Friday, August 8, 2008

Edwards: An Affair to Misremember

OK. Edwards admits an affair but doesn't admit to being the father of the love child. Or loving her mother. Creepy.

Somehow, I don't think this is the end of this story. Though it is the end of Edwards' political career.

CLARIFICATION: The mother's name isn't Creepy. Edwards is creepy.

UPDATE: All you Edwards supporters: You got played, says a former Edwards supporter.

UPDATE II: A fellow trial lawyer and Edwards former finance chairman paid to have "former" mistress and the supposed father of her child (though he is married and the father of two young children) relocated to California. If this is a cover-up it is making Watergate look like child's play.

OK, this isn't Watergate. It's Waterbroke and getting nuttier by the minute.

52 Comments:

Anonymous r said...

Scumbag. Is anyone at all shocked that Lib John Edwards is a straight-faced liar? He made his millions as a frivolous lawsuit litigant. Can you imagine this ambulance chaser being president and talking about heath care reform when he and those like him are directly responsible for the expensive mess it’s in?

August 8, 2008 at 6:08 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Conservative Republicans have NEVER, and would NEVER do anything like this!

August 9, 2008 at 8:40 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Sure they would. And when they're public officials or would-be public officials... it's a pretty good story.

August 9, 2008 at 9:57 AM 
Anonymous r said...

John and Elizabeth Edwards cynically used their marriage as a means to help John Edwards win an election.

if you gave John and Elizabeth Edwards time, money, support, or goodwill, they played you.

They made a conscious decision to make their relationship a focus throughout the campaign. That emotional goodwill you feel for them? They not only let you feel, they took actions and made statements specifically so you would feel it.

Then when the rumors first surfaced, they made the worst decision of all; they decided to lie about it and to keep lying about it for months. They lied in a way that made the people who were telling the truth look like the real liars. They lied in a way that turned their supporters into attack dogs.


As always, the lying was worse than the deed.
Yep, total scumbaginess to be expected from a LibDem lawyer.

August 9, 2008 at 12:25 PM 
Anonymous Son of Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure what Bob said was Snark...

Look at the names of those who have been caught up in similiar charges.

Gingrich served his wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital, Gingrich is an admitted adulterer...

Craig's incident in that bathroom stall..

Vitter and his EC activities with call girls...

Mark Foley and his, um, preferenced for young pages.

McCain's affair with his current wife.

On the DEM side, you have Clinton and Monica..

The former Governor of NJ and his sordid affairs..

Now Edwards. All this proves is that deep down inside, all politicians are human and can fail when it comes to temptation of the flesh. Doesn't matter if a R or D is after the name.

August 9, 2008 at 12:26 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

spencerblog

Its a pretty good story? Yea. For about 5 seconds. This is 2008. The divorce rate is about 50% for first marriages. Ike ran around, FDR, JFK, Hassert, Reagan, McCain, Clinton,and on and on and on. I just don't see these as very interesting stories anymore. Whats next? Are we going to start dredging up McCains sexual exploits from the days of his first marriage? Boring.

August 9, 2008 at 12:34 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Funny how LibDems are soooo quick to dismiss it as "everybody does it" when one of their own gets caught but way overblow it when a Repub does. Hypocrites are like that.

Besides, Lying John is worse because he USED his marriage and his wife's cancer for the sympathy vote, all the while lying. Despicable.

August 9, 2008 at 5:26 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 9, 2008 at 6:18 PM 
Blogger Franny Ward said...

John McCain also was running around on his first wife (Carol)and dropped her like a bad habit.

Edwards? Kennedy? Clinton? All cheating scumbags.

Ron Paul?

"While at Dormont, schoolmate Carol Wells had asked Paul to escort her to a sweet-16 Sadie Hawkins party, which was their first date. In 1956, Paul proposed marriage to Wells; the couple were wed on February 1, 1957, at Dormont Presbyterian Church."

Wow. 51 years! Who would you want to have as your President based on moral issues?

August 10, 2008 at 8:44 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Sorry, DDD, but once again you are wrong about me.
You however, I would guess that an angry kook like you would have a trail of failed marriages ...if only gay marriage were legal in PA.

August 10, 2008 at 12:38 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I think it's hilarous - this (allegedly) wholesome guy from the Carolinas, now showing who he really is. Anyone wanna take wagers on whether or not he's the pappy?

Edwards better chase a few more ambulances to pay for the kid.

Diano, by, the way, you're playing partisan politics. I'll ask again and will do so everytime I see you do it - if the Democratic Party leader in Delco asked you to "grab your ankles" for the good of the Democratic party, would you do so?
Stop being a partisan a$$hole and address the situation at hand without playing "pong".

Seriously, you'd be better off.

August 10, 2008 at 4:44 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 10, 2008 at 5:26 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

you know I stand on my own ground, I don't let a party tell me what to do or say or react. You, on the other hand, well, let's just say that I have my doubts.


grab them ankles!!!

August 10, 2008 at 7:15 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 10, 2008 at 8:58 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

David, you make me smile.
Stay Bold!

August 10, 2008 at 10:00 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

my assessment is dead on, dave. Prove me wrong. Just as bob was able to go into archives and pull up things randal said, I can just as easily go back to posts about specific issues/controversies about Democratic figures to show that your first response is to counter with what Republicans did in similar issues. You clearly play partisan politics on this blog yet you're in clear denial. Your denial is laughable.


ankles? fair trade coffee?

August 10, 2008 at 10:48 PM 
Anonymous r said...

All DDD ever does is bark the party line. That's all he knows how to do. He cannot think for himself. Or so it would seem. And then he lies about... Lol...

August 10, 2008 at 11:33 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 10, 2008 at 11:35 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Bullcrap. You jump in to counter and change the subject, its in your nature, and maybe even DNA. IF your explanation was true, we would have seen you counter with Democratic scandals during the recent outing of the Alaskan Senator in hot water, or during the Larry Craig Scandal. But I see a clear line when it comes to you, don't you, diano? Naah, it couldn't be coincidental, now could it?

You're full of it diano. I'm calling you out everytime.

August 11, 2008 at 7:26 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Interesting that you bring up Sean Hannity as I see very distinct similarities in the two of you:

-you both take very extreme positions at the far ends of the spectrums - both unhealthy for a nation needing someone down the middle

-you both ignore issues pertaining to your side and choose to attack the opposite when convenient. Also, when your side is under attack you counter (play pong) by changing the subject through brining up the opposite side's foibles

-you both take advantage of the smallest nonsensical audio clips and cling onto them like it's sink-or-swim (e.g. Hannity and Obama's quote about tire pressure; you and McCain's 100-years war)

In fact, the only difference between the two of you I can find is that Sean Hannity knows who he is and isn't making excuses for his views and methods. You, on the other hand, are in clear denial.


Randal, let's add another nickname to the ever-growing list - "DC" - Democratic Calvary. Coundln't fit Diano any better.

August 11, 2008 at 8:34 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 11, 2008 at 10:44 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Wow! Steve is really rippin Dishonest Dave on this one! He's really got you pegged, DDD.
And I'm not just piling on. He described your dishonest vicious blind partisan you regularly display to a "T".

August 11, 2008 at 10:50 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Diano:

Has President Bush or Vice President Cheyney ever done anything worthy or your praise?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com

August 11, 2008 at 11:53 AM 
Anonymous Son of Anonymous said...

Bush and Cheyney make Nixon look like a choir boy. They have done just about zilch to benefit anyone.

"All DDD ever does is bark the party line. That's all he knows how to do."

That's funny coming from RR. All you hear is "Lib bad, Dem libs traitors, libs dumb, over and over.
If all DD does is bark, then all RR does is parrot the same crap over and over again. Sometimes it's so bad, you need to bring a box of Ritz in here.

"He cannot think for himself. Or so it would seem. And then he lies about... Lol..."

Look in a mirror, LOL...

August 11, 2008 at 7:32 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 11, 2008 at 9:10 PM 
Anonymous r said...

So pretty much the answer is a blind partisan No, eh DDD.

August 11, 2008 at 9:54 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

So pretty much your answer is on target. Eh Dave? BTW "Pro-anti-christian attitudes" LOL I'm still waiting for "C. Scott Shields Esq. WWW.ShieldsandHoppe.com" to tell me what kind of gun Jesus would own.

August 11, 2008 at 10:10 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

answer's definately on target - blind partisan.

August 11, 2008 at 11:09 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Steve

Just read an interesting piece on the accomplishments of W. I think it's pretty fair, with the exception of the part about turning Gaddafi around. That was a follow through from the Clinton administration. This writer also fails to mention Bush's work to prevent partial birth abortion. A plus in my book. He also fails to mention how Bush kept us entertained with his unusual speaking ability (or lack thereof) All in all, he talks of the good and the bad. I think its worth a look, if you are interested. Google - Cafe talk. Ten accomplishments of George Bush

August 12, 2008 at 10:47 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Diano and Liberal Bob:

Hey Diano, what exactly has President Bush done that so offends you - is it his support of illegal aliens, or his support of the Patriot Act, or could it be his support of Gitmo?

Lib Bob:

Jesus was smart! He would definitely own a Glock! Also, Jesus would support the written text of our constitution, and eschew the embrace of rights that don't appear in the text of the constitution; i.e. the murder of human babies (abortion), and the privacy right to engage in homosexual sodomy.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com

August 12, 2008 at 1:35 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Anti Christ Pro Gun

To quote your father in a reply to one of your letters to the Ed. -"What are you thinking?" You said- "Jesus was smart! He would definitely own a Glock!" Now just stop and think for a minute C. Scott Esq. Maybe I'm missing something here, but is there any evidence that Jesus carried a weapon? They did have weapons back then, no? And lets face it. He lived in dangerous times, didn't he? I'm hoping that you were just kidding, but having read your letters over the years, I'm not to sure.
"Jesus would support the written text of our constitution, and eschew the embrace of rights that don't appear in the text of the constitution; i.e. the murder of human babies (abortion), and the privacy right to engage in homosexual sodomy."

So are you saying you would like legislation to govern sexual acts between two consenting adults? And what is it with you and gays? Man, you spend an awful lot of time focusing on that subject! How do you know how Jesus felt about homosexuals? How do you he wasn't one himself? Is there anything in the Bible about Jesus having sex with a woman? And what about you?Do you ever have recreational sex? Ever get head? Maybe Jesus would find that objectional too. Would you want someone telling you what to do in your bedroom? Hmmm. Maybe you would.

August 12, 2008 at 6:26 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

bob, I'll read tonight. thanks

August 12, 2008 at 8:03 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 13, 2008 at 12:44 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob:

Jesus did not carry a weapon, but he did not forbid the killing of an enemy, only murder. Second, there used to be laws against sodomy, which were ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court in the 1980's (read Bowers v. Hardwick) which, by the way was reversed by the same supreme court in the early 2000's (Lawrence v. Texas). This is the same Court that feels that precedent is paramount when it comes to Roe v. Wade. Makes you wonder.

The Bible is replete with references to the sin of homosexuality, and the same bible is silent concerning rape and child sacrifice (as it is so obviously wrong).

Bob, what is it that you have against guns or our Constitutional right to have them? Do you feel the same way about the other amendments? What about abortion? Diano believes that it is an effective family planning tool. How about you? Does life begin at conception (you too were once an embryo and a developing baby with a heart beat)? Or, does life only begin once the baby is delivered out of the womb?

August 13, 2008 at 7:12 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

C. Scott

I don't recall arguing the abortion issue with you, so I'm not quite sure why you have assumed what my position would be on that issue. Assumptions can be dangerous.
You said "Bob, what is it that you have against guns or our Constitutional right to have them?" I guess you haven't been paying attention. I've discussed this issue on Spencerblog, and also in rebuttles to several of your letters to the times. I never once said I was against the constitutional right to bear arms. As a mater of fact, I support it whole heartedly. Anyone who has researched this issue knows very well that the best weapon one can own to protect ones house is a shotgun. Thats fine. Hunters? Thats fine too. The problem I have with the gun lobby, and gun nuts, is that if it were up to them, it would be legal to own heat seeking missles and armor piercing bullets. What I believe in, C. Scott, is limiting gun purchases, the types of guns that one can own, and taking away the ability for just anyone to walk into a KMart and walk out with a weapon and bullets. You, on the other hand, advocate a Dodge City environment.

On homosexuality and sodomy, you said "there used to be laws against sodomy, which were ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court in the 1980's (read Bowers v. Hardwick)" Whats your point? Slavery was legal at one time too. And there was a time when women and blacks weren't allowed to vote. Did that make it right?
Do you want to see laws against sodomy on the books again? You never did answer my questions about recreational sex and oral sex. Why would anyone want to legislate sexual bahavior between two consenting adults? For waht reason? You think they might be having more fun than you? And how would you suggest we enforce sodomy laws? I would really feel sorry for your children if any of them turned out to be "different"

Thanks for admitting that Jesus did not carry a weapon. So here's a question that I would really like you to answer. You have two people. Person #1 carrys a gun, supports the invsion of Iraq, hates homosexuals, you get the idea. Person #2 is a pacifist, who opposes the war, and who embraces everyone, regardless of their religion, ethnicity or sexuality. Which of the two is more Christ like?

August 13, 2008 at 10:20 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Mr. S, if our Founding Fathers had written that marriage was to be only between one man and one woman Lying Lib gay advocates today would be questioning the interpretation of that. And once that dishonest effort failed they'd turn to saying how that rule was outdated.

August 13, 2008 at 12:17 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob:

I have no idea who you are or what you have written. Perhaps you will identify yourself.

To answer your question, it is Christ like to carry a weapon to defend yourself and your family. It is also Christ like to openly express the Gospel, including what is says about homosexuality and other sins.

On the other hand, it is not Christ like to be slaughtered under the guise of being a pacifist. That is called stupidity. It is also not Christ like to engage in any type of behavior you want, especially unnatural sex with a person that is the same sex as you. There is not much more disgusting than that.

As for gun control, I don't believe, as a lawyer for the NRA, that I have ever advocated the necessity of having a heat seeking missile. I do, however, advocate your right to keep a shotgun, rifle or a handgun in your home or on your person to protect yourself, your family, and anyone else that may find themselves helpless in the face of ceratin death.

If you are not a criminal or insane, you shuold be allowed to own as many guns as you want, period.

Unfortunately, there are people in our society that want to limit some of our rights without thinking ahead as to what thoselimitations will mean over time. I tell people all the time, if you want to eliminate my right to keep and bear arms, then amend the constitution. Just be careful of what you wish for in terms of your vision of legal gun control, as the first amendment will then fall prey to the sword of the government that will not allow you to have your gun.

August 13, 2008 at 2:37 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 13, 2008 at 11:26 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 14, 2008 at 8:36 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

C. Scott Esq.

Good conversation we're having. Lots to think about.
Being agnostic, my take on this is obviously different than yours. But this is America, therefore I have the right not to worship a god if I so choose, and you have no right to impose your god, or your religious beliefs on me. Are we both in agreement on that?

On Homosexuality and Sodomy laws;
Definition sodomy - 1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
We're all adults here (with the exception of RR),so, C. Scott, have you ever engaged in sodomy? I don't know about you, but I enjoy a little oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex every now and then. Should that really be considered a criminal act? So how is it that what anyone does in the privacy of their own bedroom with another consenting adult is any of your business, or for that matter, the governments business? On homosexuality: the guy-guy thing does nothing for me, but I've always found the sight of two women together to be quite stimulating. Should I be ashamed of my thought process? Enter therapy, maybe?
Why is it that you would defend my right to bear arms, but not my right to the pursuit of happiness?
And what exactly did Christ have to say about homosexuals? Are there any quotes from him on that subject?

On gun ownership.
This is a difficult one, because, as you know from my last post, I am not against gun ownership. But several problems must be addressed. You state "If you are not a criminal or insane, you should be allowed to own as many guns as you want, period."
Who makes the determination of sanity? How many people buy guns because they are paranoid? Unrealistic fears? Do you really want a person with the IQ of a fence post owning an arsenal? Does that make society safer or less safe? The editorial in todays Times talks about the violence in Chester. Among Pa. municipalities with populations between 25,000 and 50,000, Chester has the highest homicide rate per capita. And your answer is - more guns? You are opposed to legislation limiting the number of guns one can own. How many of these guns end up on the streets of Chester? How easy is it for these young men, who have no criminal record as of yet, to go into a store and purchase a gun? And you want them to be allowed to purchase as many as they want? You encourage this?

On being Christ like:
I think David makes a pretty strong point with this one C. Scott- "it is not Christ like to be slaughtered under the guise of being a pacifist."
Um.. I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that exactly how Christ died, so that is pretty Christ-like.

August 14, 2008 at 10:28 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob:

Sodomy is sodomy and the Bible condemns it with people of the same sex. The bible is replete with discussions about the sin of homosexuality.

Christ died on the cross, not because he was a pacifist, but because his father sent his only son to die for all of our sins. I am sure you know that story. The martyrs were killed because they would not give up on their Christian beliefs.

The systemic problem of gun violence is directly related to the people that use guns to harm others. Most of the gun crime is traceable to people that are not allowed to own guns in the first place. Many of the violent crime is perpetrated by those that are already under community control (parole) or that have violent pasts. Gun crime is also traceable to drug crime. Is there a solution? Yes, don't take my guns away or limit what i can by (I am not the threat), but impose lengthy mandatory prion sentences for people that illegally posses guns, and even longer sentences for those that use them.

I have asked Diano this question many times and don't believe I ever got a response. As an agnostic, when does life begin and at what point do we protect life.

August 14, 2008 at 10:42 AM 
Anonymous r said...

The problem is violence committed by scumbags (mostly minorities whom the Libs embrace), not legal guns.
I saw an interview with a retired NYC criminal judge and she said that in all her years on the bench presiding over shooting crimes, etc, she only had ONE case where the gun was legally owned and the person had no priors. ONE.
It is not a gun problem; it is a black problem. But gun-fearing apologist Libs will never admit this as they elect instead to limit the rights of the law abiding –the only folks they can control.

August 14, 2008 at 11:00 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

C. Scott

A sperm is a living thing. Just like blood cells or brain cells. So when does life begin? I give up. You tell me? I'm not an authority on that. If you are trying to engage me in a discussion on abortion, here are my thoughts. I'm against it as a means of birth control, but I believe in it in cases of rape, or when the mothers life is in danger. I was for a ban on partial birth abortions with the same exceptions. If you had a daughter that was raped and impregnated, would you insist that she carry that baby full term?

You said "Sodomy is sodomy and the Bible condemns it with people of the same sex. The bible is replete with discussions about the sin of homosexuality." Well, the bible is full of contradictions between the old and new testaments, but since you seem to know it well (and I'm serious about this question), does Jesus directly address homosexuality or sodomy in the bible? If so, what are the quotes?

August 14, 2008 at 12:05 PM 
Anonymous r said...

(and I'm serious about this question)

This is funny. Here BB felt the need to qualify his question as being serious and on the level. He may as well have added: “as opposed to my usual disingenuous childish questions as I engage in hurt feelings intellectually dishonest discussion like my mentor Dishonest Dave”.
Lol…

August 14, 2008 at 12:47 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 14, 2008 at 1:46 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

I see the Spencer censor is alive and well. New rules? We can't quote RR, but he's allowed to quote us?

August 14, 2008 at 10:54 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 15, 2008 at 11:04 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Quitcherweepin, girls, I get censored here plenty too.
I’m guessing our Admin just didn’t want another of Boring Bob’s offensive and weepy posts soiling the place, is all. Can’t say I blame him.

August 15, 2008 at 1:02 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Dave

I dont think thats it. Spencer has expressed his distaste for RR on more than onc occasion. Maybe it was the language. It was was a direct quote that I cut and pasted from an RR post.

August 15, 2008 at 1:28 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 16, 2008 at 10:59 AM 
Anonymous r said...

I think you children are obsessed with me.

August 16, 2008 at 11:26 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 17, 2008 at 2:06 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home