorry for how Justice Clarence Thomas was treated by the Democrats and the left…doesn’t it?
August 8th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Wesley Clark?
August 8th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
“..now, sadly, John Edwards.”
Jeezus Woody. Talk about dishonesty. You’re so guiddy with excitement your Depends is overflowing.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I’m happy to admit I’m giddy with excitement, and my depends are overflowing. The oily, ingratiating phoney (a Southern archetype, BTW, we see his type all over the place) is finally revealed for what he is. He is no doubt very humbled by all this. Just ask him!
August 8th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
John Edwards has a personal moral code regarding marriage almost as low as John McCain’s, who ditched the wife who’d stood by him during his imprisonment after she was disfigured in an automobile accident ? Very, very disappointing.
I absolutely vote policy over personal drama – and it’s clear that in the arena of boundless ambition that is the Presidential stakes nobody’s perfect, but it’s nice to know we’ve got a candidate who is a terrific family man like Obama. Certainly adds an attractive dimension to the package. McCain is a totally creepy dude on the terrain of marriage – most recently offering his wife (aka “cunt” in his down-home lexicon) as a contender in a topless “beauty” contest.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
“. . .erection of the Age of Bush.”
Absolutely, Dr. Adler. Positiviely Dr. Freud.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
If anyone wonders why Nancy Reagan’s recent “endorsement” of John McCain was so pro forma and cold, check out the backstory of McCain’s ditching his wife for a much younger woman and the Reagan’s (who obviously weren’t Puritanical about divorce) reaction to the tackiness of the whole thing.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
August 8th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Look at the shiny Nancy Reagan link! Cool! She’s an alright lady after all, huh?
August 8th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
More -
http://tinyurl.com/5k6f9r
If you’re a tax-cut-for-the-rich-uber-alles nut, definitely vote McCain. Policy over character, by all means. But let’s not kid ourselves about John McCain’s character once he stepped outside of the military culture. The guy’s a creep whose main internal compass is his own ego.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Yeah Bob, and John McCain loves Hillary Clinton – I saw her in one of his ads yesterday blasting Obama.
Actually, I can’t stand Nancy Reagan, but these folks’ dramas can be telling.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Bob – my advice to you over the next months is, whenever you have to make a case for Big Bad John, to take a spoonful of sugar to help make the yucky, long-past-it’s-expiration-date McMedicine go down.
Fortunately, we don’t need that…
August 8th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
On the other hand, I did think McCain was good in “Wedding Crashers.”
August 8th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
The spinmeister practiceing his craft.
I hope you get paid well by your party for your work here reg. You sure the hell earn it.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Edwards (seems) to have an authenticity that leads me to believe, as I said in an earlier therad, that he may well have been in an open marriage. It is not uncommon in marriages in which a spouse may not have much time, to open things up.
I think this is a matter that is deeply personal, and cannot be easily codified as a matter of character. This isn’t machismo and womanizing, JFK or Clinton style. This seems more tragic.
I remember hearing this is why he dropped out. He’d have won if not for the American public’s dialectic of salaciousness and puritanism, a laughingstock in a culture of Hooters and Megachurches – of which as we probably know are attended by the same folks.
Its just fuckign disgusting that people care about this.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Well Jim, I think reg rather nicely makes the point that both parties have their share of people who transgress on this front. Humans, with all their foibles, go into politics too.
I recall just the other day a Republican state senator who was indicted for allegedly raping a 14-year-old girl. We probably all need to refrain from the stone throwing.
The important point here, as Marc notes, is the willingness of Edwards to proceed knowing this could come out. It takes a hubris to think you can be president, and it is probably silly to think the boundaries of that hubris are drawn around the edges of a political campaign.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Jim, I doubt that reg has the intellect to get the irony of his own serial posts… let alone this out of context but telling quote from him: “The guy’s a creep whose main internal compass is his own ego.” Especially after Obama parades his children on camera which took hours of set up, contracts written and parsed and signed and etc. and then has the gall to say “it was spur of the moment” as if he had no chance to rethink it. Talk about Ego?
August 8th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
“I hope you get paid well by your party for your work here reg.”
Nope. But I will say that even if I were a conservative, the GOP couldn’t pay me enough to post some of the putrid stuff that we get here from Woody, GMR, etc.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Everything is going to turn out okay. Like he helped Bill Clinton with fidelity issues, Jesse Jackson will be John Edwards’ spiritual advisor.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Yeah, Roper I can only aspire to an “intellect” as agile as yours…
Talk about irony.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Ooooh. Sneer quotes around “intellect.” That’s going too far, mister.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
GMR – are you so stupid that you think that candidates sign contracts when they give press interviews ? And the reason I’m certain that the Access Hollywood reporter’s assertion that the interview with the Obama kids involved wasn’t pre-planned is because both adults are mic’ed but the two girls aren’t. Clear evidence that they sort of wangled their way into the interview…which the parents at least mildly regret.
Anyone who wants to pick over this or find any significant fault with the Obama family is a bitter, small-minded crap merchant of the highest order. But we already knew that about GMR.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
“I hope you get paid well by your party for your work here reg.”
I wish that were so. It would be more proof as to how irresponsible the Democrats are with their spending. Hey, how’s it going with Obama fulfilling his side of the deal to pay off Hillary Clinton’s campaign debts?
- – -
Speaking of campaign debts, shouldn’t John Edwards repay donors for his fraud and shouldn’t there be some investigation to see if he paid off his mistress with campaign funds?
- – -
Regarding naming the father of the child, which wasn’t done on the birth certificate, let’s just fill in the name of Barack Obama, who didn’t get a real birth certificate of his own.
- – -
Man, our country dodged a bullet of having someone with no character being President. We couldn’t survive another Clinton.
- – -
Now, it seems that the National Enquirer has more investigative ability and credibility than the L.A. Times, who put the clamps on its journalists and prohibited them from covering the Edwards affair.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Newt, Foley, L. Craig, Livingston, Vitter, Spitzer, McGrevey, Packwood, Clinton – there is a long list of public people with personal failings. I am not put off by the act or the lying (What do they have to lose at that point?), and as a general rule, I don’t think adultery should be a disqualifier for office. What is repellent to me is the hypocrisy, the cravenness that they hold on to power after being caught, and the humiliation their spouses have to endure when used as props when they make public admissions. They are self-absorbed malignant narcissists. Bob Packwood ran for reelection. Bob Livingston did it right; he got caught and resigned in hours. I did notice McCain gave a firm no comment to the Edwards affair.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
…John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, plus Jimmy Carter lusted in his heart.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Woody if you insist on being a child, I’ll be one too:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals
August 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Well, the folks at Daily Kos took the Edwards news philosophically.
What’s their problem? They didn’t have any problem with Bill Clinton.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Dan O., sorry, your link does not meet the Randy Paul source requirement.
This article contains assertions without appropriate source citations…
August 8th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Not true (i.e. Woody tells another lie.) Each instance is documented with a bona fide news source (i.e. NOT Woodster crap like unsigned opinion in “WorldNetDaily.”)
I particularly like Fla. Rep. Bob Allen and Judge John Atchison.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Why do you lie so much Woody ? Is it compulsive ?
August 8th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Great News !!!!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/Cheney_will_speak_at_GOP_convention.html
August 9th, 2008 at 4:50 am
Woody writes: “We couldn’t survive another Clinton.”
True, all that relative peace and prosperity MIGHT kill us. But I’m ready for another near-lethal dose of those things anyway. Some of us just never learn, I guess.
August 9th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Michael Turner, when Clinton left office, the dotcom bubble had burst, the country was in a real rather than a pretend media recession, China had purchased our missile guidance secrets with donations to Clinton, FBI files were used to destroy his detractors, terrible felons were pardoned at the last minute for money and favors, and the stage for 9-11 was set by his policy of “can I wait another day without dealing with a crucial issue.”
As part of those issues and a problem that became his legacy, Bill Clinton was a liar with low character. He hurt more than Democrats. He hurt our entire nation with his misconduct and lies.
When Clinton was running for office and was in office, it was often repeated by him, the Democrats, and the press that “character didn’t matter.” The American public was misled. Character does matter, and to say otherwise is a horrible lesson for our children.
Clinton corrupts our national culture
Have you not learned that lesson yourself and want to return to those Clinton years? Some of you never learn, I guess, including John Edwards on the character issue.
Yet, the biggest complaint from the left isn’t what John Edwards might have done to our country but what he might have done to the Democratic Party. That’s selfish and pathetic.
August 9th, 2008 at 8:56 am
I think Woody’s referring to his blood pressure…
August 9th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Marc: Your last few columns here have been exceptionally good.
The one about New Orleans was outstanding. Whenever someone writes about Louisiana during the summertime, having once been ‘stationed’ there during the months of June and July, the first thought that always comes to mind for me is the humidity. Been to 45 of 50 states. Nothing as muggy as Louisiana. I found it to be an open air oven…
In re the admission by Edwards: I’m a bit pissed. I really liked the guy. I sent his campaign some money. I liked his general campaign rap. I thought he had a good message. He put his All-American family life front and center in his campaign. A flippant lie. This affair thingy really knocks Edwards down several notches into the crass loin-wandering gutter as Bill Clinton & Jesse Jackson. Not that I’m some puritan that expects moral perfection from political actors, but sheesh, why give your opponents extra targets? Why jepordize constituents you supposedly really care about?
Thank god Senator Obama ended up winning the race for the nomination.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Woody’s biggest lie above, of course, is that Clinton’s administration was ignoring bin Laden. In fact it’s been well established that BushCo made a deliberate decision to downplay bini Laden as a threat when they came in – which is why Boy Bush blew off the CIA briefer who warned him on August 6 of 2001 of an impending attack with, “Okay, now you’ve covered your ass.” And, of course, after 9/11 they let bin Laden escape from Tora Bora by failing to insert sufficient troops even though – again – they had been briefed in detail on his whereabouts and were told that letting Afghans do the job would likely lead to failure.
Even compared to the half-assed, lame Democrats, the GOP are scum, marked by incompetence as much as deceit. Both parties share blame for the current economic meltdown among financial “instruments” and the shamerful energy dependence mess, but seeing McCain appoint Phil Gramm – one of the architects of bank deregulation – as his chief economic guru sends a signal of utter cluelessness. And the GOP’s pandering to big oil and the Saudis is a hallmark that, again, makes the Dem’s sins on energy pale in comparison.
GOPers are some combination of brainwashed morons – like Woody – and crooked con men, like most of the Bushies, DeLay, etc.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:21 am
With all due respect to a woman who’s shown a lot of guts and decency, I’m also pissed at Elizabeth Edwards – who’s admitted she knew about this since 2006 – for not convincing John that running a presidential campaign with this in the closet wasn’t, at the very least, “prudent.” No question but that she could have (discreetly) ended his campaign.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:31 am
“… she (Elizabeth Edwards) could have (discreetly) ended his campaign.”
Yeah, it seems a bit rough to say that, but I think you’re absolutely dead-on to note that, reg.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:49 am
TWO points.
1. John Edwards did not betray his children.
2. John Edwards was never going to win the Democratic presidential nomination.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Come to think of it, her health situation would have given them the perfect opportunity to bail on the campaign – and spare both potential voters and their family a lot of heartache and public humiliation.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Bill – not sure what the context or implication is of your second point. I mean, did John Edwards believe that ?
And who DID “betray his children.” Do you have someone else in mind ?
August 9th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Our Liberal Media:
David Gregory on MSNBC: “Tonight, more on Edwards and the fallout from his admission today about a sexual affair: Is this another skeleton in the Democratic closet that Barack Obama must struggle to overcome?”
WTF ????
August 9th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Meanwhile folks, theres a bloody war being unleashed in Russia…
August 9th, 2008 at 10:11 am
The question of Edward’s affair admission has already been put to Sen. Obama in Hawaii. Short blurb on CNN, couldn’t help but notice Sen. Obama said: “…Edwards WAS a champion of the poor…” (emp. added).
August 9th, 2008 at 10:16 am
The GOP descends into pure pathology:
http://tinyurl.com/63mccf
(Note the reference to WorldNetDaily, one of Woody’s favorite “sources.”)
August 9th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Exactly.
Well, actually, it’s in Georgia, as I’m reporting throughout.
It’s already led to the withdrawal of the third largest national contingent in Iraq and shattering of US strategy in the Russian near abroad.
>reg Says:
August 9th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Meanwhile folks, theres a bloody war being unleashed in Russia…
August 9th, 2008 at 10:42 am
reg, you’re working so hard to turn the fact that Edwards cheated on his wife into a discussion of Republican issues. It doesn’t work, but it says very little nice about you.
On Clinton and bin Laden, you can’t really say for sure what Clinton did or didn’t do after he had Sandy Berger steal and destroy related documents from the Library of Congress, which furthered hindered our investigation on 9-11. I’ll just have to go by what Clinton once said about his philosophy.
Being a good president doesn’t mean having peace by failing to take actions that should be taken, just so you can pass them off on the next president.
So, I guess that you have no problem with Edwards–beyond hurting Democrats.
- – -
Bill Bradley, I’m amazed at the credit that people give you for stupid conclusions.
August 9th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Bradley, I wasn’t referring to your last comment but the one at 9:49 AM. Our last comments crossed in the mail.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Actually Woody, I think that Edwards cheating on his wife is at least reasonably appropriate as an occasion to consider the personal character of McCain, another guy who didn’t just cheat on his wife, but dumped her for a younger woman after she’d stood by him during his imprisonment but was disfigured in an automobile accident.
If you’re the type who’ll excoriate Edwards and Clinton but give a pass to McCain because he’s a GOPer, your epitaph as a credible commenter on anything has already written itself. (Not that anyone who reads your shit ever thought that you were. Just saying…)
August 9th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Well, no one betrayed John Edwards’ kikds. At least not on this basis.
I’m not really interested in the Edwards POV re his candidacy.
There was no way he was going to beat Obama or Clinton.
All he did, by not dropping out after he predictably lost Iowa, was keep the race going months longer by helping Hillary win New Hampshire.
>reg Says:
August 9th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Bill – not sure what the context or implication is of your second point. I mean, did John Edwards believe that ?
And who DID “betray his children.” Do you have someone else in mind ?
August 9th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Sport, have no clue or particular interest in whatever it is you imagine you’re saying to me.
Incidentally, as is not exactly a surprise, I’m also not very interested in John McCain’s very problematical marital history.
>Woody Says:
August 9th, 2008 at 10:42 am
reg, you’re working so hard to turn the fact that Edwards cheated on his wife into a discussion of Republican issues. It doesn’t work, but it says very little nice about you.
On Clinton and bin Laden, you can’t really say for sure what Clinton did or didn’t do after he had Sandy Berger steal and destroy related documents from the Library of Congress, which furthered hindered our investigation on 9-11. I’ll just have to go by what Clinton once said about his philosophy.
Being a good president doesn’t mean having peace by failing to take actions that should be taken, just so you can pass them off on the next president.
So, I guess that you have no problem with Edwards–beyond hurting Democrats.
- – -
Bill Bradley, I’m amazed at the credit that people give you for stupid conclusions.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Sport?
Well, I didn’t expect you to have an interest in another viewpoint, which is exactly why your viewpoints are so lacking.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Everything is going to turn out okay. Like he helped Bill Clinton with fidelity issues, Jesse Jackson will be John Edwards’ spiritual advisor.
Maybe he can go to David “DC Madam” Vitter for advice, or Newt “dump for your first wife on her hospital bed, leave your second wife for your co-worker” Gingrich. Larry “wide-stance” Craig, Mark “let me get to the bottom of the page” Foley, Dan “child out of wedlock” Burton.
I’m very disappointed with Edwards. He would have been great as an AG in an Obama cabinet. He shouldn’t have lied, but if the republicans plan on making hay out of this, they’re in a glass house.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Randy: I’m very disappointed with Edwards. He would have been great as an AG in an Obama cabinet.
You completely miss the point. He would NOT have been great as an Attorney General precisely because of his lying and his failed character. Your statement is based simply upon the fact that he was caught, and that ruined his chances. To Democrats, character really doesn’t matter.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
You completely miss the point. He would NOT have been great as an Attorney General precisely because of his lying and his failed character.
Woody,
I was using the subjunctive case. The subjunctive case is a conditional case. My statement is based on the fact that he did what he did. Had he not done what he had done (all of his acts), he would have made a great attorney general.
For someone who extols the virtues of English, your grasp of the basic grammar appears to be feeble.
Finally, do not try to guess my intent. My brain is far too complicated for someone as simple-minded as you.
To wit, your ignoring of the five examples of republican moral perfidy I cited above. Being criticized by you for moral failings, given your blasphemy in assigning political partisanship to Jesus and St. Peter or your referring to a disabled veteran as “Stumpy,” and your wholesale embrace of the Bush administration including Alberto (I don’t remember) Gonzales, has as much credibility as Hannibal Lecter praisig a vegan diet.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
If the Rethugs want to use Edwards failings as another club against Obama I say – “BRING IT ON!” The number of lapsed GOP’ers – including their presidential candidate make this dangerous ground for glass house dwellers.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Woody’s attitude is why we really have to kicj these guy’s butts.
Clinton and Edwards are dangerous because they let their penis do their thinking and JRE is therefore not moral enough to be AG.
But Bush can:
ignore warnings on OBL and panic on 9/11 (see the footage)
allow a great American City to drown
Lie us into an illegal war
Set up an American Gulag with torture the rule
Put crony capitalism into place to reward his friends
And all this is copacetic with our cracker from the other Georgia.
August 9th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Who cares? Maybe Elizabeth cares; and, reasonably so. Maybe his kids care; also, reasonably so. As a contributor to his campaign, I don’t care. I do not feel that Edwards betrayed my trust. I’m not married to the man. Whatever vow of marital fidelity he took was to someone other than me.
How can we even keep a straight face while having a conversation about character and the presidency after 8 years of Bush-world?
The Republicans will make hay out of any semi-foolish thing they can find. And, if they can’t find a semi-foolish thing to make hay out of, they’ll invent one up.
We have fetishized the office of president, and the concept of character to the point where it’s absurd, particularly, given the attributes of its current occupant. How can that bar be any lower than it is?
August 9th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Listener: Fair enough. You make your point. However, what would you say to Congressman Bonior?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/politics/2008/08/bonior_reacts_to_edwards_admis.html
August 9th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
“Jeezus Woody. Talk about dishonesty. You’re so giddy with excitement…”
You can say that again, Jim….Reading his spastic comments, and those of his other sleazy ilk on here reminds me of a coon dog my uncle had who liked to roll around on the remains of dead animals – he preferred skunks – on the ground. Some of it is enough to make me want to take a long shower….not that either party or poltical persuasion has a monopoly on such games (I have always chosen not to comment on these kinds of things, regardless of who it is).
Can anyone with even a modicum of self-respect take glee in the fact that a family has been torn apart (including some very young children)? Not me. As Johnny Rotten once called it, “A cheap holiday in someone else’s misery.” Woody…go to the sink, you smell terrible.
August 9th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I hope that all of those tut-tutting about John Edwards–who revealed himself to be even smarmier than I had thought he was and a first-class idiot to boot–will not vote for John McCain, who ran around on the wife who was loyal to him throughout his time as a POW when he came home and found out she had been injured in a car accident. Then he married his mistress, and more recently prompted his staff to want to keep a female lobbyist away from him–not necessarily because they were having an affair but because they didn’t like how it looked, which tells you just about all you need to know about that unprincipled whore.
August 9th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Bill Bradley, I shouldn’t have said those things to you that I did. I apologize.
- – -
rlc, American Gulag?!! I seem to think that the prisoners at Gitmo have gotten quite a bit better treatment than those in the Russian gulags. Would you admit to overstating that a bit? Also, Bush didn’t let New Orleans drown. He bombed the levees to rush it along…according you guys.
- – -
Randy, or should I call you Brainiac, right after you said that Edwards would have made a great AG, you said he shouldn’t have lied. It’s obvious that the lie, rather than the act, was your point.
- – -
David: Can anyone with even a modicum of self-respect take glee in the fact that a family has been torn apart …
Yeah, see Michael Green’s comment after yours.
Sorry, David. The usual liberal trick of telling conservatives that they shouldn’t discuss an issue embarrassing to Democrats because it is too shameful just doesn’t work, because we know that you just want to shut us up rather than being concerned about personal feelings. I quit caving in to political correctness long, long ago.
- – -
Listener, if a sociopath like Bill Clinton and John Edwards will cheat on his wife, he’ll do a lot worse with you.
August 9th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Rob Grocholski, At the risk of chewing up Marc’s bandwidth…
I would tell Mr. Bonior that he is entitled to his feelings. I can imagine Edwards’ campaign manager experiencing both of those feelings. I would hope he not invest too much emotional energy in either. You cannot control what people do, you can only control how you feel about it. For me, I would consider Bonior’s response a waste of good angst, but I certainly wouldn’t deny Bonior the right to feel any way he wants.
Presumably, Mr. Bonior knows all of these individuals personally, and is empowered to speak for them. Maybe all of these folks do feel betrayed. I express no empathy for them. I’ve felt betrayed by the party of opposition for 8 full years. On Iraq, on FISA, on habeas corpus, on anthrax, on torture, on the DOJ … Line ‘em up and list ‘em. Somehow, the personal sexual proclivities of one candidate who left the race weighs more heavily on the scale of betrayal than the capitulations of an entire party through two presidential terms? I’d suggest to Mr. Bonior that his priorities need realigning.
”
I really, really, really want to know how Mr. Bonior said this with a straight face. I know I don’t need to trace the political careers of the current GOP leadership backwards for you. If anything, their dishonesty has held them in good stead. The Democratic leadership may well tank any future political aspirations John Edwards has, but that’s a DCC/DNC thang. I’m not sure the voters would necessarily all be on board with that. We’ll never know, will we? I suspect neither we, nor Edwards will be allowed to find out.
August 9th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Ohhhh, what luck.
Edwards ex-mistress rules out paternity test
One would think that they would be anxious to clear the Edwards name.
August 9th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
One more thing, the Democrats don’t do a very good job of vetting their candidates, as evidenced by the Edwards scandal. On the other hand, maybe the Democratic leadership knew and just figured that their friends in the media would let it blow away without coverage.
What are they not telling us about Obama that we should know?
August 9th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
You know, Rob Grocholski, the more I think about it the more David Bonior’s words are part and parcel of the fetishizing, and the cult of character. The GOP has so thoroughly entrenched both into the mainstream, I wonder if we can every disentangle ourselves. I’d argue that it’s doubtful. The only thing I can hope for is that eventually the GOP will find itself hung by its own petard.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Listener, isn’t a petard a medieval bomb? You meant hoist not hung, right? Anyway, I appreciate you wrestling with this and coming up with a response. But I respectfully think you’re wrong because you’re simply over thinkin’ it: fetishizing of character? C’mon dude. John Edwards royally screwed up. He lied about an affair and whether it was the paparazzi or the NYT chasing him down, he was doomed to have to eat his words. Bonior, imho, is rightfully pissed because so many supporters followed Edwards denial. He’s pissed for the right reasons.
I think reg has still made the best point on this thread that if John Edwards was so full of himself and ambition, it would have been an a brave, honest, and appropriate call by Elizabeth to have tried to talk him out of running. She didn’t. She’s got other issues, we’re all well aware of…we’ll give HER a pass, but not John.
Meanwhile, all of this is happening during a Presidential Election where the majority tide of the country is actually inclined to support the Democratic candidate. And doggone it, why should Democrats handicap themselves? I just don’t want Democrats to get bogged down by rationalizing away a lie and give the Republicans a head start on character issues.
August 9th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
I find the level of mindless voluntarism in American politics to be astounding. The ability of individuals to confuse their own values with political realities is simply stupefying.
It is abundantly clear that one of those political realities — unfortunate as it might be– is that a WHOLE LOT of Americans think that the candidates’ personal lives are very important.
If Edwards had said from the outset of his campaign that he’s got some blemishes and maybe even some girlfriends in his past and damn anybody who thinks that matters — then I think we could applaud him.
But he didn’t. Not only did he use his family and his ailing wife as part of his campaign, but he willingly put at risk his entire party — and therefore the immediate American future– by making a run while fully knowing he was sitting on a ticking time bomb. That is reckless. That is stupid. That is betrayal of the trust of his supporters. And, yes, it is rather narcissitic to use his term.
I saw him last nite on ABC and he continued to be totally unconvincing. As a wagering man, I would give any comer 2 to 1 odds that the baby in question is indeed his. Which makes things worse. Not to mention the slush fund provided by his finance chair to Hunter and Young.
You want to defend that in a presidential campaign? Be my guest. If you do, you forfeit all rights to criticize McCain for his personal shenanigans. And you’d be quite stupid to boot.
August 9th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
[...] John Edwards: Why His Affair Matters [...]
August 9th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Typical Woodyism: “When Clinton was running for office and was in office, it was often repeated by him, the Democrats, and the press that “character didn’t matter.” ”
It’s interesting that you can find rightwing blogs that feature “character doesn’t matter” as a direct quote from Bill Clinton. There’s never a source, unless perhaps it’s a citation from another corner of the Vast Right-Wing Echo Chamber. This is excellent evidence of their inability to apply basic sniff tests. Obviously, if Clinton had ever said “character doesn’t matter” during any of his campaigns, he would have been tossed off the campaign trail by 90% of the voters, overnight. And yet, in this looking-glass world of the right-wing blogosphere, somehow anybody who doesn’t believe as they do is a dunce, in denial.
If you do a Google News archive search on “Clinton” and “character doesn’t matter”, you find no such quote, despite the obvious fact that this would be a huge scoop, a bombshell story, for any reporter, and would have been picked up and repeated (after verification) by dozens of MSM outlets at the time.
So why does Woody offer up this ridiculous non-quote? I really don’t think it’s because he’s a compulsive liar, as reg theorizes. I think he just has a very, very bad ideological crap filter.
It works like this: virtually all right-wing crap is The Truth(tm). Virtually all left-wing crap is taken as typifying what everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman believes. It’s that simple. Now you can see how that makes it easy for Woody to fly off on those tangents where anything liberal becomes “leftist”, all leftism becomes communism, and all communism is Stalinism. There’s no “slippery slope” here, no hope that if you just tossed him some footwear with better traction, he could eventually arrest the fall and make upward progress. No, it’s an overhanging cliff dropping straight into Wingnut Gulch.
I started fact-checking some of Woody’s other stuff in the same post, and stopped when I realized I’d be correcting his misunderstandings all afternoon. Like, that claim that the recession of the early 2000′s started under Clinton? That was a real tough one. Unfortunately, the best refutation I could find was in this obscure journal of revolutionary Marxism called … uh … BusinessWeek.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_08/b3871044.htm
But Woody got his news about this recession from much more reliable sources, like maybe Powerline, or Newsbusters or maybe IBD, which makes his version of the story The Truth(tm). Of course, I’d say (and have said, in this forum, more than once) that the bubble of the second half of the nineties allowed the Clinton administration to overstate its economic record. But that was only part of the economic story of that period, and if there was somebody who ought to have taken away the punchbowl, it was a Republican named … Alan Greenspan. But Good Ol’ Uncle Al, after a few mutterings about “irrational exuberance”, just decided it wasn’t really his job to, y’know, manage the economy or anything, and he shut up about it. And, of course, it was this very same Republican Alan Greenspan who fended off attempts to get the Fed to deflate the erstwhile housing bubble, saying that he didn’t see what people were so upset about, and who now claims he just “didn’t get it” until it was too late. Now it’s up to Bernanke, and it’s a much bigger mess than if it had been caught in time.
So what did Clinton do for the economy? Well, for starters, he … raised taxes! As some evidence that BusinessWeek wasn’t always a revolutionary Marxist rag, supply-sider columnist Paul Craig Roberts declared at the time that this tax increase was a recipe for disaster, that America would see “a bigger deficit, higher unemployment, rising inflation, and a currency crisis to boot.” Fortunately for us, Clinton was taking counsel from actual economists. None of those things happened, of course. Paul Craig Roberts is an interesting thinker — his theories back in the 70s about why the Soviet Union was on its last legs were arguably prescient. However, his tendency toward extreme confirmation bias, and a certain lack of rigor in his handling of evidence and sources, haven’t exactly served him well: he’s now one of the few 9/11-Truthers you’ll find on the Right. Hey, Paul, that brain lesion — gettin’ kinda nasty, where it’s oozing outa your ears, maybe you should have it looked at? Of course, you could just keep pretending it’s a merely an excess of intellect, and join a support group for those with the same condition, in Atlanta … I know of at least one other potential member there ….
August 10th, 2008 at 5:11 am
I’ll wager Edwards’ deep, personal anxiety for The Poor In The Other America disappears as rapidly as his public career.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Michael Turner, thanks for considering me important enough to spend two minutes researching and composing your last comment–which is all it could have taken given your inability to find sources for my claims, such as the one about Sandy Berger stealing and destroying documents about Clinton and his no-war on terror position.
But, your case was well stated–using a selected article that met your purpose rather than a preponderance of evidence which contridicts your self-believed “reputable sources.”
Naturally, I must, out of necessity, rely on sources other than many traditional, and liberally biased, publications that have ruled the political discussions for decades–and, don’t assume that an article from a magazine with the word “business” in it would be conservative. After all, journalists, even those with degrees in economics, tend to be or become liberals, despite the name of the publication for which they write. I’ve seen previously “neutral” sources gradually hijacked by left-wing writers.
However, if you want a source on the liberal media distorting economic issues, as an example from Democratic to Republican administrations, try this article: How Networks Distort a Good Economy. From this, you can see that the press overstates Democratic economic issues in positive terms while understating those of Republicans. They work extra hard to convince readers that we are in a recession where none exists–as long as it helps the Democrats. The facts are there, and I resorted to this source that I did, because it criticizes the liberal MSM, which never would criticize itself.
Likewise, here is a factual, but out-of-the-”mainstream” article (with charts!) on the economic recession beginning under Clinton: Last Economic Recession Began Under Clinton, Despite Rewrites By The Left.
On Clinton’s statement that “character doesn’t matter,” you don’t have to have a word-for-word quote to understand what he said in his talks and his actions. For instance, I was thoroughly disgusted by his party on the White House grounds, yukking it up with other Democrats right after he had been impeached for committing perjury. But, that direct quote is proven to have frequently come from Clinton operatives (e.g. Carville) and his friends in the press. Are you trying to tell me that Bill Clinton didn’t send that message, just because you didn’t find the direct quote from your sources? That’s like saying that Truman didn’t want to bomb Japan, because you didn’t hear the order.
Your “fact-checking” is not better than mine, but you think it is because you resort to long-time media sources, which are dying, rather than the new and growing sources that prove that the traditional ones have failed the public in favor of pushing left-wing ideology. Why, who would have ever thought that the National Enquirer would be ahead of the L.A. Times on an issue of national politics–like the Edwards scandal of this post?
And, oh, if raising taxes and transferring wealth from those who earn it to the government is good for the economy, then let’s put the incemental rate back up to 94%, where it once was. That should get things going. And, if you like high taxes, be sure to support Obama.
On why our views and source differ, consider that maybe I’m not the one with a “very, very bad ideological crap filter.” (Are you, also, listening, reg?)
August 10th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Randy Paul, here is some more political reading for you: Yes, We Can’t!
August 10th, 2008 at 7:29 am
I saw Edwards speak at the SEIU offices a few months back. Now the SEIU local is in big trouble as well.
I am hopeless at this point…
August 10th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Woody, you’re a lying sack of shit, depite your spinning like a top.
August 10th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
YOUR media, not mine….
CNN’s Yellin: Edwards Story Unimportant — He Wasn’t a Contender
Edwards responds to CNN: “You don’t understand. I could have had class. I could have been a contender. I could have been somebody, instead of a bum–which is what I am.”
Okay, so when is Obama going to say something about the man whose endorsement he accepted and whom he had lined up to be his Attorney General? Does he just kick Edwards overboard without a kiss or does Obama admit that he made yet another mistake in picking his friends and associates?
At least John McCain rejected the endorsement of John Hagee, and John Hagee never cheated on his wife.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Breaking News: Breck Shampoo has announced that it has cut its association with John Edwards.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
While we are discussing the sex lives of our political leaders, the little Napolean has unleashed his Bear on the little democracy of Gerogia.
This is just the beginning of the rebuilt of the USSR, starting with all their old Iron Curtain Satellites that are not now in Nato.
This, while the disgusting little runt was sitting right next to Bush at the opening of the Olympics. Shades of the Japanese emisars friendly visit to the US, while their ships were on their way toward Hawaii.
Sorry Barack. You are a nice guy. Just too nice for the real and dangerous world we live in……..and so is “I looked deep into his eyes….”
Bush.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Breaking news: Woody can go fuck himself!
Course that’s already been done by Larry Craig I guess.
Oh, and Woody, General Taguba used the term “Gulag” to describe “Gitmo” and called it a “War Crime” in his official report of the investigation he made. So did the International Red Cross and so did a report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs which urged HM Givt to cease cooperating with the US over these matters as the Americans were in violation of several treaties and international law.
But what thehey, they didn’t know what you know from reading the Moonies and other “Reliable Sources.”
And Bush, Cheney, et al don’t have any “love children” as afar as we know.
Yeah real moral those guys!
August 10th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Sheesh! Obviously, I don’t get it.
I’m no where near wanting to hang John Edwards, carve the corpse up into to little pieces, and tar and feather the remains. Sure. It’d have been a whole lot better if he’d kept in his pants. No argument. What’s the old saw? It’s best if the candidate keeps it in his pants, and if he can’t, then he needs to keep it within the family. Apparently, that argument holds for a whole array of politicians all the way back to JFK, if not before. After Gary Hart I decided it was none of my business, and I just didn’t care any more. So, go ahead and hang me too for becoming too European in my outlook.
What amazes me is the craptastic double standard which holds Democrats to a family values™ standard they haven’t historically advocated, while the Republicans, who have pushed that plank, routinely violate it. And, No, for the record, I don’t care what John McCain has done, or will do in that area. He and Cindy get to thrash that one out – if [big IF] the media cares to report it. I got a boatload of reasons to not vote for John McCain , without ever sniffing around his sexual relationships with his wife, or anyone else. So, the Democrats are charged with advancing candidates who would pass every test of moral purity, while the Republicans get a pass? Interesting. Good luck with that.
All I’m willing to argue, since I am but one voter/supporter who cannot speak, and will not attempt to speak, for all of these millions of Americans you cite, is it no longer matters to me. Yeah. In an ideal world, Edwards would have come clean at the beginning – or, Elizabeth would have pulled an ‘Alma Powell’ and kicked the props out from under John’s ambition. Didn’t happen. I don’t feel like Edwards needs to refund my campaign donations. I don’t feel betrayed. I’m not disappointed. I’m not outraged. And, I’m bemused by those who would feel that way for me.
Apparently, people feel that Edwards has put the whole Democratic project at risk for the coming election. My argument has been, and will continue to be, that absent any astounding issue from which the GOP can make hay, they’ll invent one. And, whatever they invent, the media will promote to ensure every last American on the planet knows the allegation. So whether Barack and Michelle Obama are as morally pure as a new born babe is essentially irrelevant. John Edwards handed the GOP a bonafide scandal. If it dies too quickly, the GOP will come back with an invented one. I can’t even imagine what a GOP candidate would have to do to get equivalent media attention. If the voting public allows the GOP to get away with this, then we indeed get the government we deserve.
I’m with Diby and Atrios on this. Our stupid discourse is dumbing the whole political framework down to where we have infantilized the voters. Having been conditioned to believe they are unable to think, they’ve further been conditioned to be unwilling to think. If you don’t like the notion of making character a fetish, then describe it however you like. What I care about are policies. As best I can tell Bush was totally without character, and the public elected him anyway. Twice. Where did the focus on character get us in 2000 and 2004? Of all the issues cascading down on the voting public, John Edwards liaison ought to be at the bottom of the list. And, that would still be true even if he were the Democratic candidate. And, yeah, I think the kid is likely his, as well.
[Sidenote. Since I’m uncertain of the html code the site accepts, the coding for trademark may get scrambled. Amp-pound-153 typically produces the superscript of TM.]
August 10th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
rlc, anyone who compares Gitmo to Russian gulags is either a left-winger overstating his case, someone who doesn’t know his history about the horrors of Lenin’s and Stalin’s gulags, is a member of the left-wing sheep herd braying the same tune he hears by others, or, is like you, just plain stupid.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
All American critics of Russia coming to the aid of Ossatians who don’t criticize similar actions by the Americans are hypocrites. And Georgia is not a democracy, it is a satellite of NATO. America intentionally armed Georgia in order to draw the bear into this honey trap.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Indeed. Our discourse is so dumbed down. It’s appalling. We are a bunch of rubes, hicks, morons.
I care only about policies. That the man offering the policies has proven himself to be a serial liar and a reckless, selfish fool makes not one whit of difference.
Do I feel sorry for the people who were taken in by and sent money to this latest incarnation of Elmer Gantry? Of course not. I won’t pretend that I do. Sometimes, that is what it takes to get through to rubes, hick, morons and marks.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
And Georgia is not a democracy, it is a satellite of NATO.
I imagine Georgia soreley wishes it were a “satellite” of NATO.
But Jcummings is probably cool with secret protocols in non-aggressions pacts that cleared for the way for invasions of nondemocratic Finland, Latvia, Lituania, Estonia, and eastern Poland.
Are NATO-membership and democracy mutually exclusive in Jcummingsland?
August 10th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Randy, or should I call you Brainiac, right after you said that Edwards would have made a great AG, you said he shouldn’t have lied. It’s obvious that the lie, rather than the act, was your point.
Woody, this is what we call making something up out of whole cloth. This is not a zero-sum issue. In other words, blasphemer, simply because I mentioned the lie, doesn’t mean that the affair itself disturbs me. The lie disturbs me far more and here’s why:
The affair is an issue between him and his family. The lie is even more disturbing to me precisely because he used the image of his wife and family to bolster his run for the presidency while lying about the affair. It’s up to his wife and family to forgive him for those sins, but the lie to those who believed in his candidacy and his character I find even more disturbing.
As expected not a word from you regarding the likes of David Vitter frequenting prostitutes, which, by the way, is a crime. Vitter remains in the senate. When are you going to call fro his resignation or is IOKIYAR?
August 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Make that it doesn’t mean that the affair doesn’t disturb me.
Dead silence from you about Newt’s cheating and Mark Foley’s pedophilia.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
“All American critics of Russia coming to the aid of Ossatians…”
Right. The educated idiot speaks. The hypocrite who chooses to live in a western democracy enjoying its freedoms, while slapping the hand that feeds his mouth and lets him run it against them.
To chicken shit to dare live under that which he knows little about, other than what his equally chicken shit educated idiots rotted his brain with.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
This naive little peckerwood actually thinks Putin is there to free someone. He actually belives Putin is there to stop a genocide. He actually believes Putin will leave Georgia before deposing its elected government for one agreeable to him.
This is crap we pay colleges to produce.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Listener, no one will ever confuse you as a fan of Heraclitus (although drunken Greek sailors swear she shaved it!).
What if the story was tweaked a bit:
Little Timmy runs for dog catcher in Mericatown USA. A significant % of voters are god fearin’ and very, very straight-edge. Big Jim is Little Timmy’s campaign co-chair for precinct 9. Little Timmy tells the Mericatown Gazette that he’s a god fearin’, family man. Doesn’t do drugs, and really, really, really wants to save all the stray dogs and cats. You know, find them a home, etc.
Then this uppity reporter asks Little Timmy, “Hey, the only reverend in Mericatown USA says you’ve never been seen at church expect outside in the parking lot getting stoned. Is this true?” Little Timmy tells the reporter, “That’s not true. It’s just tabloid trash.” Then Little Timmy also tells his co-chair for precinct 9, Big Jim, that these stories aren’t true. Besides, the last dog catcher was really in the pocket of the big pooper-scooper industrial complex, declared Little Timmy. So Big Jim the co-chair for precinct 9 worked hard to spread the word. He extolled all of Little Timmy’s virtues and great speeches about how there’s two kinds of Mericatown pets: those with the silver-pedal litter boxes for some, and just a faded, crinkled piece of USA Today for the rest. In precinct 9, the dogs barked, the cats meowed.
Early one morning, around 3 am (but not taking any phone calls), Little Timmy was photographed in the church parking lot by the paparazzi in a Dodge van sucking off the Ronald Reagan soaring eagle freedom bong. Incriminating betting sheets on doomed pit bulls, courtesy of Michael Vick, were seen on the dashboard. Blogger Woody swears Vincent Foster was in the van, too. Getting murdered by Hillary Clinton.
After breakfast, Little Timmy comes clean, confessing, “Opps, my bad. I made a naughty boo-boo.” He rings up his celly: “Mr. co-chair for precinct 9, Big Jim, get me on Larry King.”
Letters to the editor of the Mericatown Gazette flood the mailroom. The tubes of the internets creak and moan. The Huffington Post angles for an exclusive interview. The god fearin’ straight edged voters are going to weigh in, even though not a single one of them has ever used the word fetish. Or even read Foucault (what dumb bastards, eh?) Little Timmy is sent to the penalty box (in Chapel Hill), red-faced, embarrassed. But Big Jim, co-chair for precinct 9 puts foot in mouth, and head in sand pretending nothing happened. That this falsehood is but an annoying little gnat compared to the horry crimes of those in the pocket of the pooper-scooper industrial complex.
Since Big Jim, co-chair for precinct 9 is only interested in Little Timmy’s policy positions, er a adoptees for stray cats and dogs, Little Timmy’s godless dope smokin’ ways shouldn’t be an issue in the campaign, reasons Big Jim, co-chair for precinct 9. “Hey that’s a personal thingy. What one does in their own dodge van in the church parking lot is their own business. Who am I to judge?” sighed Big Jim, co-chair for precinct 9.
The tweaked story begs:
Doesn’t this make Big Jim, co-chair for precinct 9, a liar’s bitch?
August 10th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Me snark runs amok. Probably should lay off the Seth Rogen movies….
August 10th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Hey, Rob. That’s good. When I stop laughing, I’ll try to frame a response. But, in the meantime, I’m enjoying it too much as it is without disturbing its pristine surface with some ham-handed response of my own.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
“too nice a guy”
Yeah, we need another macho man like Dick Cheney…
Jim R – you’re profoundly full of shit if you think John McCain is fit to be “Commander in Chief.” HIs full-throated support of a disastrous war is proof he’s not.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Also, lest we forget that when McCain was supposedly “supporting the surge” he was also predictiing that there still weren’t enough troops – so that if the surge didn’t produce desired results he had a back-door. Chickenshit…
Nor did McCain have a clue about the Anwar awakening – nor the liklihood that a shift in strategy along Petreaus lines might utilize what troops we had more effectively. McCain hasn’t had a clue re: Iraq since Day One. As for “more troops” – I fucking knew we didn’t have enough troops to achieve the stated goals of the occupation – and I’m definitely not fit to be commander in chief. In 2004 the presidential canididate who was calling for more troops (albeit multilateral) was….wait for it…John Kerry. But McCain stuck with the Rumsfeld-Cheney-Bush clown show…
The guy’s clueless. But, hey – if you think 50,000 motorcycles “surging” is the sound of Freedom, vote for the narcisstic old shit.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
After long and careful thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that John McCain, in touting nuclear power, is too “French.”
August 10th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Since McCain’s top foreign policy advisor worked as a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government, I’m cretain we can trust McCain’s judgement on the current crisis.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
That’s really cool Listener. Thanks for having a sense of humor.
Meanwhile, what do you think of reg & Jim R ranting ’bout Russia, Iraq and ‘serious’ things?….
August 10th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Having your chief national secuirty advisor work as an agent of a foreign government isn’t disqualifying, since McCain thought the guy was working for the state of Georgia.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Your Liberal Media –
This morning on “This Week”, the ever-reliable dimwit, Coke Roberts, criticized Obama for taking a ten-day vacation in Hawaii – “even though it IS a state and his grandmother lives there” – becaus looks “foreign and exotic” According to the UberStormBundPundit he should have vacationed in “Myrtle Beach.”
This woman – who literally grew up in the Beltway as a Senator’s daughter and wouldn’t know “the real America” if she was dropped into a Denny’s via parachute – should NEVER be asked a question relevant to politics or political issues again in life. Why the fuck does she even have a job ?
August 10th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
If I accidentally ran over Roberts with a truck, my impulse on being told the tragic news would be to throw the fucker into reverse.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I AM ONCE AGAIN QUITE HONESTLY ON THE VERGE OF SHUTTING DOWN COMMENTS ON THIS SITE.
I AM BORED TO DEATH WITH THE PETTY NAME-CALLING. SO ARE LOTS OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO EMAIL ME ABOUT IT.
IT TURNS PEOPLE OFF AND DRIVES AWAY READERS.
AND I DON’T APPRECIATE IT. I WOULD RATHER READ NO COMMENTS THAN THIS CHILDISH CRUD.
SAY SOMETHING INTELLIGENT OR SAY NOTHING AT ALL.
August 10th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Well, looks like I don’t have a whole afternoon to either debunk the more bogus of Woody’s recent claims, or put the others that contain some grain of truth into context. So — with no further name-calling (if I can help it), I’ll just work through them piecemeal, as time permits.
Picking another one at random:
“Clinton ….stage for 9-11 was set by his policy of “can I wait another day without dealing with a crucial issue.” ”
There you go with the quotes again, Woody. You didn’t learn anything from your last trip to the how-to-verify-sources woodshed? No, of course not. Because you never learn.
Actually, Woody, if you read the House report on their investigation into 9-11, you’ll find that that George Tenet (wait — didn’t he end up working for Dubya, too, and end up saying there was a “slam-dunk” case to be made for Iraqi WMD?) testified that he told Sandy Berger that a plan to capture bin Laden was off, because of various risks. There was no evidence that Clinton had ever even been briefed on that plan, much less temporized on a decision about it.
Later, after the Tanzania and Kenya embassy bombings, the Clinton administration sent cruise missiles into a terrorist convocation, spurred at least partly by intelligence that bin Laden was likely to be in attendance.
It’s hypothesized that bin Laden avoided getting killed in that attack because he got word somehow. How? Well, the administration felt they had to tell Pakistan that the cruise missiles would be crossing their territory, and possibly this news leaked through ISI to the Taleban to bin Laden. After all, the consequences of Pakistan interpeting the flight of the missiles as a preemptive attack from India could have been catastrophic, given that Pakistan had nukes and missiles itself, at that point.
But … why did Pakistan have nukes in the first place? Well, a contributing reason is that, for quite a while, it was U.S. policy to turn a blind eye to Pakistan’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability, as a sort of quid pro quo for their cooperation in supporting resistance to the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Thanks, Bill Casey: now we have to deal with a nuclear North Korea. Also, thanks for that shipment of Korans into Afghanistan that you arranged. I wonder if bin Laden has a signed copy somewhere, inscribed “from Bill, with love for the same God of the Old Testament that we share”? (Note that the quotes around that represent a very tongue-in-cheek hypothesis, not a claim. But you WILL, if you look, find Casey arguing that it was OK to arm islamic fundamentalists against the Soviets because they believed in God, *our* same God. You can’t make this shit up.)
August 10th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
P.S. I forgot — Marc, did that meet your standards for “saying something intelligent?” And is my saying that someone like Woody “never learns” tantamount to name-calling, in your view? Just trying to get a sense of the New Marc Cooper Comment Section Order, here.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Marc, most of your left-wing commenters don’t like conservatives stating the logical truth, so they resort, in typical fashion, to name calling. Liberal readers, who may not comment, don’t want to allow conservative views to be dessiminated, so they whine hoping to drive them away. Well, you can shut down the comments, allow exchanges, or let your blog be a carbon copy of comments from Daily Kos.
- – -
Michael Turner, there are holes in your last comment, and yes, Bill Clinton did make the comment about “Can I go another day without killing….” But, I don’t want to upset the liberals any more, so I’ll drop it.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Yeah, Woody, the “logical truth” is that if Bill Clinton, during a campaign, had said “character doesn’t matter”, hardly anybody would notice. Hardly anybody at all It’s logical, because … uh … well, it just IS. And liberals can’t handle it, that’s the important thing. The logic of the self-evident is lost on them.
And if I google on “Can I go another day without killing” and “Clinton”, but nothing turns up, all that means that Google — and all the other search engines — are part of the Vast Left-Wing MSM Conspiracy. Because there has to be a quote from Clinton starting that way. That’s also logical, just because it is.
And if a conservative says that an argument has holes in it, it just does. It’s that simple. You don’t need logic for that one, because it’s axiomatic. Why can’t liberals deal with that? Simple: because they are leftists, which makes them communists, which makes them Stalinists. Anybody can see this, except, of course, liberals themselves (except in the case of liberals who can see it, the ones who are able to see it because … uh … because they can. Those liberals just hide the fact, and carry on pretending they don’t know they are Stalinist, to lead on other liberals who are blind to their own true nature, which is precisely what you’d expect from the Spawn of Satan, especially if they are working for CNN or ABC.)
Oh boy, I’m starting to suffer Logic Fatigue, with all this logic. I’ll go read Investor’s Business Daily now. Or maybe NewsBusters. There’s sure to be some new article on one of them that has done all that logic stuff for me already.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Rob Grocholski,
Thanks for the exchange. It was fun. I’d press my position further wondering about how much of Big Jim’s angst is theater, and how much genuine. And, whether being a liar’s bitch doesn’t come with the job description. Sorry. My cynicism tank flat ran over awhile back during the primaries when the meter controlling the flow of cynicism shattered. I believe this election matters but the behavior of the candidates, their operatives, and the media leaves me … well, disenchanted.
I try to keep my head down in the slug-fests lest I get hit by an errant punch. My days of mixing it up with my brothers are over. Truth is half the time I can’t keep track of the issues vs the personalities over here. Who was it that made the observation about people arguing with themselves in a closet? I need a better method of keeping score, but I need a better method of keeping track of who’s talking to whom first.
And, I’m not sure my invitation to the party hasn’t been withdrawn. Earlier, I believe Marc, in reference to my (and perhaps, others) position on John Edwards said,
I’d wonder where political realities come from when character sits front and center, if not from the values held by the voters, of which I are one.
Later, Marc quite emphatically said, I AM BORED TO DEATH WITH THE PETTY NAME-CALLING. [. . .] SAY SOMETHING INTELLIGENT OR SAY NOTHING AT ALL.
I’m pretty sure I passed the name calling test, but I fear I’ve failed the intelligence test. ‘Course, I also don’t happen to agree that Paul Krugman is vermin, so maybe I failed that test quite awhile back. Dunno. I think I’ll go back and sit in my corner and watch from the sidelines.
Thanks, again.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:22 am
BTW, I read an article today that asked if Hillary Cliinton would have won the Democratic nomination if Edwards had bowed out when this issue was first being investigated last October.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:25 am
MT, I heard Clinton say it in an interview after his term was over. That wasn’t passed to me by some conservative blog. You sure write a lot to call me a liar when I’m not one.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Marc, most of your left-wing commenters don’t like conservatives stating the logical truth
If a conservative commenter here ever told the truth, logical or otherwise, that would be newsworthy.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:41 am
“MT, I heard Clinton say it in an interview after his term was over. That wasn’t passed to me by some conservative blog.”
Sniff test, Woody, sniff test: if a high-profile figure says something remarkable in a public forum, there is never any trouble finding it on the web. What, do you think you were one of maybe three people in the whole world who listened to the same radio interview with a former president, and the only one of those three to get around to commenting on it in a web forum or on a blog?
“You sure write a lot to call me a liar when I’m not one.”
Actually, that’s just another example of how you’re not a liar, but rather someone with a terrible ideological crap filter, as I already said. I criticize what you say, for its pathetic inaccuracy, which you interpret as me calling you a liar. You exaggerate. You rely on terrible sources. (Thanks for the capmag article, btw — I was amused to learn from it that Paul Krugman is an “ultra-leftist”. So what does that make Shining Path in Peru, or the RCP in the U.S.? Ultra-hyper-super-duper-hyper-ultra-leftists?) Maybe you’re not much more reliable than a compulsive liar, when it comes to political subjects. But reg is wrong. You’re not a compulsive liar. You just have a screw loose when it comes to politics. Which would help explain why you’d think I was accusing you of lying a lot, when I haven’t been. That would be reg. We’re not the same person, believe it or not. Unless there are only three liberals in the world to your three conservatives, and we’re all running millions of sock puppets.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I guess I AM too mean with Woody. I don’t give enough credence to the insanity defense…
August 11th, 2008 at 10:34 am
It’s easy to say, because among marginaly civilized human beings, it’s obviously true.
Cooper would have you believe the masses are out there damanding the journalistic profession engage in it’s highly profitatble rolling around in the mud; a cursory review of the Clinton years STRONGLY suggests this is anything but true.
Yes, people do buy this garbage, they’ve been fed a steady diet of it. Can it be manipulated as payback for the left, while similair nonsense on the right is given a pass? Yes. But that’s not really the point anymore.
Wishing Journos would respect their public trust, even a little, is now like hoping for competance from the Bush White House. The counsel of decency: Russ Limbuagh, Marc Cooper, Mo Dowd and Chris Hitchens are forever in session. Good luck to us.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Hate to correct you Reg but Hale Boggs (Cookie’s father) was the HOUSE Majority Whip. But your point is well taken. And when was the last time Cokie and her husband visited Myrtle Beach? I thought she and Steve were like that late man of the people Tim Russert and vacationed on the Vineyard in the multi-million dollar house.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
MT, the quote is real. It came after his presidency. Like many outrageous things that Bill Clinton said, this quote was either ignored or embraced but not mentioned by his adoring press. You can conclude that I made it up or that the press didn’t cover it. I assure you, I heard it.
Now, on sources, if accuracy about everything is important to you, drop reading the New York Times and quit listening to CBS.
- – -
reg, if I am accused of being insane and you are on the jury, at least I would be judged by a jury of my peers.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I hadn’t planned to make any comment on Edwards, the Clinton bit was enough. But I suspect that anyone that cheats on his/her spouse has a problem with character. Now, some may think that character doesn’t really matter in the political arena, but I disagree.
Perhaps, if all those who cheated would resign, male and female, democrat and republican perhaps we might start electing a better class of people. Does cheating disqualify someone for office? Obviously not, but in my mind, again, it says something about following their word. If you think not, ask yourself if you want your children to have character or if it is OK for your child or spouse to cheat?
August 11th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
>But I suspect that anyone that cheats
>on his/her spouse has a problem
>with character. Now, some may think
>that character doesn’t really matter in
>the political arena, but I disagree.
GM, you’ll be voting for Obama rather than for serial adulterer McCain?
August 11th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
One can show a lack of character in ways other than adultery. Some might include associating with black separatists and anarchists.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Or calling the disabled names.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Or plagiarism.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Stu, I’ll not be voting for either of them. Obama is an empty suit with zero chance of being capable of leading this country and McCain is far from my cup-0-tea. I keep threatning to vote for reg… maybe I will…
August 11th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Stu? Serial? Document please!
August 11th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Randy, my comment there was the 9th, if I counted correctly:
“I’m not for Obama, but this material is clearly plagerized. Someone’s head needs to roll.
As for blaming McCain… PUHLEZE… name a single person running for the presidency that write’s his own material or knows where his staff got the material… Sheesh and I don’t even like the guy!”
August 11th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
GM, missed because of the volume of comments.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
“… name a single person running for the presidency that write’s his own material or knows where his staff got the material ….”
Very likely: Obama. And I bet Reagan did, to some extent, at least the writing part, if not the sourcing part. Read even a little from Obama’s books, and you’ll see he’s got the chops for it. Ditto for Reagan — he used to write his own speeches, back when he was governor of California. He probably had a big hand in his own presidential speeches, both on the stump and in office. And let’s not forget the unparalleled exemplar to whom they both owed so much: Lincoln.
I believe that politicians who write their own speeches are just better communicators all around, and (for better or worse) more credible with their constituencies because of it. They know when something sounds like something they would say, and when it doesn’t.
G.W. Bush and Clinton convey authenticity (when they do) more in their off-the-cuff unscripted comments, not on the podium with a teleprompter. Both could/can deliver a well-written speech, but they still left you feeling they’d just parroted somebody’s speech. Not much more is expected of your average politician, right? But with both Reagan back in the day and Obama now there was/is that ability to gracefully deliver a scripted line as if it were improvised, and vice versa, having it come across as heartfelt either way.
McCain can be very articulate when it comes to policy he knows well, but it’s a “let’s-reason-together-on-the-Senate-floor” style of communication. He’s been in the Senate so long he’s become a Bob Dole. He’s very likeable and reasonable in small groups and one-on-one, perhaps, but not very good in broadcast mode, where most of the time a Senator is just hoping he’s putting the CSPAN junkies to sleep, and anyone sitting the chamber knows they are just hearing the public-consumption version of the story, and tune it out. There’s a dangerous baring of another Achilles heel that comes with a life of congressional collegiality: you start depending on real-time access to the contents of your colleagues brains for correction. In unscripted moments, on your own, in the media, you can get into very deep trouble. With McCain’s gaffe about the Surge starting with the Anbar Awakening (*tilt*!), you see both vulnerabilities in stark relief: if you watch the clip (painful), it’s startling not only how warped his chronology was, but how bad his delivery was as well. Maybe he’d be better if he were writing his own speeches.
As for the charge of McCain’s speech on the Georgia crisis plagiarizing from Wikipedia: actually, it’s quite possible that Wikipedia was “plagiarizing” McCain’s speech. I’ve been de-plagiarizing some articles on Wikipedia recently (no, the perp seemed to be a conservative, actually, but thanks for asking), and have seen what a two-way street it can be. In the time it could take you to go to the refrigerator for a beer and come back, somebody could have heard McCain over the radio saying that Georgia was one of the first countries to adopt Christianity as an official religion, asked himself “is that true?”, checked it against on-line sources, found where it was verifiable in other sources but not (yet) in Wikipedia, and edited that fact into Wikipedia. The editor might even have unconsciously used phrasing more similar to McCain’s speech than how it was expressed in the source used for verification. It’s also possible that the noted passages are direct plagiarisms in Wikipedia, but are significant rewrites in the McCain speech, both drawing from the same (as yet unidentified) source.
Not saying any of that happened, of course. You can find out for yourself if you like, I’m not gonna bother. Just saying that, in these information-truly-at-your-fingertips days, such scenarios are not only possible, but far from unlikely. And that, to paraphrase something from Moynihan: politicians should know that they aren’t entitled to their own facts, but can own their own words, if they work to earn them.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
“I assure you, I heard it.”
Get that bridgework replaced, Woody, and maybe some of the voices will go away. Until the dental appointment, try ignoring the ones telling you that liberals are Stalinists. Please?
The fact remains: it doesn’t matter that Clinton was out of office. He still had a huge audience even if it’s much diminished now. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have been on the radio for you to hear him in the first place.
Noteworthy comments by notable figures get noted, practically by definition. Noteworthy stuff gets echoed all over the Web, not least because nobody can censor it — I.E., THAT VERY SAME WEB VIRTUE THAT YOU CITE ALL THE TIME IN YOUR ARGUMENTS FOR THE SUPPOSED RELIABILITY OF RIGHTWING “NEWS” SOURCES . And yet, somehow, what you claim Clinton said isn’t there on the Web, even the rightwing blogs.
Therefore: you remember wrong. He didn’t use those words, in that order. And in some other order, whatever those words of his were, they might well mean something quite different from what you have come to believe he said. It’s that simple. (Remember why courts rule out hearsay in witness testimony? Because it’s dependably unreliable. If your memory is photographic, why are we always catching you out on your errors of fact here, for years now?)
(Alternative hypothesis: the liberal-Stalinist MSM Axis of Evil that protects Clinton has penetrated the Intertubes so deeply that it can intercept any web page containing the quote and silently erase it before it reaches any reader. It’s true! I heard it on my dentures!)
Give it up, Woody. You just don’t have what it takes to find information in reliable sources, at least when it comes to politics. Maybe whatever reserves of accuracy you do have get exhausted with those CPA renewal exams, and your professional practice. I know that if I had to count beans all day, according to unbelievably byzantine rules, I’d prefer the rest of the world, at all other times, to be a dramatic fantasy, with me in an embattled minority on the Side of All That is Good, but fighting in a way that doesn’t cause real-world bruises or bleeding. But maybe you should try online video games for that, and steer clear of political subjects? I hear World of Warcraft is fun.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Randy, not a problem!
August 12th, 2008 at 7:46 am
>Document please
About all I know about McCain’s life story other than being an ex-POW and his recent exploits as a Senator is what’s in his Wikipedia entry. Per this source, he acknowledges his first marriage broke up due to his repeated infidelity. I couldn’t care less.
>Stu, I’ll not be voting for either of
>them. Obama is an empty suit with
>zero chance of being capable of leading
>this country and McCain is far from my
>cup-0-tea. I keep threatning to vote for
>reg… maybe I will…
Well, I’m voting third party as always, but neither of the candidates is an empty suit. If you’d been in CA for the Gray Davis-Arnold Schwartzenegger show, you’d know from empty suits.
When did Reg announce his candidacy? Reg, have you always been fastidiously faithful? Are you kind to animals? Do you tip your barber adequately? Great. Please intervene before the Peace and Freedom Party thinks to to nominate Mumia Abu Jamal.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Michael Turner, it sure takes you a lot of words to make a point.
Were those Clinton’s EXACT words? I can’t be absolutely sure, but they are pretty close and represent his intent and are backed up by his inactions.
I was trying to remember the context and think that it may have been related to Saddam Hussein. For instance, “I asked myself if I could go another day without killing him.” I even remember HOW Clinton said it–a flippant comment with a laugh.
But, no matter what or how it was said, Clinton said it many times through actions, or should I say his inactions, in dealing with problems that might create a disturbance in The Force.
He was in office for eight years while he left it up to a toothless U.N. to deal with Hussein–except for his drive-by shooting to send twenty-three Tomahawk missiles into people’s home in Baghdad as retribution for Hussein’s attempt to assassinate the former President Bush. The only thing that surprises me is that he didn’t give Saddam Hussein one of his last minute pardons.
The problem isn’t that I don’t remember things well. If anything, it’s that I remember more than most people, even the minutia that takes time (not worth it) to convince people like you.
Of course, I see your strategy, much like that of Randy Paul. Keep insisting on documentation suitable only to you, or it must be false and entitles you to attack the person who reveals it.
As I told Randy and will tell you, it’s a cop-out to avoid a discussion that you can’t win and an attempt to deflect the argument against the commenter. Surely, you can do better than that.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Actually Stu, I’m not running myself but I have an empty suit in my closet I haven’t worn since my son’s wedding that I’m putting on the ballot for the benefit of anyone – like GMR – who doesn’t think McCain fits the George W. Bush profile sufficiently.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Of course, I see your strategy, much like that of Randy Paul. Keep insisting on documentation suitable only to you, or it must be false and entitles you to attack the person who reveals it.
Sorry, but that’s not what I insist on. I insist on documentation from a reliable, independent source. Your routinely use sources like Brent Bozell, Newsmax and Newsbusters, all of which have an ideological bent.
I’m not in the habit of doing that. I try to find independent sources and vet them. As for avoding discussions you can’t win, spare me your faux outrage. All too often, your response to a factual, documented statement I bring up is to call me pathetic or stupid. You’re the one usually avoiding a serious discussion.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Randy, you should discuss the information in the source–not the source itself. If Newsmax says that the Earth is round, don’t dispute it.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I wouldn’t dispute that as that has been confirmed from an independent source, but you have presented plenty of opinion here masquerading as fact and you also dismiss sources without considering the nature of what is said.
To wit, your dismissing of the argument put forth by the Energy Information Administration that opening up the OCS to drilling would have a negligible impact on gasoline prices. Your sole response was “don’t believe the bureaucrats, believe the oil companies instead,” while ignoring the fact that the oil companies have a vested interest in expanding drilling, while the geologists at the Department of Energy don’t.
Yet you dismiss them withut any factual basis to do so, relying solely on your confirmation bias.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Randy, was that a direct and exact quote from me?! Well, it better be to pass the Michael Turner test.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:07 am
It was paraphrasing, but the substance was accurate.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Woody>Clinton…drive-by >shooting…tomahawk missiles
You give Clinton too much to credit him with something as courageous as a drive-by shooting. Here in LA, anyway, a drive by involves loading up the guys in a car, going into hostile territory, and shooting at your actual enemies, who are normally armed. Clinton preferred sending cruise missiles from far away into civilian pharmaceutical factories in third-world countries.
March 1st, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Considerably, the article is in reality the best on this worthw hile topic. I agree with your conclusions and will eagerly watch for ones own incoming updates. Simply stating thank you will not just be good enough, for the fantastic lucidity within your writing. I am going to directly obtain your rss to keep privy of any posts. Excellent work and much success in your business efforts!