Astounding hypocrisy alert!
Although the New York Times published a lengthy front page hit piece in February alleging without any proof that John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago, it is now claiming that it chose not to report on the John Edwards love child scandal because it's “classically not a Times-like story.”
I guess sex scandals are only "Times-like" when they're about Republicans.
Ths is so absurd that even Times ombudsman Clark Hoyt wrote about it Saturday (emphasis added throughout, h/t Hot Air, photo courtesy ABC News):
Before Edwards’s admission, The Times never made a serious effort to investigate the story, even as the Enquirer wrote one sensational report after another: a 2:40 a.m. ambush by the tabloid’s reporters at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Los Angeles after Edwards spent hours in a room with Hunter and her baby; an allegation of $15,000 a month in “hush money;” a grainy “spy photo” of him with a baby. [...]
The Times did not want to regurgitate the Enquirer’s reporting without verifying it, which is responsible. But The Times did not try to verify it, beyond a few perfunctory efforts, which I think was wrong. Until the ABC report, only one mainstream news organization, McClatchy newspapers, seemed to be making headway with the story.
Not that it would have been easy. David Perel, the editor of the Enquirer, said, “This is a very hard story to prove, and I think that has frozen people in place.”
It is also the kind of story that The Times seems instinctively to recoil from, just as it ignored such stories in its own backyard as A-Rod and Madonna and Christie Brinkley’s ugly divorce, and played down the “love child” scandal involving New York City’s only Republican congressman, Vito Fossella, earlier this year. But Edwards was different. When the Enquirer first published its allegations, he was a major presidential candidate with a compelling personal story that included a wife of 30 years with incurable breast cancer. [...]
Still, Edwards-Hunter was “classically not a Times-like story,” said Craig Whitney, the standards editor.
Times editors said that when the first Enquirer story appeared and they could not verify it after fairly cursory inquiries, they left it alone. “I’m not going to recycle a supermarket tabloid’s anonymously sourced story,” said Bill Keller, the executive editor.
That's interesting, Bill, because your February 21 hit piece on McCain was anonymously sourced. In fact, Hoyt actually addressed it:
Keller and Stevenson said it was wrong to equate the McCain and Edwards stories, as so many readers and bloggers have. The editors saw the McCain story as describing a powerful senator’s dealings with lobbyists trying to influence government decisions, including one who anonymous sources believed was having a romantic relationship with him.
So, why are anonymous sources bad when it's a story about a Democrat sex scandal, but perfectly acceptable when writing about a Republican's alleged affair?
Yes...that's a rhetorical question.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
What planet?
August 10, 2008 - 10:51 ET by iveseenitallAs I asked in another post today, "What planet do the "liberals" live on?" They are so self-centered, they sometimes actually believe the %$&^ they shovel. Worse still, they think most of their audience believes it too. Condescending, elitists fools.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
McCain abandoned first wife for 'trophy' wife
August 11, 2008 - 02:18 ET by joekonnMcCain outlines his numerous affairs in his biography. He is no innocent. These kinds of issues have nothing to do with 'liberal' or 'conservative'. They speak to character and character is much more complex than one or even several mistakes. The 'liberal' media has been much tougher on Edwards and Clinton than they were on McCain.
joekonn.... what a camparison!
August 11, 2008 - 02:52 ET by MrShyEdwards: WHILE running for president, had an affair behind his ailing wife's back who was battling cancer, and there is strong evidence that he also fathered a love child to this mistress and used campaign funds to support her, including hush money. He attempted to keep this a secret and LIED several times, all of this during his campaign. When this broke, he was still a VP candidate and possible AG candidate for Obama.
Clinton: WHILE a sitting president, had an affair that took place in the Oval Office, and then LIED and denied it during his term in office. Was also accused of other affairs and misdeeds leading up to and during his campaign for president. Was impeached on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power stemming from these various incidents.
McCain: In his past -- well before he ran for president twice -- had affairs (while he was married, btw?) and got remarried (to a trophy wife or otherwise, that doesn't matter.) He NEVED LIED about anything, and even took it upon himself to make it all public in his memoirs.
.... One of these things is not like the other.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
The NYT has less credibility than the NE now
August 10, 2008 - 10:45 ET by Dee Bunkthey are so unprofessional. They are nothing but a political tabloid. The NE is more fair and balance and more accurate.
Agreed, Dee. “There
August 10, 2008 - 11:34 ET by NewsbusterbrownAgreed, Dee.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
oops
August 10, 2008 - 10:46 ET by Dee Bunkdelte double
Clark
August 10, 2008 - 10:45 ET by sawing battaare you listening to yourself?
This is breathtaking. Not a bias issue? Clark, seriously?
WHY didnt the Times do more than simple checking if not for bias? because it was too difficult to prove?? are you serious?
Clark: Are you then admitting that the National Enquirer is more capable of "proving" difficult stories than the Times?
Hilariously sad, Clark.
<Insert hysterical laughter
August 10, 2008 - 10:52 ET by motherbelt<Insert hysterical laughter here>
I am falling off my chair trying to imagine Mr. Hoyt typing that with a straight face.!
Two reporters confront Edwards in the hotel. Two witnesses with pictures. They don't say that he WAS visiting her; only that she was staying in that hotel.
The NYT needed "comfirmation" of that?????
But they felt comfortable publishing a tale that was nothing more than a rumor of a suspicion from years ago when it involved Sen. McCain!
What a pathetic attempt at an excuse.
Every time I read some
August 10, 2008 - 10:52 ET by fitzfongEvery time I read some left-wing "news" organization like the New York Times come up another lame and increasingly contorted excuse like this, I'm reminded of a particular scene in This Is Spinal Tap. Meathead Reiner asks the band's manager if the fact that Spinal Tap was now playing in front of crowds of 1200 as opposed to previous tours when they sold out 15,000 seat arenas meant that the band's popularity was waning. The manager replies, "Oh, no. No. No. No. It's that their appeal is becoming more 'selective'". Classically not a Times-like story. Ha!
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Bingo
August 10, 2008 - 10:52 ET by Gary HallNailed it. Bingo. (;~> gh
Reminds me of watching
August 10, 2008 - 13:06 ET by Kenny BunkportReminds me of watching Cops. The police have the perp cold but he sits there spouting some outlandish lie. The cops all stand there with that "you really think we're that stupid...?" look on their faces.
I don't know who the NYT is trying to fool. Maybe themselves. In that convoluted logic that liberals are famous for, perhaps they have actually convinced themselves that the McCain and Edwards stories were different.
I don't know which is worse; an editorial staff of a major newspaper that is a pack of liars, or an editorial staff which is delusional. They're both unacceptable.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
I don't know who the NYT
August 10, 2008 - 13:47 ET by motherbeltI don't know who the NYT is trying to fool. Maybe themselves.
Absolutely!
It's called a "delusional obsession."
*checks watch*
August 10, 2008 - 10:56 ET by candanceStill waiting for Biff to come back and explain himself. He's been suspiciously absent ever since the Edwards thing broke.
Lemme go make some popcorn as I wait for one of our resident lefties to defend this.
Careful, he may come back
August 10, 2008 - 11:07 ET by wiwfCareful, he may come back with the "McCain leaving his wife, marrying Cnidy 1 month after divorcing 'ugly wife'" shebang.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
let him go with it
August 10, 2008 - 11:17 ET by candanceStill doesn't explain how McCain's ancient history is more substantial than eyewitness accounts of something that happened mere weeks ago.
And anyway, the Times specifically said here that covering such gossip isn't their style, which doesn't explain why they covered the McCain thing on the front page.
Even granting the hypocrisy angle (which I totally do!!)
August 10, 2008 - 16:23 ET by sarcasmoI think the NYT's failed story, with its focus on an unproven & no doubt unprovable sex aspect from anonymous sources, made further MSM coverage of McCain's close (but not so sexy) relationship with LOTS of telecom lobbyists -- not just that one woman -- a lot less likely to ever happen. That's unfortunate, IMO.
JMR
PS Someone on another blog noticed Ms. Hunter looks a bit like Camilla Parker Bowles, who married Prince Charles. Would that make Edwards think he's royalty? You be the judge...
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
ha ha sarc
August 10, 2008 - 17:20 ET by candanceI mentioned to hubby that she looks - and acts - just like Camilla.
I think that is something
August 10, 2008 - 18:40 ET by DEVILDOCMOMI have been wondering about...why aren't these dims (including big bubba) chosing better looking, more intelligent women since they do not care about their marriage vows?
Depends on which Democrat
August 11, 2008 - 02:17 ET by sarcasmoWith Elliot Spitzer, the girl's good looks even make up for her awful "music"! And let's just say intelligence isn't exactly the top feature straying politicians tend to seek out when breaking their marriage vows. Quite the opposite, actually...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Of course it's not the NYT's style
August 10, 2008 - 11:09 ET by jefflebowskiBecause it shows a lib in less than glowing circumstances. It should be PAINFULLY obvious to everyone...including site trolls...that the MSM is biased beyond any credibility. They have as much credibility as Pravda had in the Soviet Union. And they wonder why their numbers continue to crumble.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Candace I wrote this two days ago:
August 10, 2008 - 13:33 ET by ahusser"Jer? Biff? Hellooo, where are you?August 8, 2008 - 21:00 ET by ahusser
Gee the two trolls which dominated this topic a day or two ago are missing. Where are youuu? Poo pooing the National Enquirer as they did, trying to deflect the topic and as usual splitting hairs until the original topic was forgotten and last but not least always defending the indefensible in good lefty lib troll fashion.
I posted then that the NE's shtick is celebrity hi jinks and lo jinks. I believe now and did then that their credibility was good if not better than many other news outlets, like I said, they are very careful about what they print as they are magnets for defamation and libel lawsuits par excellence and, let's face it, scandal sells newspapers. The NE's credibility is apparently much better than any "Serious" newspaper. The MSM should be ashamed but there arrogance and bias prevents shame. "
They have been noticeably absent. LOL
Journalistic Skills for First Grade
August 10, 2008 - 11:15 ET by CellaWhy didn't I think of that? NYT, give me one of your crayons and I will write a column for you.
Let's give it a try. "Dims good, Republicans bad."
Another Step Toward The Noose
August 10, 2008 - 11:21 ET by rammingspeedThe MSM's approach in general, and the New York Times' in particular, to this subject is just another example of why these corrupt, left-wing propaganda organizations are dying. They are beyond wrong-headed and arrogant - or even stupid, which they certainly are being - they naive. They childish. These people are guilty of believing things that aren't true to a spectacular degree, and their willingness to twist everything to get what they want exposes their hatred of anyone who stands in their way.
People who live this way cannot succeed, for they will consume even themselves with their hatred.
Is it any wonder about the NYT?
August 10, 2008 - 13:48 ET by goldenthroatWhat was the latest figures on the drop of their advertising revenues and readership? 87%?
Hmmm - Does anyone see a connection between their abysmal numbers and their continued use of 'yellow journalism'?
Obviously, they don't, because they must enjoy drowning in red ink.
"It's not a lie if you believe it!" - George Costanza
Unfortunately
August 10, 2008 - 13:22 ET by ahusserThe delusions and madness the left exhibit cannot exist in the long term but the "short" term can be measured in years and decades with hideous consequences for all if they seize power! See: USSR/Stalin, Mao/Red China, Pol Pot/Cambodia Fidel/Cuba.
Sad
August 10, 2008 - 11:34 ET by bdshepherdIt's kind of sad, but I strongly suspect that most of the 'journalists' regularly called out on NB (such as those at the NYT) honestly don't know what anyone is talking about when there's a claim of bias.
They live in a separate world, where the only people they interact with as fellow human beings think exactly the same as they do. Everyone who is more than merely a potential story simply reinforces their beliefs. Therefore, even when they try for objectivity, their point of view is skewed so far left that they fail miserably.
I doubt that in most cases there is a conscious decision to, for example, omit the (D) in a story about a Democrat involved in a scandal, while being sure to label Republicans as such. Or in running a story based on stale innuendos about McCain, while refusing to touch a story with eyewitnesses about Edwards. There's no vast conspiracy: they are just so out of touch that anything reflecting poorly on a Democrat just doesn't register as news to them. After all, they're not interested in hearing about it, so why would anyone else be?
I think this is painfully obvious in all the hand-wringing excuses for neglecting the John Edwards story -- they honestly don't understand that there was a failure, let alone that they are to blame for it. It's infuriating, but also pitiful.
I consider myself to be center-right politically, but the MSM is so far left that anything they report (or fail to report) is suspect. This is my first post here, but I've been reading for a while. Some of the NB stories seem to be a little nit-picky, but overall it's a great site for getting a little perspective on just how out-of-it the MSM is. Keep up the good work.
All's fare in love, war, and politics.
August 10, 2008 - 11:53 ET by CrashCome on GOP grow some stones and stop shooting blanks. STAY ON OFFENSE!
Does anyone remember the "sex scandal" taken from a sealed divorce settlement to ruin Ryan's Senate run; giving a greenhorn the seat?
Cokie Roberts/Laura Ingraham
August 10, 2008 - 11:53 ET by TexndocIt's funny I was more satisfied by Cokie Roberts this morning on ABC than I was by Laura on the Factor (apparently she's friends with Elizabeth). Laura was more "oh, what a tragedy" and Cokie couldv'e been spitting nails. " 'In remission?' !!!" (She forgot to add "WTF?!?", or they edited it out)
I thought she was pretty
August 10, 2008 - 11:57 ET by Jack BauerI thought she was pretty harsh on John Edwards.
As to sympathy towards Mrs Edwards.. don't forget Laura has had two bouts of cancer. And her boyfriend at the time of her second bout dumped her, rather publicly.
cokie=poseur?
August 10, 2008 - 12:36 ET by sawing battaCokie:
This story broke almost a year ago...
I dont recall hearing you speak up...
Last month, FoxNews (still late to the party but at least they made the effort to show up) simply asked a few questions of the Security Guard at the BeverlyHilton and confirmed material components of what the NE was saying...
where were you??
If you're so dialed in on whats happening with Presidential politics, how is it that you're only now getting offended? Either you're not at all dialed in and really are just hearing about this story (in which case you have no business being a reputable commentator on anything) or you're a poseur.
Which is it?
This story didnt just break...and you know it. Where were YOU all this time in fulfilling public trust in journalists?
The Lawyer's contracts
August 10, 2008 - 12:13 ET by ThisnThatJohn Edwards established at least two contracts before the story broke "officially":
If the NYT wanted to, they could pursue this. Do they want to? Not a chance, is my bet.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
That is a great point.
August 10, 2008 - 12:45 ET by Ryan Mc.That is a great point. Edwards knew damn well when he said he'd do a paternity test that she had already agreed to refuse it. It is so obvious that she is covering for him. I haven't heard anyone talking about that. Its so obvious. Her family is not standing for that though they are demanding the test here and now.
Also, where is the media talking about Edward's comment that he had no idea the woman was being paid $15,000 a month by his former top finance guy? How in the HELL do you not know about that? Its hard to understand how there is no curiosity at all about these facts. Edwards must be the most arrogant SOB if he thinks that statement he put out will end this. If he is truly sorry then why does he continue to lie?
As for Elizabeth I feel very sorry for her cancer situation but I don't give her behavior a pass at all. She can do whatever she wants but she did use her cancer to score political points in the primary or let herself be used. She went before more cameras then John did so it appears she was a willing participant. I think she stayed with him for the power. She has to know he's still lying. What self-respecting woman would put up with a cheating lying man who continues to lie? Feminism sure died a painful death on the left. After Clinton and Edwards, and more importantly the excuses by members of the left, there can be no pretense that they are the party of women's lib.
Exactly, TNT...
August 10, 2008 - 12:57 ET by trak65Contract #2 is the linchpin of Edwards' whole carefully-constructed house of cards to deal with this. He is probably thinking, Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson survived--why not me? The MSM is unlikely to do much heavy lifting--they're already parroting the party line that this was a brief lapse in judgment 2 years ago, and Edwards is not the father. But the Enquirer and Fox News should keep sniffing around. Surely the two pincipals' whereabouts in May 2007 (month the child was conceived) will be investigated. What does Andrew Young's wife say about all this? What about her friends?
What if?
August 10, 2008 - 12:23 ET by wdhorningWhat if it was reported "anonomous sources report all top 10 editors of the NYT were child rapists?" This is the kind of story the NYT published on McCain, without proof, and now, even with Edwards admitting the affair, refuses to print.
Because of this kind of hypocrisy, IMHO, the NYT is "toilet paper."
The NYT: The official press agent of the DNC.
August 10, 2008 - 12:54 ET by c5then"Nuff said.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
How far have they fallen?
August 10, 2008 - 12:57 ET by BacchusHow's it possible the NYTimes can still be considered a prime source of news when their performance is on par with the kiddie-corp at MSNBC? They are a humorous back-up source at best.
Right on Noel
August 10, 2008 - 13:02 ET by shawn228Nothing burns me more that hypocrisy, and this is a huge example. They had very thin evidence against McCain and still decided to use it, but they think visiting someone at 2:30 in the morning is not at least as thin?
Real life video games are cool
NYT,spews this story after the DNC/ Nobama picked Edwards as VP
August 10, 2008 - 13:10 ET by upcountrywaterYea right!
To bad Enquirer broke the story a month early.
I'm wondering who ratted out Edwards, to the Enquirer? at 2:30 am??
I wanna know!
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
The problem is that
August 10, 2008 - 14:29 ET by liberal_bug_zapperThe problem is that Liberals don't believe Liberals lie... therefore, they see everything printed and spoken by Liberals as the honest truth.
On the flip side, everything a conservative says is a lie, and everything they say is the product of evil private industry paying them to say what they say. For us conservatives on the street... we are the stereotype, bigot, homophobe, racist, sexist... and stupid to boot... so we regurgitate the evil conservative line because we cannot think for ourselves. We are bad people, and need to be in jail. This is the Liberal mindset. I know this because its how my mother thinks. She cries at night (she tells me) because I've been corrupted by the evil conservatives. She thinks that every politician I support should either be in jail or put on trial for crimes against humanity, and then executed. Most of her Liberal friends believe the same thing...
So the lies of the Left... they're not seen at all by the Left. They're not making excuses for themselves... they ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT CRAP!!!
____________________________________________________
"A society that puts equality...ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom." ~ Milton Friedman
Not Another Planet
August 10, 2008 - 15:08 ET by Del DolemonteA parallel universe.
trying to pull that no sense of humor stick out just a lil
August 10, 2008 - 15:46 ET by lunaticcringeradioa mistress that looks like a crack whore, but that's ok because liberals consider presidential candidates having sex with crack whore as getting in touch with your constituents. or community service, because it looks like everyone else in the community has hit that.
but don't worry democrats, his hair still looks great.
lunaticcringeradio
NY Times
August 10, 2008 - 18:05 ET by BarrackWe are clearly getting to the point that the NY Times will meet its end when the heads of all who work for it explode from accute cognitive dissonance.
BOOM!
www.benbarrack.com
Cut The Times Some Slack
August 10, 2008 - 21:44 ET by SmartypantsThey had no time to research the Edwards affair. They're probably busy investigating and ready to reveal the next terrorist surveillance program. Remember, this is the same organization that revealed the government program for monitoring the movement of cash, which had been instrumental in tracking terrorist activity. The Bush Administration pleaded with this rag to not print the details of this LEGAL and highly secret program--to no avail.
A news organization that holds so much contempt for the president that it would rather compromise Americans safety than hold a vital secret is going to have no reservations whatsoever about essentially covering up some Democrat's affair. The people that run NY Times have moved beyond partisanship. They are sick and deranged, and in need of some deep psychological therapy.
John & Rielle: New Age Lovers
August 11, 2008 - 00:21 ET by JerInteresting article. I alternately wanted to laugh and throw up.
Jer
Jer
August 11, 2008 - 19:08 ET by Rush FanThanks for the NewsWeek link. I enjoyed reading the comments. One of the comments was brief but may be prescient:
Posted By: noella77 @ 08/11/2008 3:23:06 PM Comment: The media held on to this story for months. I can just imagine what they are witholding from us about Obama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McCain and Barack Obama - I thought it was against the law for two Democrats to run in the general election.
The demise of journalism
August 11, 2008 - 02:05 ET by JerClick on the video at end of linked article and be an eyewitness to the continuing demise of American journalism.
Jer
As a liberal, you may be
August 11, 2008 - 02:18 ET by NL207As a liberal, you may be unaware of this, but most Americans think Georgia is a place that William T. Sherman sacked and burned. If you were to tell them the Russians were invading Georgia they would scratch their heads.
Well, NL...as a center-left
August 11, 2008 - 02:39 ET by JerWell, NL...as a center-left Democrat who has lived in Atlanta for the past 35 years, most of the Republicans I encounter couldn't even tell you in which war Sherman fought, much less which state he "marched through", or that there is also a country with the same name of said state.
Jer
He seems to be saying
August 11, 2008 - 02:42 ET by sarcasmoThat Fox isn't helping in this case, so I think you might be making Jer's point...Naturally, each political side complains about media sex obsession most when it's convenient, and that phenomenon is especially easy to see from libertarian eyes.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
→ Disagree
August 11, 2008 - 03:00 ET by Cool ArrowNo point whatsoever was established.
Does FOX, or does it not, cover the Georgia/Russia situation?
Do you surf only Russia/Georgia today?
Absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the guest focused on the subject for which she was invited.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
The guest
August 11, 2008 - 03:04 ET by sarcasmoMay not have the same political agenda as Fox News, and needn't hide that fact...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
→ Fair enough
August 11, 2008 - 03:09 ET by Cool ArrowIf she builds a track record for hijacking the topic, I can see FOX not using her anymore.
What if Ron Paul got asked to appear to discuyss monetary policy and the announcer decided to ask him questions about delivering anchor babies?
Would you consider that fair?
Don't think for a minute Erbe didn't know the reason she was brought on to the show.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Unlikely scenario
August 11, 2008 - 03:30 ET by sarcasmoRon Paul isn't likely to get invited on by Fox News (especially for that topic) between now and the election. Let's be realistic.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
→ Which means?
August 11, 2008 - 03:38 ET by Cool ArrowWhich means what? That you think the question would be fair?
Glenn Beck has him on CNN often. If Glenn did it, I'd lose a lot of respect for him.
But I guess it's fair at any rate to deflect a hypothetical with a nonanswer.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
CA
August 11, 2008 - 03:07 ET by MrShyThanks. :)
Also, is it just me or do liberals (and Jer :)) completely not get the severity of what's unfolding? And now the panicky left is sadly carting out "comparisons" to McCain, to deflect, when he did all of his philandering -- if it was even that -- decades ago, and he revealed it all in his own honest memoirs.
This does not make McCain a sleazebag, unfit to run for POTUS. What Edwards did -- AND IS DOING STILL, by all acounts (cheating and more lying) -- all during his run for the POTUS, makes him a total sleazebag.
See my post about this to "joekonn", btw.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Yes, Shy
August 11, 2008 - 03:14 ET by Cool ArrowI t wasn't a story because they never thought McCain might be a candidate.
But Edwards, "Remember the John McCain story" is nothing more than excusing his getting caught lying with rumors about somebody else.
"Beat me up, I'm beating myself up even more, but John McCain did it too" (to paraphrase)
Sheer Chicken crap remorse.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Please, Shy...that's
August 11, 2008 - 03:15 ET by JerPlease, Shy...that's weak. Who is the presumptive nominee for president, McCain or Edwards?
Jer
→ Followup
August 11, 2008 - 03:25 ET by Cool ArrowAnd just when do you think Edwards dropped off of Obama's short list for VP or Atty Gen?
Are those unimportant positions? You could ask Martin Luther King Jr. if he was still walking among us.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Jer
August 11, 2008 - 03:31 ET by MrShyWhat's weak?
Edwards was doing horrible things (and continues to do them) while he WAS running for president, and he has been a MAJOR Democratic figure all this year, being on Obama's list (short or long) for VP or AG, AND, endorsed him very recently, which the MSM ate up and made out to be very important.
McCain's stuff is way in the past, and it's been documented in his books, so that IS a true "move on, nothing to see here" because there isn't.
I just don't get how you can be so hard-headed in not seeing the stark difference between the two.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
→ Jer
August 11, 2008 - 03:01 ET by Cool ArrowOk, so I watched the clip.
If Erbe is having trouble steering the discussion away from Edwards, that's her prpblem. you failed to mention that FOX News does cover the Georgia situation.
<edit>She was brought into that segment for a specific topic. She is a political writer, not a foreign correspondent.
If they had brought Dr. Ruth onto the show, would you expect her to also demand to talk about the Georgian conflict?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool...She can't "make"
August 11, 2008 - 03:11 ET by JerCool...She can't "make" Jarret discuss anything besides Edwards. She can only make him look shallow and foolish for failing to do so. Which she did.
However, if she were told that the topic would be limited to Edwards bashing, then if I had been Jarret, I would have reminded the audience and her of that fact. And, by the way, she did make extended remarks about the impact of the Edwards scandal on the presidential campaign and his political prospects.
Jer
Jer
August 11, 2008 - 03:21 ET by MrShy"She can only make him look shallow and foolish for failing to do so."
Shallow and foolish, huh? See my post above. And Cool/others are right, I find that Fox will tell me more about what's going on around the world, with their many top-of-hour updates, than CNN or MSNBC, etc.. Jer, they, more than Fox, INUNDATE us with wall-to-wall, day-in day-out, shallow, superficial coverage of Obama/McCain, or for a year before this, Obama/Clinton, and before that, Clinton...
Talk about news coverage that's shallow and foolish. Fox is bad, but they're hardly the worst.
This is far more relevant -- all the sleazy, corrupt stuff unraveling with Edwards -- than you, and of course our esteemed liberal media, care to admit.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
→ She failed Jer
August 11, 2008 - 03:19 ET by Cool ArrowA s I said before. FOX aloready has segments on the Georgia situation.
Are you seeing your MSM stations covering nothing but Russia/Georgia?
Didn't think so. Sorry you don't like the topic, but it's a fair one. He coulda been VP, or as sarc pointed out, Atty General.
Not anymore. And you'd better thank your lucky stars he didn't get the nomination.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
and Cool....
August 11, 2008 - 03:25 ET by MrShyAll the glorious, top-story MSM coverage just 2 months ago of that "key" endorsement by..... you guessed it, the wonderful John Edwards.
Now the MSM is despicably going immediately quiet on Edwards after the initial 24 hours the other day (when they simply had no choice) even with all the deeper evidence of so much wrong-doing. They'll continue to not lift a finger and let "that tabloid" dig more dirt, that indeed exists, and they know it.
He's a Democrat. Period.
Fox HAS to do it, cuz no one else will.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Shy...
August 11, 2008 - 03:43 ET by JerJust what do you wish the MSM and Edwards would do at this point? Offer his body up for a public flogging on the mall in D.C.
I doubt the McCain people really want marital fidelity to be a prominent issue in this race. Apparently, Ross Perot won't even speak to the man because of the way he treated his first wife.
Jer
BTW...I linked an article earlier for the reading pleasure of those who just can't get enough of the Edwards story.
Sheesh Jer...
August 11, 2008 - 03:54 ET by MrShyNow we're down in the depths quoting Ross Perot and his "opinion" of McCain, in attempts to further validate our argument?
What McCain might have done when he was younger, some 30 years ago, as what Bush did or did not do in the 70's with his drinking/partying, as what... on and on... when they were young, is not relevant to now.
What the sc*mbag Edwards (sorry, but he really is) is doing NOW -- this year, last year, 2006 to begin -- and who knows how much further back, while married and twice running for POTUS -- well, Jer, that's a whole lot more relevant and newsworthy, is it not? Am I missing something?
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Shy...it sure seems that
August 11, 2008 - 04:05 ET by JerShy...it sure seems that what Clinton and Kerry did and didn't do in the late 60's and early 70's had a hell of lot of relevancy 25-30 years later.
I haven't read McCain's book. Does he want his first wife back? Is he embarrassed by his current wife's $100+ million net worth. Fill me in.
Jer
→ Probably not Jer
August 11, 2008 - 04:10 ET by Cool ArrowNo more than Obama wants his old girlfriend back whom he broke up with because she was white.
Is that important?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Jer
August 11, 2008 - 04:16 ET by MrShyWhat Kerry did was very much exploit himself as being a "war hero" during his campaign, so digging up that part of his past is relevant. What Clinton did regarding, well, not sure where you're going, but fine then. BUT, he was acting up all through the 90's, while running for and then being president. He was a creep.
Jer, all the real creeps... or so many of them.... are on your side of the aisle, I'm sorry. Creeps are here, too, but they're on a whole blatant, bombastic and reckless level all their own over there, it always seems... :p
Also, enough pointing the finger at others (McCain) from you, and suck it up. Edwards has been busted. He's a creep. And there's a lot more to bust. MSM will remain silent and hope for the best, what a shocker.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Whoa, Shy...You're bouncing
August 11, 2008 - 04:31 ET by JerWhoa, Shy...You're bouncing from one point of advocacy to another--weak rationalizations why decades old behavior is fair game when entrapping Dems but out of bounds if applied to Repubs. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
McCain's reprehensible conduct was years ago, but he is running for president NOW. Edwards sorry affair is recent, but he ain't running for nothing. He's history. I would prefer the issue be dropped with respect to both. But if Republicans want to keep churning family values, marital fidelity etc., then McCain will be caught in the vortex.
Jer
Jer
August 11, 2008 - 04:38 ET by MrShyEdwards sorry affair was not "recent"... it is, actually, NOW. He was at that hotel, what, two weeks ago? It's happening NOW. He's continuing to hide more stuff. It happened earlier this year, was first exposed last fall when he was running and no one wanted to touch it.... and on and on...
He was running for a possible VP or AG slot right up until, oops, he admitted the first 1% of truth two days ago! (that was his 1% of lying, which will be followed with a few more percentages, believe me.)
I know you want the issue dropped. Even if it turns out he's fathered a child during his run for all of these positions... president, VP, AG, MAJOR ENDORSER for Obama... you want it all dropped from MSM coverage from this point forward. "He ain't running for noting". "He's history".
Jer, you're losing me.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Ok, Jer
August 11, 2008 - 04:40 ET by Cool ArrowI say we keep all the bathwater.
So what about that racist Obama dumping his girlfriend because she was white?
Any opinions on that one? Should we ignore that admission from Obama?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool...Obama's girlfriend?
August 11, 2008 - 04:54 ET by JerShould we ignore that admission from Obama?
No, by all means, let's append it to the list, so that now... Obama's a quasi-Islamofascist, radical black Christian, terrorist-loving, WeatherUnderground associating, America-hating, military-despising, crypto-Nazi Marxist who dumped his girlfriend because she was white.
jer
Jer
August 11, 2008 - 05:08 ET by MrShyThat just about sums him up, yes. Good job, Jer.
How in the world did he manage to navigate all of those mines on his way to where he is now?
Oooh, nevermind, I know the answer.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL