I like the cut of your jib sir!!

Any more the Enquirer is a better journalistic organization than a number of other organizations, such as the New York Times. At least they have the guts to actually wait until they are able to prove the sordid affair, unlike the Times reporting that bogus story about an aledged McCain affair (someone told someone that someone told McCain that he might be looking like he is having an affair).

We will wait for pictures to show up, however this story is posted at the National Enquirer site, so they are out on a limb with the accusation, including the claim of photos.

How low the MSM has sunk, when the Enquirer is the paragon of journalistic integrity.

NT

Didn’t get your warning on time.

I’ll be tender to Sir CrabsCake. But I can’t help it. His position on the issue of Edwards is really funny.

1. He immediate rebuked the Sinclair issue. At least there is a witness here (although not very credible.)
2. Then, he offered the idea of McCain’s first wife. Good. he has a valid case to me, as a conservative. But it’s like opening a cold case with all the evidences completely missing. But his alleged victim doesn’t want to file a case. I would only accept that the story in this diary is comparable to Carol+McCain+Cyndi personal issue back in the late 70s if Cyndi and McCain had a child before the divorce - which is false.
3. Crabscake has never presented any word or statement from Carol (the first wife) against McCain. Why? Because Carol(the first wife) doesn’t want to play a victim of MSM(i.e., victim of McCain). Thus, I assumed that CrabsCake has resorted to MSM reports such as those by HuffPo’s. In this particular issue, MSM used their trademark journalistic style of getting infos, which is talking to: paid-in neighbors, gardener?, Carol’s friends (turned politicians), barber?, cook?, driver?, navy/marine buddies, Reagan’s former aide?, and other whathaveyous. And MSM took their words as holy factoids. For me, Crabscake innuendos point to HuffPo’s journalistic style: GOSSIP is the source of true information.
4. Later, CrabsCake was preaching like his BO. He instantly metamorphosed into a marriage counselor.
5. Next he wrote the unthinkable. He became a champion of the Women’s lib. He’s implying that all failed marriages are due to the infidelity of the man. And woman has nothing to do with it.
6. Then he made a threat that he will condemn BO, if he finds that BO is as an adulterer. What does that mean? For me, CrabsCake seriously believes that BO has never been an adulterer and is really contented with Michelle. This is short of saying that BO is really a saint.
7. Now, back to Edward thing, which is the subject of this diary. CrabsCake’s just can’t admit to himself about the facts presented by this diary. He’s actually in a denial stage. He immediately made a remark to elevate his Candidate, BO, as if his candidate has just acquired a special status of being an Untouchable on this issue. He immediately bashed Edwards (look at his first remark - it’s sounds like Yukk!) to shield his candidate BO from any form of adultery (whether with a dude and a woman). It’s also interesting to note that it was CrabsCake who offered the idea of “a dude” third party here (not me!)

NOW WHY DO I CONSIDER MCCAIN WAS A BETTER MAN DURING HIS YOUNGER YEARS THAN THESE TWO TOP DEMOCRAT LEADERS:

1. Based on the account of the last 30 years and his own biography, McCain had the courage to admit his sins, something that only an principled man can do.
2. Why should I believe McCain’s words written in his biography? If McCain cannot be trusted to his words, then I wouldn’t also believe MCCAIN WHEN HE SAID THAT HE HAD COMMITTED RANDOM SEX.
3. McCain HAS NEVER SAID that HE LIVED A “HOLY LIFE” against his sexual urges. He’s never been a hypocrite with respect to this issue. I’ve never heard of McCain preaching like Barack in a pulpit in front of a congregation in a church service.
4. McCain never had a love child. He respects the role of a father to a son much better than many of us here. He took Andy and Doug like his own flesh and blood (before and after the divorce).
5. Did Carol forgive McCain, assuming that McCain deceived and hurt her? Why not CrabsCake visit Carol and tell her his argument against McCain. I can expect that Carol will hurt Crabscake so bad and throw him out of the window.
6. If we believe in God, we’d surely agree that this man (McCain) has really been forgiven by the Lord above. Why? Instead punishing McCain of his “horrible sins” as described by MSM, God has even favorably blessed McCain with two “good and patriotic American” sons and a good daughter. He has even entrusted McCain with another a special kind of daughter. (Of course, we now all know that this girl is not really a love child of McCain as rumored in 2000).

Conclusion of 1-6:

McCain admitted his sins, has sought forgiveness by all people that he hurt and has changed his ways. I believe that at the age of 72, McCain has finally made peace with his own God and he’s now ready to accept the role of a President using all the wisdom he has acquired in his entire life. He has an experience of a lifetime to be qualified for this position.

Final Analysis:

1. McCain, over time, has established himself a very large happy McCain clan worthy of all his sacrifices and his continuing efforts towards the right path. McCain and Carol are truly the best of friends. Remember that Carol very much wanted to help McCain and Cyndi win during the 2000 primaries against Bush. And for the sake his friend and former husband, Carol threw the MSM under the bus.

2. Barack’s real strength of moral character cannot be proven yet!. He’s still 46 years old and he still has a lot of temptations to overcome in his life before we can truly say that he is really a good man. In addition, he needs constant supervision to check if the impact of “smoking cocaine” won’t haunt him in a damaging way.

3. I can assure you that McCain won’t repeat Bill’s disgusting behavior while at the WH. At 72, this man is the real deal.

4. As for Edwards? A Lovechild has no explanation. He’s really doing the so-called “Two America” thing as defined in some of the earlier comments in this diary.

5. Discussing other’s Fidelity and relationship issues is unfair. I believe that I might have been unfair to my Old Pal Mac in the above… because I was not privy to any of the things above. I wrote the above to counter all the HuffPo and MSM lies surrounding the blogosphere. What about Edwards? If lovechild exists, then the National Enquirer can rest its case. I would forgive him if he make a public admission of all his sins, like what McCain did in the case of his failed marriage.

Now, Mr. Moe. I’m now taking Sir CrabsCake seriously.

NOW I HAVE BECOME LIKE THE GOSSIP TALKSHOW HOST.

… insomuch as that a point I made about the moral equivalence of sexual scandals has been answered with an unrelated point about Iraq. Were I talking to myself, at least I’d be certain of staying on topic. Being crazy has its perks.

Anyway, I have to disagree with you that general election candidates are under the moral obligation to repudiate immoral fringe views held by five percent of their supporters. I wouldn’t expect McCain to get up in front of the country and point out that God is not actually planning to kill off the majority of Americans and humanity in general by way of the Rapture, nor would I accuse him of moral cowardice for refraining to make such a speech. Similarly, I don’t expect Obama to get up on stage and explain to us all that those small number of Democrats who wish for American servicemen to be killed in Iraq are traitors. Neither party has a monopoly on such people.

I’m offended!! Don’t lump us all together; not every agnostic libertarian has EDS (evangelical derangement syndrome). You just don’t hear christian bashing from the saner ones.