Edwards and his cheating...

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Matthew

Larry, it is not only the Repubs , but the dems that need to show some backbone. Shouldn't personal conviction overshadow party ideologies? Wasn't this the point of JFK's Profiles in Courage ? Unfortunately, this is the foundation of what we have been talking about...a lack of personal courage on the part of we the people to see beyond the party affiliations and vote in people of substance and character. Is our sense of rugged individualism finally getting the best of us ? I was raised in a Democrat household: my dad was a personal friend of both JFK and RFK. Evenas a Nam vet, I voted for McGovern in '72. Last year, I voted Republican for the first time because I am not ashamed to say that I believed in McCain. He had paid his dues...unlike his opponent. Now I am looking beyond party labels and trying to phantom the person (s) themselves.
You vote the best person you think more qualified, be they be Republican, Democrat, Independent or Liberertarian. However, we ashamedly vote in those who have OUR individual best interests at heart, without thinking that they may only have THEIR best interests at our expense.

Here's some non partisan realities to consider;

The GOP is, or used to be, folks with some generally common interests and beliefs; Whatever America does is right, strong military, less taxes is good, government is OK for big things like the military and highways and dams and bridges, not so much for other things, business is good. Certainly, there are variables in there, but, by and large, in general, that's a Republican.

Democrats, on the other hand, have long been a collection of very distinct groups; blue collar workers, union folks, populists, ethnic groups, environment groups, gender groups, etc and these groups tend to have conflicts on a national level. They pretty much have to compromise. Republicans, to me, have very few reasons to compromises because our issues are narrow and, used to be, very distinct.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Rosehaven

They sat on the story because they couldn't prove it. The rumors had been out there for a while and it was a tabloid that finally connected the dots. Some good reporting for once.
I don't believe Matthews-Olbermann et al had a meeting to decide not to pursue the story---my apologies for the double negative.

Don't stop believin'....

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Rosehaven

They sat on the story because they couldn't prove it. The rumors had been out there for a while and it was a tabloid that finally connected the dots. Some good reporting for once.
I don't believe Matthews-Olbermann et al had a meeting to decide not to pursue the story---my apologies for the double negative.

Honesty test; Had they the same dilemma, say, accusing someone of being the mother of their childs child, yet could not prove it, do you think they would have sat on a hypothetical story like that?

If not, why not?

[ImnoMensa]

Hmmm they didnt have any problem accusing Sarah of not being the mother of her Downes syndrome son.

Media Bias.. Nahh couldnt be.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by ImnoMensa

Hmmm they didnt have any problem accusing Sarah of not being the mother of her Downes syndrome son.

Media Bias.. Nahh couldnt be.

You'll note I am still waiting for a reply.

[Bann (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Rosehaven

They sat on the story because they couldn't prove it. The rumors had been out there for a while and it was a tabloid that finally connected the dots. Some good reporting for once.
I don't believe Matthews-Olbermann et al had a meeting to decide not to pursue the story---my apologies for the double negative.

No, they sat on the story because Edwards is a Democrat, and so he could run for president. OH, sure, there may well be some truth that the rumors were out there, and they wanted to be careful, blah, blah, blah.

But, the real point of this whole thing is - if Edwards was a Republican - they would have put this in the news so fast, it would have made your head spin. Republicans and Democrats are fallible - they're all humans & capable of scuzzy behavior. There is plenty of that to go around. But the point is the media leaks out any tiny tidbit they find on Republican candidates, oftentimes making a Mount Everest out of a damn anthill of information, but they do not treat the Democrat candidates the same.

I've been watching & paying attention to this since about the time I first got online capability, almost 14 years now. That's when I found alternative media sources (Drudge, Lucianne.com, FreeRepublic, et. al.) to the 3 main networks, MSNBC & CNN. (Forget about FNC - hardly anyone carried it & I didn't even hear about it until 2000) The internet allowed me to consider the source & check out the story in a whole new way.

[Bann (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Honesty test; Had they the same dilemma, say, accusing someone of being the mother of their childs child, yet could not prove it, do you think they would have sat on a hypothetical story like that?

If not, why not?

Originally Posted by ImnoMensa

Hmmm they didnt have any problem accusing Sarah of not being the mother of her Downes syndrome son.

Media Bias.. Nahh couldnt be.

Didn't read ahead before I posted - but this proves my point! And there are countless more examples.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Well, no.

My hope is some staffer for some GOP'er somewhere will see this and put it on his bosses teleprompter and the GOP will, if only accidentally, fight back.

Unlikely, but I do kind of wonder - how is it that Google SO OFTEN manages to hit this forum when I search on something? Are we on some kind of Google radar, or does Google base search hits on things like region or previously visited sites?

I'm serious. How often have you Googled some issue, only to have THIS forum appear in the top ten hits? Why should Southern Maryland have some high priority over the rest of the English speaking world?

[Bann (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Unlikely, but I do kind of wonder - how is it that Google SO OFTEN manages to hit this forum when I search on something? Are we on some kind of Google radar, or does Google base search hits on things like region or previously visited sites?

I'm serious. How often have you Googled some issue, only to have THIS forum appear in the top ten hits? Why should Southern Maryland have some high priority over the rest of the English speaking world?

I've noticed that, too!

[chernmax (Premo)]

Mrs. Edwards writes that when her husband told her about the affair, just days after his announcement in December 2006 that he was running for president, she was literally sick to her stomach. “I cried and screamed, I went to the bathroom and threw up,” she writes.


She also says she wanted him to drop out of the race and avoid the media scrutiny. “He should not have run,” she writes, although she stood by him while he did.

Ms. Edwards writes about forgiveness while labeling the woman her husband had a two year affair with as “pathetic” and a parasitic groupie. Hmmm. Wonder what she considers her husband. She herself willingly assisted in raising funds and resources from supporters knowing full well he was a liar and an unfit candidate. Now she is trying to convince herself that her husband thinks she is the most beautiful woman in the world. Regrettably, in addition to dealing with cancer, Ms. Edwards apparently has come down with the Denial Syndrome as well. That’s pathetic. Sad.

Elizabeth Edwards Details Husband’s Affair in New Book - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

Funny how a woman with such HIGH moral character was willing to support her husbands bid for the White house to ensure we could all get a potential President of such LOW moral character...