View Full Version : Edwards,....Billy would be proud!
Mrblackguns
08-08-2008, 16:15
Anyone read about John Edward's lies and affiars? Ol' Billy must be proud as a pimp on father's day! :lol:LOL
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080808/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_affair
It's pathetic. And as always in this situations, terribly sad for his family.
Like so many that do that, he just made it worse by saying things like that Elizabeth was in remission at the time. Huh?<_<
Politically, Edwards being Kerry's running mate in '04 and by no means a fringe element on the national scene, it's a black eye for the Democratic party, no doubt about it.
I don't know whether a presidential candidate's private life should be the target of paid tabloid journalism. And it's true that nowadays candidates are under a lot of pressure to put their families front and center. But it sure enough was incredibly reckless for him to run for president as a family values man a mere year after such a lapse.
What must be particularly galling for him now are his own words 9 years ago:
"I think this president has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen."
Mrblackguns
08-08-2008, 18:11
When he was running for nomination, I kept thinking, "theres no way I would be self centered enough to run for nomination while my wife has been diagnosed with a terminal illness". I would be rallying around her privately out of the limelight getting as much quality time with her and my children as possible.
I guess the 4,000. haircuts on the tax payers was dime was a symptom of a much bigger problem on his part.
The media sat on this story for 2 years, tried to write off the story as some "national enquirer tabloid reporting, won't give it more than 20 seconds obligatory reporting time and will then let it drop.
What would they have done if Edwards was a republican?
Carbine85
08-08-2008, 18:18
When he was running for nomination, I kept thinking, "theres no way I would be self centered enough to run for nomination while my wife has been diagnosed with a terminal illness". I would be rallying around her privately out of the limelight getting as much quality time with her and my children as possible.
I guess the 4,000. haircuts on the tax payers was dime was a symptom of a much bigger problem on his part.
I had the same thoughts when he was running. I always thought he was a puke, guess I was right.
Mrblackguns
08-08-2008, 18:22
The media sat on this story for 2 years, tried to write off the story as some "national enquirer tabloid reporting, won't give it more than 20 seconds obligatory reporting time and will then let it drop.
What would they have done if Edwards was a republican?
I thought about that too..........
I guess the 4,000. haircuts on the tax payers was dime was a symptom of a much bigger problem on his part.
You mean on his campaign contributors' dime.
The media sat on this story for 2 years,
Why shouldn't they have? There was no hard evidence for it before today.
... tried to write off the story as some "national enquirer tabloid reporting,
Which media outlet did that?
... won't give it more than 20 seconds obligatory reporting time and will then let it drop. What would they have done if Edwards was a republican?
What do you mean? CNN and MSNBC have been all over this all day.
National Enquirer gets another scoop; one they were able to get because, in contrast to most news outlets, they pay sources for access. In doing that they risk actually generating news events that might not otherwise have occurred. Though that doesn't bother them. How did their reporter know to be at that hotel at that time? How did National Enquirer not only obtain that photo that may or may not be Edwards and the baby that may or may not be his, but also, assuming it is genuine, manage to get that photo taken in the hotel room in the first place? Where, when and how was that photo taken? This inquiring mind would like to know that.
Regarding that photo:
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/35247
I'm not sure why anyone would want to get too excited about this story. Just like obsessing with the Larry Craig or Elliot Spitzer scandals would also be ... strange.
What would they have done if Edwards was a republican?
That's a rhetorical question, right?
Just wondering how long before someone claims the mistress was a plant by the vast-right-wing conspiracy.
http://raccol.com/images/smileys/blah-sign.gif
Mrblackguns
08-08-2008, 19:36
Just wondering how long before someone claims the mistress was a plant by the vast-right-wing conspiracy.
http://raccol.com/images/smileys/blah-sign.gif
LOL:lol:,...oh man I needed that!
... tried to write off the story as some "national enquirer tabloid reporting,Which media outlet did that?
Those are his words. I just saw a news clip and watched him say it. Was when the story originally broke.
Those are his words. I just saw a news clip and watched him say it. Was when the story originally broke.
Yeah, well, if you'll go back and look at the statement I, in fact, replied to, you'll note that AZ_Mike suggested that "The media sat on this story for 2 years, tried to write off the story as some "national enquirer tabloid reporting,"
John Edwards and "the media" are two entirely separate entities, right?
Mrblackguns
08-08-2008, 23:37
Yeah, well,.....................................
EXACTLY:blink:
LOL, sorry, just need to laugh tonight.
Hey, I'm all about spreading good cheer.:D
e80hydro
08-09-2008, 06:21
Hey, give the guy some credit, at least he didn't get nailed trying to pick up dudes in an airport bathroom like Larry Craig :lol::lol::lol:.
DocWagon
08-09-2008, 08:23
What surprises me is that this surprises anyone. Estimates of married men who have affairs are usually in the 25-35% range. So, on the conservative side there's 134 current congressmen with an affair in their past, present, or future.
The only reason it's even laughable is his comments on the Clinton affair.
Pot: "Every come quick! Look at kettle! He's totally black!"
The reason I pointed out that they MSM sat on the story for two years is because, had this been a republican, this story would have been "top of the hour" and "front page" on day one, based solely on the allegation or suspicion alone. That is the double standard the media plays based on party.
It doesn't matter if Edwards said it or if the media said it, the fact is that this ruse for burying this story is that is was not news worthy and "tabloid". It makes no difference who said it, it was said by one of the parties complicit in the cover up which makes it all the same to me.
Typical media double standard.
AZ_Mike, your chronology isn't adding up. When exactly are you saying the MSM should have had this "top of the hour" and "front page"? Was not yesterday "day one"?
Conversely, do you have an example of the MSM digging up dirt on a Republican politician in the manner the National Enquirer dug up this dirt on Edwards? I can't recall of any example of that. I'm almost sure there has been no example of this "based solely on the allegation or suspicion alone." Do you know of one?
It doesn't matter if Edwards said it or if the media said it
What? Edwards said it yesterday. It was all over the news yesterday. All over. And if you're suggesting that the MSM should take their cues from the National Enquirer, then, "Earth to AZ_Mike ..."
Reporters found Edwards' affair tough to prove
AP's approach: 'Better to get it right even if we couldn't get it first'
Aug. 8, 2008
WASHINGTON - Reporters don't like being beaten on a major political story, especially by a supermarket tabloid. And being beaten up over not reporting one is even less appealing.
But a sexual affair can have just two people who know the truth. Without witnesses, documents, photographs or some form of irrefutable evidence pointing to the truth, news organizations will not endanger their own integrity.
That made it difficult to prove — and to print — the rumors that John Edwards had cheated on his seriously ill wife while running for president. Reporters were left to poke around the edges of a potentially career-ending scandal in search of an opening.
"It's not like they didn't know it was there," said Mark Feldstein, a former investigative reporter who teaches journalism at George Washington University.
"Proof is the biggest issue," Feldstein said. "The National Enquirer is not well-regarded as a news source by the news media."
Last year the National Enquirer published a story alleging that Edwards had an extramarital affair. It reported last month that the former senator had fathered a "love child." Readers of the popular if trashy weekly — perhaps some who only glance at the headlines at the checkout counter — joined the political enemies of the handsome Democrat in asking why other news media were not carrying the story.
Confirming the story
So did many of those who live in the blogosphere, where the Enquirer story was taken as fact in spite of its anonymous sources. Where, they asked, were the reports on CNN, in The New York Times, on the news wire of The Associated Press? The AP had a fair number of inquiries by phone and e-mail as to when it would report the Edwards affair.
The answer for the AP and many other news media was simple: When it could be confirmed. And it never was confirmed to the AP's satisfaction or, apparently, to the satisfaction of others until Edwards himself owned up to the infidelity in an interview with ABC News.
"We began pursuing the story soon after it first appeared. But the standard for proof in this kind of intimate behavior is and should be very high," said Michael Oreskes, AP's managing editor for U.S. news. "Better to get it right even if we couldn't get it first.
After Edwards dropped his bid for the Democratic nomination, questions about his marital fidelity lost much of their relevance to the presidential race. Yet the affair still made news, even if he timed his confession for a Friday in August on the opening day of the Summer Olympics to soften the impact of a sex scandal.
Efforts had failed to find someone who could reveal the facts or to uncover a document linking Edwards to 42-year-old Rielle Hunter. No father is listed on the birth certificate, which the AP and other news organizations had obtained, and other evidence such as Edwards' political action committee paying her $100,000 for videos was only circumstantial.
That left little for reporters. The AP had been among those reporting in October 2007 that Edwards flatly stated that the Enquirer's initial story was false — a lie, he now admits. Still, the opening allowed news organizations to report what they otherwise stayed away from.
The process repeated itself a few weeks ago when the Enquirer reported that Edwards had paid a late-night visit to Hunter and her child. He called the allegation "tabloid trash" when a reporter asked about it on July 23 — not exactly a lie but certainly a description designed to deceive. Again, most news organization were loath to pick up the new Enquirer report, beyond the denial, and those who could have revealed the truth remained silent.
"I think the mainstream news media were responsible for not airing it and not printing it earlier. There really wasn't anything to report," Feldstein said. "If the story were false, it would be a tremendously hurtful thing for his family and professionally lethal to him."
Reporters looked for indirect ways to get at the story. The Raleigh News & Observer and others reported this week that the rumors and Edwards' silence about them were affecting plans for him to speak at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.
Within days, Edwards broke his silence, an event sure to burst the dam that held back details about the affair, predictions for Edwards' future and criticism over how the news media got scooped by a publication they don't respect.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26099046/
What does that say about many of the blogs?
Better to get it right even if we couldn't get it firstThis is following the Dan Rather model, right? It's curious to hear left-leaning 'news' orgs like MSNBC do the little tap dance talk about getting it right. I still think if the subject would have been a Republican, they would have been relentless in digging up just enough evidence to run with the story. Reminds me of the following quote based on Jer. 5:21 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Jer&chapter=5&verse=21)There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.
AZ_Mike, your chronology isn't adding up. When exactly are you saying the MSM should have had this "top of the hour" and "front page"? Was not yesterday "day one"?
Conversely, do you have an example of the MSM digging up dirt on a Republican politician in the manner the National Enquirer dug up this dirt on Edwards? I can't recall of any example of that. I'm almost sure there has been no example of this "based solely on the allegation or suspicion alone." Do you know of one?
What? Edwards said it yesterday. It was all over the news yesterday. All over. And if you're suggesting that the MSM should take their cues from the National Enquirer, then, "Earth to AZ_Mike ..."
This is a joke question right?
This story is over two years old. The Enquirer was on it very early on and the mainstream media ignored it.
Google up "Mark Foley" or "Larry Craig" and tell me what you find.
Again, we go into the area of you wanting me to waste my time looking up stuff that is common knowledge. Mark Foley allegedly sent text messages to some underage page. It was front page news forever. Not only was it front page news the MSM was trying to bring down the speaker of the House because they wanted to know "what he knew and when he knew it". They wanted Congressional hearings into "who knew what" etc.
Stop wasting my time with these stupid questions.
EDIT:
I make no distinction between democrats and the MSM, they are part and parcel of the same mechanism. So it matters not one iota whether it was Edwards or the media that made the comment, they are essentially the same entity...unless of course you think the media is not biased, then I can't help you.
The "Better get it right" stuff is utter bull****. They will run with a story (Dan Rather) and be wrong all day long if the target is a republican and is evidenced time and time again by the way they cover stories.
Stop with the jokes.
I make no distinction between democrats and the MSM, they are part and parcel of the same mechanism. So it matters not one iota whether it was Edwards or the media that made the comment, they are essentially the same entity...unless of course you think the media is not biased, then I can't help you.
The "Better get it right" stuff is utter bull****. They will run with a story (Dan Rather) and be wrong all day long if the target is a republican and is evidenced time and time again by the way they cover stories.
Stop with the jokes.
In that vein...
http://ratherbiased.com/compare.htm
And if you're suggesting that the MSM should take their cues from the National Enquirer, then, "Earth to AZ_Mike ..."
It appears to me that the enquirer is more on the ball with regard to this stuff than the MSM. Enquirer called the ball a long time ago and all the "investigative" journalists, you know the "real journalists", the ones catching predators and such at the "real news media outlets" either didn't know anything about it (they got scooped by fake journalists) or covered it up.
This wasn't a Bigfoot or UFO sighting, this is news and the MSM acted their part in ignoring it because the MSM is the propaganda wing of the democrat party and were not about to say diddley until they absolutely had to.
What does it say about the MSM when the Enquirer is a more credible source of news?
You still haven't dealt with with the crucial timing questions (see post 17).
What you (and raccol) have done is change the subject from the Edwards situation. Dan Rather isn't the issue. But, since you raised it, what will you say if those National Enquirer photos turn out to be fake after all? That the story justifies the fraud?
If you're willing to evaluate the important things in life by tabloid journalism, well, good luck with that. We seem to be getting it whether we like it or not with the blogs, which get some if not all the facts in a situation wrong very often.
As for me, politics - sleazy though it sometimes can be - is too important to trust to the National Enquirer.
Over and out.
discussing the evident hypocrisy of the MSM and why they'd give him a pass is a much bigger issue than establishing that he's a world-class dirtbag. I think the proof is pretty clear on that one.
You still haven't dealt with with the crucial timing questions (see post 17).
What you (and raccol) have done is change the subject from the Edwards situation. Dan Rather isn't the issue. But, since you raised it, what will you say if those National Enquirer photos turn out to be fake after all? That the story justifies the fraud?
If you're willing to evaluate the important things in life by tabloid journalism, well, good luck with that. We seem to be getting it whether we like it or not with the blogs, which get some if not all the facts in a situation wrong very often.
As for me, politics - sleazy though it sometimes can be - is too important to trust to the National Enquirer.
Over and out.
I have seen (and addressed) your non-sequiter "timing issue". This isn't brand new, it's years old.
This is simple. This happened, the MSM ignored it or at the very least chose not to investigate it. The Enquirer investigated it and it turned out to be 100% true.
So who is the "tabloid news" here? Clearly not the Enquirer.
With regard to your "what if"...well if it wasn't for the word "if" I would be (insert anything you like here). So I am not going to drive down that particular fantasy road.
As far as politics being too important to trust the Enquirer, thats a laugh. You think trusting it to a cover up, complicit, clearly left wing MSM is better? If you do then we would never hear anything about any democrat and a bunch of hyperbole about every little thing real or perceived about republicans.
Lol...thanks for that laugh.
You wanted blog and tabloid "journalism" to be front and center in this campaign, well now we're all going to get it, whether we like it or not:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
When the public finally realizes how much trouble this country, and the world, is in, maybe then we'll demand a campaign about issues. Maybe. If we're not too besotted from all the blog and tabloid fodder to know what it is and recognize it any longer, that is.
"Barack Hussein Obama, Muslim or Christian? We report his middle name, you decide."
You wanted blog and tabloid "journalism" to be front and center in this campaign, well now we're all going to get it, whether we like it or not:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
When the public finally realizes how much trouble this country, and the world, is in, maybe then we'll demand a campaign about issues. Maybe. If we're not too besotted from all the blog and tabloid fodder to know what it is and recognize it any longer, that is.
"Barack Hussein Obama, Muslim or Christian? We report his middle name, you decide."
I agree with the last parts of your post, but this story bears zero resemblance to the story about Edwards.
To start with most of this stuff is already known and has been known for decades. I don't hear McCain making denials about it etc.
It is, after all the left that loves to dredge up very old news about people (Bush's drug problems, DUI arrest in the 70's etc) other than their own party. When it comes to dems we are supposed to MOVEON (the reason moveon.org was created).
Who cares if Edward's wife is sick and he cheated on her? That really isn't the issue. The issue is all the lying and denying something that is absolutely true. Spare me the "this is personal business" etc. Idiot Edwards just got awarded "father of the year" or some silly **** and he is lying, cheating and God knows what else to his family? Maybe the award is appropriate if you base it on liberal values, but for those of us that believe in something else, it is total crap.
Sorry, this is apples and oranges.
The point is that the MSM could be dredging up McCain's first marriage (and there is a "there" there) yet they are not. Which they would be if they were as biased as you say they are. Instead, it's a British tabloid doing it. You don't think the "last updated on August 8, 2008" timing of the tabloid article is coincidence, do you?
I do agree that Edwards lies while running for president are a far more significant issue. I think he's disqualified for any further political career for that.
I flat out disagree with your contention that the MSM has somehow been more scrutinizing of Republican politicians' mischief while ignoring that of Democratic politicians. The following article is one example among many that supports my contention, and I'll leave it at that:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.benen.html
The point is that the MSM could be dredging up McCain's first marriage (and there is a "there" there) yet they are not. Which they would be if they were as biased as you say they are. Instead, it's a British tabloid doing it. You don't think the "last updated on August 8, 2008" timing of the tabloid article is coincidence, do you?
I do agree that Edwards lies while running for president are a far more significant issue. I think he's disqualified for any further political career for that.
I flat out disagree with your contention that the MSM has somehow been more scrutinizing of Republican politicians' mischief while ignoring that of Democratic politicians. The following article is one example among many that supports my contention, and I'll leave it at that:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.benen.html
There is a huge difference between events that happened 35 years ago and events happening now. Even if this stuff about McCain were some sort of secret (it's not) it would still be different.
If you choose to believe that democrats and repubs get the same scrutiny I will leave you to your delusion. Time and time again, as soon as a whiff of something about a republican is on the breeze, the media goes crazy. In addition to that, democrats don't chastise their bad players, no, they typically rally behind them.
Here is an example.
Back in the 80's there was a congressman named Gary Studds. Studds didn't sent txt messages to his underage male pages, he had affairs with them. "Affairs" if you don't want to call it what it is. It was brought up in the media, Studds said it was "consensual" and the dems and media went on a rampage about the "witch hunting" etc. They saw to it that Studds was never sanctioned for what he did and made sure he was re-elected 5 more times. Contrast that with what happened to Mark Foley.
Bill Clinton has been accused of rape...did you see NOW or the MSM crying out about any of it? No, they went way out of their way to make the victims look like fools. Contrast that with Robert Packwood.
Trent Lott said of Strom Thurman as the guy retired that the country would have been a better place if Thurman were elected President (he ran as a democrat). Lott was forced to resign as majority leader and people wanted him out entirely. Contrast that with Chris Dodd who said of Robert Byrd: "He has always been on the right side of history". A former KKK member who said the times in his life were spent in the Klan. A guy who still uses the "N" word and other racist remarks.
The record is replete with examples like this. If you wish to believe that the MSM handles both sides fairly just shows how far to the left you are.
Bill Clinton has been accused of rape...did you see NOW or the MSM crying out about any of it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm
Mainstream enough for you?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm
Mainstream enough for you?
Not really, considering that when republicans are accused, the media runs with it until they resign...didn't get close to that with ol' Billy.
Huge difference between running one or two softball stories on the back page and making it front page news until people lose their jobs.
You can keep playing this game, but the reality is that there is a huge double standard that exists in the media and the only people that don't see are people who are ok with it; you being one of them.
I'd call that distorting the facts, AZ_Mike.
A15 is not the "back pages."
And then there's this from the front page of the C section:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/nbc022499.htm
Washington Post reporting on this a year before the special report:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/lettertext122398.htm
and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/affidavit122398.htm
Oh, and look, page A1:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/janedoe022099.htm
That's A1 as in "front page of the front section."
You call these "softball stories" - did you even look at them? Just because they're not written in the shrill language of the blogs doesn't make them "softball."
Time for you to move the goalposts yet again.
Did Clinton resign? What was moveon.org created for? Who backed moveon.org?
The reality is that the media downplayed Clinton's affairs from the very first day he ran for POTUS and the media was backed by groups like NOW and others.
Goal post moving...me? lol. You are terrible with sequiturs.
EDIT:
To answer your question: "Did I read them?" The answer is "no" because the accusations were a decade or more old by the time that 1999 story you posted was written. If anything the timing of the story you posted further proves the point that the MSM sits on stories about dems.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.