Friday, July 25, 2008

"John" John In The John John (With All The Rest)

"This was a sensational scandal the LAT and other MSM papers passionately did not want to uncover when Edwards was a formal candidate, and now that the Enquirer seems to have done the job for them it looks like they want everyone to shut up while they fail to uncover it again. ..."

-- Mickey Kaus, on the news of a Los Angeles Times blogger gag order about the John Edwards affair, on

Wonkette's take is the best so far:

"The important question is not “Why is John Edwards cheating on his wife who had cancer?” We know that answer: He’s a Democratic politician."

And, yes, this is the same uber-cynical Wonkette that, when this story first broke, asked:

What kind of monster would cheat on a woman with cancer!

TMR's answer: a Democrat.

Why? Let's recap recent history - or as I like to call it - going on the Left-wing Morality Tour:

Bill Clinton: rewarded by the Democrats for countless affairs, gropings, rapes, and attacks on women. Hillary even joined in the fun. And so did the party. All while posing as radical feminists. Good start, huh?

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom: slept with his best friend/campaign manager's wife. When she was drunk. Newsom's current fiancé decided to bad-mouth the best friend's wife, apparently, to rub salt in the best friend's wound even more. Then Newsom crashed the best friend's attempt to recover, financially, from the blow of losing his job because his boss was scum. Oh, and the people of San Francisco followed all that by giving Newsom a 75% approval rating in the next election, right after Newsom did some bullshit treatment, for a short period of time, at the recovery center of his choice - which was ran by a friend of his. *Sweet*

LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: ran on a Left-wing Family Values ticket. To make the point clear, his last name is even he and his wife's last names combined. Fucked a stupid news reporter with a reputation for power fucking (sleeping with politicians) as a way to get ahead. He helped her get a house - how you say? "Cheep." Los Angelinos (especially Hispanics) went ape shit crazy when the story broke but the furor has died down - until John Edwards went to visit his NewAge "Love Child" after spending the day with Villaraigosa.

I say throw all the bums out, Democrats: they make YOU - yea, you - look bad. Very bad.

The John Edwards story is supposed to break this weekend.


  1. No, adultery is not exclusively Democrat

    Probably need to do some spin on Newt's cancer wife after attacking Senator Edwards.

    Also, not related but you might "enjoy" this interview with Bob Barr.

  2. I see - even though I addressed it already and showed his ex wife understood and wants him to be president - you're still going to push the John McCain story. Interesting.

    And Newt and his wife had already agreed to divorce - that's why they were "haggling" in the hospital - again: hardly the same as John Edwards.

    TMR has never defended Rudy's behavior. Period.

    Now, the biggest question I have for you, Berko Ol' Boy, is:

    What's your point? Are you defending John Edwards's adultery? Trying to say "everybody does it" when that - clearly - isn't so? Are you trying to prove that the Democratic Party's many current adulterers should be in office when none of them - none of them - has done anything substantial enough, in my opinion, to justify keeping them in office once they prove they ain't worth shit otherwise.

    Where do you stand, Berko? Are you a slimey relativist - or someone who thinks people (like the spouses) deserve decent treatment and at least a little respect?

    If you don't like what Rudy did (as I don't) then I'd hope that would mean you "get it" and would condemn the Democrats too.

    I don't think (as in the case of Newt or McCain) we, as outsiders to a marriage, have a right to say what makes it right for those in it. But when the wrong is clear - like when Bill and Hillary Clinton told everyone Monica was "crazy" and a "stalker" - then it's society's job is say so and put a stop to it.

    And grabbing at any other partisan example you think you can find ain't doing that, Berko:

    You're just acting as part of the problem, man.

  3. Well let's look at that: your post is clearly "adulterer = Democrat". I'm not proposing adultery, I'm not excusing those who practice it, and I'm certainly not a slimy relatavist as that is just sliding further and further from the proposition.

    If you had written a thread called 'Adulterers are creeps' and then had a couple of televangelists, a celebrity or two, then I would not have commented. My opinion on adultery, whatever it might be, would have no bearing on your proposition (adulterers are creeps) and I would have let it lie.

    If you had been more partisan and said that committing adultery with your sick wife is despicable and then only shown Democrats doing it, I might have let it slide. The statement is still sound, and we trust to a Democrat supporter to supply Republican counterparts for the same argument.

    But neither of these is the proposition.

    'What kind of monster would cheat on a woman with cancer!

    TMR's answer: a Democrat.'

    The task of anyone challenging your argument then is to prove two things:
    1. There are Democrats who would not cheat on a woman with cancer.
    2. There are non-Democrats who would cheat on a woman with cancer.

    For point one: Jimmy Carter
    For point two: I found Newt pretty quickly and couldn't believe it but it becomes a little unfair if you start knocking out the entire subset of conservatives with cancerous wives that they are also known to be cheating on and besides, you go on to list other Democrats who cheated on healthier spouses so I felt it reasonable to suggest that that would include a far large number than just 'Democrats'.

    qed your proposition is misleading and wrong.