printEdwards had been carrying on with a younger, less classy, washed-out version of Camilla Parker-Bowles. Check Rielle Hunter out.
What have I gleaned from this unremarkable affair?
Nothing new. The man’s ambulance-chasing legal career already established him as a primo sleaze bag. Oddly enough, his public confession or statement reveals much more about his lack of character than the affair, which is a transgression many good people have committed. Edwards mischaracterized his 100 percent deceitfulness as being “99 percent honest.”
What else, other than that many men like simple, slag-like women?
That the National Inquirer is still the unsung newspaper of record in America, a reputation it established during the O.J. trial.
And that there is a reason Ann Coulter’s shallow fare is more popular than, dare I say, more substantial stuff.
I couldn’t be less interested in this Edwards “story” but I can’t believe the amount of “ink” it has received. I think that Elizabeth Edwards was correct when she publicly stated her hope that this matter would be kept private. From my perspective, this non-issue has no effect on the campaigns, the nominations, or the election, and is about as interesting as the number of fish that someone or other caught this weekend on a deep-sea fishing trip.
I trust the National Inquirer more than the mainstream newspapers, television and magazines. The Inquirer doesn’t take themselves as seriously and is far more honest in their reporting.
Is anybody shocked that this wavy-haired empty suit turned out to be a sleaze ball? I’m amazed he hasn’t joined his peers in the halls of government. He’s just the kind of amoral pile of yak dung we usually vote for.
Ah, it’s a juicy and delicious scandal! Sure I wish that ours was the sort of world where the man’s stupid ideas were the scandal — but it’s not. It’s a pwoggy, pwoggy world. Oh well, we take what we can get.
Ilana, I don’t think Hunter is bad looking. But from the account in newsweek ( http://www.newsweek.com/id/151783 ), she’s an utter fruitcake. Astrology, karma, “energy”, reincarnation, make-things-happen-via-imagining them, etc. To my mind the craziest thing about Edwards is that for all his power, money, and good looks, he settles on that for his mistress. I wouldn’t touch a woman like that for money.
Ann Coulter’s ‘shallow fare’ is a good representation and discription of conservatism. In fact, I would say that she is shallow because she is a conservative.
Conservatives have lost a lot because they dont really offer any meaningful changes in society. They argue for the free market, yet dont dare touch issues like abolishing the minimum wage, or anti-trust laws. Talking to them about how we need to get rid of tons of government programs and agencies and they’ll look at you like a loon. Why, you would get of THAT? (big frown, wide eyes). You must be one of THEM. (BTW, to any conservative reading this, who exactly are they referring too?)
They don’t really want to get rid of liberal institutions (only those wierd radicals want that), they just want to ‘reform’ them. Reform socialist entities like Medicare? By golly, you guys are brilliant!
Conservatives are helpful when they argue for second ammendment rights, but I’m nearly convinced that if they lost, they would not fight to re-instate it, they would fight to ‘reform’ it, i.e., argue that we should make exceptions to the rule against gun laws. In fact, I hear some doing this already.
To sum it up, conservatives are the great reformers of liberal institutions. Show me a conservative, and I’ll show you someone who is only slightly economically less clueless than a liberal.