Hiding the Scumbag
So, John Edwards had a brief affair with a woman who is over forty, and it's a scandal. Elizabeth Edwards was ill at the time, and so John is especially naughty for being so callous, and yes I gave money to his campaign, but then, I never thought adultery was a big deal in the abstract, because, as we all know, I am a liberal, and I think denying people healthcare, swindling the taxpayer, starting an unnecessary war by forging documents and lying, and stealing the oil belonging to other nations is a lot worse than adultery. If every working person in America were to be free to join a union and if we had mastered that global warming thing, then I could start worrying about adultery, and be glad of it.
So, John McCain had a lengthy affair with a young rich woman, left his wife for her when she was crippled from a car accident, and went on to live off the new wife, for decades, and it's not a scandal. Why is that? Why is a misstep, followed by anger and reconciliation, a scandal, while actual bona fide betrayal followed by abandonment (and, let's say, a parasitic lifestyle) is just one of those things?
It is said that the first Mrs. McCain has forgiven her former husband. It is said Elizabeth Edwards has forgiven her current husband.
I know, I know, the National Enquirer never went after McCain. Why is that? When there seemed to be a bit of a smoking gun about John McCain and a lobbyist earlier this year, The National Enquirer didn't touch it. The lobbyist was disappeared, the New York Times dropped the story, and shhh. NO scandal. Why is that? Wouldn't I, as a citizen, rather my president slept with a filmmaker than a lobbyist?
Is it just that John Edwards is cuter than John McCain? Is it just that the idea of McCain getting it on makes the press squirm, and so they don't touch that story? Or do they really have a pro-Republican bias that shows up over and over and over? The press seems to be saying, go ahead, Republicans, trash the country, bankrupt the country, drive the country into a economic, moral, ethical, and military abyss. We don't care. We aren't going to hold you responsible for anything, including marital abandonment and cruelty.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It's the letter next to their name...
John Edwards (D). Now, you may think the D only stands for Democrat, but when in the case of a misdeed it really stands for Dirty Son Of A B*tch.
John McCain (R) In this case, not only does the R mean Republican, it also means Really, it's OK.
And that's why the press go after the D's more than the R's when scandal erupts.
Thanks for wasting a few precious seconds of your life reading this. :)
Actually, you're exactly right. Seconds well-spent.
Right-wingers consider indiscretions by members of their tribe as forgivable lapses, even though they're the ones who talk the most about "family values." The same actions by a liberal are considered proof of their "lack of character.
The root is that they consider conservatives basically good, and consider liberals as basically bad.
Drug abuse is okay if you're a Rush or Cindy. Leaving (not just cheating on) sick wives is okay if you're Newt or John. Lying or slinging mud is just "playing hardball" if you're a republican candidate. And so on.
They're hypocritesl. And they will never, ever get it.
The press and the Republicans answer to the same robber barrons, so their interest are identical. I worked at newspapers for 20+ years. I got out after I had heard enough of 'We can't print that, it might piss off the owner,' in every case someone with way too much money. Edwards was a threat to their status, and McCain is not.
The media coverage, including Huffington's, has been absurd. But, what if he'd gotten the nomination? Hello president McCa
its the lie.
"i did not have sex w that woman."
if he'd said. "i banged her like a gong!" he would have been a truthful person. perhaps unelectable, but truthful.
the sex is no big deal, a lie from someone who says "trust me" is a big deal. you can't trust them and it doesn't feel good...
mccain is slime because he is a "straight talk" lying sack of wheat. his naked whorish ambition and pandering policies don't elevate him...keat
d
And apparently, it was favors for CINDY that were at stake in Keating FIve.
Jane, why do you say Iseman disappeared? She still works at the same DC firm she was working at in 2000, which when the gossip detailed in the NYT story originated.
Maybe the press isn't following up on it because IF anything happened, it happened eight years ago. No one has ever seen McCain meeting her in a hotel, there's no baby, and there's no fake father being paid off by large donors, in contrast to the Edwards stiuation.
And don't forget the lobbyist McB--- was linked with. The Enquirer isn't going after THAT story, is it? Gee, I wonder why???
Somehow it is assumed that Elizabeth's illness raises the bar on her spouse. I dont think Eliz having cancer makes life any easier for her husband or makes it any easier for him to resist receiving comfort from another woman. He is looking at a time when he will be alone. It is probably harder on him emotionally than if she was well--- dont you think!! It would be one thing if he decided to abandon Elizabeth to take up with another but he didnt really do that. that would be Gingrich's M. O. While this is not ideal the main issue here is how has he actually treated Eliz.
Jane, Jane, Jane. You're the last person in the world I need to tell this to: in the Republican moral universe, when Republicans cheat on their wives, dump them, and marry rich heiresses young enough to be their daughters, it's moral and good. When Democrats cheat on their wives, it's immoral and bad. See? Being a Republican is just....so
Democrats get impeached for B J's.......
Clinton got impeached for lying under oath, not a BJ. Facts are so difficult for you liberals.
I know Senator Obama is against this, but this might be the time to consider funding a major 527 effort to start telling the whole truth, not just McCain's personal indiscretions but the whole corruption extravaganza. I understand Senator Obama's integrity, and his wish to establish working relationships with the conservatives, but there are large and urgently important truths that aren't being communicated to the general public. It's time to tell America about media bias, and give them the genuine lowdown before it's too late.
Can we trust that we're going to win on this non-level playing field without delivering the hardest hits we can possibly make? I'd much prefer it if we could, but I have bad dreams of Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes, and more, and I start to get pretty nervous.
DW6 i couldn't agree more where are the liberals back bone?why are democrats unable to fight back?you know it's not a smear if it's the truth,i can see why the nation believes democrats are unable to protect this country.on this unlevel playing field where are the move-ons org.,& your'e right if the media won't report fairly the DNC should be all over them. YES WE NEED OUR OWN 527'S
Obama can't stop a 527, and I'm amazed there are not Democrats pissed off enough to ignore Obama's "direction" to not give money to them.
Hell, I'll give money to any 527 willing to air the whole Keating FIve, S&L, Arizona development scandal.
So will I.
Part of the reason you don't see 527s exposing Republicans has to do with the mentality that it takes to actually fund and carry out that kind of smear campaign. It takes the kind of vileness that only the black, rotted souls of Republicans have. It is true that you or I would be happy to fund such 527s. We're pissed off enough at this point to see that the high road will get us nowhere with these Republican vermin. However, wanting to fund the 527 and actually running one are two different things. To be effective, Democrats have to hire true mercenaries to do their dirty work. People without loyalty to any ideology, without conscience or a concern for the future of anyone but themselves. Such people could be hired to run a 527 exposing McCain's treatment of his first wife for example, or his S&L bailout scandal, his less than glorious early years in the military, his recent affair with the lobbyist (whether true or not; it doesn't matter), his reduced mental capacity related to his age, his long track record of cozying up to lobbyists, etc. There are far more things to '527' McCain with than Obama.
WoW Jane, your words are so great! They need to be chiseled in stone and displayed for all to read.
"Is it just that John Edwards is cuter than John McCain?"
I think, Ms. Smiley, you nailed it with this one. The Enquirer likes their victims to be sexy and attractive.
I would also point out that Edward's "crime" is especially heinous because he co-opted the integrity of the people around him.
His wife was forced to lie for him..
He even had one of his staffers take the fall for being the father of the baby. A staffer who had his OWN family and children.
That is just as pathetic as it gets.. Imagine that staffer's kids having to bear the taunts and stares of their classmates and such...
Edwards is the lowest of the low. Not only for his own "crimes" but the "crimes" he perpetrated on others...
Michale...
Are you in the employ of the MSM?You sound just like them. The issue here is comparing the Edwards and MoSame affairs, but you make no mention of MoSame....
What is your source for this assertion? How do you know who the father of the baby is?
Besides, this post isn't about whether Edwards is a jerk. He obviously is. It's about why McCain gets a pass for his own adultery. And I'm not talking about Vicki; I'm talking about Cindy.
Good to know your opinion. Funny how it always serves the right-wing agenda.
Hardy proven as of yet. The woman in question doesn't say Edwards fathered her kid and the timeline has got a problem. Didn't she become pregnant AFTER Elizabeth announced her cancer (2007) whereas the affair took place in 2006? You wanna slime him because you really wanna slime O. We all see thru you.
Why did Edwards visit the woman and her baby at the Beverly Hills Hotel recently??? Especially if the affair took place in 2006, as you claim...
Michale...
Great column!
Once again, the corporate mainstream media reveals its shameful right-wing bias
Despicable
Jane, notwithstanding all that, "Everybody else does it!" is never a good excuse for inexcusable behavior. His tacky affair and the subsequent coverup, not to mention his egocentric apologies, tell me more than I wanted to know about the Edwardses. They need to go away and get their house in order. I would respect them a lot more. I really believed in John Edwards, only to find out that he is an old-fashioned cad.
YellerDawg
You really missed her point. She never excused Edwards' behavior; she just simply pointed out the media hypocrisy and double-standard in the way they treat Republicans and Democrats. McCain is reported to have committed adultery but the media has not used that as yardstick for his qualification to be president.
Respectfully, I think you missed my point. I agree 100% about McCain, but that doesn't excuse John Edwards. The MSM haven't exactly been on top of his story either.
The Times story, McCain & the Sexy Lobbyist, was a piece of innuendo-rich slime that damaged whatever reputation Iseman may have enjoyed prior to publication of the article. (Had Iseman been a man, there was nothing in the Times story that would have raised an eyebrow; once again, the Times reared its entrenched anti-feminist head.) Instead of producing hotel receipts, the Times chose to picture Iseman dressed for an evening out. Instead of saying McCain had an affair with Iseman, the paper put them on a plane together. In other words, the Times did either too much or too little; the public doesn't know what to think since the gray lady proved to be a coy mistress.
I don't much care if McCain was canoodling with Iseman since I think he's a despicable jerk either way, but if Edwards' affair makes McCain's relationship with the lobbyist newsworthy, then the MSM should check out the facts & actually report them rather than snicker over them among the conoscenti, as is their wont with these matters.
So push away from the bar, boys, and write up whatcha know. If your paper won't publish it, blog it.
mariemburns, put away your Outrage[tm]. The New York times story WAS NOT ABOUT SEX.
The MM SAID it was about sex. It was not. It was "ABOUT" improper favors for a lobbyist, poor diddle Vicki and her precious "reputation".
Sure, the Times was coy in INTRODUCING the topic, but get the hell real: there isn't a reporter in DC who doesn't know that McCain has been dipping his wick indiscriminately since Cindy was his paramour.
All the Times did was report and document the concern, the quotes and the actions taken BY MCCAIN'S OWN STAFFERS in dealing with Vicki and McCain. Which means they were COVERED. The topic of sexual dalliance did not even arise until the lobbying accusations were made, and then ONLY as a concern of the McCain camp.
The story was then retooled by the MSM to: [a] be ABOUT The New York Times; [b] say that the Times wrote an article "about sex" (IT DID NOT), and [c] dismiss the entire content of the story... NONE of which was disproven, the way the Times reported it.
Classic Karl Rove redirection.
Even Lanny Davis said, here on HuffPo, that the NYT story was sleazy. He was lobbying McCain at the same time Iseman was. He saw nothing improper, and he says that the NYT omitted mentioning the actions McCain took AGAINST Iseman's client's interests.
Good points. The NYT dragged Iseman's name through the mud, just to attack the candidate with some eight year old unsubstantiated gossip. Iseman still works at her old firm in DC, but surely this has damaged her ability to her job. If she had been a male lobbyist, the innuendo wouldn't have been an issue.
Why is it that nobody notices these guys who turn out to be womanizing adulterers all have the same BS grin? McCain's is a little crooked from age, but it looks just like Edwards' and, to some extent, Clinton's.
It's a "tell," but somehow, people, especially many women, seem to ignore it.
Obama, thankfully, does not have that same kind of grin. When he smiles, it looks like he did it because he's genuinely happy or pleased. Not because he wants to give you some more BS.
BTW, McCain's BS grin is always most evident after he's just read a pre-scripted lie or distortion of the truth. Look for it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
