I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established.

Drew asks, "What the hell does 'hopeful' mean?" If he wants a test, he can have it. Sounds to me like a set-up for Andrew Young to step in and say, "No, as the baby's father, I forbid that," and then Edwards says, "See? I tried!"

Here's that statement.

Edwards also confessed,

In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic... I think I was drawn to Rielle Hunter due to her uncanny resemblance to actor Lee Marvin. Long have I fantasized about being a wounded Franko, held lovingly in Major Reisman's powerful arms.

Okay, I made up all the Lee Marvin stuff up there. But the "narcissistic" stuff is accurate.

Barack Bleed-Through? Edwards' confession that narcissism, egotism, and "specialness" led him to scandal and disgrace can't help Barack Obama... We're just right now in the middle of a national discussion as to whether he's uppity similarly arrogant, narcissistic, egotistical, self-absorbed, and quite frankly Messianic.

It might not mean much, but for all those people saying "So what if he's uppity narcissistic?," well, John Edwards is your answer. That's why it matters.

Posted by: Ace at 01:34 PM | Comments (43)
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

This guy is doing a better job of keeping his cool than 99% of reporters would in the same situation. You've GOTTA respect a man who can avoid freaking out & shreiking like a little girl when a giant snake starts trying to get to 3rd base with your family jewels.

Me? I'd like to think that I could be that cool, because I'm a big fan of snakes. Just so long as its not wasps or spiders. Those damn things creep me out, and I'm not ashamed to admit that I would probably cry like a baby.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 12:57 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

Yes, there is more in the news today than Democractic sex, which, frankly, I'm already tired of thinking about. The Georgia situation is worth keeping an eye on.

Georgia has announced that it will recall its troops from Iraq. We trained several thousand Georgian soldiers over the past few years and also have kept advisers to the Georgian Security Council. 2,000 Georgian troops currently support our efforts in Iraq, making it the third largest contributor to the Iraq War coalition. Logistically, they cannot just leave on a minute's notice; they don't have the means to transport all the troops at once. Georgian President Saakashvili says the recall will begin tomorrow.

Expect updates on the war until I decide that it's not going to become a larger problem. As Drew mentioned to me earlier today, "I've heard this before...oh yeah Summer 1914."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 12:36 PM | Comments (29)
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the last updates at Hot Air.

So that's the story you guys have agreed on, huh? You're not complicit in this. You didn't abandon journalism altogether based on your partisan rooting interests and personal attachments, huh?

You were used by John Edwards, huh? He told you "Don't dig into this trash" and you believed him and covered for him and didn't devote any resources to determining if he was lying or truthful, but he's the bad guy, huh?

And you're the innocent victims?

Okay.

"Protect Elizabeth" has become "Protect the Dying Guild Media and Our Ever-Diminishing Credibility and Tenuous Job Security."

And if you thought they were fighting hard for the former, wait 'till you see how hard they fight for the latter.

Did I say this was the MSM's Waterloo? This was their crossing of the Rubicon? This was their casting of the die?

I think I did.

As has often been said: They're not even trying to hide it anymore.

But in this case, they made the mistake of not-even-trying-to-hide it on a story that the non-news-following public was actually following closely. They knew all about this story. They knew it was true.

And they got to witness, many for the first time ever, what we newshawks see day-in, day-out: The media burying/embargoing/blacking out stories based on personal and political rooting interests.

They do this all the time, of course. But for the first time, a substantial fraction of the pubic actually noticed them doing it, and must have been wondering, "What the fuck exactly is going on here? Why is this story being blacked out by so-called 'news services' which exist, supposedly, to provide me with information?"

This wasn't merely a crime; it was a mistake.

Posted by: Ace at 12:27 PM | Comments (34)
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

In February the education blogosphere and parts of the political blogosphere went nuts after the California Court of Appeals held that parents did not have a constitutionally protected right to homeschooling and that California law requires that students who are homeschooled be taught by someone with a teaching credential. At the time, I was one of the few people to point out that the decision was not a danger to parents who homeschool their children under the private school exemption, a theory which had not been argued by the parties in the case. I wrote:

So, generally, parents have three options for educating their kids in California: (1) public school; (2) private school; or (3) credentialed tutor. This is not as bad for homeschoolers as it looks. To be a private school in California, all the parent has to do is be “capable of teaching” the required subjects in the English language and offer instruction in the same “branches of study” required to be taught in the public schools. They also have to keep a register of enrollment at their “school” and a record of attendance. Once a year they have to file an affidavit with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction with things like their names and address, the names of the students and their addresses, a criminal background check (since we don’t want unsupervised felons teaching kids), and their attendance register. That’s it.

In the Longs’ case, they attempted to claim that their children were enrolled in a “valid charter school” and that the school was supervising the mothers’ instruction in the home. It is unclear from the court’s opinion, but it looks like the parents tried to argue that the children were enrolled in a public school (since all charter schools in California are public schools). But since they obviously couldn’t meet any of the attendance requirements for public schools*, the court also examined the question of whether the parents were credentialed. Since they obviously aren’t, the court kicked it back to the lower court to order them to “enroll their children in a public full-time day school, or a legally qualified private full-time day school.” It looks like the parents never bothered to argue that they were running their own private school in compliance with § 48222.

Today, the Court of Appeals has released a new opinion (PDF) in the case which replaces and overrides the earlier one. Parents still have no constitutionally protected right to homeschool their children, which I continue to believe is the proper result. The Long's children may still be required to attend public schools if the trial court (on remand) determines it is necessary for the safety of the children. And the court comes to the same conclusion as I did about homeschooling under the private school exemption and the applicability to this case:

The remaining restrictions on home schooling in California, which are not at issue in this case, include: (a) home schooling parents must file a private school affidavit; (b) home schooling parents must be capable of teaching; (c) home schooling parents must teach in English and shall offer instruction in the subjects required to be taught in public schools; and (d) home school education must be a “full-time” school. (See also the extended discussion of the private school exemption at pages 19-21 of this opinion.) We express no opinion on whether any of these requirements have been met by the home schooling at issue in this case.

Most homeschooling in California takes place under the private school exemption. Those homeschoolers may now breath a sigh of relief (though, they were never in any danger, as I wrote). Unusual cases, like the Long's who fell in with the shady Sunland Christian School which purports to be a charter school, need to comply with the fairly straightforward requirements to operate as a private school. The requirements are not difficult to meet, certainly no more difficult than actually teaching your children. And as the new opinion discusses, the smallest of private schools have numerous special protections which were almost certainly intended by the legislature to apply to homeschoolers.

One Other Thing: The original, panicked meme that attached itself to this case was that the court of appeals had outlawed homeschooling without a credential. That was mistaken at the time, but it continues to be the general claim made about that opinion and is repeated in today's reporting of the case, for example at the San Francisco Chronicle and here at the California Homeschool Network.

Update for Clarity: Homeschooling in California does not require a teaching credential. (Just as I wrote in February.)

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 12:14 PM | Comments (29)
Post contains 783 words, total size 5 kb.

Kaus previewed the pattern the other day.

We all know this playbook from the Clinton Impeachment Wars.

IÂ’m assuming weÂ’re reaching the next-to-final stage of the natural progression in cases like this: 1) Too horrible and shocking; it canÂ’t possibly be true; 2) ItÂ’s not true; 3) You canÂ’t prove itÂ’s true; 4) Why are you trying to prove itÂ’s true? 5) ItÂ’s disgusting that youÂ’ve proved itÂ’s true; 6) WhatÂ’s the big deal anyway?

I'm always stunned by the rapid transformation to step 6. If it was no big deal in the first place, why the fuck were you denying it so vehemently and tearing into people for suggesting such a "no big deal" of a thing?

That's from Allah, with a lot of thoughts. He links Spruiell making this kinda-obvious point, but Spruiell has at least made it official by checking the calendar:

Elizabeth Edwards was diagnosed with incurable cancer in late March of 2007. Rielle HunterÂ’s baby was born in late February of 2008. That means that if Edwards is the father, he was definitely still carrying on the affair with Hunter after he knew his wifeÂ’s cancer was back.

Yes, he's almost certainly lying. Will the Committee to Protect Elizabeth now move on to blocking any inquiry into the child's paternity and Edwards' "friends'" "possible" payoffs of Rielle Hunter?

Look, Elizabeth Edwards still needs lots of protecting. Even more so now, if you think about it.

We can't expect the MSM to leave the field of battle before the war is actually won. They only suggest that course of action in actual wars.

OPERATION PROTECT ELIZABETH

Never leave a fellow liberal soldier behind, and never stop fighting until the battle is won. The campaign continues.

"All the News That Doesn't Harm Elizabeth Edwards"

I really can't fucking believe the media is now deciding whether to report big stories of national scope based on whether someone they like might be distressed by their reportage.

Of course I can believe it; I have to believe it. It's what they're doing, obviously.

I guess the New York Times didn't like Cindy McCain all that much when it reported on McCain's non-affair with his non-paramour.

Should media organizations be required to disclose which people they "like" and wish to "protect," and which people they "don't like" and "don't wish to protect," so that we might know beforehand where their biases may lie?

Seems like a bona fide conflict of interest, more so than many others. If the media is in the tank for Elizabeth Edwards, we need to know that, in order to properly evaluate their coverage of her husband.

National Enquirer Editor Cries Bullshit: David Perel, editor of the NE, is on FoxNews now... Or was fifteen minutes ago. All he said there was that Edwards' claims "don't ring true."

Stace says that on Hannity he went beyond that and said that Edwards was the father, and promises "more to come," but not having heard that, I can't confirm it.

From what I heard, he's simply saying "this is almost certainly pure bullshit" like the rest of us are.

We'll see what other pictures he has.

Big Question: And an important one.

Did the Democratic Party force Edwards to confess, or was it the threat of Brian Ross' coming report on ABCNews?

It matters. If it's the former, than the MSM chose to let the Democratic Party sort out its house on its own schedule, being so kind-hearted as to allow them to take care of their business without media intrusion. Only once the Democratic Party had decided Edwards' had to come clean did the media begin reporting (and only because Edwards himself came forward).

Which is called collusion.

Posted by: Ace at 12:01 PM | Comments (25)
Post contains 628 words, total size 4 kb.

Breaking.

DO NOT CLICK [ace]: This post has been censored by the Committee to Protect Elizabeth (acronym: MSM).

Story: I'm bold-facing the stuff that really makes John Edwards look like a hell of a guy.

Faggot? No fuckin' way. Only a straight guy could treat women this viciously.

John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extramarital affair with a novice filmmaker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today.

In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 44-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

I didn't inhale... her pheremones.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.

Uh-huh.

Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby's birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father.

A former campaign aide, Andrew Young, has said he was the father of the child.

Read: Reille Hunter has been passed around more than a bong at a Phish concert.

What a sweetheart.

According to friends of Hunter, Edwards met her at a New York city bar in 2006....

Edwards said his wife, Elizabeth, and others in his family became aware of the affair in 2006.

Edwards made a point of telling Woodruff that his wife's cancer was in remission when he began the affair with Hunter.

He seems to be denying paternity in order to avoid confessing he was schtupping this woman while his wife was dying of incurable cancer.

"Hey, I just fucked her when Elizabeth was in remission. It's like the Area Code theory, you know? If you're in another Area Code, or your wife is in remission, it's not really 'cheating.'"

This underscores the point I've been making, implicitly, for some time. "Protect Elizabeth"? Give me a fucking break.

You think she hasn't heard?

"I Didn't Love Her:" It occurs to me that Edwards is trying to not be a scumbag here, actually, by trying to reduce the pain for his wife by insisting he didn't love the other woman.

It probably doesn't help all that much -- I'm not sure that "it was just sexual" helps women cope, either -- but maybe his intentions are good here. I mean, he did a lot of bad stuff here along the way, but maybe on this point he's trying to mitigate the distress he's caused his wife.

More:

Edwards today admitted the National Enquirer was correct when it reported he had visited Hunter at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month.

The former Senator said his wife had not known about the meeting.

Yeah, you can never trust that National Enquirer. They make libelous claims all the fucking time, because they have all these writerly romanticized notions of bankruptcy and massive personal judgments.

So.... He was in Rielle Hunter's hotel room at 3 am, with "Andrew Young's Child" present, holding it and sweeping about, and probably having sex with Hunter. (Though I'm sure he denies that.)

He's having sex in front of someone else's kid? He's holding someone else's baby?

Okay.

ZOMFG: Better and better. Fucking Goldmine.

Edwards denied paying any money to Hunter to keep her from going public but said it was possible some of his friends or supporters may have made payments without telling him.

Uh... huh. That's what friends do all the time. They pay your mistresses off to keep them quiet to protect you and also don't tell you about their incredible munificence, just to protect you further and keep you out of the loop.

The number of Secret Ace Babies that my old college buds are currently supporting without my knowledge runs into at least the high teens, I'm pretty sure.

They just do this stuff for me. Why? I don't know. They're just really, really, really good friends. They're like the most awsomely awesomacious friends in the whole awesome world.

Hmmm... Nixon tried admitting some, while denying the worst of it, in a gambit called the "Modified Limited Hang-Out." Clinton tried this too.

Did John Edwards just try the "Modified Limited Pull-Out"?

Posted by: DrewM at 11:00 AM | Comments (168)
Post contains 756 words, total size 5 kb.

One of Obama's more odious and cynical and, quite frankly, Mafia-friendly sops to big, ugly labor is his support of the "Employee Free Choice Act," the Orwellian-named bill that would strip workers of their right to a private, secret ballot in deciding to unionize (or make subsequent union decisions generally, I think).

It doesn't give them free choice. They have free choice now. What it does is take away their free choice. Unions do some good, but they're thuggish in their tactics. When you're asked if you want to unionize, in a public "vote," with several beefy dudes of questionable occupational skills dressed in sharkskin suits from Brooks Brothers' "Caporegime" Collection, well, I think it's pretty fucking obvious which way you're going to "vote."

Which is why the unions are so keen on this bill. It's a guaranteed unionization in every shop in America, because no one is going to stand up to the union thugs in a public vote.

They don't have to make overt threats. Their reputations precede them.

This is such a transparent disempowerment of workers' rights to unionize, or not unionize, that even George Fucking McGovern is troubled by it.

Nor is this Obama's only nod to the Bad Old Days of unionized mobsterism. He supports ending the ongoing federal oversight of the mobbed-up Teamsters' Union, basically for no reason except the Chicago Outfit is chafing under such oversight and wants their piece of the action again. That highly critical article is from the very liberal, very pro-union TNR, to give you an idea of just how odious, unprincipled, cynical, and mob-friendly Obama's union policies are.

Who knew that when Obama said this country wasn't what it once was, he had in mind the Golden Days of 40s/50s Mafia control of unions?

Posted by: Ace at 10:59 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

10. "Cease and desist all support of the GOP immediately, or I will be forced, per my right of redress as defined in USC 15-101 (s) 4 et seq., to sit on your face."

9. "I just updated my dating status on Facebook to say you and I are "Hookin' Up." How ya like them apples?"

8. "I've raised $40 million from George Soros to run a negative ad campaign against your daughter Bethany, accusing her of 'Flip-Flopping' on whether she went to third with Brian 'Bro-an' Feeney, and also of having 'swamp-ass.'"

7. "Lovely dog you have. You call her 'Ginger'? That's funny. I know her as 'Sandwich.'"

6. "THIS IS SWEATY TALC FROM MY FETID ARMPITS. TAKE PENACILLIN [sic] NOW."

5. "I see your sister is planning a September wedding. Maybe I'll just show up in a back pew, near the exits, and announce my objections via the ol' 'One-Cheek Sneak.' Be aware, my 'sneaks' are not exactly ninja-like in their stealthiness. Unless you're talking about a ninja rhinoceros with irritable bowel syndrome and a belly full of Sloppy Joes."

4. [Envelope contains nothing but what appears to be a human finger smeared in Miracle Whip and diabetic steak sauce.]

3. "I just rubbed my saggy, pimple-pocked dumper all over the interior of your SUV... Enjoy that 'Factory-Fresh Ass.' LOL. Next week? You'll luxuriate in my 'Rich Corinthian Ball-Leather.'"

2. "I'm currently engaging your Aunt Mavis in a whirlwind online romance under the name 'DoctorThomasBagg.' T-Bag. Savvy? I don't want to make idle threats, but the CDC classifies my rancid taint as a Level 4 'Hot Zone.'"

...and the Number One Tom Matzzie Threat...

1. "Predator-Prey. Google it."

Apologies: It seemed like this should be a gimme, but I'm not funny anymore and furthermore I may have actually matured out of my fat-jokes phase. I sweated this out like Tom Matzzie eating a barrel of Hiroshima Hot Wings.

Posted by: Ace at 09:49 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

Why was it edited out in the first place?

Did the story become too confusing for all those nuanced CNN readers? Did it have to be simplified into a reader-friendly Narrative for them?

And Even Worse: CNN tries hiding its original edit, and disappearing the hateful, racially-tinged comments that it (by design) inspired.

Posted by: Ace at 09:33 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.