Palin for VP

[user 62394]

Ok, how about CNN (I realize that you were at least half-joking). Sounds to me like the Enquirer is trying to ride on their Edwards story a bit (which was widely rumored for a long time, they just managed to prove it).

Sarah Palin affair rumours are false, says John McCain's team

Advisers to John McCain have threatened legal action against the American tabloid “National Enquirer” after it claimed that his vice-presidential running mate Sarah Palin had committed adultery with a business associate of her husband.



By Toby Harnden in St Paul

Last Updated: 1:48PM BST 04 Sep 2008



“The smearing of the Palin family must end,” said McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt. “The allegations contained on the cover of the National Enquirer insinuating that Gov Palin had an extramarital affair are categorically false. It is a vicious lie.



“The efforts of the media and tabloids to destroy this fine and accomplished public servant are a disgrace. The American people will reject it.”



The Enquirer also alleges that Palin, whose daughter Bristol, 17, is pregnant, unjustly fired a public safety official while she was governor of Alaska. The article was based entirely on unnamed sources and the magazine often pays sources to speak to them.



“Senator McCain and Governor Palin look forward to discussing the issues that Americans care about, fixing broken government, creating jobs, making our country energy independent and securing the peace for the next generation by bringing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a victorious end,” Mr Schmidt continued.



“Legal action will be considered with regard to this disgraceful smear.”



But the Enquirer was recently vindicated after its long-running pursuit of John Edwards, a former Democratic presidential candidate, ended with him admitting he had conducted an extra-marital affair with a filmmaker he had met in a bar in New York and later employed on his campaign.



The Enquirer responded: “The National Enquirer's coverage of a vicious war within Sarah Palin's extended family includes several newsworthy revelations, including the resulting incredible charge of an affair plus details of family strife when the Governor's daughter revealed her pregnancy.



“Following our John Edwards exclusives, our political reporting has obviously proven to be more detail-oriented than the McCain campaign's vetting process. Despite the McCain camp's attempts to control press coverage they find unfavorable, The Enquirer will continue to pursue news on both sides of the political spectrum."

Also, I did find a mention of the "forcing" her daugher to marry thing. It was a comment made by the former president of Planned Parenthood, Gloria Feldt, who said that Palin is forcing her daugher to get married and keep the baby. It seems pretty clear this woman has an agenda.



Rocks

 

[Shaun Tucker]

MTU Rocks, I read CNN.com all the time



that is the same story (almost word for word, but not quite) that you will find on a lot of other news websites.



And you know, now that i think about it - aren't PARENTS supposed to be telling their TEENAGE DAUGHTERS what to do? isnt that their job? :lol:

 

[Bill V]

As far as it being " completely fair game, as it has to do with how the candidate deals with people and problems", and that it's "completely within limits, as it deals with the candidate's moral character and problem solving skills", how about the fact that the media, the general public, and more specifically the voters of a certain New England state have, for the last four decades, treated as off limits the fact that a certain "candidate" got behind the wheel of a motor vehicle with a passenger while drunk out of his gourd, drove said car off a bridge into a river and then ran from the scene, allowing the passenger to drown? What does that say about how that particular candidate "deals with people and problems", and that " candidate's moral character and problem solving skills"?

Actually, TrainTrac, that's a good example in support of what I'm saying. When that happened to Ted, it was all over the news. I wasn't alive at the time, but from everything I've ever read and heard about the story, your claims that the media treated it as off-limits simply don't ring true. If that were the case, people born after it happened would barely know anything about it--but people of my generation know exactly what you're talking about as soon as either the word "Chappaquidick" or "Kopeckney" are mentioned. (I'm sure I butchered the spelling of both of those.) It was huge news, and continued to be mentioned by any candidates opposing him in every election at every level he was in after that. Whether the voters decided that this was an important enough factor to vote for him or not is outside the scope of this discussion--what is germaine is the fact that because it directly involved the candidate, Chappaquidick was and is "fair game" for discussion and media coverage, and is widely considered to be a primary reason he was not the Democratic nominee for president in '72, '76, or '80.



That said--When any other members of the Kennedy family have run for office since then, it would be completely off-limits for any opponent of them to bring up Chappaquidick to put a negative spin on their moral fabric, as that has nothing to do with the candidate themselves. Chappaquidick happened to a member of their family, and "family is off-limits".

 

[TrainTrac]

I was alive when that occurred, but not old enough to know what was going on. So I can't say for certain exactly how the media of that time handled the Chappaquiddick tragedy. But if they did cover it, then that may have not been the best example. Perhaps a better example would be the many affairs of both John and Bobby? The media knew about them, but turned a blind eye during their runs for elected office. And no one played the class-warfare card, whining about how many houses the Kennedys had/have, nor did anyone raise questions about how they got their money (daddy Joe was a bootlegger during Prohibition and also made money on insider trading on Wall Street).

 

[TrainTrac]

“What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?”



“One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let's be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.



“The other kills her own food.”

:lol:

 

[Bill V]

TrainTrac, I'll agree those are better examples. To which I can only respond that those were different times. For some reason, both the media and the populace back then were less interested in candidates' personal lives (so long as no one was dying--which I suspect is why Chappaquidick got more press). I suspect it was largely because there was less media in existence and less competition among the media driving them to dig for such minutia. Also, it was a different level of respect that the nation in general had for politicians back then, which all changed with Nixon. However, it is my understanding that even then, treating things like extramarital affairs as off limits was done relatively bipartisanly.



Regarding how Joe got his money--I suspect that that might be considered off-limits both then and now. Again, it's family. John, Bobby, and Ted had no control over how their parents gained their wealth, and thus it really can't be held against any of them. But I'm not sure. I've not heard of it being an issue when any other Kennedys have run for office since then.

 

[Les]

For some reason, both the media and the populace back then were less interested in candidates' personal lives (so long as no one was dying--which I suspect is why Chappaquidick got more press). I suspect it was largely because there was less media in existence and less competition among the media driving them to dig for such minutia.

Today, there are so many networks and news only media, they need every little piece of crap there is. Back then, no CNN, MSNBC etc, only the Big Three, CBS, NBC & ABC. Local news, 30 minutes, national news, 30 minutes (only once a day), and that was it.

 

[TrainTrac]

Regarding how Joe got his money--I suspect that that might be considered off-limits both then and now. Again, it's family. John, Bobby, and Ted had no control over how their parents gained their wealth, and thus it really can't be held against any of them. But I'm not sure. I've not heard of it being an issue when any other Kennedys have run for office since then.

Neither did Cindy McCain. Yet, the class warfare card has been played with John McCain. Look at how big of a deal was made over the "number of houses he owns" question.

 

[Les]

Regarding how Joe got his money--I suspect that that might be considered off-limits both then and now. Again, it's family. John, Bobby, and Ted had no control over how their parents gained their wealth, and thus it really can't be held against any of them. But I'm not sure. I've not heard of it being an issue when any other Kennedys have run for office since then.

Nothing is off-limits today, and it wasn't then. When Kennedy was running for President three things were discussed, how daddy made his money, how young Kennedy was, and that he was Roman Catholic. So it would appear, all of today's topics: money, age & experience, and religion, are not new, and will continue to be asked, and the answers will be torn into very small, tiny pieces, so the media can make a big deal over very little...