Former North Carolina Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards apparently has not come clean with the American public about his affair with former staffer Rielle Hunter.
The National Enquirer reported on Wednesday that Edwards had not one, but a series of clandestine meetings at the Beverly Hills Hilton with Hunter.
In addition, Edwards apparently continued with the relationship with Hunter long after the time when he claims he 'ended it.'
Remember, this is the man who is being considered as a running mate for Barack Obama and also has been considered for Attorney-General or a Supreme Court appointee in an Obama Presidency.
It is too bad that a sex scandal turns out to be thing that ruins Edwards. The thing that should have ended his career is when he told a reporter during an interview last year that gun rights are a 'privilege' and not a 'right,' but that having Internet access and U.S. citizenship are automatic inherent 'rights.'
Funny that Edwards, like Obama, is a lawyer and yet knows very little about the U.S. Constitution. But in today's America, that is just fine with a large portion of the electorate.
And so, the mighty falls on his own sword knowing full well that as a Presidential candidate and potential government official, he will be scrutinized with a proctoscope.
Edwards was born in the small South Carolina town of Seneca in the Upstate and grew up in North Carolina just above Charlotte.
Showing posts with label John Edwards admits affair. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Edwards admits affair. Show all posts
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Sunday, August 10, 2008
3 Key Questions
The story, or at least John Edwards' version of it, simply makes no sense.
His statement to the Press on Friday raises more questions than it answers. But he ended his remarks by saying that after giving the statement he would say nothing more about the matter.
How convenient.
Here are 3 key questions for Senator Edwards:
1. Now that we know Rielle Hunter, your supposed 'ex' mistress, will refuse to participate in a paternity test for her child, doesn't that make your offer of 'taking any test to prove you are not the father' just a tad disingenuous, particularly if you knew in advance she would refuse to participate, making your offer a moot point?
2. If Rielle is indeed your 'ex' mistress and the child is not yours, then what were you doing with them in her hotel room in Beverly Hills on the night of July 21, from roughly 10 PM until roughly 3 AM?
3. If you know beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are not the father of the child, then why didn't you go ahead and have the paternity test in advance, making the results known to reporters and the world when you made your 'confession' on Friday? If such a test would prove you are not the father, then having the results available as soon as you finally admitted to the sordid mess would certainly have put an immediate stop to the speculation.
Until John Edwards answers these 3 key questions, then we can only assume he has more to hide--much more to hide.
The National Enquirer insists that it has more information and more pictures, including video footage.
And contrary to the notion that such things are 'private' and have no business being reported in the news, such things are vital to the public interest. The voters have a right to know about the character of the person they are considering supporting, right?
After all, this is the common mantra of the media and liberals every time a conservative or Republican is caught in a sex scandal.
Edwards has always held out his family and marriage as stellar examples of his character. Now we know of the hypocrisy of that tactic. He has not been who he says he is, and THAT is news.
My hunch is that Edwards threw the Press a bone to chew on in order to try to squelch the story and move on without telling the whole story. In that sense he is still lying, and there is much more to this story than the small part Edwards made public.
If the National Enquirer is telling the truth, then what Edwards stated on Friday is only the tip of the iceberg.
His statement to the Press on Friday raises more questions than it answers. But he ended his remarks by saying that after giving the statement he would say nothing more about the matter.
How convenient.
Here are 3 key questions for Senator Edwards:
1. Now that we know Rielle Hunter, your supposed 'ex' mistress, will refuse to participate in a paternity test for her child, doesn't that make your offer of 'taking any test to prove you are not the father' just a tad disingenuous, particularly if you knew in advance she would refuse to participate, making your offer a moot point?
2. If Rielle is indeed your 'ex' mistress and the child is not yours, then what were you doing with them in her hotel room in Beverly Hills on the night of July 21, from roughly 10 PM until roughly 3 AM?
3. If you know beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are not the father of the child, then why didn't you go ahead and have the paternity test in advance, making the results known to reporters and the world when you made your 'confession' on Friday? If such a test would prove you are not the father, then having the results available as soon as you finally admitted to the sordid mess would certainly have put an immediate stop to the speculation.
Until John Edwards answers these 3 key questions, then we can only assume he has more to hide--much more to hide.
The National Enquirer insists that it has more information and more pictures, including video footage.
And contrary to the notion that such things are 'private' and have no business being reported in the news, such things are vital to the public interest. The voters have a right to know about the character of the person they are considering supporting, right?
After all, this is the common mantra of the media and liberals every time a conservative or Republican is caught in a sex scandal.
Edwards has always held out his family and marriage as stellar examples of his character. Now we know of the hypocrisy of that tactic. He has not been who he says he is, and THAT is news.
My hunch is that Edwards threw the Press a bone to chew on in order to try to squelch the story and move on without telling the whole story. In that sense he is still lying, and there is much more to this story than the small part Edwards made public.
If the National Enquirer is telling the truth, then what Edwards stated on Friday is only the tip of the iceberg.
Friday, August 08, 2008
EDWARDS ADMITS WHAT MSM REFUSED TO REPORT
The late-breaking news this afternoon is that former Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards has admitted to an affair and sex scandal that the 'stalwart, unbiased, and non-partisan members of the mainstream media' refused to report.
It took the National Enquirer, of all publications, to break the story and run with it.
With the Los Angeles Times instructing its bloggers to go mum on the story, and with other major mainstream media outlets sitting on a major scandal involving a major Democrat, the blogosphere was the place for the information.
Edwards admitted to the affair that he says happened in 2006 prior to running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. He also claims he told his wife, who is suffering from metastatic cancer, about the affair. But he denies that the 'love child' is his.
Do you have DNA proof of that, Senator? I mean, you have lied to the media repeatedly about the affair since December of 2007. So, how do we know you are telling the truth about the child without DNA proof?
The child's birth certificate lists no father.
Edwards has stated that he will take any test necessary to prove that he is not the father of the child born to Rielle Hunter, the woman with whom he had the affair. The National Enquirer has stated they will publish the test results no matter what they show, although they stand by their original story that Edwards is the father.
As expected, the mainstream media reported the story this evening only when forced to do so by the Senator's own admission, allowing Edwards to spin it the way he wanted before the story was reported. And then the MSM spin doctors went to work as well.
Bob Schieffer at CBS spoke of the Edwards as if they were old pals and focused on the fact that Elizabeth Edwards' response to the affair is that she had 'forgiven him.'
It was as if poor John Edwards is a 'sympathetic' character. After all, if his own wife could forgive him, then so can we.
The Democratic National Convention, however, doesn't seem to be so forgiving. A DNC official stated late today that Edwards would not be speaking at the Party convention this year in Denver.
Fox News has the complete story.
It took the National Enquirer, of all publications, to break the story and run with it.
With the Los Angeles Times instructing its bloggers to go mum on the story, and with other major mainstream media outlets sitting on a major scandal involving a major Democrat, the blogosphere was the place for the information.
Edwards admitted to the affair that he says happened in 2006 prior to running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. He also claims he told his wife, who is suffering from metastatic cancer, about the affair. But he denies that the 'love child' is his.
Do you have DNA proof of that, Senator? I mean, you have lied to the media repeatedly about the affair since December of 2007. So, how do we know you are telling the truth about the child without DNA proof?
The child's birth certificate lists no father.
Edwards has stated that he will take any test necessary to prove that he is not the father of the child born to Rielle Hunter, the woman with whom he had the affair. The National Enquirer has stated they will publish the test results no matter what they show, although they stand by their original story that Edwards is the father.
As expected, the mainstream media reported the story this evening only when forced to do so by the Senator's own admission, allowing Edwards to spin it the way he wanted before the story was reported. And then the MSM spin doctors went to work as well.
Bob Schieffer at CBS spoke of the Edwards as if they were old pals and focused on the fact that Elizabeth Edwards' response to the affair is that she had 'forgiven him.'
It was as if poor John Edwards is a 'sympathetic' character. After all, if his own wife could forgive him, then so can we.
The Democratic National Convention, however, doesn't seem to be so forgiving. A DNC official stated late today that Edwards would not be speaking at the Party convention this year in Denver.
Fox News has the complete story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)