One might think that if the claims aren’t true, a high-powered lawyer like Edwards would already be threatening a big-money lawsuit. Unless, of course, he’s a real gentleman and was just helping the lady with some delicate late-night legal advice.

I (in behalf Ivan - the foolish dog) should have never written those statements, especially on the personal life of McCain. I, like the rest of you, should have respected McCain’s appeal not to go there. After all, he’s running for president and not sainthood.

I didn’t exactly know why I really got mad to Crabcakes’ opening comment. There was something in it that really ticked me off (and my buddy, Ivan). Crabcake’s comments is full of double intendre with innuendoes about McCain’s past.

Yeah, there’s no explanation for the name-callings that cluttered the flow of thoughts in CrabCakes’s comments. Please accept my apology to Moe and the rest of RS guys. But I won’t

I regret all the comments I’ve made here and I would be pleased if RS technicians could remove them in this diary. Our friend nivlim is correct in saying that it did more damage than good.

This will be my last comment. I will pay the my own self-imposed penalty: I won’t make any comments for 1 week(?). But I hope you guys allow me to continue to read your posts and comments.

The Iseman non-story was shoddy and irresponsible reporting to be sure, but it was not a complete fabrication. The article was just wilfully blown way out of proportion. Not printing Senator McCain’s editorial is not the same as writing one for him and posting it under his name. Spinning Abu Ghraib as the handiwork of Rove/Cheney/Bushitler is different from manufacturing the whole incident.

I hate defending the NYT, but I think they are just a tad more trustworthy than the National Enquirer. Again, if the National Enquirer reported a story alleging that some Republican had done this, I think the reaction would be a bit different from some of our posters.

Drudge has jumped on the story, so perhaps it does have some credibility. I’m still not real confident about the National Enquirer’s journalism.

Ta.

The young’ins want something new. Something fresh.

They hate tradition. Old is bad, and young is good.

The Left hates experience and loves change.

And frig the learning of lessons.

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 will grant that it’s not an especially large story, although the salacious details will no doubt magnify its importance.

Hey, not my fault that he’s a moral coward.

Moe

PS: Reply to This is your friend. Although it does seem fitting that you’re replying to yourself.

On the National Enquirer–I used to scoff at that publication, back when it ran stories about extraterrestrial babies.

However, in my opinion, there is very little difference between NE and others like the NYT, except the NE puts legs on the ground. That publication faces the same media liability as any mainstream publication–they certainly do not want to be sued.

If Edwards were a Republican, this story would be front page and center and sound bites galore.

If he does have a child as is alleged, by the other woman, that is an entirely different matter than a simple fling or one-night stand.

That said, his wife is likely of the mindset our Southern mothers raised us with–the marriage is the priority and you work your way through the problems.

What’s more troublesome is that his campaign narrative included a storyline of a very dedicated husband, one who was above reproach. He’d have been better off adopting a different approach.

Too bad he’s not the nominee, huh? Obama seems to be squeaky clean with the ladies.

This is a non-story.

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.

I don’t think anyone here will say that the Enquirer is less credible the NY Times, and I say that fully aware that they write stories about alien babies.