Penetrating Insights into the Obvious
Posted on 08/10/2008 2:39:43 PM PDT by pissant
The confession of John Edwards was, to me, worthy of attention for a few reasons, but not worthy of endless analysis. The guy's chances at being Obama's running mate or attorney general are shot to hell.
Having said that... there are at least two glaring questions that suggest Edwards' explanation consists of additional lies. (Besides his claim that the affair started after she was hired by his PAC, and not before, which appears to be contradicted by the PAC billing records.)
If the affair ended in 2006, why were Edwards and Hunter meeting in the Beverly Hills Hilton from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. last month? Beyond that... if the child is not his, why did she bring the baby to their late-night meeting?
The official Edwards explanation is that he met, without telling Elizabeth, for a secret meeting at a luxury hotel room from 9:45 p.m to 2:40 p.m., in order to not have sex, while a friend took care of the child in a room several doors down (according to the Enquirer's account), and that after they had spent time together in the room not having sex, he told her, "hey, let's bring in your infant that I am not the father of, I would be happy to caress the adorable little child that I did not sire." Because philanderers are legendarily concerned about the offspring of their ex-mistresses.
Edwards, helpfully, says he has no idea if the Enquirer's picture of him holding the child is real or not:
Last week, the Enquirer published a blurry photo of a man who looks like Edwards holding a baby. The tabloid said the photo was taken at the hotel.
"I don't know if that picture is me," Edwards said. "It could well be. It looks like me. I don't know who that baby is. I have no idea what the picture is."
When pressed by Woodruff, Edwards continued: "I mean, do you know how many pictures have been taken of me holding children in the last three years? I mean, it happens all the time."
This man thinks we're stupid. And some people are indeed buying this.
That’s the assumption that all his campaigns have been based on.
What a silly question! Every mother intentionally disrupts a baby's sleep in the middle of the night.
The Breck girl is just like any other liberals who think that everyone but but them are idiots and can be fooled. There is nothing new there
Does anyone know the track record of these tabloids? It sounds like they nailed this story. I wonder how often they are wrong or have to retract stories or get sued?
I think Carol Burnett sued a tabloid years ago, but don’t know what came of that.
And Annette Funicello disclosed to the world that she has MS because tabloid innuendo was that she was falling down drunk frequently in public. But her appearence was due to MS, which she had hoped to keep private, but couldn’t because the tabloid people followed her around.
How about his admission that he became self-centered and ego-centric and narcissistic? I felt like I was watching a Dr. Phil or Oprah type show.
That’s hilarious! “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
I'm curious if there has been any statement by the National Enquirer or even speculation vis a vis the method used to shoot the photo. It had to be done without Edward's knowledge unless he is a complete idiot.
Any ideas anyone?
I bet the picture is him. But who knows; do you know how many pictures of him holding babies have been taken?
The reason he was there visiting was because she had some undisclosed personal problem and she needed his help. if you can believe what he is saying.
What do you do with a known liar? How do you know when they are really telling the truth? Maybe he’s still lying about various details, such as him not being the father. There’s no legal father since there’s no father on the birth certificate. Why was that done?
there’s unanswered questions here. A key one is the money trail,and what the quid pro quo is for getting the money. A big one is why is no father on the birth cert. And another one is why this Hunter woman says she will not pursue DNA testing to determine who the father is.
Speaking of the money trail, apparently Edwards’ campaign finance man paid her the money. If campaign funds were involved with these payoffs, Edwards could find himself in legal hot water.
Edwards: It was bring you child to work day
Just like John Edwards said, there are two Americas.
One is the vision once shared by all genuine American citizens, the “shining city on the hill” that was the beacon of hope for the world.
The other is the nasty stereotypes that are reiterated in print and visual media, that show America to be a place of rampant crime, special interests, boiling injustices, cruelties beyond description, and oppressive in every way.
Guess which one he would end up presenting to the world.
It could have been a porter or room service coming to the hotel room door with a camera hidden on them somewhere. It could have been a maid bringing in more towels. Lots of possibilities. Not hard at all to imagine. Don’t you know how much $$$$ the National Enquirer would pay for photos like this? They had advance notice of Edwards headed there, which was plenty of time to set it all up.
“Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is open and laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give an account.” Hebrews 4:13
******************
Of course!
Edwards' definition of work:
Having sex with a woman who is not his wife.
See? It all makes sense now. He's not a liar, he simply has his own interpretations of the words "work", "fidelity" and well, everything.
If Edwards is speaking, he is lying.
If Pelosi is speaking she is lying.
If Clinton is speaking, he/she is lying.
If Obama is speaking, he is lying.
Most Americans get it.
Democrats = Liars.
Silky Ponies are NOT noted for their intelligence.
But, boy are they hung.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.