John Edwards: Continued

Ask yourself if a REPBULICAN could get away with that ridiculous John Edwards statement, in the face of the following:

 

1.  Edwards made a POINT out of saying (with no reason to believe it is true) that he only cheated on his wife while her cancer was in remission.  What a guy!!!--NOT.  That statement alone should cause him to commit Japanese style honor suicide, except Edwards has no honor.

 

2.  Edwards does not even come close to explaining what he was doing in a hotel room, WITHIN THE LAST TWO WEEKS, with his admitted mistress and his child unit 2:45 in the morning.   The "explanation" is AGAIN perhaps worse than the National Enquirer allegations as to the reasons, since Edwards' is suggesting it was a continued attempt to keep the woman QUIET--implicating a third party in that attempt.

 

3.  Edwards suggested that "supporters" may have paid money to the woman as "hush money", but that Edwards knew nothing about it.  Did I mention Edwards' "explanation" of being in a hotel room with the woman and her baby, and then RUNNING from the National Enquirer like a cheating husband in sex farce fiction?  Yep  I looked above.  I DID mention that Edwards' explanation was WORSE than the National Enquirer's explanation, and undermines the rest of his statement MORE.

 

4.  It turns out that Edwards' Campaign Finance chairman, or rich campaign official and supporter with some such title, paid for the admitted Edwards mistress and her child to LEAVE North Carolina to live in a luxury MANSION in California (apparently worth several million dollars).  Not content with that, the same rich Edwards supporter paid for similar luxury living for Andrew Young and his family--Andrew Young being the possible fall guy who had tried to take the heat off Edwards by admitting to being the fater of the child in question. Young was a staffer in the Edwards campaign.  Yes, this means that the Edwards campaign must have been one continuing ORGY of adulterous relatiohships.  Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

 

5.  This same rich Edwards campaign official was paying as much as $15,000 a month to the "former" Edwards mistress.

 

6. Edwards did not know anything about anything set forth in 4 and 5 above, if you believe Edwards.  Uh-huh.  Then what DID happen in that Beverly Hilton Hotel from 9 at night to 3 in the morning?

 

7.  Edwards denied the National Enquirer's original story because it contained lots of falsehoods--following the Bill Clinton tradition of defining both "is" and "truth" in his own way.  However, Edwards now realizes that being 99% truthful is no longer enough.  Did I mention that the "explanations" in this statement are WORSE than the National Enquirer allegations?  I know I did.  If THIS is what Edwards regards as being 99% truthful, don't you feel ASHAMED if you ever listened to him on the homeless (which he exploited as shamelessly as he attempted to exploit his wife's cancer), health care or anything else.  He clearly has no idea of the concepts of truth or honesty. 

 

8.  Edwards said that the affair only lasted a "short time", and yet this woman was paid $114,000 dollars by his PAC to do little internet videos to show the human side of Edwards, traveled all over with him (including Africa, and had enough on him to cause this rich Edwards associate to pay her all of that MONEY.  WHY was an evident SLUT (if you believe this continuous orgy stuff) so well known to Edwards' associates to be DANGEROUS to him? 

 

9.  Has Edwards told the WOMAN to come clean to reporters, about the money and everything else, or would that CUT OFF her funds?  Is lthe woman going to continue to receive this "support"?

 

10.  Why should ANYONE believe this farrago of lies and evasions by an admitted liar, when the whole thing looks more sordid and unsavory now than it ever did?

 

Yet, the mainstream media is STILL trying to let Edwards put this little slip behind him.  ONNLY the National Enquirer seems truly interested in continuing to follow up on both the money and the obvious problems with Edwards' statement.  In fact, the only thing LAMER than Edward's "explanations" was the "explanations" of the mainstream media as to THEIR performance.  "Well, we ASKED", they said, but he emphatically DENIED it, and all we had was what amounted to a "tip" from the National Enquirer (translating this:  "Boy, I hope people don't realize how much BETTER this makes the National Enquirer look at "investigative reporting" than we are").  Uh-huh.  You had a woman with NO obvious qualifications being paid $114,000 to do these little internet videos, and traveled EVERYWHERE with Edwards.   And you had NOTHING--not even enough to REPORT THE DENIALS (which you did with regard to the unsupported allegations about forged CIA letters in the Ron Suskind book)?  I saw one North Carolina newspaper suggest that they SENT people out to investigate after the National Enquirer storie(S)--pllural--but that they failed to come up with an solid information.  Again, the explanation is WORSE than an admission of simple bias.  It suggests that the National Enquirer really IS MUCH BETTER at investigative reporting than these people.  Well, why not?  It is obviously TRUE.  I just don't know if these people realize they are ADMITTING IT.

 

Think of Rush Limbaugh (not even a politician), and the HUNDREDS of stories on Limbaugh's addiction to painkillers, and his payment of "hush money" to his maid.  This goes beyond a double standard.  It is just sanctimonious hypocrisy on a scale way beyond that of mere amateurs like Elmer Gantry (fictional character) and Jimmy Swaggart (non-fictional character).  These people (mainstream media) could give lessons on lies, deceit, agenda and hypocrisy to William Randolph Hearst. 

 

Then there are leftists POLITICAL people.  I saw one suggest that it is ridiculous to suggest this should hurt DEMORATS, when there are "real" issues out there like waterboarding, torture, and breaking of the law in our efforts against terrorists.  Say what???!!!!.  And you wonder why I suggest that the AP stories (see next entry) on Korea are merely a further illustration of the LEFTIST SICKNES--the major symptom of which is the delusion that the U.S. is the primary source of evil in the world.  The idea that ISOLATED instances of waterboarding, and alleged torture, after 9/11 are IMPORTANT issues to the American people is a leftist DELLUSON>  I actually thing John Edwards' example of true leftist HYPOCRISY is MORE important than those non-important "issues", although I would agree that John Edwards (as Mark Foley and Larry Craig) cannot be logically used to suggest that the whole Democratic Party is rotten. 

 

Now can these EXPLANATIONS, EXUCUSES, OBFUSCATIONIS,  COVER UPS FROM THE MEDIA TO LEFTIST COMMENTATORS AND POLITICIANS, be evidence that the Democratic Party is rotten to the core, and mainly interested in DECEIVING the American people at every turn?  Maybe.