McCain's affairs - at what cost?

#51
#51
Lexvol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Everybody had one account of a story from the National Enquirer. With no named sources. And I'm sure the Edwards camp was in lockdown mode - no more info was getting through.

If Fox had evidence, they would've run with it in a heartbeat. An outright accusation without proper evidence is slander, and that can cost you, especially if you're a newspaper bleeding money, and the slander case is against a trial lawyer himself.

My guess is that nobody had anything substantial to run a story about his affair until Edwards admitted it.
 
#52
#52
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...

IIRC - the NYT took a big hit from journalism critics (left and right) for running this story with the sourcing they had and putting it on the front page.

It was only relevant in his campaign if it was successful in planting the seed that he "might" have had and an affair and he "might" have done legislative favors for some lobbyists. The proof was not there, it was poorly sourced and as a result it did not meet journalistic standards. So yes, it could be relevant if relevant means attacking his character without proof.

I'm surprised you would condone the NYT piece given how badly you hate how McCain was treated in 2000. This piece was attempt to smear McCain by the NYT.
 
Last edited:
#54
#54
TennNC said:
My guess is that nobody had anything substantial to run a story about his affair until Edwards admitted it.
Click to expand...

Well there was rumor (same as McCain situation) and then he was busted by the NE (still no play) and it didn't become a story until he admitted it. I agree with Lex it just doesn't pass the smell test.
 
#55
#55
Most people knew Bill Clinton was a skirt chaser before he was president, and he was electable. I wonder why folks aren't more concerned with their decision making within themselves in re-electing a man who has single handedly wrecked our economy and has made a meltdown of our status in the world community, and can still....find arguments to defend that vote.
 
#58
#58
volinbham said:
IIRC - the NYT took a big hit from journalism critics (left and right) for running this story with the sourcing they had and putting it on the front page.

It was only relevant in his campaign if it was successful in planting the seed that he "might" have had and an affair and he "might" have done legislative favors for some lobbyists. The proof was not there, it was poorly sourced and as a result it did not meet journalistic standards. So yes, it could be relevant if relevant means attacking his character without proof.

I'm surprised you would condone the NYT piece given how badly you hate how McCain was treated in 2000. This piece was attempt to smear McCain by the NYT.
Click to expand...

So, his aides saying that something was fishy and stepping in to "protect McCain from himself" isn't proof of something happening within the McCain camp? And that reporter should've sat on that story?

BTW, I wasn't paying as much attention to press coverage of McCain in 2000 as I am now, but I trust your assessment that it too was "attacking his character without proof" - what does stick with me, however, is the illegitimate black baby tactic employed by Rove and Co. during the primary, which is as despicable as it gets. And now McCain has employed the people who used that tactic to bring him down.
 
#60
#60
dan4vols said:
Approval rating on GWBjr hasn't just fell outta the sky, he's earned it.
Click to expand...

Wow, that really backs up your assertions of "single handely wreck our economy" and "made a meltdown of out status in the world community". If you're turning to ratings for your proof, I guess Congress has really put it to the US.
 
#61
#61
allvol123 said:
Wow, that really backs up your assertions of "single handely wreck our economy" and "made a meltdown of out status in the world community". If you're turning to ratings for your proof, I guess Congress has really put it to the US.
Click to expand...
Wow I thought you'd just quote my last post and then quote Dick Cheney and reply ''SO?'' Ya got me.:p
 
#63
#63
TennNC said:
So, his aides saying that something was fishy and stepping in to "protect McCain from himself" isn't proof of something happening within the McCain camp? And that reporter should've sat on that story?

BTW, I wasn't paying as much attention to press coverage of McCain in 2000 as I am now, but I trust your assessment that it too was "attacking his character without proof" - what does stick with me, however, is the illegitimate black baby tactic employed by Rove and Co. during the primary, which is as despicable as it gets. And now McCain has employed the people who used that tactic to bring him down.
Click to expand...

I believe it was someone saying his aides were saying they were uncomfortable about the relationship. Seems heavy on innuendo and light on facts. In effect it was a non-story but the NYT made it a major story by giving it so much ink and on the front page.

The black baby push polling was wrong but here we have an "objective" news source running a story with nothing but innuendo on the front page - a paper that has worldwide circulation. I would consider this to be wrong as well.
 
#67
#67
Wow, I'm shocked to see this happening. The mainstream media are so unpredictable.

ABC News: High Infidelity: Acting on Cancer Stress?

John McCain. Then Newt Gingrich. And now John Edwards.

Edwards' betrayal of his wife at her most vulnerable moment -- as a cancer patient -- is more common than conventional wisdom suggests, according to infidelity experts.

A mistress of former House Speaker Gingrich told Vanity Fair they had their tryst as his first wife recovered from uterine cancer surgery in the 1980s.

While McCain was married to his first wife, who was disabled from a car accident, he was "aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich," according to a New York Times colunmist's account of the 1970s incident that predated McCain's election to the Senate.

Both McCain and Gingrich have admitted to the affairs.
Click to expand...

EDIT to add: This story is disgusting and largely irrelevant, but so typical of our modern day press corp. They will do anything to keep the real issues off the table.
 
Last edited:
#68
#68
what these stories generally don't point out is that McCain and his first wife, Carol, parted on good terms. Part of their divorce settlement was that he continue to provide financial support for her medical needs. I'm not condoning infidelity, but marriages fail for a variety of reasons and are in trouble long before affairs get started. The media likes to sensationalize the ugly breakups, but amicable partings are generally not reported or at best, briefly mentioned in passing.
 
#69
#69
Would somebody please tell me why McCain's affairs are relevant to the upcoming election, but Slick Wille's numerous trips outside his marriage were not?
 
#71
#71
superdave1984 said:
Would somebody please tell me why McCain's affairs are relevant to the upcoming election, but Slick Wille's numerous trips outside his marriage were not?
Click to expand...

Because Slick Will's became the stuff of legend (for the trailer park quality) after he was elected.
 
#72
#72
superdave1984 said:
Would somebody please tell me why McCain's affairs are relevant to the upcoming election, but Slick Wille's numerous trips outside his marriage were not?
Click to expand...

They certainly were to the religious right, Kenneth Star and to the GOP Congress at the time. So I would only guess that McCain's affairs (and the chatter about others) would be for this election also.

My personal opinion: I don't believe they should be any more relevant than McCain's taste in socks.
 
#75
#75
superdave1984 said:
Would somebody please tell me why McCain's affairs are relevant to the upcoming election, but Slick Wille's numerous trips outside his marriage were not?
Click to expand...

Who says Slick Willy's infidelity was not an issue? It sure seemed like a big issue at the time. The mainstream media talked endlessly about Clinton blowjobs in the Oval Office for two years!! You don't think they're going to try and do the same thing to John McCain if they can?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top