Sarah Palin's Affair with Husbands Business Partner

CanadianKid

New member
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/usele...enquirers-sarah-palin-affair-allegation,43304

Media dilemma over Enquirer’s ‘Sarah Palin affair’

The American media has been quick to caricature John McCain's running mate Sarah Palin as a gun-toting, anti-abortionist, creationist redneck, and pounced on the news that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter Bristol was pregnant. But how will the US media big guns handle the latest, more serious allegation - that Sarah Palin had an affair with her husband's business partner? The situation is particularly delicate since the allegation has been made by the notorious supermarket tabloid, the National Enquirer.

Senior McCain adviser Steve Schmidt said yesterday, "The allegations contained on the cover of the National Enquirer insinuating that Governor Palin had an extramarital affair are categorically false. It is a vicious lie... The American people will reject it."

Two months ago, he might have been able to make that assumption with confidence. He might also have been able to count on the mainstream media treating the National Enquirer with its habitual disdain. That was what happened when the Enquirer reported that the former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had had an affair with a videographer, Rielle Hunter. Newspapers and TV channels ignored the story, happy to concur that the tabloid report was fabricated nonsense.

But the Enquirer kept pushing, eventually running Edwards to ground with his former mistress in a hotel rendezvous in Los Angeles. Edwards was forced to admit an extramarital affair and was disinvited from the recent Demoratic convention.

The main argument against the Enquirer's tactics down the years has been its use of unnamed, paid sources. But it was exactly these methods that led to the Edwards scoop. With John McCain's team issuing threats of legal action over the Palin affair allegation, the rest of the US media now face a conundrum: do they follow up a potential scandal and risk a lawsuit, or ignore a possibly explosive story 'broken' by a publication that has recently gained credibility?

The Enquirer, for its part, appears to be enjoying trying on its newly purchased cloak of respectability. In response to Schmidt's denials, the tabloid said: "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." Watch this space.
 
Yeah the John Edwards affair thing was amazing. the national enquirer out journalized the rest of the media.

This is just plumb upsidedown weird.
But that is the America of the new millenium.
:usflag:
 
Who knows?

In my experience women who are that concerned with their looks and wink and flick their hair all the time end up with temptations that stroke their egos and often fall prey to their own desires to be approved of physically.

I dont know if any of this is true but she fits the mold I have seen in my lifetime and I would not be suprized if she made a mistake at some time in her marriage.
 
It's old, this has so much "legs" it died last month and CK tries to resurrect it as an "October Surprise".
 
Yeah Damo many dems said the same thing about Edwards affair report though.

You really do deserve that raise.
 
Yeah Damo many dems said the same thing about Edwards affair report though.

You really do deserve that raise.
The difference there would be that there were actually new stories, instead he gets a link to a story over a month old.

Both sides seem desperate, one side doesn't have to be. I simply point out that even the link he gives is over a month old, its dusty as a McCain fart.

Spouting the same nonsense because you think somebody else said is "smart" doesn't make you smart. Drinking the bathwater again there uscit.
 
What's funny is that CK comes on here to troll, rips on half the Democrats on this board and yet the Democrats on this board still want to respond to his threads.

If a person is on the board to troll be they right of left politically leaning you ignore them. CK has made it obvious he is not here for real discussion yet some of you can't wait to respond to his threads.
 
majority of married adults cheat.

I bet you are right.

I have never really understood why people complicate their lives this way and how they can feel comfortable in their own skin living like that.

I would be suicidal if I behaved like many I met do.

I could just not live with my own self image of being a lying piece of shit who put tittlation and attention over being honest.

There are alot of small souled people in this world unfortunately.
 
What's funny is that CK comes on here to troll, rips on half the Democrats on this board and yet the Democrats on this board still want to respond to his threads.

If a person is on the board to troll be they right of left politically leaning you ignore them. CK has made it obvious he is not here for real discussion yet some of you can't wait to respond to his threads.

That really grinds on you doesn't it ?
 
Which rightie pundit spawned that drinking the bathwater line anyway ?
I say the bathwater line. So far as I know I am the only one using it at this time. It has nothing to do with righty or lefty though. I'm happy to sling it around in both directions. I would have used "toilet water" but I'd like to save that for people who are just nutjobs of devotion falling over themselves to lick the toes of their savior, whichever party it happens to be.
 
majority of married adults cheat.

What has amazed me is how many women I have known or known of, who were and are cheating over the years. When I was younger I always assumed it was mostly a married guy thing to do. I don’t even know a married woman at this point who hasn't cheated, or isn’t currently cheating. I mean, of the ones that I am in the position to know what they are doing.
 
Last edited:
What's funny is that CK comes on here to troll, rips on half the Democrats on this board and yet the Democrats on this board still want to respond to his threads.

If a person is on the board to troll be they right of left politically leaning you ignore them. CK has made it obvious he is not here for real discussion yet some of you can't wait to respond to his threads.

I don’t respond to CK, but sometimes will respond to something someone else said in his threads. I don’t ignore him because he’s a “troll” – whatever that might mean. After all, I troll myself, and I’m hysterical when I do! I ignore him because of things he has said about other people, that I think is way over the line.
 
What has amazed me is how many women I have known or known of, who were and are cheating over the years. When I was younger I always assumed it was mostly a married guy thing to do. I don’t even know a married woman at this point who hasn't cheated, or isn’t currently cheating. I mean, of the ones that I am in the position to know what they are doing.

Its just soul killing if you ask me.

I think so many women dont feel whole if men are not after them.

Then at some point all they do to attract thaT kind of attention gets them into situations they fail to resist. Its one of the really sad consequences of a society that only sees women as valuable for looks.
 
Back
Top