Text 7066, 201 rader
Skriven 2008-08-09 18:01:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av JIM HOLSONBACK
Ärende: Coulter's Column
========================
On 08-09-08, JIM HOLSONBACK said to TIM RICHARDSON:


-=> On 08-08-08 18:03 TIM RICHARDSON wrote to JIM HOLSONBACK <=-


TR> I have to hunt up where I put that column. Ah...here it is: I just
TR> didn't want to go with it until I was sure there was a lot more than
TR> just hearsay and innuendo to base the story on.


JH>Congratulations, sir! You have more integrity than Bill Keller of the
JH>New York Times, both in general and specifically in the matter of McCain
JH>and Vicki Iseman.


I didn't even know Vicki `had' an Iseman. I don't go out on the net looking
for crap like this. If this thing with Edwards hadn't hit the news (and it
probably wouldn't have if the Enquirer hadn't ambushed him on it), I'd have
never known anything about it.


There are people who have nothing but time on their hands all day....they
never work...rarely go out....just sit around all day and night surfing the
net looking for odd pieces of a sex scandal, innuendo, half-truths, or half-
assed accusations to post up in long, drawn-out articles they haven't really
read through, don't understand, and usually don't deal with the one or two
line screed they start out with in the first place!


And of course.....the stock response to something that gets them riled is to
accuse the columnist of something horrid......like being a `bulldyke'!


Actually.....I care less about Edwards and his mistress, whether or not he's
the father of the child in question is immaterial to me. The only thing that
has reality for me is that this will probably eliminate Edwards from having
any position of authority in the new administration, so he will not be doing
America any harm. He did us all a favor and took himself out. Good!


TR> A BABY DADDY FOR BOTH AMERICAS
TR> July 30, 2008


JH>You're still a week behind.  Her column for this week (8/6) is also
JH>about Edwards - - "Only His Hairdresser Knows for Sure"


As a matter of fact.......I grabbed this one last week, and was just waiting
for some sort of substantiation of its accusations before posting it up.


I hadn't looked for Coulter's column this week as I've been busy working on my
roof and other things. I'll go look for it now, though. Back in a jiff:


Yup! Got it!


ONLY HIS HAIR DRESSER KNOWS FOR SURE!
August 6, 2008


The mainstream media's reaction to the National Enquirer's reports on John
Edwards' "love child" scandal has been reminiscent of the Soviet press.
Edwards' name has simply been completely whitewashed out of the news. Say, why
isn't anyone talking about John Edwards for vice president anymore? No,
seriously, hey! Why are we going to a commercial break?


I suspect that if I tried to look up coverage of the Democratic primaries in
Nexis news archives, Edwards' name will have disappeared from the debates. By
next week, Edwards won't have been John Kerry's running mate in 2004.


Do you know what this means? At this precise moment in time, I could call
Edwards a name that would send me to rehab, and the media wouldn't be able to
report it!


A Washington Post reporter defended the total blackout on the National
Enquirer's John Edwards' love child story, telling the Times of London:
"Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office
now. Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage." This was the perfect guy to talk to
because if there's one thing they're careful about in London, it's tabloid
excess.


Isn't there some level of coverage between "wall-to-wall" and "double-secret
probation, delta-force level total news blackout" when it comes to a sex
scandal involving a current Democratic vice presidential and Cabinet prospect?


Hey, what sort of "elected official" was Ted Haggard again? He was the
Christian minister no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of until he
was caught in a gay sex scandal last year. Then he suddenly became the Pope of
the Protestants. And yet, despite the fact that Haggard was not an "elected
official," the Post gave that story wall-to-wall coverage. And what sort of
"elected officials" were Mel Gibson, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett?


The MSM justify banner coverage of the smallest malfeasance by any Christian
or conservative, with or without independent verification, with the lame
excuse of "hypocrisy." Hey, why didn't you say so! If all it takes to get the
Edwards story into the establishment press is a little hypocrisy, boy, have I
got a story for you!


Based on information currently saturating the Internet: (1) The entire
schmaltzy Edwards campaign consisted of this self-professed moralist telling
us how much he loved the poor and loved his cancer-stricken wife; (2) the
following was Edwards' response to CBS News anchor Katie Couric's question
about whether voters should care if a presidential candidate is faithful to
his spouse:


"Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans -- including the family that I grew
up with, I mean, it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character
whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which
is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them. ... I think the most
important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness --
sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And -- and certainly that goes to
a part of that."


There you have it, boys: Go to town, MSM!


Moreover, the National Enquirer reports that Edwards is paying Rielle Hunter
-- the former "Lisa Druck" -- $15,000 a month in "hush money." Shouldn't the
IRS be investigating whether Edwards is deducting those payments as a
"business expense"?


Maybe The Washington Post didn't hear about the Enquirer catching Edwards in a
hotel with his mistress and love child since it happened way out in the sleepy
little burg of Los Angeles near the corner of Wilshire and Santa Monica
Boulevards -- you know, the middle of nowhere. But surely the public can count
on the Los Angeles Times to report on a tabloid scandal occurring under its
very nose.


Kausfiles produced this e-mail from an L.A. Times editor to its bloggers soon
after the Enquirer's stakeout of Edwards visiting the alleged mistress and
love child at the Beverly Hilton:


From: "Pierce, Tony"
Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT
Subject: john edwards


Hey bloggers,


There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair.
Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to
cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog
about this topic until further notified.


If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best
fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask.


Keep rockin,

Tony


Hey, I have a story idea I think the L.A. Times might like: How about
something on the glorious workers' revolution that will restore the means of
production to the people and create a workers' paradise right here on Earth,
free of the shackles of capitalism?


I assume it would be jejune to point out that the MSM would be taking the
wall-to-wall approach, rather than the total blackout approach, to the love
child story if it were a story about Mitt Romney's love child or, indeed,
Larry Craig's love child. They'd bring Ted Koppel out of retirement to cover
that.


Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson would be anchoring the evening
news from Romney's front yard. They might even get Dan Rather to produce some
forged documents for the occasion.


But with a Democrat sex scandal, the L.A. Times is in a nail-biting
competition with The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, NBC and CBS for
the Pulitzer for "Best Suppressed Story."


COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER



---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)