Gibson radio producer called his Edwards comments "a poor choice of words"
On the August 7 edition of Fox News host John Gibson's nationally syndicated radio program, the show's executive producer, known on air as "Angry Rich," described as "a poor choice of words" his August 3 statement -- documented by Media Matters for America -- that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards "whored his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick."
Angry Rich did not apologize for the remark and went on to say of Edwards: "That doesn't mean he's not duplicitous, which he is."
After Gibson asked him to "be specific about what [he] meant," Angry Rich read from an April 5 New York Post article that stated, "Democrat White House hopeful John Edwards' team has been collecting email addresses from supporters who've sent his cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, notes -- and using them for fundraising requests, aides acknowledged yesterday." Gibson said that Angry Rich's comment was "unfortunate," but then asserted that Angry Rich was nonetheless "on high ground" because his remark had come in response to the Post report.
During the discussion, Gibson never quoted Angry Rich's original "choice of words" -- that Edwards had "whored his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick." Rather, he said that Angry Rich had "made some offhand comment about Edwards and the way Edwards has, shall we say, employed his wife in the campaign," and later described the remark as follows: "[Y]ou said that Edwards was using his wife in the campaign in a certain way."
Numerous blogs highlighted Angry Rich's comments about Edwards, including Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, Americablog, The Carpetbagger Report, Taylor Marsh, News Hounds, Pam's House Blend, Mad in the Middle, Oh Well: A Commentary on News and Politics, Don't tell the Donor, and Radioactive Quill.
From the August 7 edition of Fox News Radio's The John Gibson Show:
GIBSON: I'm looking for this today, right now, Angry Rich. Then, Elizabeth Edwards, today, in some obscure publication -- and I can't find what that publication is now -- but what she said was, trying to explain why is it that John Edwards' campaign is lagging behind others. And she said, "Well, it's just gonna happen. We can't make him a woman, and we can't make him black. Either of those two things will get you a lot of press, and that gets you a lot of fundraising." Wow.
You can't make him a woman, and you can't make him black. Oh, speaking of which, Angry Rich.
ANGRY RICH: Yeah.
GIBSON: There's kind of an unfortunate moment yesterday.
ANGRY RICH: Well, it wasn't yesterday, but yeah.
GIBSON: When was that?
ANGRY RICH: It was last week.
GIBSON: It was last week. You made some offhand comment about Edwards and the way Edwards has, shall we say, employed his wife in the campaign.
ANGRY RICH: That's true, John, I sure did.
GIBSON: Yeah, and taking a little grief about that?
ANGRY RICH: Yeah, a little bit.
GIBSON: OK. Let's be specific about what you meant when you said -- and I'll euphemize.
ANGRY RICH: You can say it.
GIBSON: You said that Edwards was using his wife in the campaign in a certain way.
ANGRY RICH: I said he was using his wife's cancer.
GIBSON: In a certain way, right.
ANGRY RICH: Right.
GIBSON: What did you mean by that?
ANGRY RICH: Can I read it to you?
GIBSON: Yes.
ANGRY RICH: This is from the New York Post on April 5. "Democrat White House hopeful John Edwards' team has been collecting email addresses from supporters who've sent his cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, notes and using them for fundraising requests, aides acknowledged yesterday."
GIBSON: Ah. So if you were, let's say, [conservative radio host] Laura Ingraham, who wouldn't be a John Edwards supporter but would have a great deal of sympathy and sort of simpatico and sisterhood feelings toward Elizabeth Edwards because they're both cancer victims --
ANGRY RICH: Right.
GIBSON: Laura went through her episode, and Elizabeth Edwards is going through hers. If Laura Ingraham sent Elizabeth Edwards a, you know, "stay strong, get well" note, they would use that as a campaign fundraising mail piece, expecting somebody like Laura Ingraham to cough up some bucks for --
ANGRY RICH: They admitted to turning those emails around and soliciting cash, yes.
GIBSON: So, your remark --
ANGRY RICH: -- was about that.
GIBSON: While unfortunate --
ANGRY RICH: It was a poor choice of words, sure.
GIBSON: -- was about that. And so, in fact, you were on high ground.
ANGRY RICH: Right.
GIBSON: Correct.
ANGRY RICH: That doesn't mean he's not duplicitous, which he is.
GIBSON: He is, yes.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Another non apology apology.
I believe he means his choice of words were quite inflammatory, which they were, but the intent behind them remains unchanged.
You are free to accept what he said, or not. Apparently MMFA does not, and that's why this is here.
Rich's words and intent are utterly repugnant then and now.
I don't think these smear thugs would even be making this half-hearted apology without the pressures we (MMFA's allies and citizen activists) put on Rich and Gibby's sponsors and employer.
Well, if you think soliciting well wishes for your cancer striken spouse, then turning around and sending those well wishers an email asking for money, is a commendable thing to do.....then so be it.
Tommy,
The article doesn't say that Edwards asked the well wishers for money. The article states that to leave a message on the website you need to provide your e-mail address.
Obviously that applies to everyone who leaves messages on their website and the campaign staff like every other campaign staff collects this information and uses to raise funds.
Unless you are an idiot, you know that neither John Edwards nor any other candidate micromanages their campaigns to the extent that they even know what is on their websites.
Your defense that Edwards doesn't know what's going on in his own website is a little silly, and weak.
Read the article again, they knew exactly what they were doing.
Tommy,
Please provide where it says they knew what they were doing and explain to me why it is weak.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Why else ask for email addresses from well wishes then? Just to thank them? I think not.
Tommy,
Once again, please provide where in the article it states as you said that they knew what "they" were doing.
Your weird duck references are not proof.
Also, please show me where my statements or rationale is weak. Doing math doesn't prove your point either.
What's weak is your defense of Edwards not knowing what's on his website.
And you haven't given me a reasonable answer as to why they were asking for email addresses from well wishers?
Tommy,
Do you really think that every Presidential candidate knows everything that is going on with his campaign.
You are actually making that statement?
Are you serious?
Tommy,
The article explained that and I did as well. Every single campaign, actually I think just about every website of any kind askes for your e-mail address if you are going to leave comments.
Are you that naive or ill informed?
Tommy,
I'm breaking everything up into small pieces so you can address each issue and not gloss over everything like you usually do.
Do you think George Bush knows what every individual in the White House is doing at all times? Do you think any high level exec knows about everything that is on their company website? Do you think every Presidential Candidate knows what every campaign staffer is doing at all times?
You can't be that stupid. What is weak is your argument and your defense of these vile comments.
Obviously, you can't figure out to defend a presidential candidate's website saying "Send a note to John and Elizabeth", demanding those that do so leave their email addresses, and then flipping those addresses right into their fund raising database. And you want proof that is what they intended? And then you intimate that I am stupid and naive?
You are a piece of work.
We disagree.
I perused John Edwards' campaign web site and see nothing but straight-forward information. The solicitations are clearly identified as such. This letter event obviously happened months ago; and frankly, ALL campaigns collect e-mail addresses for fund raising.
The Post article, which is dated in April,says that the campaign added a feature for the letter writers not to receive solicitations after reporters raised the issue.
As usual, anything regarding Edwards is being blown out of proportion. No such scrutiny for the Republican candidates.
It was changed after the article appeared. Edwards' camp acknowledged it and then changed it.
In other words, they got caught. Your reference to Republican candidates is off topic, and irrelevant to this discussion.
i googled "john edwards web site" and got this. seems like they want anyone contacting the site to leave an e-mail address. this kind of stuff is not exactly unknown in politics.
http://johnedwards.com/splash/
It also says "Skip to the website". Where it then says "Join the campaign".
If you wanted to just wish Elizabeth well, you needed to "join the campaign". Why of course.
join the campaign is one of the things it says. and nowhere do i see that you have to contribute any money to leave your best wishes. actually i would think leaving your e-mail address would be a good thing if you want to leave a message. it cuts down on the knuckledraggers who might want to leave a crude message. and if those people get a solicitation to contribute, so what? i contribute every election year and get solicitations from all kinds of people i never even contacted. why don't you save your outrage for something real?
Why would you go to a campaign website to send a personal message?
And yes Mary, all campaigns collect email addresses for fund raising.
However, one little difference here - to put a letter on your website detailing your spouse's incurable cancer, then saying "send a note to Elizabeth and John" and if you don't include your email address it won't be received - and then boom, move that address into a fund raising database.
If you're fine and dandy with that, it's all good.
Did you read the letter on John Edwards' web site in April?
Are you or anyone from the Edward's campaign disputing the letter existed?
My question to you was, did you read the actual letter?
Mary, If you want to take the argument to whether or not I read the letter, fine. But if you can't defend it's use on soliciting campaign funds, then it would explain why you're asking such an irrelevant question.
No, I did not read the letter.
Tommy, sorry I was slow in responding. I'm on dial-up and must share the phone line with 3 other people. If you click on this link:
http://www.correntewire.com/michelle_malkin_gets_punked
there is an account of what was actually on the Edwards' campaign web site at that time and how this whole story was distorted by the post and the right wing attack machine. That's why I asked whether you had read the original letter on their web site.
The impression left by both versions of the story was that the Edwards had deliberately seduced well-wishers to come to the site to leave a sympathy message, required that they leave an email address to do so, and then captured the address for fund-raising purposes.
What neither story bothered to note was that the feature on the website which reads, “Leave A Message For Elizabeth & John” was there well before the discovery of Elizabeth’s reoccurrence of cancer.
Above is a snippet from the article that Mary linked to. I'm sorry she has a dial up connection because it sure would have been nice to have that info earlier (no blame, Mary).
I hope Tommy will read that article and then come back and acknowledge those facts. There's no evidence, as I said in other posts, that there was a plan, and without that plan, there was no "whoring" of Edwards' wife.
Wish I could have posted it sooner; as it was, I had to get offline to cook dinner and let my husband make some phone calls. After that I found the link and posted it. But I was pretty sure all along that the Post had drummed up a phony controversy back in April, for Gibson & angry to re-cycle with malice.
If Tommy comes back here, I'd just like to ask him in all sincerity if he might examine whether his negative opinion of Edwards might have come from reading bit after bit of false information and spin from the right wing fog machine, picked up by the MSM.
Thanks for the link Mary, however it changes nothing. You and the left wing website you linked to can nuance, or spin or explain this all day long, but the stubborn facts still remain. The website asked for a letter to ELIZABETH and John, not just the presidential candidate himself, but his wife's name is first and foremost. If someone leaves a message, personal or otherwise, they are required to leave their email addresses and quickly filed under potential donors.
You are fine with this, so be it. Frankly, it doesn't change my opinion one way or the other of Edwards. He is a phony opportunist and a slick politician whom I do not support. I am sorry if that's tough for some of you to hear, or accept - but it's my opinion. Just as you have yours with those you won't support.
I accept your support of Edwards, I do not share it. Enjoy your day.
And as I said Mary, even this website does not dispute this story. The focus is on Gibson's pal's choice of words, they do not address the accuracy of the story whatsoever. Therefore, I accept MMFA's take on the story, and agree that Rich's words were inflammatory and insensitive.
Good job MMFA.
There's no evidence, as I said in other posts, that there was a plan to solicit letters of condolence so that they could collect those emails to use later in fundraising, and without that plan, there was no "whoring" of Edwards' wife. Look up the definition of whoring.
This has been explained to Tommy. He still ignores it. That's not a good thing for Tommy's credibility.
I will defer to your knowledge of the definition of the word "whoring".
Since you apparently don't know the definition that would be appropriate in this case, you sure should do that.
I understand that whoring can mean "to compromise one's principles for personal gain."
If you personally only know about the definition of whoring that has to do with prostitution, then it is you who is deficient in your language skills, and you should have looked up the definition. It's enlightening that you didn't do so and didn't recognize that you needed to do so.
Gee, my credibility is questioned by a few ultra leftists on this website who blindly support any Democrat....what am I to do???
Just another example of your lack of credibility.
I'm not an ultra-liberal, first off, and your other points are inventions and delusions too.
I don't blindly support anyone. That would apparently be something that you might do, since you blindly call John Edwards a phony without any evidence of that whatsoever.
John Edwards did not whore his wife. There was a link on their site to send comments to John and Elizabeth, a couple that's been joined at the hip since college and the death of their son only reinforced that bond. When they received news of the recurrence of her cancer, they jointly decided that he would continue the campaign. He was not using his wife's illness there. The couple made a decision to not allow the illness to run their lives.
Since there was a lot of empathy generated by their announcement, they directed people so moved to the already existing link.
That link generated emails, and like many sites, they use those emails to fundraise. There is no evidence that there was any nefarious plan, and absent that, there's no way to describe what happened months ago as whoring.
As is common with conservatives in the media, they are repeating a lie, hoping that few more people might hear it and believe it.
Why so defensive, Tommy? You have yet to provide one iota of evidence to back up your claims regarding the Edwardses in this regard, you admit to never having read the letter, and yet you insist on backing up your profound partisan ignorance with something you must consider to be a witty barb?
You're not being clever, you're not being witty, you're being bull-headed and pathetic in pushing your point on a non-issue that was debunked three months ago, and is debunked today. What is your problem?
Tommy,
I don't understand what you just said, but I have a feeling you can't stand to admit when you are wrong so you continue with these foolish statements.
You have completely made up your argument and have not stated a single fact and when you are called on it you make another stupid statement and say we disagree.
You really need to learn to accept facts and not just make up things to make your arguments sound better.
Nowhere does anyone state that Edwards knew what was going on, not in the article and not anything that you have come up with.
If you don't have proof of your accusations then keep your stupid mouth shut.
They asked for well wishes, one could not do so WITHOUT leaving their email addresses, those addresses were added to their database soliciting campaign donations. There is no lie there, their aides acknowledged it.
2+2=4
Tommy,
4 + 4 = 8. I guess I was right after all.
Just because the email soliciting donations came after the offer from his website to allow people to have a direct link to send Elizabeth best wishes, it does not mean that the direct link that allowed those best wishes was installed to allow them to use those email addresses later on.
There is no equation here at all.
When I was getting ready to buy a computer, I asked Dell to send me emails telling me about special offers. I bought a computer. Guess what? I'm not still in the market, but they still send me emails.
Where does it say that the Edwards "solicited" or "asked for" well wishes for Elizabeth?
Read it. It says "send a note to Elizabeth and John", and the website also has a letter detailing Mrs. Edwards incurable cancer......when you send the note you must leave your email address, which is promptly entered into their database used for fund raising solicitation.
You tell me why they want those well wisher's letters?
The letter details Elizabeth's incurable cancer? How do you know? You just said you hadn't read the damn letter.
Here's the difference.
All sites like this gather this kind of information. I am okay with it. It's okay if you don't like it. If I want to communicate with a group online, I know that they will capture my email and may use it later on. If you don't like them having your email info, then don't communicate with them that way.
The issue is with the intent of the Edwards. There is no evidence that they purposefully set this up to gather those emails to then solicit those people. Not one iota of evidence of that, in fact. There's plenty of evidence that there was a vast outpouring of empathy and interest, and to have a repository of that interest, they set up a link to allow people to send their best wishes to Elizabeth Edwards.
This guy claimed that Edwards was whoring his wife. Edwards was not. There's no evidence that they announced her illness in any attempt to gain funds from their supporters. They announced their intent to continue with the campaign. They also sent out fundraising letters much the same way that any organization with access to marketing info does.
They didn't do the first with the intention that they could then do the second. Absent that linkage, there's no way to fairly describe what Edwards did as whoring his wife's illness.
Oh, and by the way, via a link Mary so nicely provided, the link to send an email to John and Elizabeth was there before they announced the recurrence of her cancer.
That link, as on almost all websites, asked for your email address when you were trying to send an email to them. That prevents auto-bots and anonymous crazies from spamming sites like this. It's the only reasonable thing to do. After an outcry, they added the opt-out option, which was a good thing to do. There's still no evidence that there was any plan to ask for condolence letters to get some more potential donors on their lists! The fact that they got more potential donors on their lists as a result of that doesn't mean that it was the purpose of that offer, and so there was no whoring. It wasn't just a bad choice of words, it was a totally incorrect description of the events.
Not according to the site posted by Mary above.
Having a link to send a message to the couple on the same site as a letter explaining explaining the illness isn't the same as "soliciting" well wishes from visitors.
This is just another example of how, regardless of what a Democrat does, Republicans will find a way to frame it in the worst possible way. No decency whatsoever.
Tommy,
Raed the link by Mary59 and then I hope you realize how stupid you look and how deceitful the people you support are.
Tommy,
The Post article is a LIE. Come on man, use your gray matter.
It's a lie?, I don't see MMFA disputing it or any evidence that it is not factual.
You might want to look at the first time MMFA addressed this very issue, along with Time Magazine: April 13, 2007 [ http://mediamatters.org/items/200704130017 ] (scroll down about half-way, just past the big red "Send Your Message"). Sorry about the ugly site info, but the pictograph is misbehaving, repeatedly truncating the url. There should also be an article @ April 4 or 5, but I didn't land that one.
It was a distortion then, it remains a distortion now, despite being couched in uglier language in the present instance.
Bunk, while I think the NYP isn't worth the paper it's printed on, I don't see anyone in the Netroots Nation rushing to Edwards' aid to disprove this one, at least not yet. I think they would have been all over it by now.
So what? It isn't a startling new discovery that campaigns collect e-mail addresses for fund raising. Note the fact that the Post article appeared in APRIL. Faux is in a lather now and their self-righteousness doesn't wear well.
I'm only trying to address the truth of it. That's all.
Pete, You're a stand up guy, even this website does not refute this story......and if they could, they would.
But they did dispute it, Tommy.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704130017
It's not true. It's easy to dispute things when the facts are on your side.
It's really hard to do so when the facts are totally against what you're trying to maintain, isn't it, Tommy? I know you have lots of experience with trying that!
You're assuming Tommy has gray matter available for use. The jury's still out on that point......
It was a very inappropriate choice of words. That being said, the accusation is still valid. Edwards used his wife's illness to promote his campaign. The man uses his wife just as his campaign uses their supporters.
The accusation was never valid.
The two of them are a couple linked at the hip, and it was a joint decision for him to continue to run and there's no evidence that he or she thought that her cancer would be a plus that they should exploit.
Pretend you're in the position of the Edwards, or the his campaign manager, or someone on his staff. Then propose how YOU would have handled the horrible situation they found themselves in when she found out about the return of her illness.
Then you'll see why your presumption that the Edwards used her cancer in any way is disgusting.
It's amazing the filth and sewage which are now daily and freely spread by conservatives over the nation's airwaves.
I think even Tommy would agree?
The Post is a Murdoch rag sheet, I believe. And now this lily-livered coward--Angry Rich--hides behind a lying, scumbag Post reporter.
Is it 1984 yet?
"You are free to accept what he said, or not."
Typically, acceptance is given for apologies.
I come here daily to have Tommy tell me what I'm free to do. He says it so often, like he's providing us all with some great gift of knowledge.
The let's all be glad that we have the freedom to come here and learn more about our freedom.
Another class act heard from.
Jeesh. You think they were a bad choice of words?
And Angry Rich is a poor choice of an employee. He should go back to flipping burgers at Mickey D's.
He claimed that Edwards was whoring his wife.
Edwards was not. There's no evidence that they announced her illness in any attempt to gain funds from their supporters.
They announced her illness, and they announced their intent to continue with the campaign. They also sent out fundraising letters much the same way that any organization with access to marketing info does.
They didn't do the first with the intention that they could then do the second. Absent that linkage, there's no way to fairly describe what Edwards did as whoring his wife's illness.
He didn't compromise his principles for personal gain. He announced the return of his wife's illness and announced that it was not going to stop his campaign. He didn't do it because he was hoping he could use the sympathy garnered from that announcement to get money.
That's the important point here. There's no evidence to suggest that he did it to be able to later get money from people! There would have to be evidence of that in order to accurately call it whoring.
This really isn't anything but a further attempt to smear Edwards and his wife. "Gee, we didn't do a very good job of vomiting out our Edwards attack yesterday; it wasn't well received, so we will take the "high ground" in our little steaming heap of hades."
What a sorry pair.
It takes one to know one, I guess.
Yeah, Angry Rich was on high ground when he said Edwards "whored his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick."
How stupid do these people think we are?
When you control the microphone--and conservatives control 90% of talk radio--then you are free to spread lies and filth at will.
There is a ready audience of uninformed, apathetic dunces who now think they "know something."
I think Edwards should deck the guy. Most real Americans wouldn't fault him for it.
If Edwards will deck Angry Ritch...
I'll donate $500 to his campaign.
I dunno. You get that kinda stink on ya and no amount of washing will get it off. Let MMFA draw the necessary attention to what these losers are saying, and let JE stay on message, and let EE focus on getting better. Neither needs that kind of ugly vibe in their life.
I can only speak for myself, but if a guy made a comment like that about my wife who was fighting cancer, a women who has already lost a son. I'd chin check the guy and let the chips fall.
Most of the time the dude abides, but I do have my limits. This was over the line and sometimes the only thing that pricks seem to understands is a good wallup.
Good idea Monk, Edwards should deck him with his hairbrush, that'd do plenty of damage.
Good idea Monk, Edwards should deck him with his hairbrush, that'd do plenty of damage.
And you wonder why your credibility around here is zero. What a stupid thing to say.
Oh Tommy!
That was even low for you. It does prove my theory why there are no conservative comedians. They are not funny or witty. Go ahead and say it Tommy: Dennis Miller is your hero.
LMAO.....excellent quip, Tommy. What makes it funnier is that there's a certain truth to that statement.
I taught my children to apologize when they said or did something wrong or hurtful. I explain to them that words especially wrong or hurtful ones have consequences. I went on to explain why it was important to correct their behavior. It's a shame that Gibson and Angry Rich were not taught the same or it they were it didn't stick. Gibson and Angry Rich give new meaning to the phrase "wuss" (not the actual word I would use). They are not men their little boy bullies.
The difference is Angry Rich and Gibson are gutless. They are also political hacks.
Nothing short of being fired or resignation is in order for the hateful statements made.
Sueeld, these comments were as nasty as Imus' or the comments his dreadful Sid Rosenberg said about the Kylie Minogue's breast cancer.
I'd think most decent Americans would agree there is no place for this kind of broadcasting on OUR airwaves.
If the right wing nut jobs want to subscribe to satellite radio to hear this garbage let them do it.
Seriously, how is Gibson's act any different than Stern's or Imus's act?
Not at all, difference is Stern is on satelitte, Imus is gone and Gibson works for a supposedly main stream media network.
Seriously, how is Gibson's act any different than Stern's or Imus's act?-- johnny_nyc8351
Gibson is unintentionally funny, Stern is deliberately funny, and Imus isn't funny. They're clearly different.
The only "whoring" being done in this context, is the constant "whoring" of the Corporate Media for the Repugnants. I certainly would like to see Edwards elected president, if just to see these trained monkeys spin on that.
There are many other reasons to support John Edwards, but the extent to which the Corporate Media seeks to nullify his campaign is sufficient if there were none other.
Now contrast Gibson's "apology" with Olbermann's apology for a Countdown show while he was vacationing that referred to Congressman Vitter's wife "dressing like a ho."
Olbermann said "it should not have happened and it won't happen again."
Period.
Now that's the high road.
Well, Olbermann is an adult and a decent journalist. You're comparing apples to road apples.
http://www.correntewire.com/michelle_malkin_gets_punked
The above link explains how the right wing has distorted this story.
Thanks Mary.
Mary 59, I must add my own "great link!
One important bit from that link.
"What neither story bothered to note was that the feature on the website which reads, “Leave A Message For Elizabeth & John” was there well before the discovery of Elizabeth’s reoccurrence of cancer."
Tommy acted like it had to be devious because it said Elizabeth and John. If it's John Edwards site, then why is Elizabeth on there?
Because she's incredibly important to him, unlike the wives of many politicians, and in polite southern society, he mentions his wife first to be polite. It was not aimed at drawing people in dishonestly.
Wow, great link.
Read it and weep Tommy, you along with the rest of the right wing have been punked.
The right wing is deathly afraid of John Edwards.
He has suffered through vicious personal attacks on both him and his wife.
He wife is probably dying of cancer.
But he still wants to put up with all of it to become president.
Why? Because he is a patriot, he loves his country and he understands that he is the very best person for the office at this time in our country's history.
He has a strong intellect, is a leader, is passionate about our country and can see the difference between right and wrong, even when the lines are blurred by money and power.
Lots of powerful people are afraid that Edwards will win, because Edwards is beholden to no one, and he has a real chance for victory.
God, please let it be so, we are in need of a real leader, someone independent, honest and smart. Someone like Edwards.
I have been reading this site for well over a year, but this is the first time I've been compelled to obtain an account and post. I was diagnosed with breast cancer, which had spread to the nodes, last March at the age of 39. So far, I've had 4 surgeries (and will have 2 more this year), 6 months of chemo, and had one year of infusions (not chemo, but another drug that is given intravenously), which I finally completed just 2 weeks ago. I will continue on an oral medication for the next 5 years. This is a long road, but I am NOBODY'S VICTIM! Is John Gibson so insensitive that in his attempt to defend his producer's indefensible comments that he would actually use a term as offensive as "victim" in describing breast cancer survivors?
Stay strong Blondy28
John Gibson just got his @ss kicked by Blondy!
Come on, Edwards. If you're going to whore out someone's medical condition for political gain, make sure it's a woman who's been braindead for 15 years. Then when people discover your memo about exploiting her, accuse your political opponent of inventing the memo.
You obviously have not read the discussion thoroughly, nor looked at the link debunking the story...or if you have, you sadly lack comprehension of basic English.
Or perhaps you have decided to compromise your own integrity to "score a point" for you team, as if attacking a man and his wife for political sport has some virtue. If you want to find out who is "whoring," look in the mirror.
Mary
I think Kevin was being satirical.
Oop, my apologies.
There you go....Tony snow whores his cancer everyday to carry water for the republicans!
He whored our military by stating that the poor Iraqi parliment needed a recess because of the 133 degree weather while our boys and girls die for them. John gibson whored his white race by asking them to whore themselves into making more babies to maintain a majority race status!