Saturday, August 09, 2008 |
|
SHTUPDATE: It was just sex that happened two years ago... |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
8:55 AM |
"Everybody does it... means what is, is...
private is separate from professional... &
'YES I'M THE SCHLEP shtupping the girlfriend while my wife is desperately sick with cancer!'"Classy! UPDATE: Is this Elizabeth's chance to take him to cleaners for all his "slip and fall" riches? Enquiring minds want to know... UPDATE: I think Edwards is spinning again. The above video is Bob Scheiffer from CBS News and ran on their prime time broadcast last night. It is a nearly word for word explanation has explained by Jeff Greenfield over on ABC News. Both men are reporting that Edwards had the "liason" in 2006 - and claim it was prior to his campaign for President. (As if anyone doesn't believe that he simply continued to run following his defeat in 2004.) But this is where it doesn't make any sense. Scheiffer got on the phone with Elizabeth personally. When Bob had asked Edwards how Elizabeth had handled it he responded, "she's amazing!" When Scheiffer gets Mrs. Edwards on, "she's in tears" and it was "this is really, really, tough." Now if Edwards had confessed it 2006 and she had forgiven him, why would she just now be in tears (two years later), and why would today be so tough? If the reality that her husband had cheated on you two years ago had been long since dealt with - why so hard now? I mean the only thing that has changed is that he is no longer running for President, and supposedly the public now knew your flaw... so why would that have Elizabeth in tears - today? Two years ago I get... Not now... I have this hunch that someone is not telling the truth, and has likely now asked his cancer suffering wife - who has already taken far too much malarky from this guy to begin with - to stand with him in this false "softening" of the story...
|
|
|
Friday, July 25, 2008 |
|
Why liberals don't care about marriage... (under pretty much ANY definition...) |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
9:39 PM |
 LA Times bloggers directed NOT to report on it... Independent news sources confirm... The truly most hysterical understanding of the events when reporters and photographers attempted to get Edwards to comment on why he was exiting his amore's love nest came from the most ferocious queen in LA. A thought comes to mind... "The steps of a righteous man are ordered by the Lord..." (Which then likely means if you are following Him you won't find yourself hiding out in a hotel bathroom trying with all your might to keep photographers out...) As anyone who has read this blog for any length of time I do hold particular distaste for the behavior of adultery. It's slimy, it puts your family, reputation, and future at risk - NEEDLESSLY. What makes Edwards' case so worthy of Jesse Jackson's special 'Obama treatment' is the idea that his wife has been battling cancer. And to add insult even more so to injury is that your humble correspondent thought it so highly inappropriate for the "slip and fall" specialist to force his presidential run upon his cancer stricken wife... when everyone that's every had a relative die of cancer knows - reduced stress, much moral support, and positive enthusiasm are some of the most important keys to remission... Is John Edwards the Kind of Man Every Man SHOULD Be?
|
|
|
Wednesday, December 19, 2007 |
|
(UPDATED) Early Christmas for Obama... from the mother of John Edwards love child? |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
1:55 PM |
|
...if this is even CLOSE to being true...
My original post from last night is below. The Enquirer has now updated the info they have on the case. Eerily similar I might add to the discovery of both Lewinsky AND Rev. Jesse Jackson's love child, the players involved - if behaved as reported in the context of the story as it presently sits looks very guilty.
Edwards' close associate relocating the pregnant woman? Edwards' close associate taking the blame for the pregnancy? And Ms. Reille - who the Enquirer actually credits bloggers for outing - seems to be marching to the orders of what the Edwards' camp told the press. BUT a confidant of the woman involved - who (in all fairness) the Enquirer does leave nameless - has put together a timeline that seems pretty damning.
What it smells like to me is that Edwards' IS likely guilty of this indiscretion, and is in all out crisis management of the details and HOW the story is going to be told...
A DNA test on the baby will be the only thing that will decide the matter...
AND IF EDWARDS' is innocent - he should immediately do two things. File a lawsuit against National Enquirer AND welcome a transparent DNA test of his own.
That is how a truly innocent man would react. Especially in his case because of the weight this thing could level against Elizabeth in her state of health...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BRECK Girl had already been making his cancer stricken wife put up with his running for office instead of shutting everything else in life down and tending to her needs. And if stress, and emotional trauma contribute to cancer's acceleration - life every oncologist will tell you it does...
Man oh man did Obama just hit the windfall...
|
|
|
Tuesday, December 18, 2007 |
|
Let's Hear it for the Boy |
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
3:31 PM |
Speaking of movies, I just got an e-mail from the Edwards campaign written by none other than Kevin Bacon who was kind enough to direct me to Edwards' new ad, which casts the Edwards campaign as a cinematic masterpiece that will redeem the nation.
Couldn't they just as easily have recycled the Footloose trailer, casting Edwards as a fresh-faced rebel who just moved to small-town America determined to lead the local citizenry and deliver them from the stifling repression of the old regime by... dancing his little heart out in a pair of tight-fittin,' acid-washed jeans?
Who wouldn't buy that?
Here's the Edwards trailer. Much like the candidate, it's slick-looking but ultimately overreaches with mean-spirited class warfare rhetoric with little substance to commend it. It is another example of Dems doing web video well, though:
And, because it fits:
Update: Can it be true? Edwards got game? Well, he is from Tobacco Road. I'll hand it to him. This is pretty impressive showing around the arc.
|
|
|
Monday, November 05, 2007 |
|
Tripped Up: The Immigration Fall-Out Continues |
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
10:37 AM |
On the Sunday shows, Mr. Edwards was less than straightforward in his driver's license answer:
Mr. Stephanopoulos: “Do you believe illegal immigrants should be denied driver’s licenses?” Mr. Edwards: “Well, I think, first of all, that’s for states to decide, not for the President of the United States to decide. But beyond that –“ Mr. Stephanopoulos: “So the 40 states that deny illegal immigrants driver’s licenses that’s okay with you?” Mr. Edwards: “Let me finish. I think that is their decision to make, not the president’s decision. But here’s what I believe. I believe that, first of all, we have to have comprehensive immigration reform. And for anybody in this country who is making an effort and on the path to obtaining American citizenship, yes, they should have a driver’s license. If they’re not making any effort to become an American citizen, and we have a system for doing that, my own personal view is, no, I would not give them a driver’s license.” In further back and forth to clarify, Mr. Stephanopoulos noted that Mr. Edwards, when he first ran for president in 2004, unequivocally supported giving licenses to illegal immigrants. Then the moderator played a video of Mrs. Clinton’s debate response — in which she said the controversy underscores the need for comprehensive federal immigration reforms — and Mr. Stephanopoulos suggested her stance sounded like Mr. Edwards’ position now: “You’re saying the same thing, right?” Mr. Edwards: “That’s true.”
Slick, Silky.
Michael Barone says we should hold on to our hats 'cause there's much more in store:
Democrats -- and Bush -- are out of line with public opinion on the issue. That became clear as the Senate debated a comprehensive immigration bill in May and June. Most Republicans and many Democrats, in the Senate and among the public, turned against the bill... The Republican presidential candidates have taken note. Only John McCain, a longtime backer of a comprehensive bill, stands apart, and he concedes that voters are demanding tougher enforcement. In the special congressional election in Massachusetts on Oct. 5, the Republican was able to hold the Democrat to 51 percent by stressing immigration as one of his two top issues. Other Republicans are likely to echo that theme next fall. And the Democratic presidential nominee (unless Chris Dodd gets the nod) is going to have to explain why she or he believes it's a good idea to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses. The last several Democratic nominees could have said that they're just taking the same position as their Republican opponent. The 2008 nominee won't be able to say the same of hers or his (unless McCain gets the nod). "The centrality of illegal immigration to the current discontent about the direction of the country may be taking us back again to a welfare moment," write the shrewd Democratic strategists James Carville and Stanley Greenberg. Yup.
|
|
|
Monday, October 01, 2007 |
|
Clarence Thomas, Bill Clinton, Paris Hilton and John Edwards say what? |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
2:19 PM |
|
Listen "LIVE" - 2-4p EST
Listen ON DEMAND anytime!
2pm:
My take on the very latest...
- When leftists tell you that ALL Governments are the same... mention this!
- Iraq, Iraq, Iraq - it's falling apart, everything's going wrong, no good news anywhere!
- Newark NJ, and New York NY, seem obsessed with surveillance but will it work?
2:20pm:
The Washington Examiner's Senior White House Correspondent, Best Selling Author, and member of the FoxNews All Stars: Bill Sammon discusses why he calls George W. Bush "The Evangelical President." The two sides the word evangelical has to it, and how President Bush fits the bill... on both! A WMCA exclusive. 800.345.WMCA.
3pm:
My take on the latest...
- When this man speaks, we should definitely listen!
- And how does it go... out of the abundance of the heart... fill me in?
- Clarence Thomas yes, Paris Hilton - not so much!
3:20pm
So if the words we say mean things, should we be held accountable for them? And if we are parents - doesn't the duty fall to us to be even more thoughtful, about what we teach our children? So why is it that Liberals make such Atrocious parents? John Edwards seems to think that teaching his children right from wrong - is making himself GOD to his kids. But how do you balance the careful task of teaching them values, and at the same time teach them how to think critically for themselves? 800.345.WMCA.
3:55pm: The McCULLOUGH PUNCH
Time to stand up for the values we believe in!
Weekdays 2-4pm EST
Listen "LIVE" click here.
Listen "ON DEMAND" click here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Blog Postings:
|
|
Last updated 3 Minutes 52 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 5 Minutes 41 Seconds Ago
|
|
| | | | |