Now THAT’S family values.

Bring on the beer baronness!

In many states there is a required period of separation before a divorce can be finalized. Any “cohabitation” resets the clock on this separation. What is “cohabitation?” In my state, it is defined as spending the night in the same house. That means that if an estranged husband comes over to visit the kids or mow the lawn or fix something in the house that he still co-owns with his soon-to-be ex-wife, and it gets late and he decides to sleep on the couch rather than drive home, then he and his wife have cohabitated and they have to start over with the required separation. If a man is filling out a legal form and is asked when he and his wife last cohabitated, in my state he would have to put the last date that he spent the night in the same house as his wife.

And what is separation? Most people would define that as the period between when one person in a couple moves out, and when their divorce is finalized. In other words, it is entirely possible to cohabitate while separated (co-habitation only takes one night, don’t forget.) Is this the case with John McCain? I don’t know, and I doubt anyone else here does either. The speculation and accusations based on old legal documents and an autobiography is extremely thin and, to be frank, quite foolish.

Duros: Indeed, that is central to my point.

And yet, OW headlines it with the lie.

Snip-n-save. And tell your friends.

Then tell me why there are actually people who support him.

When you don’t even support your own legislation, there is something seriously wrong with you.

Indeed, that is central to my point. Just another example in an increasingly long list.

According to the LA times article investigating the issue, either McCain was having an affair while still living with this wife for nine months or he lied on his divorce filing:

“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.”

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.

That’s not character and integrity we can believe in.

Me too. I enjoy this blog and appreciate the good stuff, but I’m not a fan of fighting dirty. This is a smear on McCain. If we want people to vote Obama instead of McCain we only have to talk about McCain’s political policies. The personal stuff is his business.

What it goes to show is that Obama, despite all his blather about “hope” and “change” is pretty much like any other politician in the tactics he allows his campaign to use and his move to the center on some issues (I expect that will continue as the campaign goes on).

Only if there are pictures.

In just the past few days, there has been this post declaring McCain a bigamist when that was clearly not the case and a bitch about college Republicans not honoring non-9/11 dates that was also easily shown to to have no real basis in fact.

I expect things here to have a definite viewpoint. But I don’t expect them to be blatantly false.

Sorry, but it’s true:

It is difficult to discuss Axelrod in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. As the 2004 Senate primary neared, it was clear that it was a contest between two people: the millionaire liberal, Hull, who was leading in the polls, and Obama, who had built an impressive grass-roots campaign. About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory. The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had “worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama’s TV ad campaign started at almost the same time.

Axelrod denies it of course, but it’s not like he’s going to come out and just say, “Yes, it was me!”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?pagewanted=4&ei=5124&en=bdcf482b83101092&ex=1333252800&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Oh, stop it.

Maybe I missed the extensive reporting on that story in the mainstream media.

Extensive reporting? Mainstream press? Oxymorons.

In just the past few days, there has been this post declaring McCain a bigamist when that was clearly not the case and a bitch about college Republicans not honoring non-9/11 dates that was also easily shown to to have no real basis in fact“.

I expect things here to have a definite viewpoint. But I don’t expect them to be blatantly false.

Captain Jack Sparrow: It’s pronounced ‘egregious’

This doesn’t surprise me. Obama has used divorce records in the past to his political advantage so don’t be surprised to that this nugget was leaked to the press by his surrogates as well.