John Edwards’ Love Child (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
WLS has the political scene covered so that frees me to cover the important stories: Cheerleaders trapped in elevators and National Enquirer photos that purport to be John Edwards and his love child.
UPDATE: McClatchy notices this story:
“With two weeks to go before their national convention, a number of Democrats are saying that Edwards needs to publicly address National Enquirer stories that have alleged he had an affair with a campaign worker and fathered her baby.
If Edwards fails to clear up the story in short order, he risks party officials deciding not to have him speak or, if they do, creating a distraction from a week focused on Barack Obama accepting the nomination.
***
“He absolutely does have to (resolve it). If it’s not true, he has to issue a stronger denial,” said Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran Edwards’ 1998 Senate race. “It’s a very damaging thing. …“The big media has tried to be responsible and handle this with kid gloves, but it’s clearly getting ready to bust out. If it’s not true, he’s got to stand up and say, ‘This is not true. That is not my child and I’m going to take legal action against the people who are spreading these lies.’ It’s not enough to say, ‘That’s tabloid trash,’ ” Pearce said.”
Who knew the media treats Democrats with kid gloves?
— DRJ
If holding a baby is proof of a love child ….
nk (e38352) — 8/6/2008 @ 8:54 pmThe only thing more annoying than coverage of salacious stories is self-conscious metacoverage of salacious stories.
I love the Edwards story, and so do you. Just admit it!
JP (f6ffef) — 8/6/2008 @ 9:03 pmI mean, nothing says daddy like a flashbulb in someone’s hotel room.
Law school may become obsolete what with the Enquirer and striped curtains… hiding out in the mens room…
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/6/2008 @ 9:05 pmThose Enquirer people are really repugnant people, no?
JD (712926) — 8/6/2008 @ 9:06 pmThere’s too much detail about finances and photos that look like they come from cell phones. If this is real, I think Edwards was sold out by someone he knows and trusts.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/6/2008 @ 9:10 pmI remember John Kerry’s odd quote. He said John Edwards seemed to be instantly ‘old friends’ before the start of their first meeting.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/6/2008 @ 9:32 pmThis article has the fingerprints of the Obama camp all over it. They’re sending a very public message to Edwards that they prefer he not be around.
About that cabinet spot — ask the Magic 8 Ball.
WLS (4ab682) — 8/6/2008 @ 9:37 pmWLS,
Are you saying Obama just threw John Edwards under the bus?
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/6/2008 @ 9:41 pmFor real ? Hmm.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/6/2008 @ 9:43 pmScary thing is, unless this turns out to be a real thing, Edwards probably has the AG nomination sewn up.
Icy Truth (383bff) — 8/6/2008 @ 9:44 pmHow can anyone say that this is a career ender? Je$$e Jack$on was “advising” Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal, all while he was nursing his own fox (a baby mama and Baby, all paid off with rax-free charitable funds), and Je$$e is still a big enough name to be called out whenever the race issue pops up (Don Imus, the Duke case, Obama).
The Democrats don’t care about marital infidelity, they just want us all to MoveOn.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/6/2008 @ 9:53 pmJesse had his girl on the payroll, of course. But he is a little black jesus and can do no wrong. OTH, Edwards has a sick wife and an outwardly solid marriage. He disappointed us all!
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/6/2008 @ 10:15 pmI loathe WJC and HRC with every fiber of my being.
But, what JE is doing, and has been doing, is even worse. He denies the baby his/her heritage. He continues to pretend that there is no connection and no responsibility. I’ll have to cogitate on this for awhile, but I’ll be danged if I can think of a more damning character flaw than to deny one’s child’s very existence. YMMV
Ed (841b4a) — 8/6/2008 @ 10:31 pmI don’t like this story at all. I feel bad for Mrs. Edwards and her children. I hope the “love child” is able to have some semblance of a normal family life.
If Edwards just disappeared from public life, and this story went with him, I’d be very glad.
Nels (364116) — 8/6/2008 @ 11:39 pmIsn’t the Enquirer now owned by a major Clinton supporter?
davod (5bdbd3) — 8/7/2008 @ 5:05 amI loathe WJC and HRC with every fiber of my being.
But, what JE is doing, and has been doing, is even worse. He denies the baby his/her heritage. He continues to pretend that there is no connection and no responsibility. I’ll have to cogitate on this for awhile, but I’ll be danged if I can think of a more damning character flaw than to deny one’s child’s very existence. YMMV
Comment by Ed — 8/6/2008 @ 10:31 pm
While you had me at “I loathe BJC and HRC…” 🙂 I beg to differ on just how bad this could have gotten. At least the baby was allowed to live, whoever her biological father.
As much a well-coiffed, apparently slimy character as John Edwards is, though the story’s of interest re: his character development but just can’t enjoy it. Schadenfreude tolerance level goes up when children and innocent (esp sick) wives around I guess.
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 8/7/2008 @ 5:58 amCareful there… If Obama with the General Election, that man’s son will end up my new Junior Senator…
I’m going to drink now…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/7/2008 @ 6:06 am“With two weeks to go before their national convention, a number of Democrats are saying that Edwards needs to publicly address National Enquirer stories that have alleged he had an affair with a campaign worker and fathered her baby.”
If Edwards addresses the National Enquirer in anyway , we might as well start giving credence to stories like: “400 POUND MAN TRAPPED IN ELEVATOR……EATS OWN FOOT”
“ELVIS PRESLEY STILL ALIVE AND WORKING AT KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN”
Your kidding right?
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 8:33 amI myself must say I love the timing on this. Just two more weeks until the convention, you say?
Hot damn! This will be one to remember – one I’ll be telling my grandkids about!
MrJimm (6d0473) — 8/7/2008 @ 9:52 amI’m waiting to read comments from the ususl suspects about how John Edwards was really only sneaking around the halls and stairways, running away fron reporters, and holed up in the hotel men’s room during the wee hours because he wanted to save the planet, our capture Osama bin Ladin, or meet with the reclusive voodoo witch doctor who’s stumbled on a cure for cancer.
Or, Edwards may have been on a secret mission to find out who shot JR. How, oh how, is one to know for sure? Doesn’t John Edwards deserve the benefit of the doubt? When did a shyster lawyer suspected of cheating on a wife with breast cancer cease to be part of the human race?
So let’s not be too quick to judge. Give the lefties time to explain how it’s all really George Bush’s fault, so we can just move on.
Ropelight (cb4838) — 8/7/2008 @ 9:53 amAll he has to do is skip one $400 haircut and use the dough to pay for a DNA paternity test (DNACenter.com charges $475). He’s a lawyer; he can waive the confidentiality agreement and have the results published. Proof of his innocence will make it all go away.
Icy Truth (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 9:57 am#18 Mario- the National Enquirer has been known to break a few blockbuster stories. It is amazing though how many people buy into the off the wall fiction it sells, but how do you negate the pictures now out showing off the Breck Girls’ love child in his arms? Had Lurch won in ’04, Edwards would now be vp. Would you urge media to keep it quiet? Would you feel the same if there was news that Bush was cheating or fathering a child out of wedlock? Of course you libs wanted us to buy Mapes/Rather/Lucy Ramirez TANG fiction and ignore the Swiftboat charges.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/7/2008 @ 9:58 amThe Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, works vetting the stories at the Enquirer. Maybe Democrats ought to ponder what influence he would have over stories to be published.
PCD (5c49b0) — 8/7/2008 @ 10:03 amHmm, let’s see:
A husband and father, without any indication that he was ever anything but a very good one until the National Enquirer started saying otherwise. Very successful attorney. United States Senator. Major party candidate for Vice-President.
A mother.
A baby.
Versus,
The National Enquirer. The best argument for repeal of the freedom of the press clause of the First Amendment. Owned by a Clintonista.
I wonder to whom I should give the benefit of the doubt.
nk (e38352) — 8/7/2008 @ 10:05 amLike PCD, rather than Obama, I think this has the Clintons’ names written all over it. It may be payback for Edwards’ endorsement of Obama, a way to keep Edwards from getting a prominent position at the convention, or something else but the timing and the way it’s been leaked makes me suspicious.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/7/2008 @ 10:20 amBenefit of the doubt or willfully covering for a reprobate? No double standards in this media at all. Brittney Spears/Lindsey Lohan/Madonna/Paris Hilton “news” and crotch shots ad nauseum, but sweep anything embarrassing about the shyster Edwards under the rug or just adopt the three monkeys routine. I know, public has a right to know a GOP’s stance in toilet stall, but not what our lying eyes are saying about Edwards.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/7/2008 @ 10:21 amOiram #18 (also nk#24) —
The National Enquirer revels in celebrity miscarriages, ugliest-dress gossip, slipped bikini tops, and man-bites-dog stories.
But I don’t think you’ll find that it’s the “I met Nostradamus on board a flying saucer” rag that you remember from your youth. Well, that I recall, anyway.
The Nat Enq probably got more OJ Simpson scoops (true ones) than any other paper, thanks to their willingness to pay for interviews. That may have been the turning point.
Challenge for the “It’s in the Nat Enq, scoff scoff” crowd: can you provide a link to an obviously outrageous story of theirs from recent years? I suspect you won’t find many, if any at all. Cruel, snark about movie stars doesn’t count. The point isn’t whether they are ethical or even whether they print arguably-false material. It’s that they no longer make stuff up that is space-alien ridiculous. And that when they publish attacks on people, their libel lawyers vet their words very carefully.
AMac (c822c9) — 8/7/2008 @ 10:30 amThe rumors of this affair long precede the photos in the National Enquirer.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/7/2008 @ 10:31 am“I wonder to whom I should give the benefit of the doubt.”
Since we know a broken clock is right twice a day, and that even a bald faced liar might actually tell the truth on occasion, and to press the point, one day the wolf just might really be coming up the road, therefore, we shouldn’t dismiss the story because it was told by a supermarket tabloid.
Besides, there’s a set of circumstances which tend to point the way to a well worn path, passage down which has been the ruin of many a rich, arrogrant man before Mr John Edwards set his trembling foot running lickety-split down the carpeted halls of a fancy Beverly Hills hotel.
Ropelight (cb4838) — 8/7/2008 @ 10:33 amWow, you guys are all legitimizing the National Enquirer here. O.k. then.
A lot to respond to here.
The only one I have time for is 333xamdam? #26
“I know, public has a right to know a GOP’s stance in toilet stall, but not what our lying eyes are saying about Edwards.”
333XAMDAM?,
Please get back to me on that last statement when Edwards is accused of something criminal and pleads guilty.
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 10:43 amThe Weekly World News was not a tabloid. It just had a similar design. They had the space alien stories and Bat Boy, all written as satire. Most people didn’t realize it was a satire magazine (I didn’t). It’s no longer in biz… it did have some very funny tongue-in-cheek humor.
I agree with AMac and madmax about the serious news leads in NE & Globe. That’s been true for a long time… well before OJ ‘s Bruno Maglis were published.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/7/2008 @ 10:49 amDRJ –
A little Google indicates that the NE first published the Edwards story on October 10, 2007. Rumors began surfacing months before that. Here’s one earlier non-NE source:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08272007/gossip/pagesix/just_asking.htm
My guess is that when the NE stuff was dismissed as flase by MSM and others, that the NE folk vowed to stay on Edwards until he broke from cover, and bought someone inside the Edwards “posse”. Thus, it was Edwards who controlled (however inadvertently) the timing, not the NE.
jim2 (a9ab88) — 8/7/2008 @ 10:53 am#30 – Oiram
Please get back to me on that last statement when Edwards is accused of something criminal and pleads guilty.
— In South Carolina, John Edwards’s state of residence, the laws on the books are as follows:
SECTION 16-15-60. Adultery or fornication.
Any man or woman who shall be guilty of the crime of adultery or fornication shall be liable to indictment and, on conviction, shall be severally punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than one year or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.
SECTION 16-15-70. “Adultery” defined.
“Adultery” is the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman when either is lawfully married to some other person.
SECTION 16-15-80. “Fornication” defined.
“Fornication” is the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman, both being unmarried.
— It shouldn’t be necessary for him to plead guilty, only for him to be found guilty.
Icy Truth (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 10:59 amIcy Truth #33,
Are you serious? Would you care to try to prove that Edwards and Hunter did anything of what you wrote in North Carolina?
nk (e38352) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:05 am#30 the alleged $15 k a month from Edwards through a cut out to the mother? Having another married man claim paternity to cover Edwards’ own culpability. In any case there is the possibility that tax laws were broken. We won’t bother with all the lies about sex since dear leader Clinton already changed the rules on all that. If you are a dem leader, other rules apply to you than do to mere mortals. What laws did Mark Foley break in the Congressional page scandal? Did he ever actually mess with a minor or have sexual contact with a page? I’m not defending him, but what did he do illegally?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:07 amIt would be lovely if the various wives who were wronged by the unfaithful husbands would on occasion hit the roof and deride the cheaters in public forum. I guess Mrs. Edwards is either deeply in love or in denial. I don’t care if Larry Craig is ostracized, but Barney Fag escaped some serious responsibilities with the call-boy ring ran out of his home, no? And I remain dissatisfied that Gary Condin apparently escaped any accountability for the presumed death of his secret lover.
Hey, I’m just smacking Marioriam around a bit. The only thing I want from the silk pony is the truth.
Icy Truth (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:10 amVermont Neighbor wrote: The Weekly World News was not a tabloid.
I think I know what you mean in that it wasn’t “tabloid journalism” — it was simply nonsense — but in the strictest sense of the word “tabloid,” that’s indeed what it was.
My favorite headline from the WWN ever: “Two-Headed Politician Debates Himself — And Loses!”
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:14 amI have a hard time imagining a conviction under that fornication statute being upheld by a court which took into account the precedent from Lawrence.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:16 amjim2,
I agree with that but, assuming this story is true, what I find problematic is the National Enquirer’s ability to get access to someone near Edwards who has information about the money and could take the photos. Maybe they got lucky and offered enough money to the right person. That’s certainly possible but it’s also possible they had some help identifying the players.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:17 amThat is not even close to a fair assessment of this.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:18 amIcy Truth, #33, that’s pretty funny.
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:19 amThis great Nation of ours would tumble if they enforced that law. Please, our jail’s are overcrowded as is.
Too Funny my friend. Thanks for the laugh.
#35 You and your Republican comrades at one time were pegging Edwards as a homosexual.
At least now in your equation he’s straight.
Too funny. I’m guessing not all Conservatives are using these Nat. Enquirer driven silly tactics, or else Obama and all Democrats for that matter would be leading by at least 15 points.
Continue the great work crack squad of journalists.
Don’t forget about poor Britney and Paris, they miss you guys.
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:24 amNo, he just looks like a nancy-boy.
And come on, admit it… He does…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:32 amCorrect me if I’m wrong, y’all, but I don’t remember Rush Limbaugh ever saying the NE was making schtuff up when it went with the story of his getting hooked on megadoses of painkillers and sending his maid to procure them.
The MSM adored that story, especially Aaron Brown on CNN, who invited Al Franken — author of Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot — and New York magazine media critic Michael Wolff (who said on a syndicated radio show that he’s not afraid to say liberals are intellectually superior to conservatives) on his show to discuss laugh about the news.
From NewsNight with Aaron Brown, October 10, 2003 via NewsBusters:
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:32 amYou and your Republican comrades at one time were pegging Edwards as a homosexual.
Can you name an even semi-prominent conservative who made such a suggestion? I wanna know if you have any idea.
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:35 amI’m sorry L.N. but I put Rush in the same (detrimental to their respective party) category as Rosie O’donnel, only he’s making Millions and millions more.
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:36 amDRJ –
Certainly, the original NE story could have had roots in trying to pick off Edwards from the Dem race. My point was that the NE was only following up what was already leaking into other parts of the media.
On inside knowledge, the NE folk have long made their living in that genre, so I really doubt they would have needed any HC camp help.
What seems to have been overlooked, IMHO, are the implications inherent in the fact that the NE reporters were registered guests. This suggested to me right from the start that the NE folk were following the woman, not Edwards. Thus, when she suddenly left her place w/kid and w/o obvious cause and then registered in that hotel, that the experienced NE tryst reporters recognized it as a classic setting up of a rendezvous on neutral ground.
jim2 (a9ab88) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:36 amNot a ‘nancy boy’; the Breck Girl.
Icy Truth (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:38 amWell LN #45 ,
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:39 amI know of at least one. I’m hoping you think she is not a “semi-prominent” conservative, but Ann Coulter is the first to come to mind. Others were conservative friends of mine who idolize her.
#45 – Don’t you understand? Because “Adam’s Apple” Ann did it that means we all agree with her.
Icy Truth (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:40 am#37 L.N.
World Weekly News was satire presented tabloid-style. I think most people hear tabloid and think ‘sordid gossip peddled as truth.’ It wasn’t that kind of rag. It only presented made up stories, all backed up by humorously named sources at nonexistant institutes. I don’t think they were writing for the Art Bell crowd. I myself didn’t figure it out for years, but got a kick out of it when the joke was uncovered.
Could only be considered tabloid parody. They just weren’t chasing real headlines a la the Globe or Enquirer.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:41 am…So one of the first dismissals that comes up when the Edwards story is discussed is, “You all are gullible fools for believing anything that the National Enquirer publishes. Y’know, Elvis Presley sightings, space aliens, har har.” Edwards’ defenders trotted that out here, as on every other Patterico thread on the subject.
But then comes a simple request: Provide a couple of links to recent National Enquirer stories that illustrate this obvious point.
[crickets chirping]
And on to the second line of defense. Well, he hasn’t been proven to have done anything illegal!
AMac (c822c9) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:50 amThere have been times when a deadlocked convention has turned to a “third choice”. It doesn’t appear that Edwards has any possibility of becoming such a “choice”.
Advantage – Clinton or Obama?
Rick Ballard (0a8990) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:50 amI see your point, jim2, although I think earlier stories said two rooms were registered in the name of Rielle’s companion and not her name. I also agree the reporters probably watched her in the hope Edwards would show up. But I think it’s possible they had an inside tip that led them to believe she would be there. Maybe that tip came from an Edwards’ confidante the reporters had cultivated, or maybe it came from someone else.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:53 amAlso jim2, let me clarify something. I’m not trying to say I know this is a politically-motivated story. My point was that if it is politically-motivated, I think it is more likely to have originated with the Clintons than Obama.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/7/2008 @ 11:57 amReply to #45 and #50
Rush Limbaugh –
On the March 8 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh referred to a March 8 New York Sun article, “Could [former Sen.] John Edwards [D-NC] Become the First Woman President?” to repeatedly mock Edwards as “the Breck Girl,”
I can only wish he’s not a semi-prominent conservative L.N.Smithee, but alas he is.
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 12:07 pmCheck his pay check next year please.
Icy Truth at #50: while it’s certainly true that the fact that Ann Coulter says something is not per se evidence that anyone else believes it, it is also true that she satisfies the request at #45 for an existence proof of a semi-prominent conservative saying something.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/7/2008 @ 12:12 pmRe: My comment at #20 above. Thanks lefties, I was seeking confirmation from nutty crackpots. Now, I’ll take a shower and meet the afternoon sunshine in the full confidence of expecations met. Wow, what a day.
Ropelight (cb4838) — 8/7/2008 @ 12:17 pm“Breck Girl” doesn’t mean he’s gay…
Just a sissy… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 8/7/2008 @ 12:18 pm“Breck girl” is a reference to his ‘perfect’ $400 coif, not to his sexuality at all.
Icy Truth (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 12:50 pm#57 – So?
Dick Cheney (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 12:51 pmOiram wrote: I know of at least one. I’m hoping you think she is not a “semi-prominent” conservative, but Ann Coulter is the first to come to mind. Others were conservative friends of mine who idolize her.
Bookmark this, because you’re not going to see me post this to you too often, if ever again:
Oiram…(Gulp)…you’re right.
John Edwards’ campaign was so long ago and far away that I completely forgot about Coulter. I thought you were going to allege that “Silky Pony” (coined by Laura Ingraham) and “The Breck Girl” (his nick around the Bush WH) were sly suggestions that he was gay. They aren’t.
That I forgot about Coulter’s slur is even more surprising in that I fought her devotees tooth-and-nail about the appropriateness of her remark and whether or not it was funny. If you doubt that, click here and here.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/7/2008 @ 12:52 pmIcy Truth: when did Edwards move to South Carolina? Not that it matters, really, if that’s where the adultery and/or fornication took place.
Xrlq (b71926) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:12 pmI would like it noted that I have never been a devotee of Ann “engaged several times but never been married — hmmm, same story with Laura Ingraham (who I do like)” Coulter. Her remark about Edwards being gay was stupid. Having said that, all he has to do to make articles like this one disappear is prove that he isn’t the father. Alternately, he could just retire from public life altogether (what a concept — go home and take care of your wife).
Best Breck Girl ever: Jaclyn Smith. Hey, at least she got married! (Four times, but still . . .)
Icy Truth (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:14 pmnk wrote:
In this case, I’d say you should give the benefit of the doubt to tyhe Enquirer.
Unless you think that these photos were faked — something which would meet the standard of deliberate malice — it sure looks like the Enquirer knew that they had the goods, and have been using a path of slowly building revelation, in the manner they believe will increase sales the most.
Dana R Pico (3e4784) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:20 pmThe Breck ads were very weird. The whole paint/and/photo style was a little unsettling. John Edwards does look the part.
That said, Ann is offensive, even those who get her point would ask her to go back to the drawing board and edit. (The WTC widow story was a good victim analogy, but too blunt for the dummies that don’t dig deep for context.)
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:20 pm#62
Let’s see, bookmark browser, How should I call it?
“I was finally right about something on Patterico”…….. and save. *click*
No Problem L.N.
Did Laura Ingram actually call Ann Coulter a “Silky Pony”?
That’s funny, I actually like Laura, while I’m disagreeing with almost everything she says of course 🙂
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:27 pm#63 – Xrlq
Sorry. Mixed it up with where he was born (Seneca, South Carolina).
North Carolina statute:
Icy Truth (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:28 pm§ 14‑184. Fornication and adultery.
If any man and woman, not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together, they shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor: Provided, that the admissions or confessions of one shall not be received in evidence against the other. (1805, c. 684, P.R.; R.C., c. 34, s. 45; Code, s. 1041; Rev., s. 3350; C.S., s. 4343; 1969, c. 1224, s. 9; 1993, c. 539, s. 119; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
The lovely Miss Coulter referred to Mr Edwards as a “faggot.” I’m not certain why calling him a bundle of sticks says anything about his sexuality, but apparently it does.
Dana R Pico (3e4784) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:33 pmIcy Truth, at #68: that seems no more likely to be consistent with Lawrence than the last one.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:36 pmDana R Pico, at 69: all joking aside, “faggot” is regularly used as a term of derision by straight people talking about gay men … to the point where that meaning of the word is the default meaning in my social circle, and to the point where the word is considered to be no more acceptable in polite company than “nigger”.
I think it’s clear that Mrs. Coulter’s use of the word was intended to be insulting and obnoxious.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:38 pmOiram wrote: On the March 8 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh referred to a March 8 New York Sun article, “Could [former Sen.] John Edwards [D-NC] Become the First Woman President?” to repeatedly mock Edwards as “the Breck Girl,”
Cool, I get to tell you you’re wrong again! Whew!
Rush was referencing a Josh Gerstein piece from the New York Sun published March 8, 2007 about an appearance by Feminazi Kate Michaelman of NARAL North America, who endorsed Edwards over Hillary.
As I am sure someone has posted by now, the nickname “The Breck Girl” has nothing to do with his sexual leanings and everything to do with his the rich, shiny body wave atop and around his head. John Kerry even jokingly said at a campaign event that he and Edwards had better hair than Bush and Cheney.
You may be too young to remember Breck Girls. Educate yourself.
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:38 pmOiram – Did Laura Ingram actually call Ann Coulter a “Silky Pony”?
— No. She called John Edwards a “silky pony”, something she has done at least since 2004 and continues to do on both her radio show and on her website.
Icy Truth (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:39 pmI posted a response to Oiram’s allegation that Rush made the implication as well, but it may have been too large and the links may have looked like spam to Word Press.
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:45 pmSo me singing the song from that Kids in the Hall skit would be bad? 🙂
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:47 pmAs far as John Edwards being called a bundle of sticks, it seems just fine that he can claim to render little kids’ voices from the metaphysical world to win huge jury awards. Is this guy a charlatan or what? Iswas honky dory for Mrs. Edwards to show up on talk radio to call Ann Coulter on the faggot remark. But now she can’t come out and lambast the National Enquirer stories? Even phony Lurch sKerry found fault with his running mate. Both are totally phony jerkwads from what I’ve observed while still waiting for the nuanced one to release his military records that Jimmy Carter either did or did not rehabilitate as far as duscharge status.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:48 pmScott Jacobs: well, there is special dispensation for comedy. See, eg, Big Gay Al. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:49 pmaphrael –
I am not seriously suggesting that he should be prosecuted. I’m responding to and refuting Oiram’s statement in #30, “Please get back to me on that last statement when Edwards is accused of something criminal and pleads guilty.” My point is there are laws on the books, laws that I admit are almost never enforced, but more importantly are the morals of this man that — even considering the source of the allegation — have now come into serious question. Oiram blows it off as if it doesn’t matter unless Edwards is convicted of a crime.
Icy Truth (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:50 pmI found your comment, LN, and it’s now #72. I’m sure it was the links and I’m glad you mentioned it. I enjoy your comments but I especially wouldn’t want to miss the Breck Girls link. That took me back a few years.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:51 pmIcy Truth wrote: …all he has to do to make articles like this one disappear is prove that he isn’t the father.
Paging Maury Povich!
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 8/7/2008 @ 1:52 pmCan’t you see Edwards strutting out onto that stage, flashing gang signs, shouting at the crowd “You don’t know me. You don’t *BLEEP* know me!” Elizabeth pushing his chair as far away from her as possible; Maury finger-pointing: “I want to know one thing. Are you going to be there for this child?” Edwards smirking into the camera: “I’ll do what I gots to do.” A smattering of applause from the women in the audience with daddy issues. Then, “When it comes to ____ year-old ______, you are______.” Talk about drama!
Icy Truth (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 2:02 pmResponse to #78
Well ICY, what do you expect me to do?
When I see Larry Craig’s name being referenced along with Edwards all throughout the comments, I’m going to bring up the fact that you have two men, one accused of a crime and admitting guilty, and the other accused of adultly which if it is a crime it’s almost never enforced.
It’s poor politics (all these accusations), whether it’s done by the Dems or the Repubs. But when you have a guy like Craig pleading guilty, sorry it suddenly becomes apples and oranges to me.
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 2:14 pm#72 L.N. I do remember the breck girls.
Last time I checked, when you refer to someone as a girl, it can be assumed you think he might be gay. Couple that with Coulter calling Edwards a F*GG*t (which I’m sure one influenced the other) and it looks like I’m not assuming anymore.
Change the discourse all you like folks, before the joke was that Edwards was gay, now the it’s that he’s an adulter.
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 2:22 pmThe reason I brought up all of this was to show the silliness of politics that go on. Both sides do it! I’m not being all high and mighty here. Who ever is still reading my rant……. I’m not saying it’s only the Conservatives. Please note that.
It is apples to unicorns, Oiram.
LN – Rush calling Silky the frist female President is not referencing Edwards’ sexuality, but rather, his manliness, or lack thereof. There is a difference.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/7/2008 @ 2:23 pmOiram –
The “Breck Girl” was an ad campaign for Breck shampoo; those of us old enough to remember the 70’s saw those ads on TV all the time. The comparison is made because of the similarity in his vanity obsession with his silky (hence the “silky pony” reference) ‘do’. For the fact that it has “girl” in the name you can draw whatever goofy conclusion you want; the term was coined for him in reference to his appearance, and maybe an implied lack of substance beneath it, period.
Icy Truth (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 2:39 pmI agree with Icy Truth. Calling Edwards a “Breck Girl” is simply a reference to his excessive vanity about his hair. Vanity is a characteristic more often associated with women than men and it’s easy to make fun of vain men, but that’s not the same as saying they are gay. Ask Carly Simon.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/7/2008 @ 2:42 pm#84
Wow, I’m trying to see that difference JD, but I still can’t.
Your saying that if someone says that a male will be the next female president that I shouldn’t expect everyone to question his sexuality? Especially when a fellow colleague (coulter) calls him a F#$*got?
Do you see my dilemma here?
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 2:45 pm#82 – Oiram
When I see Larry Craig’s name being referenced along with Edwards all throughout the comments
— One time, in madmax333’s comment #35.
It’s poor politics (all these accusations), whether it’s done by the Dems or the Repubs. But when you have a guy like Craig pleading guilty, sorry it suddenly becomes apples and oranges to me.
— The reason why it isn’t “apples and oranges” is because it is about right and wrong, not legal and illegal.
Icy Truth (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 2:45 pm#86 – DRJ
— The best thing about “You’re So Vain” is that it’s supposedly about Mick Jagger and he sings backup vocals on the track, the accusatory “I bet you think this song is about you, don’t you? don’t you?” I wonder if she had him sing it standing in front of a mirror? Brilliant.
Icy Truth (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 2:48 pmIt was his wife, Elizabeth, who first started calling Edwards “The Breck Girl”.
nk (e38352) — 8/7/2008 @ 2:52 pm#85 I got the silky pony reference (Ingram right?)
And I don’t see sexuality implications there, in fact it’s quite funny.
And I do get a chuckle out of the breck girl reference (I am old enough to remember):(
But it still strikes me as strange that I’m the only one who sees that people, (Republicans and Dems as well) perceived Edwards as a homosexual, and low and behold now he’s accused of a straight act.
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 2:54 pmI don’t think that “pretty-boy” equals homosexual. Gigolo, maybe.
nk (e38352) — 8/7/2008 @ 3:03 pm(Ingram right?)
— Ingraham
But it still strikes me as strange . . .
Icy Truth (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 3:04 pm— People that “perceived Edwards as a homosexual” didn’t really do so. They were engaging in low-brow name-calling. They were wrong but it really has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
#93
And the issue is the need to call out a Man who may or may not have been engaged in an affair. And one of the sources is the National Enquirer.
Is the point here that Democrats are as adulteress as Republicans?
If it is, I think we knew that.
Lets stick to politics people.
I don’t need to know what the man does in his off time. Criticize his politics, but the bedroom should remain well….. in the bedroom.
Original post was one of the silliest here, I can’t believe I wasted all of this time and everyone else’s.
Oiram (983921) — 8/7/2008 @ 3:14 pm#94 Yes indeed, let’s stick to politics when the heat is turned up on Edwards allegedly fathering a child out of wedlock and going to great lengths to conceal the facts and launder the hush payments.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/7/2008 @ 5:06 pmOtherwise it is just dandy that the NY Times can use innuendos on the front page about an alleged affair between McCain and a lobbyists years ago, with no actual on the record witnesses?
Private Sex is off-limits unless it is usable against a lib rival. Witness the unsealing of otherwise sacrosanct divorce records of the Ryans during Obama’s run for US Senate.
Original post was one of the silliest here, I can’t believe I wasted all of this time and everyone else’s.
— You could have stayed away. I don’t respond to every article posted here.
Icy Truth (23d64b) — 8/7/2008 @ 5:21 pmMissing from the debate here is MSM’s almost total blackout of this story, and their phony and illogical excuse that respectable news outlets are justified in protecting the prominant Democrat candidate because he was exposed in the National Enquirer.
To the wrongheaded MSM the issue isn’t whether John Edwards cheated on his wife and fathered a “love child” but whether the NE is authorized to publish information at odds with Democrat Party interests.
Ropelight (cb4838) — 8/8/2008 @ 9:25 amUPDATE: The story is true.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195&page=1
— And, even if I’m not the first to say it, I TOLD YOU SO!
Icy Truth (db73ab) — 8/8/2008 @ 12:18 pm“I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky”.
“Well, I had an affair, but my wife was in remission and the kid isn’t mine and furthermore I didn’t pay out any money to her. My friends may have, but I’m unaware of it.”
Doesn’t this qualify the Breck Girl for adulation by the NOW crowd. Powerful men have pwoerful sex drives, we’ve been told before about Clinton.
This rollercoaster of a story should ensure Edwards’ status as a liberal icon and shows his hunan side. Let those who are without sin cast the first stone….
O!bama/ Edwards in ’08 or at least JE for AJ.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/8/2008 @ 12:28 pmDamn that National Enquirer rag for invading the man’s privacy with his wife having carcinoam yet!
Edwards has admitted it, and ABC is running with the story.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/8/2008 @ 12:52 pmApparently nk should have given the benefit of the doubt to The National Enquirer. 🙂
Dana R Pico (3e4784) — 8/8/2008 @ 12:52 pmMr Edwards was rumored to have been interested in becoming Attorney General, but perhaps Secretary of Health and Human Services would be more appropriate. 🙂
Dana R Pico (3e4784) — 8/8/2008 @ 1:14 pmI’m shocked, shocked that illicit sex has been going on in the Edwards campaign. What’s the matter with people (like me) who jump to conclusions, make wild accusatioens, and impune the reputations of otherwise honorable Democrat candidates for the Presidency?
All this goes to prove that supermarket tabloids just can’t be trusted, no sir, you just can’t take anything printed on a dead tree for granted.
Ropelight (cb4838) — 8/8/2008 @ 1:16 pmI am totally disillusioned. My ideals have been shattered like so many wine glasses around Ella Fitzgerald. Do you mean to tell me that there were two women who wanted to have sex with Edwards?
nk (e38352) — 8/8/2008 @ 2:37 pmHis defense that he was just researching breast cancer with Rielle ended up not polling well.
dualdiagnosis (16af02) — 8/9/2008 @ 1:51 amThat’s right; he was “polling the electorate”. Or is that “pole-ing”? Or is it “erectorate”?
Icy Truth (c1347d) — 8/9/2008 @ 1:58 am