McCain's affairs - at what cost?

#26
#26
Affairs really seems to have hurt JFK's and Clinton's popularity... It might be easier to list the presidents that haven't cheated.
 
#30
#30
notverycrucial said:
At what point did it become clear that Edwards was lying?
Click to expand...

Well the story never went away entirely. I just think the major networks were reluctant to get involved with paying for the information which is the NE and the likes method of collecting information.
 
#31
#31
limited cost. America has repeatedly shown that it does not care about marital fidelity.
 
#32
#32
notverycrucial said:
At what point did it become clear that Edwards was lying?
Click to expand...

At 245am when he ran from the NE reporters and hid in a hotel restroom. However, more mainstream media outlets like the NYT refused to cover the story until it became obvious that the NE was correct. They refused to cover for so long because Edwards was thought to be on the list of potential VP candidates.
 
Last edited:
#33
#33
notverycrucial said:
Despite what some of you may think, the press doesn't usually make stuff up.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is always complete, documented, photographic proof that those aliens abducted that lady from Oklahoma and conducted sexual experiments on her using a cloned half lizard, half vampire bat.
 
#35
#35
superdave1984 said:
Exactly. There is always complete, documented, photographic proof that those aliens abducted that lady from Oklahoma and conducted sexual experiments on her using a cloned half lizard, half vampire bat.
Click to expand...

Good point. Seeing as the NYT has run that story somewhere between zero and zero times.
 
#36
#36
Sorry you didn't recognize sarcasm. The National Enquirer has been referenced on this thread and I am 100% positive they have run a similar story.
 
#39
#39
MG1968 said:
At 245am when he ran from the NE reporters and hid in a hotel restroom. However, more mainstream media outlets like the NYT refused to cover the story until it became obvious that the NE was correct. They refused to cover for so long because Edwards was thought to be on the list of potential VP candidates.
Click to expand...

Look I'm not one to defend the mainstream media, but are you saying they should have covered the story before it was "obvious that the NE was correct?" Because, it only became "obvious" that the NE story was correct after Edwards publicly admitted it. Before that, there was no story -- only innuendo. You see, unless and until it can be independently verified, no respectable news org should be running such a story. As it turns out, none did. Now they're all running it. Yay, Edwards is a hypocrite. He's a lying adulterer. Yay, we win!! Except, what did we win exactly? Nothing.

In fact, it's now more likely that the same press that you say was unwilling to cover Edwards is now going to turn around and no go after John McCain. After all, (they'll say) he too admitted to having an affair, and he is after all running for president, etc, etc.. Now, all of a sudden, the heat is on our candidate -- for something he's already openly admitted doing, but that won't matter to these press jackals. They'll go after him looking for something more recent-- and they'll go after Obama, too -- but the problem is, they don't have anything on Obama (that we know of), but they have already shown that they might have something on McCain.

Of course, you may argue, it's not fair, or it's not the same as Edwards, or the NYT is trying to help Obama, but none of that matters in the real world. What matters is: will this harping on Edwards help John McCain beat Barack Obama, or is it just a stupid sideshow that will eventually backfire in our faces?
 
#40
#40
I still think the media will hurt Obama with that as much as they hurt McCain if they try to go after Obama with it. Water too far under the bridge IMHO.
 
#41
#41
notverycrucial said:
Look I'm not one to defend the mainstream media, but are you saying they should have covered the story before it was "obvious that the NE was correct?" Because, it only became "obvious" that the NE story was correct after Edwards publicly admitted it. Before that, there was no story -- only innuendo. You see, unless and until it can be independently verified, no respectable news org should be running such a story.
Click to expand...

Did you just recently awaken from a coma?
 
#42
#42
MG1968 said:
what evidence is there of more than one affair?
Click to expand...

Here's one source:

Arizona, the early years

"McCain needed a divorce from Carol, his wife of 14 years from whom he was separated. After McCain's dramatic homecoming from Vietnam, the couple grew apart. Their marriage began disintegrating while McCain was stationed in Jacksonville. McCain has admitted to having extramarital affairs."
 
#44
#44
TennNC said:
If he did, then I guess I did too.
Click to expand...

You don't think the media knew about that affair and chose not to dig into it? They sure did some digging into McCain's affair rumors but I guess they just didn't seem to think there was much to the Edwards affair story, how convenient.
 
#46
#46
KB5252 said:
You don't think the media knew about that affair and chose not to dig into it? They sure did some digging into McCain's affair rumors but I guess they just didn't seem to think there was much to the Edwards affair story, how convenient.
Click to expand...

Here's the Times piece. It never outright said he had an affair with Iseman. It did, however, say that McCain's relationship with her was so troubling within the McCain camp that several aides thought he was having an affair and intervened to minimize the amount of contact McCain and Iseman had. The story was more about the hit his reputation would take from an ethical front than simply scooping a possible affair. It was a story that was directly relevant to his campaign for the GOP nomination, no?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/u...4db651c10475&ei=5087 &oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The Enquirer story outright said Edwards had an affair and fathered an illegitimate child. They don't name the woman nor the source, "a friend."

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_cheating_scandal/celebrity/64271

Turns out the Enquirer got it right, but if the NYT had the surefire story then, then surely Fox News did too, correct? And the WSJ and the Atlantic and The New Yorker and Time and Newsweek etc. So why didn't they report it too? Their reporters are just as good as those from the NE, don't you think?
 
#49
#49
TennNC said:
Here's the Times piece. It never outright said he had an affair with Iseman. It did, however, say that McCain's relationship with her was so troubling within the McCain camp that several aides thought he was having an affair and intervened to minimize the amount of contact McCain and Iseman had. The story was more about the hit his reputation would take from an ethical front than simply scooping a possible affair. It was a story that was directly relevant to his campaign for the GOP nomination, no?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/u...4db651c10475&ei=5087 &oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The Enquirer story outright said Edwards had an affair and fathered an illegitimate child. They don't name the woman nor the source, "a friend."

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_cheating_scandal/celebrity/64271

Turns out the Enquirer got it right, but if the NYT had the surefire story then, then surely Fox News did too, correct? And the WSJ and the Atlantic and The New Yorker and Time and Newsweek etc. So why didn't they report it too? Their reporters are just as good as those from the NE, don't you think?
Click to expand...

So you are saying that Fox is not as biased as you originally contended? :)

Objectively it is hard not to notice the political asylum granted in this particular case. Everybody had the story.
 
#50
#50
TennNC said:
Here's the Times piece. It never outright said he had an affair with Iseman. It did, however, say that McCain's relationship with her was so troubling within the McCain camp that several aides thought he was having an affair and intervened to minimize the amount of contact McCain and Iseman had. The story was more about the hit his reputation would take from an ethical front than simply scooping a possible affair. It was a story that was directly relevant to his campaign for the GOP nomination, no?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/u...4db651c10475&ei=5087 &oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The Enquirer story outright said Edwards had an affair and fathered an illegitimate child. They don't name the woman nor the source, "a friend."

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_cheating_scandal/celebrity/64271

Turns out the Enquirer got it right, but if the NYT had the surefire story then, then surely Fox News did too, correct? And the WSJ and the Atlantic and The New Yorker and Time and Newsweek etc. So why didn't they report it too? Their reporters are just as good as those from the NE, don't you think?
Click to expand...

The only aspect there that causes me to wonder is the FOX news angle. Surely they would have reported it, at least you would think. I could certainly see the others holding off on the story because it could possibly influence the Democratic nomination. Fox on the other hand would have had to have a different motive for not running the story. Who knows for sure.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top