Edwards: My Daughter
So it looks like John Edwards will admit he's the father of mistress Rielle Hunter's 18-month-old daughter.
If he does, the news shouldn't be he's told the truth, but that he spent so long denying what everyone already believed.
PS Mickey Kaus, who was all over the Edwards affair back when the left was calling it part of a right-wing conspiracy (here's the Daily Kos: "I can't believe this is even subject to debate, but for the crazies, no source is too disreputable if it validates their warped world view"), has a nice summary of the latest, or as he calls it, "Edwards' Second Edifice of Lies Collapses."
posted by LAGuy @ 12:28 AM
4 Comments:
I wonder if his wife will get to pimp her book on some more talk shows.
Shouldn't the news be "Mainstream media covered up family scandals of Democratic VP candidate in 2004, and then invented and exaggerated family scandals of Republican VP candidate in 2008"?
I've often heard it said, "The media is right to expose Republican sex scandals, because the Republicans claim to be the party of family values." Which is absurd, because (1) Edwards used his family as a prop in 2004, and (2) as far as I know, the Republicans have never claimed to be the party of family values (and if they have, the media should cite when this claim was made, not just assume it was made).
The left/right angle is once again irrelevant. The mainstream media has covered up its share of republican scandals as well. Rumors of a Bush I scandal sent the stock market spinning but MSM ignored it basically. On the other hand, MSM had no problem going after Gary Hart. I'm sure there is a lot of unfairness that goes into a subject that folks think is both icky and ratings candy. I don't see any need to force it through an ideological filter
"The left/right angle is once again irrelevant. The mainstream media has covered up its share of republican scandals as well. Rumors of a Bush I scandal sent the stock market spinning but MSM ignored it basically."
I think you're missing the point here. There was nothing to the Bush rumors, but they got around. Then the New York Times had a major, front-page story on an alleged affair that McCain had based solely on one bad source that turned out to be nothing. They also reported big on Bush 2's alleged National Guard failures for which there was essentially no real evidence. (The evidence they used, beyond obviously fake memos, was an old lady who didn't like Bush today saying she didn't like him back then either.)
Meanwhile, they ignore scandal after scandal during election time of Democrats. Questions about John Kerry's service, including unquestionable double-stories and later lies he told about Vietnam, aren't reported at all, so have to be brought up in ads which are then roundly attacked. Obama's close attachments to all sorts of racists and left-wing nuts are barely reported, and are only forced into the news by right wing sources. Then we have major candidate (and later likely cabinet member) John Edwards, who was having an obvious affair, with a love child, that anyone who cared to check out knew about. However, the mainstream sources were doing all they could to avoid the story, so the National Enquirer got to break it. Then when Edwards lied about it, and lied again, they still didn't want to look into it.
The mainstream media doesn't mind reporting a good scandal, but they'll go out of their way to search for one against Republicans, and haved to be dragged kicking and screaming to report one for Democrats.
Post a Comment
<< Home