Such a shame he was not upfront about this so that it would have been a non-issue in his campaign. That is what disappoints me - not that he was human and made a mistake. He had my vote and I still think he was the best chance for the Democratic party (outside of Gore) for this election.
Submitted by rocketsquirrel on Fri, 2008/08/08 - 3:47pm.
blogosphere has known this for two weeks. it appears to have broken on the blogs around July 22 or 23. make that three weeks it's been known.
Can we finally admit that traditional media is becoming less and less relevant? Google around and you'll see where folks have been decrying the news blackout on this story by the Raleigh News and Observer.
Yeah, well, I guess some of us were hoping it wasn't true, and waiting for a source other than Drudge and National Enquirer. Ironicallly, in the article linked above Edwards says the Enquirer report is accurate.
Submitted by Pam Strickland on Sat, 2008/08/09 - 7:56pm.
No, Newsweek broke the Lewinsky story.
I remember very clearly spitting my toothpaste onto the bathroom mirror when I started screaming "How stupid are you?' as NPR reported Newsweek's story. Although it's possible, now that I think about it, that NPR was reporting Drudge's reporting of Newsweek's story.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
Submitted by Carole Borges on Fri, 2008/08/08 - 7:45pm.
Once upon a time John Edwards seemed to be a man who had principles. Now he has shriveled to just being another politician with an ego- driven penis. If I were a baseball player, I guess I would moan, "Say it ain't so Joe. Say it ain't so."
Submitted by Factchecker on Fri, 2008/08/08 - 9:58pm.
This is very sad for the family. All it really means to the public, though, is that Edwards's political career is over, and he was a good man to lose.
At dinner tonight, CNN was on the teevee in the restaurant where we ate and the whole friggin' time it just kept looping the same footage of Edwards with the caption of "SEX SCANDAL." It's called an affair, you idiots at CNN. They all just go for the cheapest part of anything in the news, the lowest common denominator of ratings.
The family of John Edwards' former mistress, Rielle Hunter, is challenging the former senator to take a DNA paternity test after his claim that he did not father Hunter's 6-months-old child.
Submitted by lovable liberal on Fri, 2008/08/08 - 11:47pm.
Politicians will always disappoint you even if they inspire you, too. It's the nature of the beast. Sex on the side used to be one of the perks of office.
Personally, I don't care as long as they're not screwing the country. Oh, sure, I'd prefer personal probity, but it's not number one on my list.
I've never had very strong feelings for or against Edwards. I am glad, however, that this will suck up all the talking heads' attention while Obama is on vacation. Now, instead of recycling every BS McCain ad, they can talk about sex. Meanwhile, I'm watching the Olympics. I never knew how cool badminton could be. You need to watch it all online though.
If history judged Richard Nixon and George W. Bush based solely on their marital faithfulness, they would be considered among the best presidents we ever had. It's not a useful proxy for public behavior, never has been.
Submitted by BH (not verified) on Mon, 2008/08/11 - 4:02pm.
however, I posted that item. Any item that says posted by Brian Hornback is in fact posted by me. If one of my team members post an item it will state posted by Brian's Blog Team. Many times a team member or two will assist with the research and offer suggestions but I will post it under my name. We have a great team here at Brian's Blog. But on the John Edwards post that was entirely my product. The next morning during our team meeting some hardcore conservative team members were upset, but they were reminded that it is Brian's Blog.
Submitted by WhitesCreek on Tue, 2008/08/12 - 8:07am.
I'm curious as to how Edwards' (Who is not the Democratic candidate for president) handling of his indiscretion compares with John McCain's (Who IS the Republican candidate for President) handling of his apparently many indiscretions, including the most famous one in which he leaves his wife and the mother of his child for the much younger and very rich "other woman".
Human beings fool around...Men and women. This fact has absolutely no bearing on a person's capability to govern and lead.
America has a stupid social culture that sets weird and inequitable standards. It is irrational by any measure but I don't see us getting over it as long as there are conservative social entities willing to go ballistic when a Democratic candidate gets busted, while at the same time maintaining a boys will be boys attitude when the perp is a Republican.
Submitted by tin cup on Tue, 2008/08/12 - 11:55am.
"This fact has absolutely no bearing on a person's capability to govern and lead."
Sorry, Creek, you're wrong. Looking into a camera (or at a Federal Grand Jury as Clinton did) and lying ("I did not have sex with that woman") is what gets these clowns in trouble. It goes both ways ("I am not a crook"). Expecting our leaders to tell the truth is not a stupid social culture and is not a weird or inequitable standard.
But what do I know? I haven't been able to totally grasp the liberal mindset.
Submitted by Bbeanster on Tue, 2008/08/12 - 12:54pm.
So, Cup -- did you also deplore Newt Gingrich's infidelities? Hell, he's a serial offender, famously serving notice on his first wife that he intended to divorce her while she was in the hospital recuperating from cancer surgery. Then, come to find out, he was doing some employee on his office desk while his lobbyist second wife was busy elsewhere during the time he was tring to get Clinton impeached.
And there's John McCain -- no model family man he.
Neither party has a monopoly on this crap. I supported John Edwards because his "Two Americas" pilosophy rang true, and I am greatly disappointed in him for behaving in a way that will mean that he won't be a part of an Obama administration. He lied to his wife and he's lying to the rest of us, and that sucks.
Submitted by lovable liberal on Tue, 2008/08/12 - 3:01pm.
Some of us can understand that lies come at all different levels of importance. Duhbya's administration is shot through with falsehoods that matter to life and death subjects. Clinton's administration made proven lies about Monica Lewinsky, which had nothing directly to do with governing. Which is more important?
Submitted by WhitesCreek on Tue, 2008/08/12 - 3:11pm.
I totally understand that the conservative mindset is incapable of coherent thought processes and must cling to what it is told by higher ups, but even you might be able to run back through your own post and pick out the false analagies.
Edwards has not lied to a grand jury, and he has not lied to me. I never asked him about his sex life, only his ideas for governing my country.
It would seem that conservatives, who have such strange sex lives (when they have one) would be willing to shut up about this and discuss policy or something. But no...Instead, they give a standing ovation to Conservative Republican Senator Vitter (Link...) as he re-enters the Senate chamber after having to face multiple allegations and admitting publicly that he frequents prostitutes.
I would think that conservatives would want sex to be off limits as a topic, but really all they apparently want is for just their own strange sex(larry craig) lives (john bolton)to be off(george w. bush/victor ashe) limits.
Instead, they give a standing ovation to Conservative Republican Senator Vitter (Link...) as he re-enters the Senate chamber after having to face multiple allegations and admitting publicly that he frequents prostitutes.
They gave one to Ted Stephens too, when he returned to the Senate after being indicted for corruption.
So, Cup -- did you also deplore Newt Gingrich's infidelities?
No, beanster, I didn't. I didn't deplore the "activities" Bill Clinton engaged in with Monica either (oral and cigars and what not). I had a little problem with the lying to the grand jury part though, especially for a sitting president. I don't remember Newt committing that crime. As far as Edwards is concerned, I could care less who he doinked. My problem was with his adament denials, not to mention he was using his cancer-stricken wife (and late son) for sympathy purposes -- that made it worse.
Duhbya's administration is shot through with falsehoods that matter to life and death subjects.
What life and death falsehoods are you be referring to, LL? Why do I feel more liberal BS brewing as I await your answer?!! Why do I think you're going to say that Bush lied, people died in Iraq? Why do I think you're going to say that Bush was the only person in the world (along with Rumsfeld, of course) who knew Saddam had no weapons? Oh well, give it to me!!!!!
Submitted by redmondkr on Tue, 2008/08/12 - 6:27pm.
I could care less who he doinked.
Why is it trolls misuse the "could care less" phrase? By saying you could care less you are saying that you do care which is most likely the opposite of what you really want us to think.
Once again, for the benefit of another Bush water-carrier, this infamous Bush lie (turn the sound way, way up).
If you prefer it straight from the horse's patoot, so to speak, try here (about half-way down the page).
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
Of course that's nowhere near as damning as a lie about a blow job in the oval office.
Submitted by tin cup on Tue, 2008/08/12 - 10:51pm.
Why is it trolls misuse the "could care less" phrase?
How 'bout this redmondkr, I couldn't care less who he doinked.......Sorry for the gramatical error. Or better yet, I don't give a shit who Edwards is screwing......
I still don't get how Bush lied. I listened to and read your links. Didn't hear the the..........falsehoods.
What do I know? I'm just a troll. I did vote last week. I'm sure you're happy to hear that.
Submitted by redmondkr on Tue, 2008/08/12 - 11:46pm.
I couldn't care less who he doinked...
You found one acorn tonight.
I still don't get how Bush lied. I listened to and read your links. Didn't hear the the..........falsehoods.
So you are saying Mr. Bush was really obeying FISA at the time he made that statement?
Did you really read (as in absorb) any of those words on the page from the White House? They may have hurriedly passed by your eyes but it doesn't appear they ever actually entered your cranium.
You see at the time Mr. Bush was making that statement, the general public had no idea that he wasn't following FISA and getting a court order for his wiretaps and he wasn't about to tell anybody any different.
Those beans were spilled a few months later. The lie was in telling everybody that he was getting a court order as required by law when he wasn't.
That bears repeating:
The lie was in telling everybody that he was getting a court order as required by law when he wasn't.
Submitted by RayCapps on Wed, 2008/08/13 - 8:19am.
Party Partisans (deliberate redundancy) standing up to their eyeballs in lies, misrepresentations, corruption, double dealing, and general malfeasance accusing each other of being dirty. Power is addictive. Because it is addictive, it also corrupts. It does not spare any party, any ideology, any sex, any race, any ethnicity, any religious belief, or any other category you care to mention. You can't stop the corruption, only limit it. And you only limit corruption by limiting how much power can be wielded.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled mud rasslin'.
And you only limit corruption by limiting how much power can be wielded.
Bush has ground the wheels of justice almost to a halt, ignoring orders from federal judges when necessary. When judicial oversight of the executive could no longer be ignored, he got Congress to exempt him. When Congress tried to limit his power, he and his lackeys refused to testify. Constitutional checks and balances on this administration are an afterthought playing out feebly in these waning months.
No administration has wielded such unlimited power nor produced such overt corruption. Pretending corruption on the part of Democrats is comparable to what Bush has managed is like pretending your Little League All-Star is ready for the majors.
Submitted by RayCapps on Wed, 2008/08/13 - 11:56am.
Both political parties can go hang for all I care. I have absolutely no loyalty, no love, and precious little respect for anybody's political party. Playing the "their side is worse than my side" game with me is a pointless waste of your time. I won't evoke Godwin's Law here, but there's a line beyond which relative guilt is meaningless. For me, both sides are way, way over it. Have fun out there.
I'm with you on that. I just think it is unquestionably true that Bush has taken corruption to a whole new level, and it baffles me to no end that so many Republicans fail to see the gravity of what he has done to Presidential power. I am equally mortified at the Democrats' failure to assert Congressional checks on this administration even after they gained control of Congress. Neither party is offering any way out of this bullshit, and it seems the only place to turn is the rare individuals on either side who seem motivated by something more worthwhile than party loyalty.
You might be one of those people, but Republicans need to go way beyond "Yes, Bush wasn't so great, but..." to redeem themselves. The Republicans who just came out in support of Obama are one of the most hopeful signs in this dark time.
Submitted by RayCapps on Wed, 2008/08/13 - 1:14pm.
To claim that high moral ground I'd first have to be able to identify with one of the two parties. I can't. I can claim no higher calling than that of a catty outsider. I have too many serious reservations about either party's platform to feel welcome in either.
To steal from Groucho (and I always steal from the best), "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members."
Bush has ground the wheels of justice almost to a halt, ignoring orders from federal judges when necessary.
You've got a Democratic-controlled House and Senate. Bush doesn't have to break the law. If Bush breaks wind at the wrong time and place, there's going to be a Congressional investigation. We all know he's absolutely loathed by the Demo's and press. If he's lied or broken the law, Pelosi and Reid would stop all other national business to get Bush. So would NBC and The New York Times.
Oh well, let's get back to John Edwards and the two America's........
How ignorant can you be? Just today on this very blog a thread condemning Pelosi appeared. She is widely despised on the left for declaring impeachment (of Cheney) "off the table" when she became Speaker. Josh Bolton, Harriet Miers and Karl Rove are currently in contempt of Congress for refusing to appear. A federal judge ordered them to testify not two weeks ago after more than a year of stalling, and they are continuing to stall. Bush stonewalled the 9/11 Commission for two years, finally appearing only if no oath was administered, no cameras or recording devices present and Cheney was there to hold his hand. He flagrantly broke the law on FISA, so Congress changed the law retroactively.
Clearly you have spent the past eight years saying, "Nuh-uh" to anything you don't want to believe. No doubt that will be your response to this comment as well. Your ignorance of the many lies, broken laws and legal stalls perpetrated by the Bush administration proves only that you are ignorant.
Submitted by redmondkr on Wed, 2008/08/13 - 8:42pm.
Your ignorance of the many lies, broken laws and legal stalls perpetrated by the Bush administration proves only that you are ignorant.
I doubt Sn_cup is as ignorant as (s)he purports to be. Who could be? I think it's all just a ruse to stir up as much hate and discontent as possible amongst the liberals.
ahhhh - it sounds like Edwards got something on himself...
Such a shame he was not upfront about this so that it would have been a non-issue in his campaign. That is what disappoints me - not that he was human and made a mistake. He had my vote and I still think he was the best chance for the Democratic party (outside of Gore) for this election.
blogosphere has known this for two weeks. it appears to have broken on the blogs around July 22 or 23. make that three weeks it's been known.
Can we finally admit that traditional media is becoming less and less relevant? Google around and you'll see where folks have been decrying the news blackout on this story by the Raleigh News and Observer.
Yeah, well, I guess some of us were hoping it wasn't true, and waiting for a source other than Drudge and National Enquirer. Ironicallly, in the article linked above Edwards says the Enquirer report is accurate.
Randy, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Drudge break the Lewinsky story, too?
No, Newsweek broke the Lewinsky story.
I remember very clearly spitting my toothpaste onto the bathroom mirror when I started screaming "How stupid are you?' as NPR reported Newsweek's story. Although it's possible, now that I think about it, that NPR was reporting Drudge's reporting of Newsweek's story.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
The blogosphere "knew" jack squat. If that constitutes knowledge, my daughters' phone chats are the most brilliant discourse since The Phaedrus.
One to house each of his families.
Ted Stevens' house in Girdwood, Alaska may come up in a government auction pretty soon anyway so it's all good.
_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
Shorter media: the Russians have invaded Georgia. Oh look - it's John Edwards' penis!
Bah.
Weren't there some allegations/innuendo that Mayor Mike was fooling around while his wife was dealing with a cancer diagnosis?
Once upon a time John Edwards seemed to be a man who had principles. Now he has shriveled to just being another politician with an ego- driven penis. If I were a baseball player, I guess I would moan, "Say it ain't so Joe. Say it ain't so."
This is disappointing.
I don't understand why people do some of the things they do.
Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.
This is very sad for the family. All it really means to the public, though, is that Edwards's political career is over, and he was a good man to lose.
At dinner tonight, CNN was on the teevee in the restaurant where we ate and the whole friggin' time it just kept looping the same footage of Edwards with the caption of "SEX SCANDAL." It's called an affair, you idiots at CNN. They all just go for the cheapest part of anything in the news, the lowest common denominator of ratings.
looping the same footage of Edwards with the caption of "SEX SCANDAL." It's called an affair, you idiots at CNN
They've got to doll it up to compete with Russia invading Georgia. Does anyone know whether that will affect the Bulldogs' home opener?
Elizabeth Edwards' response.
He didn't love her.
Link...
He shouldn't have said that. It's going to PO Ms. Hunter...
I think it already has:
The family of John Edwards' former mistress, Rielle Hunter, is challenging the former senator to take a DNA paternity test after his claim that he did not father Hunter's 6-months-old child.
Politicians will always disappoint you even if they inspire you, too. It's the nature of the beast. Sex on the side used to be one of the perks of office.
Personally, I don't care as long as they're not screwing the country. Oh, sure, I'd prefer personal probity, but it's not number one on my list.
Liberty and justice for all.
My home
I've never had very strong feelings for or against Edwards. I am glad, however, that this will suck up all the talking heads' attention while Obama is on vacation. Now, instead of recycling every BS McCain ad, they can talk about sex. Meanwhile, I'm watching the Olympics. I never knew how cool badminton could be. You need to watch it all online though.
David Vitter watch, day 393.
Liberty and justice for all.
My home
Someone has tied up the Brian's Blog Team in the garage and taken over his blog.
It's way too coherent, thoughtful and curiously lacking in inappropriate punctuation.
Digby re the soap opera:
If history judged Richard Nixon and George W. Bush based solely on their marital faithfulness, they would be considered among the best presidents we ever had. It's not a useful proxy for public behavior, never has been.
however, I posted that item. Any item that says posted by Brian Hornback is in fact posted by me. If one of my team members post an item it will state posted by Brian's Blog Team. Many times a team member or two will assist with the research and offer suggestions but I will post it under my name. We have a great team here at Brian's Blog. But on the John Edwards post that was entirely my product. The next morning during our team meeting some hardcore conservative team members were upset, but they were reminded that it is Brian's Blog.
Did that meeting take place at the Convention Center or Thompson Boling Arena?
Link...
I'm curious as to how Edwards' (Who is not the Democratic candidate for president) handling of his indiscretion compares with John McCain's (Who IS the Republican candidate for President) handling of his apparently many indiscretions, including the most famous one in which he leaves his wife and the mother of his child for the much younger and very rich "other woman".
Human beings fool around...Men and women. This fact has absolutely no bearing on a person's capability to govern and lead.
America has a stupid social culture that sets weird and inequitable standards. It is irrational by any measure but I don't see us getting over it as long as there are conservative social entities willing to go ballistic when a Democratic candidate gets busted, while at the same time maintaining a boys will be boys attitude when the perp is a Republican.
Three children -- that's how many McCain and his first wife had.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
"This fact has absolutely no bearing on a person's capability to govern and lead."
Sorry, Creek, you're wrong. Looking into a camera (or at a Federal Grand Jury as Clinton did) and lying ("I did not have sex with that woman") is what gets these clowns in trouble. It goes both ways ("I am not a crook"). Expecting our leaders to tell the truth is not a stupid social culture and is not a weird or inequitable standard.
But what do I know? I haven't been able to totally grasp the liberal mindset.
So, Cup -- did you also deplore Newt Gingrich's infidelities? Hell, he's a serial offender, famously serving notice on his first wife that he intended to divorce her while she was in the hospital recuperating from cancer surgery. Then, come to find out, he was doing some employee on his office desk while his lobbyist second wife was busy elsewhere during the time he was tring to get Clinton impeached.
And there's John McCain -- no model family man he.
Neither party has a monopoly on this crap. I supported John Edwards because his "Two Americas" pilosophy rang true, and I am greatly disappointed in him for behaving in a way that will mean that he won't be a part of an Obama administration. He lied to his wife and he's lying to the rest of us, and that sucks.
Some of us can understand that lies come at all different levels of importance. Duhbya's administration is shot through with falsehoods that matter to life and death subjects. Clinton's administration made proven lies about Monica Lewinsky, which had nothing directly to do with governing. Which is more important?
Liberty and justice for all.
My home
I totally understand that the conservative mindset is incapable of coherent thought processes and must cling to what it is told by higher ups, but even you might be able to run back through your own post and pick out the false analagies.
Edwards has not lied to a grand jury, and he has not lied to me. I never asked him about his sex life, only his ideas for governing my country.
It would seem that conservatives, who have such strange sex lives (when they have one) would be willing to shut up about this and discuss policy or something. But no...Instead, they give a standing ovation to Conservative Republican Senator Vitter (Link...) as he re-enters the Senate chamber after having to face multiple allegations and admitting publicly that he frequents prostitutes.
I would think that conservatives would want sex to be off limits as a topic, but really all they apparently want is for just their own strange sex(larry craig) lives (john bolton)to be off(george w. bush/victor ashe) limits.
Instead, they give a standing ovation to Conservative Republican Senator Vitter (Link...) as he re-enters the Senate chamber after having to face multiple allegations and admitting publicly that he frequents prostitutes.
They gave one to Ted Stephens too, when he returned to the Senate after being indicted for corruption.
And don't forget the skeletons that were unearthed when Bob Barr, one of the Right's most vocal impeachment advocates, went under the microscope.
When was the last time you helped raise money for leukemia research by licking whipped cream off a woman's chest?
Visit us at
The Home
No, beanster, I didn't. I didn't deplore the "activities" Bill Clinton engaged in with Monica either (oral and cigars and what not). I had a little problem with the lying to the grand jury part though, especially for a sitting president. I don't remember Newt committing that crime. As far as Edwards is concerned, I could care less who he doinked. My problem was with his adament denials, not to mention he was using his cancer-stricken wife (and late son) for sympathy purposes -- that made it worse.
What life and death falsehoods are you be referring to, LL? Why do I feel more liberal BS brewing as I await your answer?!! Why do I think you're going to say that Bush lied, people died in Iraq? Why do I think you're going to say that Bush was the only person in the world (along with Rumsfeld, of course) who knew Saddam had no weapons? Oh well, give it to me!!!!!
Why is it trolls misuse the "could care less" phrase? By saying you could care less you are saying that you do care which is most likely the opposite of what you really want us to think.
Once again, for the benefit of another Bush water-carrier, this infamous Bush lie (turn the sound way, way up).
If you prefer it straight from the horse's patoot, so to speak, try here (about half-way down the page).
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
Of course that's nowhere near as damning as a lie about a blow job in the oval office.
Visit us at
The Home
Edwards is toast just like Gary Hart.
The only difference is
Hart can tell you how to win
the New Hampshire & California
primaries.
Can we just get back to making fun of Hornback?
Can't all be fun and games, you know! Te-he.
Liberty and justice for all.
My home
How 'bout this redmondkr, I couldn't care less who he doinked.......Sorry for the gramatical error. Or better yet, I don't give a shit who Edwards is screwing......
I still don't get how Bush lied. I listened to and read your links. Didn't hear the the..........falsehoods.
What do I know? I'm just a troll. I did vote last week. I'm sure you're happy to hear that.
You found one acorn tonight.
So you are saying Mr. Bush was really obeying FISA at the time he made that statement?
Did you really read (as in absorb) any of those words on the page from the White House? They may have hurriedly passed by your eyes but it doesn't appear they ever actually entered your cranium.
You see at the time Mr. Bush was making that statement, the general public had no idea that he wasn't following FISA and getting a court order for his wiretaps and he wasn't about to tell anybody any different.
Those beans were spilled a few months later. The lie was in telling everybody that he was getting a court order as required by law when he wasn't.
That bears repeating:
The lie was in telling everybody that he was getting a court order as required by law when he wasn't.
Visit us at
The Home
Party Partisans (deliberate redundancy) standing up to their eyeballs in lies, misrepresentations, corruption, double dealing, and general malfeasance accusing each other of being dirty. Power is addictive. Because it is addictive, it also corrupts. It does not spare any party, any ideology, any sex, any race, any ethnicity, any religious belief, or any other category you care to mention. You can't stop the corruption, only limit it. And you only limit corruption by limiting how much power can be wielded.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled mud rasslin'.
And you only limit corruption by limiting how much power can be wielded.
Bush has ground the wheels of justice almost to a halt, ignoring orders from federal judges when necessary. When judicial oversight of the executive could no longer be ignored, he got Congress to exempt him. When Congress tried to limit his power, he and his lackeys refused to testify. Constitutional checks and balances on this administration are an afterthought playing out feebly in these waning months.
No administration has wielded such unlimited power nor produced such overt corruption. Pretending corruption on the part of Democrats is comparable to what Bush has managed is like pretending your Little League All-Star is ready for the majors.
Both political parties can go hang for all I care. I have absolutely no loyalty, no love, and precious little respect for anybody's political party. Playing the "their side is worse than my side" game with me is a pointless waste of your time. I won't evoke Godwin's Law here, but there's a line beyond which relative guilt is meaningless. For me, both sides are way, way over it. Have fun out there.
Both political parties can go hang for all I care
I'm with you on that. I just think it is unquestionably true that Bush has taken corruption to a whole new level, and it baffles me to no end that so many Republicans fail to see the gravity of what he has done to Presidential power. I am equally mortified at the Democrats' failure to assert Congressional checks on this administration even after they gained control of Congress. Neither party is offering any way out of this bullshit, and it seems the only place to turn is the rare individuals on either side who seem motivated by something more worthwhile than party loyalty.
You might be one of those people, but Republicans need to go way beyond "Yes, Bush wasn't so great, but..." to redeem themselves. The Republicans who just came out in support of Obama are one of the most hopeful signs in this dark time.
To claim that high moral ground I'd first have to be able to identify with one of the two parties. I can't. I can claim no higher calling than that of a catty outsider. I have too many serious reservations about either party's platform to feel welcome in either.
To steal from Groucho (and I always steal from the best), "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members."
Rikki, Rikki, Rikki.....
You've got a Democratic-controlled House and Senate. Bush doesn't have to break the law. If Bush breaks wind at the wrong time and place, there's going to be a Congressional investigation. We all know he's absolutely loathed by the Demo's and press. If he's lied or broken the law, Pelosi and Reid would stop all other national business to get Bush. So would NBC and The New York Times.
Oh well, let's get back to John Edwards and the two America's........
How ignorant can you be? Just today on this very blog a thread condemning Pelosi appeared. She is widely despised on the left for declaring impeachment (of Cheney) "off the table" when she became Speaker. Josh Bolton, Harriet Miers and Karl Rove are currently in contempt of Congress for refusing to appear. A federal judge ordered them to testify not two weeks ago after more than a year of stalling, and they are continuing to stall. Bush stonewalled the 9/11 Commission for two years, finally appearing only if no oath was administered, no cameras or recording devices present and Cheney was there to hold his hand. He flagrantly broke the law on FISA, so Congress changed the law retroactively.
Clearly you have spent the past eight years saying, "Nuh-uh" to anything you don't want to believe. No doubt that will be your response to this comment as well. Your ignorance of the many lies, broken laws and legal stalls perpetrated by the Bush administration proves only that you are ignorant.
If Bush breaks wind at the wrong time and place, there's going to be a Congressional investigation.
Hahahahahaha.
I doubt Sn_cup is as ignorant as (s)he purports to be. Who could be? I think it's all just a ruse to stir up as much hate and discontent as possible amongst the liberals.
That's why Tali's pies are so appropriate.
Visit us at
The Home
Post new comment