Patterico's Pontifications

10/31/2007

L.A. Times Sitting on a Sex Scandal??

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 5:28 am

Rumormongering. It’s what the blogosphere does best!

Ron Rosenbaum:

So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that “everyone knows” The LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate.

Mickey Kaus:

I guess this is proof that I’m not in the elite, because I don’t know what he’s talking about.

I didn’t need any further proof that I’m not in the elite, but I don’t know either. Kaus adds:

My vestigial Limbaugh gland tells me it must involve a Democrat, or else the Times would have found a reason to print it.

Well. That’s right — assuming the rumor is true. Jack M. at Ace’s thinks Rosenbaum is being played. I can’t quite map out the motive there, but it’s certainly a possibility.

Hey, whoever mentioned it has all of us talking about it . . .

52 Comments

  1. How can a sex scandal or any scandal be “devastating” to a democrat?

    Comment by dave (185b67) — 10/31/2007 @ 5:35 am

  2. Could this be a resurrection of the Edwards thing, and Rosenbaum is just woefully behind the curve?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 10/31/2007 @ 6:12 am

  3. It bears noting that Rosenbaum says it isn’t, but if he doesn’t know what it is, how can he know what it’s not?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 10/31/2007 @ 6:14 am

  4. I absolutely did not have sex with that man. So we sat at the same table for the Gay Rights Ball; that means nothing. So we go to the same rest room at the same time; other people were in there too don’t forget. And if after twenty five years of fucking the public doesn’t allow for a little sexual confusion once in a while, then vote for the pedophile.

    Comment by Howard Veit (4ba8d4) — 10/31/2007 @ 6:35 am

  5. #1 nailed it.

    Comment by Old Coot (20ca0f) — 10/31/2007 @ 6:51 am

  6. Dave,

    Ask Gary Hart.

    Comment by CAL (c9c676) — 10/31/2007 @ 7:09 am

  7. One important difference: Gary Hart taunted the media. He said I dare ya’ and they did.

    Comment by dave (185b67) — 10/31/2007 @ 7:17 am

  8. Gary Hart voluntarily withdrew because he wrongly assumed that it would hurt him. Clinton’s people told him it would hurt him, too. That’s why he said he had to lie. But it didn’t.

    Reality — Dem voters do not punish their candidates for any scandal, much less a sex scandal. See e.g. Marion Barry, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Garry Studds, Alcee Hastings, the Fords in Memphis, the Clintons, et al.

    Comment by Stan (ddb05e) — 10/31/2007 @ 7:20 am

  9. The scandal–David Geffin is no longer gay. He had counciling and it took.

    Comment by Menlo Bob (079ae2) — 10/31/2007 @ 7:32 am

  10. “My vestigial Limbaugh gland tells me it must involve a Democrat, or else the Times would have found a reason to print it.”

    I made a similiar comment last night at another site re this – if it were about a conservative you can bet it would have been published pronto… that there is a delay makes it highly suspect that its about a Dem. If so, the LAT is wringing its hands in an emotional conundrum – do we maintain some journalistic obligation and print the truth of the matter, party be damned, or do we sit on it because we might offend the wrong people?

    (and I didn’t need a ‘vestigial Limbaugh gland’ to figure this out – just the LATs track record and commonsense!)

    Comment by Dana (b4a26c) — 10/31/2007 @ 7:35 am

  11. 1. Rosenbaum gives hints that it’s the spouse, not the candidate.

    2. It’s the LAT, so there may be a Hollywood connection.

    3. It’s about a ‘leading’ candidate, so everyone except Guiliani, Thompson, Romney, McCain, Obama, Clinton and Edwards is excluded.

    4. Edwards is probably excluded because Rosenbaum would have hinted about there was ANOTHER Edwards rumor.

    5. The most likely spouse candidates have to be Obama’s wife, Clinton’s husband and Thompson’s wife.

    6. It’s Bill Clinton! (Maybe with Jeri Thompson! In the parlor, with a cigar?)

    7. It’s Bill Clinton! It’s Bill Clinton!

    8. This time she hold a press conference and kill him in front the world and it will be her main campaign ad. Even I will vote for her.

    Comment by tom (612cba) — 10/31/2007 @ 8:07 am

  12. It may be about a Republican. If they wait and it turns out to be the candidate that is nominated and release it after the nomination it could ruin make the democrat nominee a shoo in.

    Comment by shawn (e5e6e1) — 10/31/2007 @ 9:07 am

  13. Geez Ron, I’m getting a headache.

    Don’t italicize me, bro.

    Comment by PC14 (f74534) — 10/31/2007 @ 9:23 am

  14. I still think it’s Kucinich. The reason it’s a scandal is that it was with Hillary — thus proving she’s an alien.

    Comment by McGehee (25adee) — 10/31/2007 @ 9:50 am

  15. Will voters ever get tired of these?

    Comment by Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/31/2007 @ 10:08 am

  16. I guess I’m not too impressed since the DC Madame’s 12,000 number list was almost totally suppressed because… my golly there could be misdialed numbers on it…and bejeebers, we can’t go about wrecking lives, especially thousands of them…and…my goody what a great and secret bribery list for a good, long time it shall make.
    How soon the talking heads forget what they already forgot.

    Comment by SiliconDoc (da9276) — 10/31/2007 @ 10:42 am

  17. I, too, speculated on another blog that it was the Hildebeast having a gay affair. My guess it is eith either Ellen DeGeneres or with Rosie O’Donnell.

    Comment by PCD (b47ba5) — 10/31/2007 @ 10:51 am

  18. It’s more than mildly offensive that supposedly the LAT is speculating wether or not their perhaps story is “relevant” – since it may or may not have happened “in the 80′s” read.
    Look, the little Bush drunking driving pre 80′s seemed to be relevant.
    I know the masters of manipulation and proper impact timing have to have 18 internal meetings pretending to be ruminating over ethics or some sort of devastating and emotionally draining moral dilemma.
    What a bunch of poppycock crap. It just goes to show they haven’t a clue what they’re doing, and once again it tells us that they never report anything straight out, and it’s always some calculated psychotic menagerie of politics and agendas for them.
    Fine LAT, NYT, WaPo, alphabet networks, etc. We know the public is far too stupid to know if anything you report or don’t report is relevant. You decide.

    Comment by SiliconDoc (da9276) — 10/31/2007 @ 11:01 am

  19. I work at the L.A. Times, write about national politics, and spent all of last week in DC, mingling with the LAT bureau there (as well as scores of national political journalists). I’ve never heard word one about any of this until Rosembaum’s post was made known to me.

    Comment by Matt Welch (51b7e0) — 10/31/2007 @ 11:09 am

  20. Matt,

    I’ll flat out tell you that anyone working at the LATimes has a credibility problem with me when it comes to any story with a hint of politics or conflicts with PC Liberal biases.

    I totally believe that the Times would sit on a story, and believe they have in the past because it would hurt the Democrats.

    Stories such as Willie Brown making racist jokes and the press corps laughing along with him instead of reporting on his racism.

    I also used to work for Hugh Hewitt’s producer at another radio show, but knew that the Times was biased.

    I have said this about the LATimes in public and broadcast forums: “I would not use the LATimes for catbox liner because my cat would think that the box would already be full.”

    Comment by PCD (b47ba5) — 10/31/2007 @ 11:15 am

  21. I’ve never heard word one about any of this until Rosembaum’s post was made known to me.

    Most people who they intend to let go are kept out of the loop . . .

    Comment by dave (185b67) — 10/31/2007 @ 11:16 am

  22. dave #21,

    Sometimes you should keep your mouth shut. Matt Welch is not some anonymous asshole like me and you shooting his mouth off on his coffee break.

    Comment by nk (7aed24) — 10/31/2007 @ 11:21 am

  23. We are not all like dave, here, Mr. Welch.

    Comment by nk (7aed24) — 10/31/2007 @ 11:22 am

  24. NK, what is Matt Welch to you? Some sort of a tin god you pray to?

    Comment by PCD (b47ba5) — 10/31/2007 @ 11:32 am

  25. Right back atch’, nk!

    Comment by dave (185b67) — 10/31/2007 @ 11:33 am

  26. Matt’s good people, as nk says, there is no reason to be making personal remarks toward him.

    Comment by SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/31/2007 @ 11:41 am

  27. I’ll let Patterico take this further if he cares to. I don’t have administrative privileges here.

    Comment by nk (7aed24) — 10/31/2007 @ 11:47 am

  28. Oooo, I’m scared. Get over yourselves.It was a minor joke. You two are acting like teenage groupies.

    Comment by dave (185b67) — 10/31/2007 @ 12:03 pm

  29. nk,

    You are obviously too close to the Times. I can say a lot about verious lies and broken promises from various “names” at the Times.

    If the people at the Times don’t like their earned public reputation, they can stop the actions that daily reinforce the reputation or leave.

    If the reporter in question was Jean O. Pasco, I knew she was biased back when she worked for the O. C. Register. She couldn’t write a negative word against Tom Umberg or Robert Citron. Citron, as you should remember, took the Orange County into Municipal Bankruptcy.

    Maybe you and people at the Times should take my comments as smelling salts to awaken you to the cancer the Times has become to journalism.

    Comment by PCD (b47ba5) — 10/31/2007 @ 12:03 pm

  30. FYI,
    Matt Welch is one of the few good guys at the LAT or anywhere, including this forum.

    Comment by Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 10/31/2007 @ 12:05 pm

  31. While I appreciate Matt Welch’s statement and believe what he says and have also heard good things about him, it doesn’t make it so. He may simply not be aware of anything being sat on, or maybe there is indeed, nothing. But what is obvious is that the majority of people here are long past giving the LAT the benefit of the doubt in any way, shape or form. And that should be very troubling to any endeavor attempting to represent non-biased integrity in their journalism and subsequent communication with the public.

    Comment by Dana (b4a26c) — 10/31/2007 @ 12:18 pm

  32. Matt’s a good guy. I trust him. Be polite.

    Comment by Patterico (0c89a7) — 10/31/2007 @ 12:32 pm

  33. “I still think it’s Kucinich”

    -McGehee

    Are you kidding? Have you seen his wife?

    Comment by Leviticus (43095b) — 10/31/2007 @ 12:33 pm

  34. “I still think it’s Kucinich”

    -McGehee

    “Are you kidding? Have you seen his wife?”

    On the other hand, the guy *has* been married four times–I think he naturally attracts women who are afraid of orbital mind control lasers and who want to insure their offspring get the best and shiniest tinfoil available. Some of those women just happen to be hot.

    Comment by M. Scott Eiland (c3969b) — 10/31/2007 @ 1:37 pm

  35. I find it very hard to believe that the LA Times could really uncover such a scandal. Hell, their reporters are so inept, I doubt that they could discover a peniX stuck up their Bxtt.

    Comment by John Kole (c36902) — 10/31/2007 @ 1:44 pm

  36. #33 Leviticus
    Have you seen his wife?
    No, I hadn’t. My goodness. You do have a point, there.

    Comment by m (cbf1ea) — 10/31/2007 @ 2:00 pm

  37. Patterico, are you our nerve center for this story? I keep wondering where to check first.

    Comment by m (cbf1ea) — 10/31/2007 @ 2:04 pm

  38. Well, Luke Ford was right about the mayor. Let’s see what’s on his site regarding this story:

    We’re still a bit incredulous on this one, but a top level U.S. Department of Justice official is telling Big Head DC that Michael Musto’s rumor about Hillary Clinton fooling around with one of her top female aides Huma Abedin is based in reality!

    http://www.lukeford.net/blog/index.php/

    …and Huma Abedin is a hottie:

    http://niralimagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/abedin.jpg

    Comment by TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 10/31/2007 @ 2:34 pm

  39. Matt gave me the name of a good bar to visit during my trip to Prague last year, I’ve got his back.

    Comment by SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/31/2007 @ 2:35 pm

  40. Take Five wrote: …and Huma Abedin is a hottie:

    “Huma”? She should be named “Hamena-hamena-hamena” a la Jackie Gleason! Wowzers!

    If this is true, one thing’s for sure: She has better taste in women than her husband!

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 10/31/2007 @ 4:10 pm

  41. Huma Abedin lived most of her life in Saudi, her parents are tied to various Wahabbist nutcases.

    Six degrees of Osama?

    Comment by Jim Rockford (e09923) — 10/31/2007 @ 4:59 pm

  42. Matt might be a good guy, but as soon as he admits he works for the LAT, you gotta turn on the bs detector…full power.

    Comment by PC14 (f74534) — 10/31/2007 @ 7:54 pm

  43. You’re known by the company you keep. What the f*** am I doing here?

    Comment by nk (7aed24) — 10/31/2007 @ 8:03 pm

  44. You stay because of me, nk. I cancel out the negative influence of all chumps, and then some.

    Comment by Leviticus (68eff1) — 11/1/2007 @ 6:27 am

  45. Will Drudge scoop the MSM? Is there rumors that DRUDGE will scoop the LA Times? I think if anybody will run with this story Matt Drudge will.

    Comment by Andy B (caa920) — 11/1/2007 @ 6:49 am

  46. Matt Welch is not some sort of lefty. Google him before showing how ignorant you are.

    Comment by bob (8951ce) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:03 pm

  47. Could it be that Hilary is a … tern that is a synonym for actor/actress?

    Comment by mike (72b8a3) — 11/1/2007 @ 4:50 pm

  48. Could it be that Hilary is a (term that rhymes with a synonym for actress/actor)?

    Comment by mike (72b8a3) — 11/1/2007 @ 4:51 pm

  49. oops… forget 47

    Comment by mike (72b8a3) — 11/1/2007 @ 4:52 pm

  50. I’m so far out of the loop I have no idea who Ron Rosenbaum is. Maybe I’m lucky.

    Comment by Craig (97ebac) — 11/3/2007 @ 12:56 pm

  51. Could it be this is “the Obama scandal” that Hillary “politely refuses” to break, per Novak?

    Comment by EHeavenlyGads (5ac5e3) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:12 am

  52. rohos juvefyhy gukma
    voze http://si170646.bu4egr9.in/sitemap21.html [url=http://si170646.bu4egr9.in/sitemap21.html ]wege[/url] lybuj

    Comment by si170646 (30b2b5) — 1/19/2008 @ 9:33 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3955 secs.