Wednesday, September 24, 2008

No No, They're a Legitimate News Organization Now

Uh oh, it looks like one of the four people in the Presidential race has gotten the attention of the National Enquirer.

In a world exclusive The NATIONAL ENQUIRER names GOP VP Candidate Sxxxx Xxxxn's secret lover! No less than three members of the man’s family including one by sworn affidavit have claimed that Sxxxx Xxxxn engaged in an extramarital affair with husband Todd’s former business partner, Brad Hanson. These sources have named Hanson as Pxxxx’s secret love, and say their affair nearly wrecked both their marriages.
I'm not going to dignify the story by revealing the candidate's name. I've long maintained that candidate's messy personal lives are not my business, or yours.

I only bring it up because when the Enquirer published a not dissimilar story about John Edwards, I heard an awful lot of complaining about how long it took the mainstream media to pick it up and run with it. About how this was a legitimate examination of the candidate's character; about how the Enquirer is a legitimate source of information nowadays.

Suck it up, boys.

(h/t to my friend xxxn on the staff of the Enquirer)

14 comments:

wamk said...

So what exactly is the story?

Sarah Palin had an affair that almost ended her marriage, but didn't? How long ago was the affair? Was she in office (Mayor or Governor)? Did she and Todd go to conseling to save their marriage? Is she still sneaking around? Did the kids know?

Inquiring minds want to know.

John Edwards continued to have an affair and most likely father a child while his wife is slowly dying from terminal cancer, after telling his wife that the affair was over. He also may have used camapign donations to pay her for "services rendered". And got his buddy to take the blame for being the kids' dad.

Now if Trig turns out to be Brad Hanson's kid, well that there is a HUGE story, ain't it. Of course, that would mean that Brad was sleeping with Bristol as well, cause everyone knows that Trig ain't Sarah's kid.

But by all means, I hope the MSM does run with the story. Get to the bottom of it all. Send more reporters up to Alaska.

Maybe Brian, Charlie, and Katie can do remotes there, like when Obama went to Europe.

Danielk said...

Either an extramarital affair is a deal breker with a candidate or it isn't. If it isn't and you're like me, then spreading this stuff around is pure schadenfreude. But don't go pretending you think it's a real character issue.

This isn't really directed at you WAMK, because you're pretty even-handed about this kind of stuff.

As regards your last note there, I don't think it's as newsworthy if Palin visits Alaska. And in any event, they already sent Gibson.

wamk said...

I think what will be most telling is the extent of the affair.

Is it a person developing feelings for another that is not that person's spouse,but not acting on those feelings?

Is it oral sex in the White House with someone that is not your spouse?

Is it having an out-of-wedlock child, while one is still married?

Danielk said...

Or a more conventional affair, like John McCain admits to having in the late seventies.

Gutsy strategy on your part, arguing for more sleazy coverage. Complete left-field move.

wamk said...

My point is that it's a non-story.

There is no "sizzle" there, no smoking gun.

Edwards had much more of juicy details.

But hey, let the MSM run wild. It will backfire, in my opinion.

Danielk said...

I think what you mean is there is sizzle, but no steak. Or moose I guess. (shrugs) Could be.

it all seems to boil down to the same thing: if a politician is a Democrat it's a fatal character flaw and attention must be paid; if the politician is a Republican then it's a "youthful indiscretion" and there's nothing to see here, move on.

So if it's all the same to you, I'll ignore you guys when you say it's an issue next time.

wamk said...

That's not what I'm saying at all, on several points.

I realize i've put two metaphors in one sentence. Perhaps you would have preferred me to have had two separate sentences: There is no sizzle. There is no smoking gun.

My point is a simple one, perhaps I can make my question more clear for you:

Are you attaching moral equivilence to "having feelings for someone" as "having an out of wedlock child with one woman, while one is married to another woman"?

Are all "affairs" equal?

Danielk said...

The Enquirer isn't saying anything about "having feelings for someone." They're saying Cand. X had a sexual relationship outside of her marriage. Just to be clear.

If the distinction is it's okay as long as it doesn't result in pregnancy, I wish you had spoken up during the nineties... The president was so distracted by impreachment then that he missed a chance to kill Osama Bin Laden!

wamk said...

Nowhere in the article available online does the Enquirer say they had a sexual relationship. This is why I ask about what defines "affair". If I'm wrong, please provide me with a link.

Just to be clear.

The sworn testimony of "Sarah Palin's alleged lovers estranged wife's brothers former brother-in-law" is very compelling proof here.

Not quite as compelling as Presidential DNA on a dress, or a young child, but hey, it's compelling.

Do you believe that the evidence against Palin presented by the Enquirer is as strong as the evidence against Edwards?

Danielk said...

Gee I kinda took this as the Enquirer saying they had a sexual relationship:

"No less than three members of the man’s family including one by sworn affidavit have claimed that Sarah Palin engaged in an extramarital affair with hus­band Todd’s former business partner, Brad Hanson."

The quality of the "evidence" that the Enquirer presents is kind of a non-issue to me, so I haven't bothered to evaluate either case. If you don't think they have enough on Palin, rest assured they're throwing a lot of resources around there to get more.

wamk said...

Ahh. So it wasn't specifically stated, you just understood that it implied that there was a sexual relationship.

So the Enquirer will go so far to use the word "affair" numerous times in the article, but never used "sexual relationship".

I wonder why?

Perhaps to stay out of legal trouble?

Danielk said...

Perhaps you're using this kind of linguistic dodge in the same way that Bill Clinton did to avoid saying admitting he had sexual relations.

Okay, let's assume that the extramarital affair they're talking about was just, say, making out. Second base, tongue kissing, stuff like that. That makes it a non-issue? Or maybe there was some oral involved, but that's as far as it went. Not a character thing then?

wamk said...

Not saying it isn't a charaxcter issue, but no way close to "affair de Edwards".

And that is my point.

Danielk said...

I hope you're not also trying to convince YOURSELF that that's true, because you could give yourself an anyurism.