Ron Rosenbaum: LA Times is sitting on a major sex scandal involving a “leading” candidate

posted at 9:16 am on October 31, 2007 by Allahpundit

When the news is slow, we turn to rumor. I linked this in the debate thread last night but it’s interesting enough to warrant its own thread, especially on a dull morning. Let’s see if we can apply some collective intelligence. The only clues are that it involves a “leading” candidate and this:

Now, as I say it’s a rumor; I haven’t seen the supporting evidence. But the person who told me said it offhandedly as if everyone in his world knew about it. And if you look close enough you can find hints of something impending, something potentially derailing to this candidate in the reporting of the campaign. Which could mean that something unspoken, unwritten about is influencing what is written, what we read.

Kaus says he senses something like that too but he also seems not to know what Rosenbaum’s talking about. Ace has some theories but one of his guest-bloggers thinks it’s all crap. If, as Rosenbaum asserts, everyone in the media already knows about it, why hasn’t it leaked? The one thing most people seem to agree on is that it’s probably a Democrat or else the Times wouldn’t be agonizing over publishing it. I think that’s far too cute and easy an assumption; even if they’re diabolically partisan, they have to consider the flak they’ll take from conservatives as being DNC tools and hatchet men if they publish. Not that they’re not used to that sort of thing, but it’ll be much heavier than usual.

I’ve got my own (uninformed) hunch but I won’t say what it is. Suffice it to say, I don’t think it’s a Democrat and I do think Ace is on the right track with one of his scenarios.

Update: After looking around a bit this afternoon, I change my mind. I think it is a Democrat. And it’s as juicy as Rosenbaum says.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

For this I’m paying for broadband?

Longhorn Six on October 31, 2007 at 9:19 AM

Don’t like it? Don’t read it.

Allahpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:21 AM

Rudy in the Billiard Room with the CandleStick (and Mrs PEacock)

zane on October 31, 2007 at 9:22 AM

Rudy does have a history, but then explain the boldfaced part.

Allahpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:22 AM

Larry Flint talked about this on Cavuto’s show on Fox Business last week. It has something to do with gay sex of a ‘major’ Republican, and the information came about because of the million dollar bounty that Flint put on anyone with information about the Congress.

ThackerAgency on October 31, 2007 at 9:23 AM

No, I know who the Flynt rumor is about. That’s a senator, not a leading presidential candidate.

Allahpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:23 AM

Flint was agonizing over whether to release the information within two weeks or at the beginning of the year for the biggest political effect. . . that’s why they don’t know whether or not to release it now.

Cavuto gets all the scoops.

ThackerAgency on October 31, 2007 at 9:25 AM

oooh, sorry AP just read aces blog. Wow so its not rudy maybe, but mccain, interesting. To be honest i think mccain is probably in best position to defend himself.

and WHO is the larry flynt rumour about?

zane on October 31, 2007 at 9:26 AM

OK, so this is different. Well I guess that’s appropriate ‘news’ seeing as how these days we have religious figures acting as political pundits and political pundits teaching religious doctrine. . . why not have our representatives (and potential representatives) take our parents’ role and teach us about sex?

ThackerAgency on October 31, 2007 at 9:27 AM

Well, the only info that I have read in the LA Times concerning any democrat candidate is that which covers Hillary. By this, I’m referring to the Hsu hstuff. That’s the extent of my knowledge as to what the LA Times reports. So…I’m going to say Hillary. And they are sitting on it so that all those involved can update their life insurance policies.

Weight of Glory on October 31, 2007 at 9:28 AM

Allahpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:22 AM

Yeah, I was going to say Rudy (especially since it’s the Times), but there’s no signs of a derailing campaign.

amerpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:29 AM

Don’t like it? Don’t read it.

How will I know whether or not I like it until I read it?

Longhorn Six on October 31, 2007 at 9:30 AM

Well, the only info that I have read in the LA Times concerning any democrat candidate is that which covers Hillary. By this, I’m referring to the Hsu hstuff.

That’s a good hunch. If they’re getting tips about Hillary’s donations, it stands to reason they might have tips in other veins, too.

I don’t think it’s her, though. Hillary doesn’t seem like the sex scandal type.

Allahpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:31 AM

Ok, Republican frontrunners…

Rudy: What more could he really do in the sex scandal department?

Thompson: Almost the same boat as Rudy… hot youngish wife and a history of chasing tail.

McCain: … Oh, wait, you said frontrunners.

Romney: The “real conservative” family man in a sex scandal? That’d be juicy… But which way would it cut? Is Romney gay? Did he cheat on his wife? Or did he have multiple secret (or not-so-secret FLDS) wives?

I say it’s Romney, but I doubt it’s multiple wives or being gay necessarily. Multiple wives would be the juiciest and most ironic thing ever, especially considering the “you’re not a real Christian” stuff. And being gay seems kind of on the nose these days for Republicans in power.

Lehosh on October 31, 2007 at 9:31 AM

Hillary: I did not have sex with that woman.

petefrt on October 31, 2007 at 9:32 AM

The signs do seem to point to McCain, but is he really a “leading” presidential candidate these days?

Slublog on October 31, 2007 at 9:32 AM

I’m going to say Hillary. And they are sitting on it so that all those involved can update their life insurance policies.

Weight of Glory on October 31, 2007 at 9:28 AM

That would be the most interesting for the race in general. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Hill does a little somethin somethin on the down low.

ThackerAgency on October 31, 2007 at 9:32 AM

I say it’s Romney, but I doubt it’s multiple wives or being gay necessarily.

The one guy it’s definitely not is Romney.

I think the angle of attack here should be the coverage of the candidates per the blockquote. Does anyone’s coverage match that description?

Allahpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:33 AM

Hillary doesn’t seem like the sex scandal type.

Allahpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:31 AM

My eyes! My fricken eyes!!!

amerpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:34 AM

Ok, well if it’s really McCain I’m going to laugh.

Lehosh on October 31, 2007 at 9:34 AM

That would be the most interesting for the race in general. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Hill does a little somethin somethin on the down low.

It wouldn’t fit with her personal scandal history, if you will. All of Hillary’s scandals involve finances or abuse of power.

Slublog on October 31, 2007 at 9:35 AM

It would be breaking news if it was discovered that Hillary and Bill were having an affair.

JammieWearingFool on October 31, 2007 at 9:36 AM

Ooohh, ooohhh, I got it!!!

It’s Hillary with Rudy!

BacaDog on October 31, 2007 at 9:36 AM

Which could mean that something unspoken, unwritten about is influencing what is written, what we read.

Who would have this control other than Hillary?

ThackerAgency on October 31, 2007 at 9:36 AM

Hillary doesn’t seem like the sex scandal type.

Allahpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:31 AM

Boy, you can say that again! Ok, I think we can assume that it is not a Repub. otherwise they wouldn’t have any trouble running with it, unless it is a timing thing. So that leaves Hillary and Obama as leading candidates. We can’t really include Edwards in this, can we?

Weight of Glory on October 31, 2007 at 9:36 AM

Allahpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:33 AM

McCain, but, er, see my comment at 9:34AM.

Obama’s campaign isn’t dwindling, is it? I’ve been seeing the media cover it like he’s raising a lot of money, but that’s not converting to votes. Doubtful, but a possibility. We can’t rule out Democrats, because the Times is hesitating to release it.

amerpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:36 AM

There are a lot of rumors about John Edwards – and his traveling affair….

jake-the-goose on October 31, 2007 at 9:36 AM

I dont want to hear McCain discuss a sex scandal in his monotone.

GogglesPisano on October 31, 2007 at 9:37 AM

Rosenbaum says in the article that it’s not Edwards.

Allahpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:37 AM

Ooohh, ooohhh, I got it!!!

It’s Hillary with Rudy!

BacaDog on October 31, 2007 at 9:36 AM

Goodness, man! That’s….oh man, that’s horrible.

Weight of Glory on October 31, 2007 at 9:38 AM

I don’t think it’s her, though. Hillary doesn’t seem like the sex scandal type.

You’d have to come up with a smoking gun strap-on

james hooker on October 31, 2007 at 9:38 AM

I think we can assume that it is not a Repub. otherwise they wouldn’t have any trouble running with it, unless it is a timing thing

Bingo… If it’s a Republican, do you sink them now in the primaries against other Republicans, or do you sink them later in the general against Hillary?

The rumor is going to come out eventually, which makes this more about timing. If it were about Hillary, it would get dumped immediately in order to go stale before the general election rolls around.

Lehosh on October 31, 2007 at 9:40 AM

Don’t like it? Don’t read it.

How will I know whether or not I like it until I read it?

Longhorn Six on October 31, 2007 at 9:30 AM

Longhorn – I think that’s sort of the point. Why post the first comment you made if you had not yet read it?

reine.de.tout on October 31, 2007 at 9:40 AM

String, or nothing?

Rode Werk on October 31, 2007 at 9:40 AM

Reoub. = Rudy, Thompson, Mitt, (McCain doesn’t need a sex scandel to lose)

Dems. = Hillary, Obama

AP, it seems as though you might think for whom the bell tolls, is the big ‘O’

Weight of Glory on October 31, 2007 at 9:40 AM

If anyone broke the silence on Hillary they instantly lose access to the both of them.At the very least.

bbz123 on October 31, 2007 at 9:41 AM

Fred.

JiangxiDad on October 31, 2007 at 9:41 AM

If it’s Ron Paul, I’ll be laughing nonstop for an entire day.

MadisonConservative on October 31, 2007 at 9:42 AM

If anyone broke the silence on Hillary they instantly lose access to the both of them.At the very least.

Like the LA Times and the constant river of Hsu scandals?

Lehosh on October 31, 2007 at 9:42 AM

Bingo… If it’s a Republican, do you sink them now in the primaries against other Republicans, or do you sink them later in the general against Hillary?

Lehosh on October 31, 2007 at 9:40 AM

Interesting theory, but then there’s no guarantee that Republican will get the nomination. Especially considering the bold font part.

amerpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:42 AM

Bingo… If it’s a Republican, do you sink them now in the primaries against other Republicans, or do you sink them later in the general against Hillary?
Lehosh on October 31, 2007 at 9:40 AM

True, but then you would have to be pretty confident that the dirty candidate is pretty much a shoe-in for the republican nomination. And I don’t know if anyone on the GOP side gives off that kind of vibe.

Weight of Glory on October 31, 2007 at 9:43 AM

Both true counterpoints, but still why waste the nuke now even if you’re unsure who will get nominated?

Lehosh on October 31, 2007 at 9:46 AM

AP, it seems as though you might think for whom the bell tolls, is the big ‘O’

No, I said I don’t think it’s a Democrat.

Allahpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:47 AM

It’s already affected the process, if they’re sitting on a story.

windbag on October 31, 2007 at 9:48 AM

Wow, let’s all get our our copies of “Swank” and dream up more scenerios.

Meh….

Dr. Gecko on October 31, 2007 at 9:50 AM

If it were me and I had that information and it was a Republican, I’d wait until right during the Republican National Convention. Tar the entire party.

Same thing for the Democrats, but the LAT wouldn’t do that to the Dems. Can they hold it for 9 months? I guess that would be like trying to hold in a big turd for 9 months.

jaime on October 31, 2007 at 9:50 AM

No, I said I don’t think it’s a Democrat.

Allahpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:47 AM

oops! sorry. well I’ve got to go to work. Good luck guys and gals. The future rests in your hands.

Weight of Glory on October 31, 2007 at 9:51 AM

Is this the MSM just now recognising Edwards tagging his media aide for 2 years while sending his cancer ridden wife out to stump for him?

Alden Pyle on October 31, 2007 at 9:53 AM

I didn’t pay attention to the beginning of that scandal, but didn’t Matt Drudge become famous when Newsweek decided to sit on the Clinton sex scandal?

amerpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:53 AM

tagging his media aide for 2 years
Alden Pyle on October 31, 2007 at 9:53 AM

“Tagging” heh. I haven’t heard that in a looong time.

Weight of Glory on October 31, 2007 at 9:54 AM

Regardless if it is a republican or democrat the want to time the release so it will serve their marxist agenda.

TheSitRep on October 31, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Where’s the Drudgster on this one? Must be a Republican.

Valiant on October 31, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Look, Fred is the one who has the history of being a man whore. And if it is him, it could be that he’s the one who leaked the story. That $8 million that his groupies have donated is just sitting there and it may very well be that it’s burning a hole in his wifes pocket. He has converted campaign funds into a PAC and funneled it to his family once already, so it is not a stretch to think he is looking to do it again.

csdeven on October 31, 2007 at 9:56 AM

“If it’s Ron Paul, I’ll be laughing nonstop for an entire day.”

If Ron Paul wanted to he could probably pull more women than any man alive.

GogglesPisano on October 31, 2007 at 9:57 AM

I heard a rumor that Hillary’s husband once had an affair with an intern.

I’m don’t recall how that panned out.

saint kansas on October 31, 2007 at 9:57 AM

If it is a Republican, the whispers will remain whispers until he wins the nomination. Then the digital videos will be released in primetime to all news outlets.
But…this all could be smoke and mirrors; everyone is always ready to believe the worst of someone. There may be no scandal at all.

Doug on October 31, 2007 at 9:58 AM

“involving a leading candidate”. That’s an interesting choice of words. That could mean that the wife or husband of a leading candidate got caught with her/his hand in the cookie jar.

Matticus Finch on October 31, 2007 at 10:00 AM

Look, Fred is the one who has the history of being a man whore.

*sigh*…it begins…

MadisonConservative on October 31, 2007 at 10:01 AM

Here’s an interesting passage from Rosenbaum.

What about private sexual behavior is relevant? What about a marriage belongs in the coverage of a presidential campaign?

It sounds like he’s saying something happened inside of a marriage. A guy pimping his wife, or something. Maybe they went to S&M clubs. Hard to tell. But it doesn’t sound like he’s saying it was extra-marital.

jaime on October 31, 2007 at 10:02 AM

Maybe they are floating rumors as a ruse to try to make candidates flush out any indescretions they maybe keeping in the closet.

Hopefully it’ll be Hitlery or Barak Hussein connected to the body of a dead girl in a car or live boy in a bed…either one to either commie.

Alden Pyle on October 31, 2007 at 10:02 AM

Hmmm… Bill or Hillary had an affair with the campaign staffer that insisted Hsu was clean. What was her name? Heather something?

The campaign that most reporters seem to be saying is derailing is Obama. We have the “healed” gay minister, and the weird NYT story about Obama’s NY years being different than (weakly) reported in his book. Are those hints?

MayBee on October 31, 2007 at 10:04 AM

Hillary doesn’t seem like the sex scandal type.

who here thinks the Clenis has regular sex with Hillary?
and don’t you think, someone is occassionally?

you know, the thought of hillary having sex(if its her), should be enough to swing any fence sitting male voters out there to vote Repub or not vote.

jp on October 31, 2007 at 10:04 AM

Allahpundit on October 31, 2007 at 9:33 AM

Well, Ann did call someone a faggot.

And Rudy did live with two gay dudes.

But lets not forget that Fred is the quintessential man whore.

And there is no way it is Mitt. That’s just wishful thinking on folks who are jealous of others success. Because they can’t achieve it, they think no one else can.

csdeven on October 31, 2007 at 10:09 AM

MayBee on October 31, 2007 at 10:04 AM

That would explain why MSM is sitting on it. Don’t want to be labelled by the race pimps as trying to take down the minority candidate. I can see Sharpton railing on CNN, “Once again the system denies tha black man the opportunity…..”

Alden Pyle on October 31, 2007 at 10:10 AM

It has to be a Republican, a sex scandal enhances a Democrat’s resume.

I think they are agonizing that it is not a front runner, and are waiting to see if this person opens up a lead, then they will run the story.

reaganaut on October 31, 2007 at 10:11 AM

Sounds like the Clinton smear machine is hard at work.

Wade on October 31, 2007 at 10:12 AM

*Sigh*

I don’t get a name-check? I just get referred to as “one of [Ace's] guest bloggers”?

What’s a guy got to do to get a little respect from you AP? Go see “Brokeback Mountain” with you?

On second thought, maybe I’m cool with my second tier status……

Jack M. on October 31, 2007 at 10:12 AM

Since it’s all speculation at this point anyway, I think it’s Obama. The LAT has jumped all over any and every rumor up to this point on the Repubs. No one would believe a Hillary sex scandal. No one cares about Edwards, and the extra publicity would probably help his campaign. That leaves Obama. He’s the rising star of this election cycle. He may not have enough charisma to win this one, but in eight years?

So. Do we sink him this time or just wait and let it blow over?

My .02, anyway.

Tennman on October 31, 2007 at 10:13 AM

If it’s Fred & Jeri doin a wife swap thingee, I’m gonna say that would probably GET him a few votes from the fellas.

Alden Pyle on October 31, 2007 at 10:13 AM

Hummm – How about Hillary with Richardson AND McCain.

Seriously, I bet it’s Obama or Edwards or Obama with Edwards.

stenwin77 on October 31, 2007 at 10:13 AM

There is one story that “everyone knows about” that somehow managed to keep it’s way out of the press. Bill Clinton and Belinda Stronach. Given that GQ refused to run a negative story on Hillary under threat of losing access to Bill, would this surprise anyone?

It’s no secret in Washington that Bill continued his adultery after the White House -And if Hillary can’t keep her own family in check, what the heck does that say about her ability for the White House? I have little doubt that the media would try to protect her.

Medicated on October 31, 2007 at 10:13 AM

I’m guessing we’ll get the details about this in about 11-12 months, when the timing is “more appropriate” for the MSM.

Dave Shay on October 31, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Hillary and McCain did have that night of drinks on the plane…..

Alden Pyle on October 31, 2007 at 10:15 AM

It could be Hillary. She’s having a lesbian affair with herself.

csdeven on October 31, 2007 at 10:16 AM

Medicated- I would agree that story is one that “everyone knows about” and it doesn’t get much press.

MayBee on October 31, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Great, now we sound like an AP reporter relaying a news story about Iraq using third hand phone conversations.
Who would have thunk the blogosphere would sink so low?
:)

LakeRuins on October 31, 2007 at 10:20 AM

even if they’re diabolically partisan, they have to consider the flak they’ll take from conservatives as being DNC tools and hatchet men if they publish.

Do you really think this has any effect on MSM coverage? Really?

Clark1 on October 31, 2007 at 10:21 AM

If it is a republican, then it would have to be someone who would do well with “values voters.” Presumably, they would be the target group to influence with sex scandals. Thus, on the republican side, I think we can rule out Rudy. That leaves Mitt and Fred (and Ron “the revolution” Paul of course). And if I were to do “catch-a-tiger-by-the-toe” I’d toss the lawn dart towards Mitt. Then again, what has been written in the LA Times that would hint towards Mitt. Wait a sec. I seem to remember some stories about Fred in the Times…

Weight of Glory on October 31, 2007 at 10:27 AM

Medicated on October 31, 2007 at 10:13 AM

Naw, she’s battling breast cancer, that would require too much of an emotional effort for Bill, …unless he saw her as potentially easy prey because of it. I could picture him trying to get a sympathy boot knockin’ after the masectomy by telling her he thinks she still looks just as sexy an any woman alive.

Ironic, THIS just broke in today’s First Post in the UK by the way.

Alden Pyle on October 31, 2007 at 10:28 AM

1. Since when has the MSM sat on ANYTHING?

2. If it was a republican, it would be TOP DEAD CENTER of the paper IMMEDIATELY.

3. Re: 2, it has to be a Dimocrat.

Mazztek on October 31, 2007 at 10:30 AM

And there is no way it is Mitt. That’s just wishful thinking on folks who are jealous of others success. Because they can’t achieve it, they think no one else can.

csdeven on October 31, 2007 at 10:09 AM

I heard it was Mitt, a Shetland Pony, and a circus midget.

Kowboy on October 31, 2007 at 10:31 AM

and a circus midget.

Kowboy on October 31, 2007 at 10:31 AM

With Chlamydia

Weight of Glory on October 31, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Okay boys and girls -grab your barf bag.

How about Hillary and Madeline Notbright?
Or Hillary and Donna Shalalalalala?
Or Hillary and Vince Foster?
Or Hillary and Al Gore?
Or Hillary and Monica Lewinsky and Bill? (threesome)

Gotta’ go and puke now.

OBX Pete on October 31, 2007 at 10:36 AM

Oh, the Jawa report set me straight it could be her because,

“Bill was always more interested in her money than her breasts.”

Alden Pyle on October 31, 2007 at 10:36 AM

I heard it was Mitt, a Shetland Pony, and a circus midget.

Kowboy on October 31, 2007 at 10:31 AM

This must be it ’cause I heard the same thing!!

OBX Pete on October 31, 2007 at 10:37 AM

As much as I think the liklihood is higher that they’re sitting on a story about the Clintons, one of (several) things that have prevented me from even considering Rudy is his personal life. Let’s face it, there’s no secret there, everyone suspects and, in many cases, assumes adultry. There has been little to no scrutiny of his personal life and this is astounding to me. Could Charlie Rangel have been setting it up last week with his comments on Rudy’s multiple marriages?

The other thing that might have “involvement” is the scandal with Monsignor Alan Placa. This is Rudy’s longtime childhood confidant, the priest that annulled his marriage in 1982 and whome he currently employs as a “consultant.” Monsignor Alan Placa is accused by a Suffolk County grand jury of being a child molester… aka “Priest F.” This is a man that did much to shape the church’s response to these accusations. How much does the left love a perfectly timed religious-homosexual controversy? Evokes strong memories of Foley-gate.

Medicated on October 31, 2007 at 10:39 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5lTeZZUDyY

Medicated on October 31, 2007 at 10:43 AM

The only candidate that could possibly fit the long and convoluted implication you made is: Fred.

However, I think the scandal is about Obama. LAT would never tank a story for a Republican. They might delay it for maximum damage, but not spike it.

My guess: Obama had an affair with Larry Craig.

JayHaw Phrenzie on October 31, 2007 at 10:44 AM

I think it’s about a candidates spouse, hence the reluctance to print. In the past, scandals involved the candidates, exposing the spouse of a candidate is unchartered waters.

swami on October 31, 2007 at 10:47 AM

OK, I think I’ve got it.

It’s Bill Clinton and Belinda Stronach.

The reason the MSM is holding off is because they fear to see Bill wag his finger at the camera and say “I did not have sex with that woman”.

Belinda’s denying the rumors. If Bill denies them, it’s almost like an admission of guilt.

Bill probably has Hillary’s blessings to act on his impulses, but just be discreet.

Anyway, Clinton/Stronach seems like common knowledge. Don’t know how much of a “Major Sex Scandal” it is.

jaime on October 31, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Medicated on October 31, 2007 at 10:39 AM

I don’t know. The tone of Rosenbaum’s piece makes it sound as though it involves a candidate engaged in “private sexual behavior,” not a candidate’s friend:

It raises all sorts of ethical questions. What about private sexual behavior is relevant? What about a marriage belongs in the coverage of a presidential campaign? Does it go to the judgment of the candidate in question? Didn’t we all have a national nervous breakdown over these questions nearly a decade ago?

Slublog on October 31, 2007 at 10:48 AM

*Sigh* – Meant to blockquote the name/date. Not strike…

Slublog on October 31, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Rosenbaum is a reputable guy. A negative story broken by him would carry credibilty. Hence, he’s a perfect target of opportunity for a guy seeking to give a “scandal” legitimacy.

I don’t think Rosenbaum became a reputable guy by being a stooge for sleezy political operatives. If the la times holds it until the middle of the main campaign it may backfire on the dems if the act is not unspeakable. It will appear exactly as it is, an attempt by a politically motivated media to affect a national election. I think it is a democrat and the la times is sitting on it until they are sure the candidaqte is out of the picture. Probably means it is obama or edwars. probably edwards because he is such an arrogant vain little creep.

Unless of course, it’s fred and they wait until the general election to break the story that he had sex with barbra streisand.

peacenprosperity on October 31, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Scandelous,slanderous and sexually satirical speculation on Halloween hump-day. Fun stuff.

captivated_dem on October 31, 2007 at 10:54 AM

he had sex with barbra streisand.

peacenprosperity on October 31, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Now that’s just nasty, no matter who you’re talking about.

Kowboy on October 31, 2007 at 10:55 AM

Guys, its Fred! His campaign insiders have been jumping ship for a few weeks now. Even after a couple of decent debates (which I thought was all he needed to jump to the top) he has found little momentum. Its certainly not Mitt. It could be Rudy but his campaign has not shown any signs of weakness necessarily. Its not McCain. Its just not.

If its a Republican it must be Fred.

Zetterson on October 31, 2007 at 10:59 AM

Got it! It’s Rudi..

Alden Pyle on October 31, 2007 at 11:01 AM

A threesome with the Obamas and DeGeneres backstage after the dance?

Just askin’…

CliffHanger on October 31, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Are we talking about Huckabee, Allah?

RightWinged on October 31, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Edwards and the Jenna Six. His spin is that he’s just trying to unite the 2 Americas.

Alden Pyle on October 31, 2007 at 11:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 2