One of the talk shows I listen to is the John and Ken Show KFI 640 AM here in So Cal. One of the stories they've been covering is an affair Edwards had with a woman who has now birthed his child. Edwards everything he could to cover it up including having one of his friends state the child was his.

While the Enquirer might not be the bastion of journalism, Fox News did verify that Edwards was there and "His face just went totally white" in regard to the questions reporters were asking him.

The LA Times sent this email to its bloggers

Quote:Hey bloggers,
There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.

If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask

Keep rockin,

Tony

It's funny that Edwards gets the silent treatment from the LA Times even though he might someday be VP or Attorney General while Arnold Schwarzenegger got front page coverage of his groping of females 5 days before the gubernatorial election.


Security guard confirms Edwards was at the hotel and freaking out.


LA Times silent on tryst

The National Enquirer alledges that Edwards had an affair which allegedly led to a love child who were allegedly in a California Hotel whom Edwards allegedly visited where he tried to avoid reporters from the National Enquirer (big surprise).

The LA Times had accusations from six women, two who were willing to go on record & one (other?) who was a TV reporter, claiming that Schwarzenegger had touched them inappropriately.

I see a lot of similarities between the two instances. Really, I do.

I have no way of knowing whether this is true or not.

I hate to wish ill will on anyone, but I strongly believe that there are few things that could be more beneficial to America than for this man's political future to be destroyed.

If Edwards had a R by his name you'd be humming a different tune smn.

Proof that just because you have millions of dollars and political skills doesn't mean you have good taste in women... ick





Just like Sarah Jessica Parker a/k/a "Horseface"

If SJP or this other girl were in the cubicle next to you at work. You'd be tripping all over yourself flirting with said girl. When Brittany Spears was on that tv cameo this past spring I thought the same thing. If she was just an everyday girl she'd rate in the high 9's. Better than anything you've probaly laid the pipe to.

BTW I laid more pipe than Gearhart plumbing at BG and both of those pictures up top would of rated very well.

jh Wrote:The National Enquirer alledges that Edwards had an affair which allegedly led to a love child who were allegedly in a California Hotel whom Edwards allegedly visited where he tried to avoid reporters from the National Enquirer (big surprise).

The LA Times had accusations from six women, two who were willing to go on record & one (other?) who was a TV reporter, claiming that Schwarzenegger had touched them inappropriately.

I see a lot of similarities between the two instances. Really, I do.

And OJ Simpson allegedly killed his wife.

Come on dude, do you think the Enquirer would risk the wrath of the possible next VP or AG who is also an almost sure win trial lawyer? If Edwards sued them for libel and won how much would the damages be for ruining the career of a potiential VP or AG? Edwards would own the Enquirer. I'm sure before the story was printed the editors thought long, hard and deep about what would happen to them if they were wrong.

And you know what? If some one walked up to me and asked if I was humping (when I wasn't) Jane Doe my response would be "who the hell is Jane Doe?" And if Jane Dope was a friend of mine and and got asked the same question I'd ask the person where is all this coming from and try to figure out what the heck is being said out there. I certainly wouldn't run and hide in a public bathroom, but Edwards did because it appears he knew his secret was out.

The liberal media tried to mess with McCain by questioning exactly when his divorce to his first wife ended and when his new romance to his current wife began. Yet the LA times is silent on Edwards. Fox reported that the story existed without making judgement. The LA Times is refusing to even acknowledge the Enquire story is out there.

An illegal gang banger in San Francisco, who should have been deported numerous times were it not for that city's sanctuary policey, kills 3 people in a road rage incident and the LA Times is silent. A cop is seen pushing a gang banger in LA and the Times wants a federal investigation.

This thread is really about 2 topics; Edward's possible lack of morality (but by democrat standards he's only doing what Clinton did so that's OK) and the pick-and-choose attitude of what the LA Times prints.

WMD Owl Wrote:Just like Sarah Jessica Parker a/k/a "Horseface"

Hey Jesse, why the long face?

Machiavelli Wrote:If Edwards had a R by his name you'd be humming a different tune smn.

Not true. I've never cheated on my wife or prior girlfriends and I lose respect for my coworkers and friends who brag about their extramarital affairs.

My boss once asked me if we could believe a story one of our employees was telling us regarding his possible stealing. This married man was also having a quite obvious affair with another employee. I told my boss that if his wife can't trust him than how can we? We canned his sorry ass.

If one of my brothers cheated on their wives I'd be deeply disappointed and the loss of respect would be deep.

If a politician, republican or democrat, can't keep his word to his wife would it be intelligent of me to think he'll keep his word to unknown constituents?

Machiavelli Wrote:If Edwards had a R by his name you'd be humming a different tune smn.

I don't know whether smn would or not, but this is exactly what's wrong with American politics today. There are plenty of republicans and democrats whose standards of morality vary based on whether a D or R goes after the name of the doer.

For myself, I just happen to think John Edwards is a despicable human being for reasons totally unrelated to this allegation. I hope it is true because I hope his political career is over.

Machiavelli Wrote:If Edwards had a R by his name you'd be humming a different tune smn.

bull**** and you know it. Conservatives who do this don't last long.

Machiavelli Wrote:If SJP or this other girl were in the cubicle next to you at work. You'd be tripping all over yourself flirting with said girl. When Brittany Spears was on that tv cameo this past spring I thought the same thing. If she was just an everyday girl she'd rate in the high 9's. Better than anything you've probaly laid the pipe to.

BTW I laid more pipe than Gearhart plumbing at BG and both of those pictures up top would of rated very well.

You have very low standards of hotties.

Just read trhe Huffington Post. Every week they have a scandal involving a R. I just don't link it here. It's actually beneath me. If you think for a second this stuff is tied to only D's your as confused as they come. At this very moment you can link the Huffington Post and you can read about a top GOP fundraiser who has been caught in a prostitution ring. Same ole same ole with these guys.

Machiavelli Wrote:Just read trhe Huffington Post. Every week they have a scandal involving a R. I just don't link it here. It's actually beneath me. If you think for a second this stuff is tied to only D's your as confused as they come. At this very moment you can link the Huffington Post and you can read about a top GOP fundraiser who has been caught in a prostitution ring. Same ole same ole with these guys.

Locally? I've seen how Democrats and Republicans are treated once they're accused of something. The Republicans almost ALWAYS never return to office. The Dems? Always. Hell, f'n Augusta almost re-elected a mayor, Ed McIntyre in 2002 who had went to jail AS mayor in the 80's for bribery. They ALSO RE-ELECTED Charles Walker when he had a 127 count federal indictment against him. He's now in the pen in Estill, SC. Contrast that with Linda Schrenko, a Republican, or Robin Williams. This is just AUGUSTA politics. It's MUCH worse in Atlanta or where I'm from, Jackson, MS.

The press crucified Larry Craig for hitting on guys in a bathroom. In my mind, that's the same as cheating on his wife which is exactly what Edwards is doing. While both acts are deplorable, Craig was humiliated at every turn, his party turned on him and I'm sure is wife wanted to pull a Jesse Jackson on his nuts. On the other hand, Edwards does essentially the same thing and the press is silent. Now don't give me the story about cheating on your wife is legal and picking up gay guys in an airport bathroom isn't because they both show the low morals of each individual.

smn1256 Wrote:Come on dude, do you think the Enquirer would risk the wrath of the possible next VP or AG who is also an almost sure win trial lawyer? If Edwards sued them for libel and won how much would the damages be for ruining the career of a potiential VP or AG? Edwards would own the Enquirer. I'm sure before the story was printed the editors thought long, hard and deep about what would happen to them if they were wrong.

Absolutely I do. It's what they do. They're a gossip rag who specialize in celebrity scandals & haven't shied away from even the most litigious celebrities & groups. Since they only go after public figures, they have additional protections against libel. Here's their link if you want to check out the other stories their covering right now.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/

Quote:The press crucified Larry Craig for hitting on guys in a bathroom. In my mind, that's the same as cheating on his wife which is exactly what Edwards is doing. While both acts are deplorable, Craig was humiliated at every turn, his party turned on him and I'm sure is wife wanted to pull a Jesse Jackson on his nuts. On the other hand, Edwards does essentially the same thing and the press is silent. Now don't give me the story about cheating on your wife is legal and picking up gay guys in an airport bathroom isn't because they both show the low morals of each individual.

Again, the Larry Craig incident was a matter of public record, not an unsubstantiated allegation in the National Enquirer. Nobody had to investigate Craig. His case showed up in the papers automatically. Another difference is that Craig was a sitting Congressman while Edwards holds no office & currently isn't a candidate for one either. Also, you had details like the wide stance & reaching under the stall which made easy fodder for jokes. Finally, it's easier to cast stones at those whose sins we can't share.

jh Wrote:

smn1256 Wrote:Come on dude, do you think the Enquirer would risk the wrath of the possible next VP or AG who is also an almost sure win trial lawyer? If Edwards sued them for libel and won how much would the damages be for ruining the career of a potiential VP or AG? Edwards would own the Enquirer. I'm sure before the story was printed the editors thought long, hard and deep about what would happen to them if they were wrong.

Absolutely I do. It's what they do. They're a gossip rag who specialize in celebrity scandals & haven't shied away from even the most litigious celebrities & groups. Since they only go after public figures, they have additional protections against libel. Here's their link if you want to check out the other stories their covering right now.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/.

The Enquirer can print rumors and stuff like that but if they knowingly or maliciously print false stories that destroy careers and reputations they get sued and they have, indeed, been sued and lost many times.

jh Wrote:Again, the Larry Craig incident was a matter of public record, not an unsubstantiated allegation in the National Enquirer. Nobody had to investigate Craig. His case showed up in the papers automatically. Another difference is that Craig was a sitting Congressman while Edwards holds no office & currently isn't a candidate for one either. Also, you had details like the wide stance & reaching under the stall which made easy fodder for jokes. Finally, it's easier to cast stones at those whose sins we can't share.

The Clinton affair started off as unsubstantiated allegation and it got to the point where he got on TV and said he didn't have sexual relations with that woman. We all know how that ended up. As for Edwards not currently being in office, well, does that make what he's alleged to have done any better that what Craig did? Do you think his wife is saying "it's ok, he's not in office right now so no harm, no foul?" If Edwards doesn't have the best interests of his family in mind do you think, as VP or AG, he will have yours?

This guy probably just killed his chances at getting Obama's nod for VP.

smn1256 Wrote:The Enquirer can print rumors and stuff like that but if they knowingly or maliciously print false stories that destroy careers and reputations they get sued and they have, indeed, been sued and lost many times.

Exactly, the threat of legal action has never stopped them from printing false stories before. Why would it now? I have no idea if these allegations are true, but I do know that the journalistic standards for the National Enquirer are rather low.

Quote:The Clinton affair started off as unsubstantiated allegation and it got to the point where he got on TV and said he didn't have sexual relations with that woman. We all know how that ended up. As for Edwards not currently being in office, well, does that make what he's alleged to have done any better that what Craig did? Do you think his wife is saying "it's ok, he's not in office right now so no harm, no foul?" If Edwards doesn't have the best interests of his family in mind do you think, as VP or AG, he will have yours?

Actually, if I remeber correctly, the Clinton story came out of the investigation into sexual harassment in Arkansas.

Whether or not Edwards is in office has no bearing on the morality of his alleged actions. It does affect the newsworthiness, however. Right now he is still just a private citizen with no announced political ambitions. Does the LA Times do investigations & print stories about every person in LA who is cheating on his wife? In a similar situation, one of the Washington papers pulled a planned story about Gary Hart's indiscretions after he dropped out of the race (follwing publication of pictures in the National Enquirer - they actually have a fairly decent record on these things).

Quote:This guy probably just killed his chances at getting Obama's nod for VP.

This is part of my problem with this whole situation. His shot is likely blown, regardless of whether or not these allegations are true. That's a sorry way to select political candidates.

Machiavelli Wrote:Just read trhe Huffington Post. Every week they have a scandal involving a R. I just don't link it here. It's actually beneath me. If you think for a second this stuff is tied to only D's your as confused as they come. At this very moment you can link the Huffington Post and you can read about a top GOP fundraiser who has been caught in a prostitution ring. Same ole same ole with these guys.

I don't disagree, but I guess my question would be... Who does this on the right? Huffington is a nationally syndicated columnist, frequent speaker on TV/radio. I think Rush used to do a lot of this, but not anymore. How many times has Ariana turned her disgust towards the democrats? Not suggesting she should, just asking if she has.

and I believe there is a HUGE difference between a Republican fundraiser and a former presidential candidate, Senator, potential VP/Atty Gen. Now, if the prostitution ring was used by the fundraiser to solicit votes/launder money for candidates... THAT is something different... but I suppose only if the candidate knew or SHOULD have known. I don't know how big a fundraiser we're talking about here.

I don't have much of a problem with the LA times chosing not to run with a story they can't verify... though they've certainly done it before... but I DO have a problem with them telling their bloggers not to... I thought the purpose of a blog was to be free of "corporate" influence??