John Edwards infidelity?

[IcemanSK]

It's just sad all the way around.

 

[Makalakumu]

As time goes by, the more I trust the Enquirer and the less i trust the New York Times

funny world isnt it?

I know what you mean, brother. It's like Men in Black.

 

[celtic_crippler]

OH good gaaawwwwwwwdddd................

I DON'T CARE WHOSE COOCHIE HE STICKS IT IN - IT'S NONE OF MY ****ING BUSINESS UNLESS IT'S AN ILLEGAL SITUATION.

Some of the best businessmen are AWFUL husbands. Some of the best husbands are AWFUL businessmen.

Not that I would vote for him, but Jeezus.

..actually, there could be some legal implications. His mistress, who has no training in production, never been a producer, never worked in media was paid over 100k to "produce" web clips for Edwards.

I do agree that his behavior does not necessarily have anything to do with his ability to govern, but a "pay off" to keep her mouth shut using campaign money would be illegal.

This kind of comment shouldnt even be on here, its a rumor and "defamation of character"

It's not rumor. He admitted to it. He also did it while his wife was fighting for her life against cancer. Nice guy, huh?

But hey...is anybody really surprised? I mean, first off he's a former ambulance chaser..I mean "personal injury attorney" and secondly, he is a politician after all.

Haven't we all come to expect things like this from our leadership regardless of whether they have a "D" or and "R" in front of their name? That's the real sad part isn't it?

 

[arnisador]

It was a rumour when Karatedrifter7 wrote that. Now it's a fact.

 

[Xue Sheng]

A politician that lies and cheats… now there is something new

 

[Mark L]

It was a rumour when Karatedrifter7 wrote that. Now it's a fact.

No it wasn't, it was a fact the instant Edwards cheated on his wife. Truth is truth. Calling it a rumor as an excuse for not checking the facts before passing judgment is weak.

 

[arnisador]

I understand your point, but from the point of view of a newspaper editor, it was a rumor. As to not checking the facts...I would hope that this kind of thing is a low priority for them. Gary Hart made it a challenge...that was different.

 

[Mark L]

So when the woman (in this case Rielle Hunter) acknowledges the affair, it's a rumor; when the man (in this case John Edwards) acknowledges the affair, it's a fact?

Sorry, I don't get this line of thinking. The National Enquirer has lawyers, I'll bet lots of them. Going national with this piece exposed them to massive liability, if it were false. The editor, almost certainly, knew this. Reporting this story in the midst of a Presidential campaign simply wouldn't happen, in MHO, without substance and the editors full knowledge that the story could be proven (which it has). I didn't hear a thing about Edwards' representation taking action in the face of the claim.

I'd also suggest that his character, both in mistreating his marriage and lying about it when the truth comes out, isn't a low priority. At least not to me, as a voter ... Hopefully our media coverage would reflect those issue important to us, that being character.

 

[arnisador]

News orgs. looked into it at the time but couldn't get anyone to confirm it. Would you report on every woman that the Enquirer says has had Elvis' baby? They cgecked it out, according to Nightline last night, but couldn't get anywhere on it and so didn't report what was, for them, only an uncomfirmed rumour. It seems reasonable to me.

Of course what is a high priority to you in voting is your business. I do agree that the lying and the poor judgment are certainly factors--what he did was shockingly stupid at the least, and taking that risk was disrespectful to his supporters. But when it was just a rumour, I'd have rather they were digging into why soldiers weren't getting body armour rather than whether John Edwards was getting his weasel waxed.

 

[Mark L]

But when it was just a rumour, I'd have rather they were digging into why soldiers weren't getting body armour rather than whether John Edwards was getting his weasel waxed.

OK, I'm going to withdraw. It wasn't a rumor, it was and is a fact. Changing the subject to body armor is kind of a cop out, don't you think?

 

[Mark L]

I changed my mind, I won't withdraw. The thread is about John Edwards getting his "weasel waxed" with someone other than his wife, and lying about it. Calling it a rumor because it's a convenient way of avoiding the fact that the guy is a colossal liar is absurd.

If you want to talk about body armor, start another thread.

 

[Ninjamom]

Mark, I don't think anyone is debating whether or not John Edwards lied, had an affair, was a hypocrite, etc etc. My understanding of Arnisador's point is that, to the news media outlets, it appeared as a rumor and was unsupportable through the facts/evidence available at the time. Yes, the news media could have collectively pursued this story more aggressively. However, I don't think it irrational or even biased for the media as a whole to drop an investigation that hit a dead end in favor of pursuing stories about more pressing matters (like troops and body armor).

Arnisador, please correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I got out of the point you were making.

 

[Mark L]

Mark, I don't think anyone is debating whether or not John Edwards lied, had an affair, was a hypocrite, etc etc. My understanding of Arnisador's point is that, to the news media outlets, it appeared as a rumor and was unsupportable through the facts/evidence available at the time. Yes, the news media could have collectively pursued this story more aggressively. However, I don't think it irrational or even biased for the media as a whole to drop an investigation that hit a dead end in favor of pursuing stories about more pressing matters (like troops and body armor).

Arnisador, please correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I got out of the point you were making.

I think you've got it. My 'outrage' is that we can give this guy a pass because corroboration took so long. I do think that the avenue for pursuing the story was available if the establishment media wanted to follow up. If the National Enquirer could get the scoop, don't you think the 'news media outlets' could too? I think so, if they wanted to.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

For those of you who say that it is not a voting issue for you as to whether someone is cheating on their wife, I have this to ask you:

When one gets married, one makes a vow before that person, and potentially before their god, to remain faithful. This has both a moral point, and in some states, a legal point.

Skip ahead to the politician that has not only lied about their fidelity to the person they are married to, but has lied to the public, either themselves or through an intermediary. This is supposed to be the person that they are the closest to in life, have a shared commitment to strenthening their relationship, and to be most trustworthy with.

Now, this politician wants to be your President (for example). If he can lie and be creatively decietful to the person whom he has shared this vow, and who he is intimately involved with, what makes you think that when convienent, he will not lie to the public? Of course, in the case of Edwards, he already has. And by extension, if he has broken his vows, why would he not break his oath of office?

And if you allow this lie, why should any other be seen by that politician as unacceptable?

Now, we all know that no one is completely truthful to their spouces (no, dear, that dress does not make you look fat). But wouldnt you expect that the vows of marriage would be one of those things that rises to the level of being relevant in determining a persons character, and whether they would lie to you as a politician?

More than two weeks have passed. No credible source has reported the infidelity. No apology or retraction from the National Enquirer.

I have been fortunate to avoid hearing Mr. Severin's lies and Mr. Graham's smears for most of the intervening time. I assume they have moved on to some other meaningless inaccuracies.

And here ... nope ... no apologies for spreading the fertilizer either. Smear accomplished.

Seems that they were not lies, as you supposed. I was actually rather proud of you for the fact that you had said to wait and see if there is more evidence. But then you went and made this statement about them being lies. It was not, in fact a smear, but the truth.

He is, also, a liar. I was listening on the day he claimed to have received a Pulitzer. I was listening when he repeatedly claimed to have a Degree from B.U.

Jay Severin has been demonstrated to be a liar in his professional life.

Because, I have offered more information. The source of your story is a demonstrable liar.

Interesting. Bill Clinton lied in his professional life, under oath, yet he is given a pass. The subject matter did indeed have something to do with his personal life, even though it segwayed into his conduct in his professional performance.

Now, why is this Jay Severin character any different? If I take your word for it (I have no idea who he is) that he lied, so what. Does it make anything that he says other then those particular lies, invalid? Sure it has a bearing on his credibilty. But then, so does lying under oath, or the person that you supposedly love most in your life.

 

[arnisador]

OK, I'm going to withdraw. It wasn't a rumor, it was and is a fact. Changing the subject to body armor is kind of a cop out, don't you think?

Body armour was only one example. The press has limited resources. It's all well and good that this was a fact in the sense that the existence or non-existence of Bigfoot (or God, or Elvis) is a fact, but to the press it was unconfirmed and hence non-publishable (appropriately, I'd say). What was better--dig into this unconfirmed rumour, or another story? They investigated it, got nowhere, and went after other stories. That seems reasonable to me. They didn't know it was true (and to my mind 'fact' means something known to be true)...hindsight is 20-20. It doesn't help them in teh present, when the Enquirer publishes in the same issue this affair, Elvis' alien babies, and Bigfoot's stock advice for a down market.

Mark, I don't think anyone is debating whether or not John Edwards lied, had an affair, was a hypocrite, etc etc. My understanding of Arnisador's point is that, to the news media outlets, it appeared as a rumor and was unsupportable through the facts/evidence available at the time. Yes, the news media could have collectively pursued this story more aggressively. However, I don't think it irrational or even biased for the media as a whole to drop an investigation that hit a dead end in favor of pursuing stories about more pressing matters (like troops and body armor).

Yup, that was my point exactly. They didn't cover up teh story--they got nowhere with it and let it drop rather than publishing something they couldn't back up. That's good journalistic practice.

 

[arnisador]

I think you've got it. My 'outrage' is that we can give this guy a pass because corroboration took so long.

No, no! He lied, he cheated, he took an absurd risk, and he showed great disrespect for his hard-working supporters. All that is bad!

I do think that the avenue for pursuing the story was available if the establishment media wanted to follow up. If the National Enquirer could get the scoop, don't you think the 'news media outlets' could too?

Here's where I disagree. The journalistic standards are too different. Could the NY Times "get the scoop" on the Yeti's two-headed alien baby? They're playing by different rules, and that's why, despite its well-publicized recent failings, the NY Times is still the "paper of record" in the U.S. Even a broken clock is right twice a day...that's how I veiw this "scoop" by the Enquirer.

 

[Twin Fist]

here is my problem,
the NYT ran a front page story about maybe, john mccain might have possibly had a relationship, based on un-named sources and zero facts

but they ignored the Edwards story

thats the most clear evidence of media bias I have seen in a long time. And it should outrage everyone.

 

[Mark L]

... thats the most clear evidence of media bias I have seen in a long time. And it should outrage everyone.

It should, but it won't. The Edwards story is "un-publishable", and we're redirected towards Bigfoot, body armor, and Elvis' babies rather than focusing on the real subject of the thread. Facts get cast as rumors, excuses are made for lazy journalism. Let's malign the source rather than the true culprit, right? It's really quite pitiful.

 

[Ray]

No, no! He lied, he cheated, he took an absurd risk, and he showed great disrespect for his hard-working supporters. All that is bad!

The worst part is that he hid in a bathroom and barricaded himself in so he couldn't be photographed. What a dolt.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I remember when I used to read newspapers.......



......vaguely.......