And the smear train rolls onward... now the National Enquirer is set to publish a front-pager claiming that Governor Sarah Palin has had a sexual affair outside of her marriage to husband Todd Palin. This time, the McCain campaign is jumping out ahead of the story and issuing a strongly worded press release.:
“The smearing of the Palin family must end. The allegations contained on the cover of the National Enquirer insinuating that Gov. Palin had an extramarital affair are categorically false. It is a vicious lie.”
“The efforts of the media and tabloids to destroy this fine and accomplished public servant are a disgrace. The American people will reject it.”
“Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin look forward to discussing the issues that Americans care about, fixing broken government, creating jobs, making our country energy independent and securing the peace for the next generation by bringing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a victorious end,”
“Legal action will be considered with regard to this disgraceful smear.”
This feeding frenzy against a female candidate is unprecedented and disgusting. More news to follow.
Updated by Noel Sheppard at 8:15 PM. The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz raised a good point about this matter a few minutes ago:
The mainstream media might well have ignored the unsubstantiated allegation, as they did for eight months in the Edwards saga. But the McCain's team quick response in defending the Arizona senator's running mate had the effect, intentionally or otherwise, of giving the story more prominence.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
No Way!!!
September 3, 2008 - 19:21 ET by Secret ConservativeYou know there is NO WAY the MSM is going to ignore this story by the Enquirer. They'll use the fact that she is CURRENTLY running for VP as the reason that this rumor is news, and John Edwards' ACTUAL scandal was not. Besides, she's a Republican. Dems are expected to be sleazy. Republicans are held to a higher standard.
In spite of the fact that
September 3, 2008 - 19:31 ET by ReaverIn spite of the fact that the Edwards story was full of trial lawyers, not one of them threatened the Enquirer with a lawsuit. The difference is pretty obvious.
right
September 3, 2008 - 19:33 ET by sawing battathey will absolutely jump on it. Howie just gave the rationale and green light.
My guess is, if true, it was years, many years, ago when she was private citizen. water under the bridge....she and todd are still together, so what's the big whoop?
No big deal for Clinton to do while a sitting, err, standing President. He LEFT office with a very high approval rating....people would have voted him in if he couldve gone for another 4 years.
"Updated by Noel Sheppard
September 3, 2008 - 20:01 ET by TE"Updated by Noel Sheppard at 8:15 PM. The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz raised a good point about this matter a few minutes ago."
Noel I haven't checked the link, but what Kurtz said above is just stupid. Kurtz and his like minded useful idiots in the Washington press corps never mentioned anything about the Edwards story, even after he was on the record denying his affair. Kurtz and the rest of the Washington press corps only very briefly mentioned the Edwards story when Edwards admitted the affair. Thus, in Kurtz's world, if you are a leftist who is accused of having an affair, then the allegation should be ignored by the Washington press unless said leftist admits to the affair. However, if you are a Republican, Kurtz thinks that the allegation is newsworthy as soon some useful idiot in the Washington press corps asks about the allegation and there is a denial. Interesting ....
Not long ago, these people
September 3, 2008 - 20:59 ET by JerryNot long ago, these people were declaring that one's "personal sex life" has no bearing on one's ability to do one's job. This was their mantra, their war cry. Anyone talking about someone's personal sex life was branded as a moralistic pervert.
Current, on-going, sexual infidelity was NOTHING. Everybody did it.
Lying about it was a virtue. Everybody did it.
Even allegations of rape were considered as "personal sex life" and were banished from the MSM's news and editorials.
These people are such flaming hypocrits it boggles the imagination.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Kurtz doesn't play "Name
September 3, 2008 - 20:47 ET by Conservative in the ArtsKurtz doesn't play "Name that party" that's played almost every day here. That's down-right stupid to think that they would have left this alone. The McCain camp is saying that reporters are asking for DNA test to prove the 4 month old baby is hers! if they're doing that, they won't let any rumor pass.
Ok, call me crazy,
September 3, 2008 - 21:25 ET by HillbillyKingbut wasn't this originally posted at about 18:30?
So what happened to it? And all the comments that were made?
Just curious, cause this is the first time I can remember a post disappearing on NB. Course I'm a newbie here so it might have happened before my time. :-}
A little help anyone?
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Yes...
September 3, 2008 - 23:20 ET by Warner Todd HustonYes, it was pulled for a short time over an editorial consideration. The thought behind the scenes was that if it wasn't a more wide spread story, we didn't want to needlessly fan the flames here on NB. But, since the campaign itself made it a deal, we went with it after some meetings and discussions over the issue.
For media bias measurement/proof purposes
September 3, 2008 - 23:29 ET by sarcasmoIt's kinda bad that the McCain campaign commented at all on this story, for the Edwards-similarity reason Kurtz outlined. I wouldn't have shown those cards & given the media an excuse for coverage just yet, if I'd been them...If the McCain campaign's intent was to make The Enquirer back down, the legal action threat was a failure.
JMR
PS Interestingly, it looks like journalism by The Enquirer is the reason Sarah had to announce her daughter is pregnant in a preemptive strike, so if anyone's bitching from the Democrat side about partisanship in going after Edwards, well, they don't know the great Mike Walker...
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Come on Sar,
September 4, 2008 - 13:29 ET by HillbillyKingthe MSM doesn't need an excuse to go after sumthin negative about Mrs. Palin.
I think the threat of legal action was the right move. In the Enquirers response;
vicious war within Sarah Palin's extended family
includes several newsworthy revelations, including the resulting
incredible charge of an affair plus details of family strife when the
Governor's daughter revealed her pregnancy(e.m.)
they hedged their bets. We would have never seen this from the TNE if legal threats hadn't been issued. I did like where TNE said they will go after both parties. Could we see a TNE expose on some alledge BO affairs?
Imo, this was to put the TNE on notice that Mrs. Palin has zero tolerance for any false affair stories.
On the other hand, given the number of stories covered by the TNE, v/s the number of times they have lost a defamation suit, they have accuracy in their favor.
In the end, as long as nothing substantial comes up between now and Nov. 4, this will probably blow over.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
sarc, notice that it says
September 4, 2008 - 13:42 ET by motherbeltsarc, notice that it says extended family .....and a "charge of an affair." That means it could be a cousin who is accusing someone who is not Sarah Palin of having an affair....no proof.
As for turmoil when they learned of her daughter's pregnancy, what else would anyone expect??? A 17-year old comes home and says "I'm pregnant" and the parents are supposed to calmly say, OK, that's fine, here's what we're going to do, and the kid says OK, Mom and Dad. And Levi and his parents are OK with anything you decide too!
On The Brady Bunch maybe; not in real life.
Of course there was turmoil!!!
Nailed it, mb.
September 4, 2008 - 15:55 ET by HillbillyKingThat's why I included in my post. In the age of legalese, one or (in this case) two words makes all the difference. I think TNE was letting the Mac/Palin camp know where the stories were headed.
I also noticed on TNE website, that TNE had contacted M/P camp prior to publishing some stories. I think that might of been the case here to.
Furthermore, I think that press release by the M/P camp had the secondary effect of putting ALL the tabloids on notice that smears will not be tolerated.
This may sound crazy, but the market that the tabs shoot for, may indeed be more inclined to vote for M/P after reading some of the tabs stories. Hell, they can identify with them.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Thanks Mr. H.
September 4, 2008 - 13:03 ET by HillbillyKingI appreciate the response. I'll add that to my fund of knowledge.
Thanks again.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Hey! It's back!
September 3, 2008 - 21:25 ET by balboaHey! It's back!
Smells like Obama mojo
September 3, 2008 - 23:23 ET by LeftCoastRightieBarry got 'elected' by discrediting his opponents, twice.
so, what else is new?
September 4, 2008 - 00:06 ET by ajc55nyNone of this should surprise anyone. Gov. Palin gave a great speech tonight. Inspiring. Historic. But there is no doubt, the media will continue to be unfair to her. It almost doesn't matter if any of this is true. What matters is keeping her off balance and constantly responding to charges. My advice to Gov Palin: ignore them. Speak directly to the American People.
Oh, and while we are looking at the possible sexual dalliances of candidates, will the Enquirer be talking to Larry Sinclair? Mr. Sinclair has been claiming a brief, but very homosexual affair with Senator Obama. Mr Sinclair claims to have spent time with Mr Obama at times that Mr Obama allegedly cannot account for his whearabouts. Now, isn't that every bit as interesting as anything else the Enquirer looks into? Check You Tube. Sinclair has posted it all there.
I don't know.
September 4, 2008 - 00:08 ET by JWFWe have had 8 years of smears on the current resident of the White House. While the White House has responded, it never really filtered down to the common man.
Now we have a press that is, really, not much of a distinction with the National Enquirer. The attacks on Gov. Palin are completely out of control.
I think the response from the McCain team is appropriate.
National Enquirer ok for Edwards but not Palin?
September 4, 2008 - 07:04 ET by PopularTechAm I the only one seeing the irony here? If this turns out to be true, bu-bye...
Turns out they were right about the pregnancy and this doesn't look good.
Right now there's nothing
September 4, 2008 - 13:45 ET by motherbeltRight now there's nothing there. They say "extended family"...that could mean cousins.
And it doesn't say "an affair" it says "charge" of an affair. Would it really matter if one of Palin's cousins had an affair?
that's funny
September 4, 2008 - 10:09 ET by daberkmanI was just re-reading nb's posts during the edwards saga. They all seem to have the tone of "the msm is losing viewership because they won't report on scandals in the National Enquirer because he's a democrat". I haven't heard any mention of this in the MSM yet, but I highly doubt the NBers will be demanding the MSM pick this up for consistency. Ah, hypocrisy...from both sides, really...
You are wrong...
September 4, 2008 - 19:41 ET by Warner Todd HustonYou are completely wrong. The Edwards case was known for months and months with multiple avenues to prove the allegations and multiple witnesses.
This Palin claim by the Enquirer is hasty, has only been known by the national scene for hours, and is filled with qualifying language that proves that there is TONS of doubt.
The two situations are not in any way comparable.
By your logic
September 5, 2008 - 13:43 ET by daberkmanBy your logic, it will be OK for the MSM to report on this in a few months. Or, NB didn't object to the Edwards scandal because it takes a few months to ferment the story.
I actually started to write this but then i remembered you're the one who doesn't read their own website:
http://newsbusters.o...
I'd try...
September 5, 2008 - 18:30 ET by Warner Todd HustonI'd try to argue logic with you but I don't attack unarmed opponents.
Have a great day, genius.
Uh, lets say Sarah had an
September 5, 2008 - 18:46 ET by bigtimerUh, lets say Sarah had an affair...it's her personal business now isn't it?
I seem to recall this attitude being forced on us by these very same people....the leftists would all agree, now wouldn't they?
Btw...can't we just move on...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh