In his 2002 memoir, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain wrote that he had separated from Carol before he began dating Hensley.
"I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow," McCain wrote. "I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980."
An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had "cohabited" until Jan. 7 of that year -- or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.
Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.
no_vaseline said:Edwards had as much chance of getting the VP nod as Gray Davis. He's certainly not a candidate now.
no_vaeline said:But why let something like that influence an election or public opinion.
NoWowway said:Well the Edwards "story" got much more popular press than Russia fighting and invading Georgia yesterday.
If we can just keep focused on the petty piccodillos, instead of the big picture of the world, our dollar will eventually be trading below peso value!
Good work, Morality Scouts, for keeping the focus squarely on the most impactful issues.
no_vaseline said:Or most important: Is it any of our business?
WINEX said:no_vaseline said:Edwards had as much chance of getting the VP nod as Gray Davis. He's certainly not a candidate now.
That all depends.
No it doesn't. John Edwards isn't a candiate for anything.
Here's the quote from Nightline Friday Night:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=5544981&page=3
WOODRUFF: Do you think your political career is completely over?
EDWARDS: I'm not sure I had a political career for the future anyway. I'm not sure that politics was what I wanted to spend my life doing.
If liberal apologists are able to bury a story as being "so yesterday" even while CNN is airing special programs on the subject, then he can be rehabilitated. While I will agree with anyone that John Edwards is a liar, a hypocrite, and an empty suit who would ruin this country if given a chance to exercise his quest for power, the fact is that until yesterday, he was on the short list of VP picks for Obambi. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/08/edwards-would-seriously-consider-vp-offer/)
Even though John Edwards only served a single term in the US Senate, he would bring a lot more experience to the ticket than Obambi has.
An observation - your party candidate isn't your candidate of choice and is getting waxed in the poles and losing 2:1 where the real smart money is at ISAbet. This gives you license to be bitter, but does not give you license to be disrespectful, and you're doing it again.
It won't matter because based on the "morality test critera" you won't be voting for McCain in the fall anyway.
no_vaeline said:But why let something like that influence an election or public opinion.
Because it brings serious questions about his integrity to light.
What was Edwards doing last month alone in the hotel room at 3:00 am of a woman that he had an affair with that supposedly ended 2 years ago?
Why is Edwards paying her $15,000 a month?
Is that $15,000 a month coming from campaign contributions?
What about the $100,000 that he did give her from campaign contributions for producing 4 YouTube videos in 2006? (Sourcehttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/08/politics/main4333667.shtml)
WINEX said:Sorry No_Vaseline, no offense was intended. O-Bambi is meant to convey that he is inexperienced and a "little deer".
He was, at least in some camps, being considered for VP if a strategy for the southern states proved viable. Trying to portray him as some washed-up hack is disingenous, at best.
We're not taking on a nuclear power face to face unless they fire first. Not now, not ever. Russia may be a lot of things but first and foremost it is still a country with missiles, capable of taking out major portions of our population with the press of a button. Georgie may be our ally, we may have trained and armed their forces, we might even have signed trade and protection treaties with them, but we aren't going to go and protect their borders or their citizens with American lives. Not to mention that we don't have the forces to respond in a way that would end any conflict, nor have we ever had a force of soldiers with the ability to deploy rapidly enough to prevent more bloodshed in South Ossetia. Considering that Russia is backing a movement that seeks to break away from Georgia, the line is blurred between internal rebellion and outside invasion. Georgia has not been over-run by the Russians in the way that Kuwait was in 1990. Until they are, don't expect much more than a useless UN resolution from politicians, or muted references in the national media; it's not a story until a government is overthrown.My own personal problem is that it has been difficult as hell to get the story of Russia and Georgia, in the initial days. Georgia, has been one of our “coalition of the willing” in the war and has bought into the whole democracy thing. We’re just sitting around letting them get their rumps kicked. Meantime our own president is sitting right next to Putin at the Olympic Games.... giving the impression of what? That we don’t care about our most loyal of friends in the world? Our COUNTRY’S reputation is at least as important as a candidate’s conduct, don’t you think?