John Edwards infidelity?

[michaeledward]

It has little to do if whether Severin is a right wing whack job or not. He is a tool for the Republican establishment.

He is, also, a liar. I was listening on the day he claimed to have received a Pulitzer. I was listening when he repeatedly claimed to have a Degree from B.U.


As for me, Edwards would be a better President than anyone on the other side of the aisle ~ with the possible exceptions of Huckabee or Paul.

And, seemed our society was doing a hell of a lot better the last time there was a bit of infidelity in the White House.

I wonder how one gets a ticket to get on these swiftboats.

 

[Mark L]

It has little to do if whether Severin is a right wing whack job or not. He is a tool for the Republican establishment.

He is, also, a liar. I was listening on the day he claimed to have received a Pulitzer. I was listening when he repeatedly claimed to have a Degree from B.U.


As for me, Edwards would be a better President than anyone on the other side of the aisle ~ with the possible exceptions of Huckabee or Paul.

And, seemed our society was doing a hell of a lot better the last time there was a bit of infidelity in the White House.

I wonder how one gets a ticket to get on these swiftboats.

The issue is Edwards fidelity, why do insist on diverting the conversation to someone who has nothing to do with the issue.

That's great Mike, base your vote on infidelity.

 

[michaeledward]

The issue is Edwards fidelity, why do insist on diverting the conversation to someone who has nothing to do with the issue.

But the 'issue' is not, at this point, an accusation of infidelity. Before that can be an issue, a thinking person would subject the accuser's credibility to scrutiny.

The National Enquirer has not been known for its fact based research.

Jay Severin has been demonstrated to be a liar in his professional life.

And, by raising the issue here, in this manner, your 'reporting' of this story, also demands scrutiny of credibility.

When the story is reported by someone with a shred of credibility, then, this issue might become the former Senator's fidelity.

Now, you are just muck raking.

That's great Mike, base your vote on infidelity.

Whether my vote is based on a candidate's fidelity or not, comparisons of policies between current and former administrations, and their respective parties, seems completly relevant to me.

 

[Mark L]

But the 'issue' is not, at this point, an accusation of infidelity. Before that can be an issue, a thinking person would subject the accuser's credibility to scrutiny.

The National Enquirer has not been known for its fact based research.

Jay Severin has been demonstrated to be a liar in his professional life.

And, by raising the issue here, in this manner, your 'reporting' of this story, also demands scrutiny of credibility.

When the story is reported by someone with a shred of credibility, then, this issue might become the former Senator's fidelity.

Now, you are just muck raking.



Whether my vote is based on a candidate's fidelity or not, comparisons of policies between current and former administrations, and their respective parties, seems completly relevant to me.

My purpose in starting this thread was to ask for more information, you have polluted it with your own obvious biases. Hijack accomplished, congratulations. I'm done with you, and this thread. Thanks for playing.

 

[michaeledward]

It would appear that there is not interest in 'more information'.

Because, I have offered more information. The source of your story is a demonstrable liar. That, is information related to this topic. The source of your story is a tool for Mitt Romney, this time around. Although, when Mr. Guiliani becomes the candidate, all the things that are wrong with Mr. Guiliani today, will be irrelevant to your source.

My biases are irrelevant.

The bias of your sources, however, are exceedingly relevant. And by spreading these biased sources unsubstantiated accusations, you participate in tactics that should be called into question.

The 'Swiftboat Veterans for Truth' smeared a decorated Vietnam Veteran with similar tactics.

Senator John McCain was accused of having an illegitimate love child, with similar tactics.

Senator Max Cleland was accused of being in league with Osama Bin Laden, with similar tactics.

All lies spread to besmirtch someone wishing to serve the country for political gain.

When there is a real news story on the "issue", then we can talk.

 

[Big Don]

The 'Swiftboat Veterans for Truth' smeared a decorated Vietnam Veteran with similar tactics.

and yet Kerry never released his records to disprove them...
Oh, don't forget Sen Tom Harkin and his fake decorations...

 

[Mark L]

It would appear that there is not interest in 'more information'.

Because, I have offered more information. The source of your story is a demonstrable liar. That, is information related to this topic. The source of your story is a tool for Mitt Romney, this time around. Although, when Mr. Guiliani becomes the candidate, all the things that are wrong with Mr. Guiliani today, will be irrelevant to your source.

My biases are irrelevant.

The bias of your sources, however, are exceedingly relevant. And by spreading these biased sources unsubstantiated accusations, you participate in tactics that should be called into question.

The 'Swiftboat Veterans for Truth' smeared a decorated Vietnam Veteran with similar tactics.

Senator John McCain was accused of having an illegitimate love child, with similar tactics.

Senator Max Cleland was accused of being in league with Osama Bin Laden, with similar tactics.

All lies spread to besmirtch someone wishing to serve the country for political gain.

When there is a real news story on the "issue", then we can talk.

A final word: the source of the story is the National Enquirer, why are you arguing that it isn't. Severin is not the issue, Edwards is. You have offered no information on the accusation leveled at Edwards, no source that either confirms or denies. You're attacking the reporters, evading the issue. That is why I'm done engaging with you.

 

[michaeledward]

A final word: the source of the story is the National Enquirer, why are you arguing that it isn't. Severin is not the issue, Edwards is. You have offered no information on the accusation leveled at Edwards, no source that either confirms or denies. You're attacking the reporters, evading the issue. That is why I'm done engaging with you.

The Source of the Story is the National Enquirer. And you tell us that there is 'silence' from the Edwards campaign, which demonstrates that you did not read the National Enquirer story. Because the Edwards campaign's statement was in the story on the National Enquirer web site.

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

His spokesman said that allegations Edwards had an affair are "false, absolute nonsense."

And I did state in an earlier post that the credibility of the National Enquirer is limited, at best.

The paper, itself, says they have no first hand information on the subject.

The ENQUIRER made exhaustive but unsuccessful attempts to reach the woman for comment regarding this article but she would not return phone calls or emails or come to the door of the house where she is staying.

It was further stated by you, that you heard the story from the local talk radio station, during the afternoon. It is easy enough to figure out who would be spreading a smear against the Edwards campaign with unsubstantiated rumors. Mr. Severin once made the statement;

But since journalism began, and up until the time at least that I took my master's degree at Boston University -- and may I add without being obnoxious, up till and including the time that I received a Pulitzer Prize for my columns for excellence in online journalism from the Columbia School of Journalism, the highest possible award for writing on the Web -- right up to and including that in 1998, you still had to practice journalism to be a journalist."

This talk show host claimed to have a degree in Journalism from Boston University. A lie.
This talk show host claimed to have won a Pulitzer Prize. A lie.
This talk show host claimed that he understands what 'journalism' is, and now is passing on a story, unsubstantiated, from the National Enquirer.


You say this is an attack on the reporters. It is important to me that the 'substance' of a message be interpreted and that one not 'shoot the messenger'. You are correct that it is absolutely unfair to attack an arguer, and not the argument. That is why in my first post on this thread ... which I did not make until I watched several other posters kick up the mud on this topic ... asked about sources for the story that were more credible than the one source you say you heard the story from, and the source which started originated the 'story'.

There is no substantial news organization reporting this story, by your own admission. At this point, it is a political hit job. A tactic that has worked well for the Republican Party over the past eight years.

These are the facts, as I understand them. If and when these facts change, let us reconsider. It was, after all, Matt Drudge, (a bastien for unbiased, fact based reporting) that first notified the world of Monica Lewinsky. Til then ... go in peace.


Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

 

[Marginal]

and yet Kerry never released his records to disprove them...

He released them after the election. They supported his account.

 

[michaeledward]

I couldn't even count the number of times Jay Severin said today, in the first 20 minutes of his broadcast, the accusation is raised by 'National Geographic'. This is an obvious attempt by this LIAR to conflate the prestigious National Geographic Society with the oft-ridiculed 'National Enquirer'.

Mr. Severin makes a point of telling his listeners that language is important. Today he boasted that "He knew the words" that would be refute this allegation, and that former Senator Edwards did not use those words.

But, repeatedly in his broadcast, he misused words. Only a fool would assume that with his claimed prestige about knowing words, that it was an intentional conflation.


No doubt, Mr. Severin and Mr. Graham (another personality on this radio station - filling the airwaves with bread and circuses) have earned their stripes and can board the Swiftboat upon which they serve.

 

[Big Don]

He released them after the election. They supported his account.

yes, he signed it in MAY of 2005,

For example, Kerry received his first Purple Heart for action on Dec. 2, 1968. Kerry told historian Douglas Brinkley that ''I never saw where the piece of shrapnel had come from." Kerry's critics have questioned whether the wound came from enemy fire, and his former commanding officer said the wound resembled a ''scratch."

No after action reports, either... Christmas in Cambodia...
Ringing endorsement, eh?

 

[michaeledward]

More than two weeks have passed. No credible source has reported the infidelity. No apology or retraction from the National Enquirer.

I have been fortunate to avoid hearing Mr. Severin's lies and Mr. Graham's smears for most of the intervening time. I assume they have moved on to some other meaningless inaccuracies.

And here ... nope ... no apologies for spreading the fertilizer either. Smear accomplished.

 

[Sorros]

So what is the big deal, Dems never had a problem with infidelity,or carpetbagging. All there heroes have done it.

 

[Ray]

. No apology or retraction from the National Enquirer.

I can't help it, it made me chuckle; you didn't really expect that great bastion of journalism to live to a high standard?

 

[michaeledward]

I can't help it, it made me chuckle; you didn't really expect that great bastion of journalism to live to a high standard?

Although I rarely comment with the intention of jocularity, I can understand how this comment could raise such. Of course, the National Enquirer has often stretched the limits of credibility to the breaking point. Which is why, obviously, my comment is humorous.

I expect those who repeat, quote, and disseminate stories from this 'great bastion', should be held to similar high standards. This is why local radio personality, Jay Severin, and his colleague, Michael Graham, should never be quoted as a source. Too often, they are too wrong, on too many subjects.

Incidently, I was at the local bookseller the other day, and I almost picked up this book.

http://book.regrettheerror.com/

 

[Big Don]

Incidently, I was at the local bookseller the other day, and I almost picked up this book.

http://book.regrettheerror.com/

"Dewey Defeats Truman" must be the opening chapter...

 

[Phoenix44]

I DON'T CARE WHOSE COOCHIE HE STICKS IT IN - IT'S NONE OF MY ****ING BUSINESS UNLESS IT'S AN ILLEGAL SITUATION.

Thank you.

 

[Mark L]

Sorry to resurrect the thread, but some here took offense that I had the nerve to post the question, given that it came from the National Enquirer (a questionable source under most circumstances), and that I heard of it from a conservative talk radio host. All I was seeking were facts, or corroboration, and discussion.

Edwards is now admitting that the story is true. To those that so quickly dismissed the story without consideration as slanderous and smearing, and the dissemination through other media as the work of the Republican puppeteers: Enjoy your crow.

 

[arnisador]

He was pretty bald about lying about this. That's the worst part for me.

 

[Twin Fist]

As time goes by, the more I trust the Enquirer and the less i trust the New York Times

funny world isnt it?