Dear “Serious Press”:
If it’s news now that he admits it, then it’s news.
Since he admits it, it was true.
Since it was true and it was news, you have no excuse. You got beat.
If the National Enquirer sucks, then you got beat by a news outlet that sucks.
That means you suck worse.
Thanks for listening.
Love and kisses,
Patterico
P.S. Even the erratic Tim Rutten agrees (h/t to the “portly pirate”):
From the start, the Edwards scandal has belonged entirely to the alternative and new media. The tabloid National Enquirer has done all the significant reporting on it — reporting that turns out to be largely correct — and bloggers and online commentators have refused to let the story sputter into oblivion.
What’s more, Rutten confirms that the L.A. Times got beat because it didn’t care:
As pressure mounted on major newspapers to take some aspect of the unfolding scandal into account, editors and ombudsmen issued statements saying it would be unfair to publish anything until the Enquirer’s stories had been “confirmed.”
Well, there’s confirming and then there’s confirming. One sort occurs when an editor mutters, “Find somebody and have them make a few calls.” Then there’s the sort that comes when that editor summons an investigative reporter with a heart like ice and a mind like Torquemada’s and says, “Follow this wherever it goes and peel this guy like an onion.”
Suffice to say that the follow-up of the Enquirer’s story fell into the former category in too many newsrooms, including that of The Times.
Is the latter category reserved for Republicans? Too often it appears that it is. See DRJ’s post below for an example of the differential treatment accorded John Edwards and John McCain.
You were sending that to the guy you debated the future of the LA Times with, correct?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/8/2008 @ 10:30 pmLAT response – “Sticks and stones may break our bones, but names we mispell will never hurt us”
Ed (841b4a) — 8/8/2008 @ 10:35 pmRe: Nightline
Oh boy. Here we go!
Icy Truth (c1347d) — 8/8/2008 @ 10:36 pm“All The News That Fits The Template”
Cicero (5f6f87) — 8/8/2008 @ 11:16 pmFrom LAT editor Craig Turner:
“The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid that is accurate some of the time and inaccurate some of the time,” Turner said.”
Heh.
Dana (254946) — 8/8/2008 @ 11:28 pmPwned.
M. Scott Eiland (a16843) — 8/9/2008 @ 12:21 amLOL
james conrad (b2891a) — 8/9/2008 @ 12:34 amI still maintain that the media should be very cautious before dragging the name of a person of worth through the mud. John Edwards is not the kind of lowlife you see on the Maury Povich show. No matter how much you may disagree with his politics. And the jury is still out on whether Rielle Hunter is, as well.
nk (e38352) — 8/9/2008 @ 12:59 amWhat kind of lowlife is he?
Icy Truth (c1347d) — 8/9/2008 @ 1:35 am#8 — That would be a reasonable expectation, if the MSM were consistent.
But the same outlets that closed ranks to protect John Edwards had attempted to drag John McCain’s name through the mud just a few weeks earlier, and with less evidence.
This is a clear case of political partisanship leading the news.
Evil Pundit (646727) — 8/9/2008 @ 1:56 amthen you got beat by a news outlet that sucks.
That means you suck worse.
Yes however the moderate, independent voter believes these news outlets hook, line and stinkers: it’s funny since the Centrist is The One who will be deciding between bad and really bad candidates based on information they get from the news outlest which suck worse.
For example, the Democrats have been restricting drilling for three decades yet the Army of Davids will opine how Republicans are screwing up or Catholics votes for abortion yet its those evangelicals who are evil right-winger Christians or illegal is perfectly legal according to ivy tower Law professors.
News outlets are worse yet what does it say about the moderate voters who bases all their decisions on the crap put out by news outlets.
syn (1017f1) — 8/9/2008 @ 3:23 amJohn Pretty Boy Edwards is a far worse lowlife than even seen on Jerry Springer. I have moonbat neighbors who are mortified about this and still have his John Edwards 2008 sticker on their car.
The long suffering wife may be hurting badly-she knew this asshat was being duplicitous since at least 2006. And why was he visiting his former mistress at 2am to see a baby that is not his? Who was responsible for the hush payments? Even though he says he never loved her, the lady he threw under the boss said she loved him. Rumor has it that she’s a groupie slut. So who was he folling with before for five years in DC?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/9/2008 @ 3:27 amIsn’t the Maury Povich show the one that does paternity tests all the time? Seems like a perfect fit for Silky Pony.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/9/2008 @ 3:53 amnk wrote:
Oh, I’d say that Mr Edwards has proven himslef to be exactly the kind of lowlife you see on the Maury Povich Show; that he has more money doesn’t mean that he has more class. When you referred to him as “a person of worth,” I have to ask just what you meant.
That this story had at least some truth to it was obvious from the moment the Enquirer was able to place Mr Edwards and Miss Hunter — albeit Miss Hunter was in a suite rented in the name of a friend — in the same hotel at the same late hour. From that point, it was obvious that this wasn’t an event made up out of nothing.
Dana R Pico (3e4784) — 8/9/2008 @ 4:03 amI still maintain that the media should be very cautious before dragging the name of a person of worth through the mud. –nk
I submit that John Edwards, rather, has proven himself to be a
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/9/2008 @ 5:46 amPerson
Of
Silk
When you get your back-side handed to you by the home of Bat-boy,Bigfoot and Flying saucers it might
be time to pack it in, or at least go back down to Triple-A ball league.
Good God, think about it, Tommy Lee Jones in “Men in Black” where he grabs a bunch of papers like
SteveofTheNorth (8447d8) — 8/9/2008 @ 6:01 amNational Enquirer et al, saying that was where the truth is found…oh lord, art imitating life!
Yep. “Infidelity’ is the ONLY thing that matters. Not war, not genocide, not terror, not the economy, not unchecked spying on this nation’s citizens. All of this and more takes a back seat to John Edwards’ penis.
David Ehrenstein (21c975) — 8/9/2008 @ 6:16 amI blame George Bush for this!
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/9/2008 @ 6:25 amHear Him! Hear Him! You’re on a roll Patterico–and Edwards is toast.
Mike Myers (31af82) — 8/9/2008 @ 6:31 amThe blood sucking, ambulance chasing, opportunistic sleazeball who is one of those 90% of lawyers that makes the rest of you look bad?
đ
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 8/9/2008 @ 6:53 amInteresting rewrite of the New York Times account of the dam bursting, from Friday evening to Saturday morning. Text chopped between then and now in
strikeout.In case you were wondering about the MSM ignoring and then minimizing the Edwards
Love Childover-before-Alison’s-child-was-conceived, old-news affair. That is not an important part of The Story. In fact, it’s even less relevant today than it was yesterday.What, specifically, did Jennifer Palmieri, Elizabeth Edwards, and Harrison Hickman do to keep the story buried? Did Edwards’ enablers limit themselves to “no comment” stonewalling? Or did they mislead? Lie? Talk to reporters “on background”? It seems very likely that they told their fibs on a not-for-attribution basis, with the expectation that their journalist friends would continue protecting their anonymity if the story did break.
Has this “no foul’ privilege been extended to the FBI leakers who smeared Steven Hatfill in the Ameritrax investigation? Will it cover liars who make up exculpatory evidence concerning Bruce Ivins? How about other liars who invent damning anti-Ivins facts?
Heck of a sausage-making operation you NYT J-school graduates run. Much of the time, it delivers the desired results. But it sure isn’t pretty.
AMac (90ab22) — 8/9/2008 @ 7:07 amHe’s a moron. Now that he and his wife spilled the beans it means that they put the story in the limelight and everything is fair game. I can see the National Enquirer trying to get one of the baby’s diapers and following Edwards around for a cigar butt or wad of chewing gum so it can do its own DNA test.
nk (e38352) — 8/9/2008 @ 7:19 amYou raise an important point, AMac. Far more important than the Edwards story. ALL sources should be named. No exceptions. No excuses. Period.
David Ehrenstein (21c975) — 8/9/2008 @ 7:20 amSo it’s not a story until Silk Pony says it’s a story? I say if you don’t want it to be a story keep your DNA where it belongs (think Kobe Bryant).
To quote my favorite source: “Be sure your sin will find you out”
PatriotRider (212885) — 8/9/2008 @ 7:39 amThe MSM didn’t “get beat” on this story – they attempted to kill it, keep it stuffed under the rug, hide it in a skeleton – crowded closet, whatever it took, as long as it went away eventually. Now that they’ve been caught with their pants down, they bleat about being misled. Yeah, riiiight.
Dmac (874677) — 8/9/2008 @ 7:50 amI blame George Bush and Dick Cheney for this. If they are ceded the 2004 election to Kerry, Edwards would have been a Vice President by now. He wouldn’t have had time for this. Bush and Cheney is to be blamed.
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/9/2008 @ 8:01 am#24
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/9/2008 @ 8:07 amCorrection on my last comment.
I blame George Bush and Dick Cheney for this. If they had ceded the 2004 election to Kerry, Edwards would have been a Vice President by now. He wouldnât have had time for this. Bush and Cheney are to be blamed.
Arguably, “serious press” in Charlotte and Raleigh pushed Edwards to confess with Thursday pieces fact-checking the Enquirer’s evidence and timelines. It was reported Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young lived a few doors apart last year in Chapel Hill before re-locating to Santa Barbara.
The N&O pressed the Enquirer on whether the blurry photo of Edwards holding an infant was doctored:
The McClatchy papers fronted the stories hours before Edwards sat down with ABC.
steve (36221a) — 8/9/2008 @ 8:08 amSteve # 26 —
Arguably, enablers shouldn’t be praised for “pushing” once the dam is finally breaking. See the John in Carolina blog for extensive background on the N.C. “serious press’s” months-long success in keeping the story buried.
AMac (90ab22) — 8/9/2008 @ 8:16 amHis home state press has always covered his backside – that proves absolutely nothing, except that they finally acted out of sheer embarrassment at getting beat in their own backyard. Courage.
Dmac (874677) — 8/9/2008 @ 8:23 amAh, but this will be an MSM opportunity to boomerang this into resurrection of last month’s LA Times poke into the intermarital transition with McCain wives #1 and #2 . . .
goldeneagle (4e9369) — 8/9/2008 @ 8:32 amYesterday on one of the radio shows, I forget which, I heard one of the reporters from the National Enquirer saying that when the NY Times broke their non-story about John McCain’s non-affair with that lobbyist, his editor warned him that if he ever wrote a story like that he’d be fired. Apparently, the “serious” press’s contempt for the National Enquirer is mutual, and for good reason.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 8/9/2008 @ 8:38 amBroaden your perspective and realize that this delayed news could well have hurt Democrats. What if Edwards had won the nomination and weâd been stuck with a damaged candidate?
Psyberian (9f6817) — 8/9/2008 @ 8:39 amIf the guy’s name had been “Dan Quayle” and not “John Edwards”, the LA Times would have been on the story from day 1.
Jack (a9896a) — 8/9/2008 @ 8:45 amWhen you get your back-side handed to you by the home of Bat-boy, Bigfoot and Flying saucers it might be time to pack it in, or at least go back down to Triple-A ball league.
You’re thinking of the Weekly World News, which just made stuff up. The National Enquirer is different, having years ago made a point of getting the facts. Edwards and his supporters are hoping people will forget such distinctions when they attack “supermarket tabloids.”
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 8/9/2008 @ 8:46 amSpeaking of the Weekly World News, I just loved that pic of the mouth-gaping, tongue-lolling Bat Boy they dug out every few years. (You know which one I’m talking about.) Brought a little entertainment to the checkout line.
And always reminded me to say a prayer for James Carville. đ
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/9/2008 @ 8:59 amXrlq #32 – his editor warned him that if he ever wrote a story like that heâd be fired.
Just wondering.
Does the perception of a difference in journalistic standards between, say, the NYT and the Enquirer have something to do with their exposure to libel, and thus affects the Enquirer’s accountability regarding the factual accuracy of their stories?
IOW, does the Enquirer have to be more accurate simply because of the perception that they’re a “supermarket tabloid”?
Apogee (366e8b) — 8/9/2008 @ 9:06 amSee the John in Carolina blog for extensive background on the N.C. âserious pressâsâ months-long success in keeping the story buried.
I agree, the ball was dropped. But the “months-long success in keeping the story buried” includes the Observer’s July 24th link to the Enquirer’s “Beverly Hilton” bombshell, along with some half-assed attempts at fact-checking it.
Should it emerge that the baby photo is a phony and the Enquirer actually sent seven staffers to an ambush without so much as a cell-phone camera, the skeptics weren’t completely craven. Tabloids are all about the photos.
Edwards’ home-state papers had no excuse not following up on alleged payoffs to Rielle Hunter, even if they groused about about peephole reporting.
steve (36221a) — 8/9/2008 @ 9:08 amSee the update for Tim Rutten’s response to this mess. You might be surprised.
Patterico (6ea6e1) — 8/9/2008 @ 9:16 amRutten’s apparent conversion to reality-based journalism is a landmark development. When such a stalwart of journalism’s Ancien RĂŠgime defects, you know the end is nigh.
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 8/9/2008 @ 9:20 amI notice that the MSM (LAT included) are calling the photo of Edwards and ugly curtains “grainy” as though it was shot on film. Pixel-y maybe.
Kate Coe (8af7f2) — 8/9/2008 @ 9:33 am#41 I didn’t realize until I read Rutten that Breck Girl was to be considered for a Supreme Court slot. Thank God we dodged that bullet. Can you see him interpreting a living constitution with deferences to European Law? So his wife was just fine with foisting this piece of crap on America and to many she has absolute moral authority because she’s on her death bed? Like Cindy Sheehan deciding American foreign policy because she’s a gold star mom?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/9/2008 @ 9:36 amDavid–it’s not the outside of wedlock nookie, as you well know, but the possible mis-use of campaign funds, the lying, the coverup, and the silence of a complicit press.
The comments on the NYT and the LAT have a number of “In France no one would think twice” remarks, but Gawker’s commenters, who are probably much younger, are almost all disgusted by the parading of a sick wife as a prop, and the lies.
It’s not the sex, it’s the slick.
Kate Coe (8af7f2) — 8/9/2008 @ 9:42 amMSM ignored the most fundamental tenets of their profession and got spanked by a supermarket tabloid. It couldn’t have happened to a more arrogrant and deserving bunch of troglodytes.
It proves that before you can sell out the people you exist to serve, you must first sell out yourself.
Ropelight (cb4838) — 8/9/2008 @ 9:48 amRe Apogee’s #37:
Good question. Do libel insurers do risk assessment based on day to day content regardless of claims made?
nk (e38352) — 8/9/2008 @ 9:58 amKate Coe, at Top of the Ticket last night, I was pleasantly surprised to see a number of commenters expressing their disgust at the paper for its burying of this. While I have no idea the age bracket of said commenters, perhaps a continued public shaming along w/circ loss and a few more of those really ginormous gaffes (e.g. Chuck Phillips) will move mountains. Rutten may be be coming around…of course Tony Pierce is an entirely different matter.
First 5 comments:
So, the LA Times is scooped and humiliated by the National Enquirer. What a sad ending this is to a once-great paper.
Posted by: GEAH | August 08, 2008 at 12:45 PM
All we get are these phony, moronic, corrupt puppets as presidential candidates. There’s a good reason for why the poop floats to the top but you won’t be told why by the LA Times.
Posted by: HowAboutSomeRealNews | August 08, 2008 at 12:53 PM
So did Tony Pierce be send out a new memo? Or are you just taking a risk here?
Posted by: TakeFive | August 08, 2008 at 12:53 PM
I don’t believe the Edwards affair is true, you right-wingers are so gulible! This story was NOT in the LA Times. You can’t trust the Enquirer, or ABC News, Drudge, John Edwards, Fox News…
Sad ending to a once great paper- well put.
Posted by: Michael West | August 08, 2008 at 01:05 PM
Wow… the LA Times is soooo brave!! Way to print a story 3 weeks after it was released and confirmed by multiple sources. What does it tell you that I as a lay-person find out about news before the LA Times does. Since when have allegations not been fit to print on a major politician?
I’m hoping soon they’ll report on Bill Clinton’s affair and impeachment proceedings… or are they waiting for a confession from him as well?
Posted by: J Rogers | August 08, 2008 at 01:06 PM
Dana (254946) — 8/9/2008 @ 9:59 amYou mean to to me that the L.A. Times’ borderline-libelling Sean Combs isn’t as bad as its indifference to the Edwards adultery story?
David Ehrenstein (21c975) — 8/9/2008 @ 10:23 amI doubt Edwards confirmed this story out of a desire to come clean after all these years. Someone – the National Enquirer, ABC, etc. – has the goods on him and he knows it. The question is how long will it take for the story to play out, especially since there are subplots to investigate like “Who knew?” and “How much was paid and where did it come from?”
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/9/2008 @ 10:31 amAmen to all of this. It was ridiculous to leave this alone; this isn’t some low-level person, this is a dude that was running for president of the United States *this year*.
You want someone to sic ’em.
–JRM
JRM (96e5a3) — 8/9/2008 @ 11:42 amAlmost true. Fox News did a significant bit that confirmed the Enquirer’s report. Which the MSM also ignored, and apparently still is ignoring. Meanwhile, the LA Times building remains 15 miles from the Beverly Hilton.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/9/2008 @ 12:09 pmThe bias is still showing through. The ABC news story and follow-up story are still referring to Edwards “meeting” with Ms. Riehl, as well as referring to her as his “former mistress.”
Questions for you married guys — When you meet your mistress at a hotel in the middle of the night, without telling your wife (who knew about your infidelity with the mistress)….
– Is it really called “a meeting”? Not a ‘booty call’ or ‘tryst’ or just plain sneaking around in the middle of the night with your mistress?
– Is she really ever your “former” mistress? Especially since you, um, met her just 2 weeks ago in a swanky hotel suite overnight without telling your wife?
Pathetic, but par for the course I guess. A pox on the Edwards mansion, and to hell with Saint Elizabeth and her absolute moral authority. She is a liar who enabled this shyster and attempted to foist a liar and a cad upon a gullible American electorate with their ‘two americas’ BS. And now she’s begging for privacy in her statement to the Daily Kos. Hey Liz – you want privacy? It’s easy, just shut up and go away. Something you should have done 2 years ago.
carlitos (ef0c6f) — 8/9/2008 @ 12:31 pmApparently Mrs. Edwards isn’t dying fast enough for you, Carlitos.
David Ehrenstein (21c975) — 8/9/2008 @ 12:33 pmYou should be happy that voters care about infidelity. If they didn’t, the junior Senator from Illinois would be named Jack Ryan (R) and Barack Obama would be just another state Senator, haggling with Gov. Blagojevich and Mayor Daley about infrastructure and getting his buddies patronage jobs.
carlitos (ef0c6f) — 8/9/2008 @ 12:39 pmUgh. I didn’t see the other references to Ryan on the other thread. I forgot it wasn’t even infidelity, it was just taking his hot wife to swinger clubs in Paris.
carlitos (ef0c6f) — 8/9/2008 @ 12:53 pmYes, Democratic talking points do take a back seat to John Edwards penis. When we start engaging in “unchecked spying on this nationâs citizens,” genocide, and the economy actually turns negative and enters a recession I’ll push Edwards’s dick to the backburner.
Anon (db8e0c) — 8/9/2008 @ 1:10 pmI’m sure Elizabeth has considered putting her husbands dick on any burner….
But on to my sorta neighbors here in Santa Barbara…nice home they managed to find by the way.. wonder how she affords it… well, anyway, seems more than odd that the “secret” meeting between John and Rielle went so wrong without someone on the inside ratting them out.
Hmmm.
1. Someone inside the Edwards camp?
Unlikely. They’d have had to get into the two hotel rooms to set up the grainy photo opportunity. Hard to believe some rat followed Edwards, anticipated where he’d go, beats both Hunter and Edwards to the room and sets up.
2. Hunter or her buddy McGovern?
Likely. They are the most likely to have set Edwards up.
Why?
If it isn’t Edwards child and Elizabeth already knows about the affair, why cover up the visit?
Why would Hunter set him up?
Money?
Angry woman scorned?
Maybe Hunter found out about another woman?
My guess is Hunter set Edwards up and she already gave the Enquirer something with the child’s DNA.
SteveG (71dc6f) — 8/9/2008 @ 1:39 pmJust a matter of time before they get something with Edwards DNA on it…. maybe that is being saved for Denver.
Please – no feeding of The Troll.
Dmac (874677) — 8/9/2008 @ 1:48 pmRumor around town is that Andrew Young with wife and family was living in the same home as Hunter.
Huh?
So let me see…. Andrew Young has mistress and baby living under same roof as wife and three other children?
That always ends well…
Unbelievable
SteveG (71dc6f) — 8/9/2008 @ 4:04 pmPsyberian wrote:
Mr Edwards lost the nomination, and y’all are still stuck with a damaged candidate! đ
Dana R Pico (556f76) — 8/9/2008 @ 4:15 pmIt’s less the adultery than it is the judgement John Edwards has demonstrated. The man was contemplating running for President of the United States, something that would invade every little bit of privacy he had, and yet he decided that it was somehow a smart move to hop into bed with the help?
All it took was Monica Lewinsky flashing her thong to Bill Clinton, and his organ of thought, consideration and judgement fell about three feet. He didn’t know who this woman was; she could have been a plant by the Israelis or the Russians or the French, for all he knew. Even though Miss Lewinsky was apparently nobody’s agent, a few trysts between them, witnessed by no one, in situations where there couldn’t be reporters trailing them, and the secret still couldn’t be kept, because Miss Lewinsky couldn’t keep her big mouth shut — so to speak. At the very least, Mr Clinton lost a whole year of his presidency to garbage.
And now Mr Edwards has demonstrated that he, too, can let gravity seize his organ of judgement, and bring it closer to the floor. Why would anyone trust him as president, knowing that if some cute young thing flashes her thong at him, we could have the Lewinsky mess all over again.
Dana R Pico (556f76) — 8/9/2008 @ 4:27 pmTo be fair, that might work on me too, at this point… đ
There’s a reason a single guy won’t get elected…. đ
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/9/2008 @ 5:20 pmBeing married doesn’t seem to be any guardian against a wandering, uh, eye.
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 8/9/2008 @ 5:24 pmThe Dog Trainer is on the case now. However all those ace, salaried journalists are too busy. The have assigned it to an intern. h/t Instapundit.
Stu707 (adbb5a) — 8/9/2008 @ 5:50 pmWho the hell is “Ms. Riehl”?
Icy Truth (a7ead4) — 8/9/2008 @ 5:56 pmTime to Get Riehl — right folks?
David Ehrenstein (21c975) — 8/9/2008 @ 6:10 pmLady uses aliases. I suppose neophyte film makers qualify for that. I think her Edwards’ work can be seen at Fox news site.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/9/2008 @ 8:31 pmFixed that for you, David.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/10/2008 @ 6:09 amAgain, please – no feeding of The Troll.
Dmac (874677) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:24 amAmen, Dmac. Funny how some things never change. I don’t know if it is amusing or sad.
Eric Blair (57a99b) — 8/10/2008 @ 9:16 amA Serious Press might be interested in contrasting Andrew Young’s statements last fall with his role in the scandal since then. Not to mention his criminal record.
They could be curious about Jennifer Palmieri’s role.
They might want to know about Harrison Hickman’s deeds and motives.
They might even lob a query at Elizabeth Edwards about some of her curious statements.
Why, they could even ask Katharine Q. Seelye why the initial web version of her New York Times story alluded to problems with the conduct of Palmieri and Harrison, but was promptly replaced with a Lite version that omitted their names.
On the other hand, the Serious Press could content themselves with reprinting quotes of Edwards on Edwards. After all, if a liar is willing to go on the record to offer the most generous account of his behavior, there’s little reason to probe further. If he’s one of our liars, that is.
AMac (90ab22) — 8/10/2008 @ 9:19 amMr Jacobs: a single man who was president wouldn’t have a problem if a sweet young thing flashed her thong at him. He could take her upstairs without having a wife to be upset.
Some of our friends on the left have had their share of laughs at President Bush, because he apparently retires for the night early. Instead, they liked Bill Clinton, who stayed up late and pretty much acted like an overaged college student. Yet if any of the interns flashed their thongs at President Bush, he either brushed it off completely, or has been a lot better at hiding it than was his predecessor.
You think that it’s possible, just possible now, that President Bush actually likes to spend time with his own wife?
Dana R Pico (556f76) — 8/10/2008 @ 11:12 am#70
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/10/2008 @ 1:08 pmYou think that itâs possible, just possible now, that President Bush actually likes to spend time with his own wife?
One thing I can say about Bush. He does not mess around. He has kept himself from scandals like this for 8years. That, to me is a great legacy. You can be the most powerful person in the world and still not allow it to get to your head, to the point that you become disloyal to your marital vows. Bush sets the standard herein. kudos to George Bush.