Okay, we have to consider the source, but...
...they were telling the truth about John Edwards, weren't they?
The National Enquirer now has a story about how Track Palin didn't exactly join the Army out of patriotism, but to avoid facing the music on his "involvement in a local vandalism incident."
I know "family" is supposed to be off-limits, and the mainstream media are keeping to that, as they did with the Edwards story. Ironically, however, the Enquirer report will undoubtedly be read by more potential Palin voters than, say, anything The Washington Post or even USA Today might report. While evangelical Christian voters do not seem to care about Sarah Palin's Cheney-esque abuses of office, some of them may yet be discouraged by the type of "acting out" typically exhibited by children who feel invisible to their parents.
The National Enquirer now has a story about how Track Palin didn't exactly join the Army out of patriotism, but to avoid facing the music on his "involvement in a local vandalism incident."
I know "family" is supposed to be off-limits, and the mainstream media are keeping to that, as they did with the Edwards story. Ironically, however, the Enquirer report will undoubtedly be read by more potential Palin voters than, say, anything The Washington Post or even USA Today might report. While evangelical Christian voters do not seem to care about Sarah Palin's Cheney-esque abuses of office, some of them may yet be discouraged by the type of "acting out" typically exhibited by children who feel invisible to their parents.
Advertisement
...they were telling the truth about John Edwards, weren't they?
----------------------------------------------------
Does that hold for the NE articles about Obama? You don't want to go there. The NE has printed articles about Obama so low that even FOX wouldn't touch them
September 10, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have they? Aren't they liable for defamation?
Forgive this naive question, but I have to know.
September 10, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The NE has printed articles about Obama so low that even FOX wouldn't touch them"
Right you are, which means that their claims about him were so bizarre that even the folks at FOX found them unbelievable. On the other hand “I’ve partied with him (Track) for years,” a source disclosed. “I’ve seen him snort cocaine, snort and smoke OxyContin, drink booze and smoke weed” doesn't really require much of a stretch of the imagination.
Besides, if the Enquirer had anything at all on Obama, do you really think they'd be wasting their time on non-candidate Edwards?
September 10, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what's the gain in following this? Rallying more women supporters to defend the honor of a slighted mother?
September 11, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Far-right lunatic fringe "Christians" -- religionuts -- will defend ANYONE who claims to be a Christian, AND is anything but a "far-left liberal" and Democrat. Such stories, even if true, will more likely result in a defensive denial of them/sympathy vote FOR Monty Python cross-dresser Palin.
September 11, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just the point I hopped on to make. The fundies think they see God's will at work when one of their own (because, hey, she had the Down's baby, didn't she?)is suddenly plucked out of obscurity and made the Veep to an old, old guy who the Lord could call home at any moment. They have been schooled-literally schooled in their own parallel "education" system--in a positively Orwellian form of reality control where they simply don't hear, don't process and don't acknowledged any fact that is not consistent their beliefs and but are willing to believe anything, no matter how logically flawed or facially stupid, that does. The woman could be caught shagging Snoop Dogg on the altar of her church and they'd either rationalize it or just "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-CAN'T YEAR YOU" it away.
September 11, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink