McCain Camp Battles National Enquirer Over Alleged Palin Affair

John McCain's presidential campaign is threatening a lawsuit against the National Enquirer over a print edition story the tabloid ran today alleging that Gov. Sarah Palin has had an extramarital affair with her husband's business partner.

The allegation would normally be dismissed by political observers as the random musings of a supermarket tabloid -- indeed, the McCain campaign said as much in its statements on Wednesday -- except that the paper has built up a reservoir of legitimacy following its earlier reporting on the John Edwards affair.

In a statement to the Huffington Post, a spokesman for the paper, who promised a larger report next week, tapped into that pool of quasi-respect.

"The National Enquirer's coverage of a vicious war within Sarah Palin's extended family includes several newsworthy revelations, including the resulting incredible charge of an affair plus details of family strife when the Governor's daughter revealed her pregnancy. 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."

Clearly, this is a touchy matter. Already, rumors that Palin's youngest son was actually the son of her daughter were batted down. And the McCain campaign has strenuously insisted that the current crop of insinuations is not only false but also potentially libelous.

"The smearing of the Palin family must end. The allegations contained on the cover of the National Enquirer insinuating that Gov. Palin had an extramarital affair are categorically false. It is a vicious lie," said McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt. "The efforts of the media and tabloids to destroy this fine and accomplished public servant are a disgrace. The American people will reject it."

But the Edwards reporting complicates matters. Just one month ago, conservatives were bemoaning the fact that no major media outlets had the temerity to follow the politically and personally sensitive rumors about the former North Carolina senator's infidelities. Jonah Goldberg, for example, wrote on the National Review's the Corner in later July that:

"Whatever the merits of the whole Edwards love child story, are we really supposed to believe that one of America's most famous trial lawyers wouldn't sue a publication that printed defamatory and slanderous lies about him? Also, it's worth pointing out that while the Enquirer may or may not be scrupulous in its choice of stories -- that's in the eye of the beholder -- it is pretty scrupulous about its facts. They win lawsuits. They've broken a host of stories the MSM guys couldn't."

Does the MSM now have an obligation to pursue this rumor, however touchy, or at least ask questions?

"The "success" with Edwards no doubt will give them some more credibility, although we should remember that some of the allegations in their "lovechild" stories have been far from proven (although also far from disproven)," wrote Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor and Publisher Magazine.
"Some of their Palin revelations may be quickly firmed up, prove bogus or more likely rest somewhere in-between for awhile. But what will be interesting is whether the Republicans and conservatives and MSM critics who jumped on the MSM and liberals for not quickly embracing the Enquirer's Edwards work will now pooh-pooh the Enquirer when it comes to THIS candidate....:"

And yet, at the same time, the Enquirer's story may be something of a break for the McCain campaign, which has come under siege for the Palin pick. If the Arizona Senator and his aides are able to effectively portray attacks on the Palin as the product of smear, sleaze and innuendo, it clouds those that are more legitimate. And with new attack lines opening up against Palin seemingly every hour, Democrats may be even more hesitant about straying into the tawdry.

Comments

[Tomlastliberalleft]

One thing I heard yesterday that made sense relative to this mess. Some National Review editor, or some such, said the MSM "does not like surprises”. His main point was the media that pounced on Palin is motivated by their need to define the unknown in the typical MSM way and their attitude is somewhat shaped by the extent of the surprise. What he failed to acknowledge was the simple truth that Palin brings many old and troubling issues to this campaign and the MSM is drawn to a story that has not been beaten to death, recently. The story has to sell paper or drive ratings and the Palin thing has resulted from that process, not some supposed liberal media bias. The media, just like the Republicans are motivated by one thing only, money.

[Cliffman]

This smells like a Karl Rove set-up to me. Watch out Democrats!!!

[hbgranby]

What I would like the media to do is ask Sarah Palin where she stands on such isues as ...lieral interpretation of the Bible? Does she believe the Earth has been here only 6500 years? Does she subscibe to the apocalypse mythology of Revelations? This could cause some interesting decisions in the future if she is president. Don't forget we are ending eight years of a born again president who claims God told him to invade Iraq.

[liberaldemdave]

it's out there. she is a "creationist" and does believe those things.

[LongBeachDave]

Does she believe that every human being who does not "accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior" will be cast into a Lake of Fire that will burn for all of eternity?

[Horus45]

Soap Opera Sarah has her own preacher problems and just wait till his quotes start making their way into the news cycle.

Her preacher makes Rev. Wright sound like the Pope!!

[Budokan]

You know there's a videotape out there somewhere. I can't wait.

[Veratruth]

Videotapes can be altered.

[bugdog]

That should have been 1988?

[SouthFloridaDem]

If the NE says she had an affair, then she had an affair. If there's one thing that paper can find and find proof of, that's it.

[proudloudlib]

Please, oh, please, let it be true.

[Irisdavenport]

The Obama campaign needs to stick to the issues. If this NE story is true, the situation will take care of it's self.

[Horus45]

I agree, just let the media handle the scandals, they are doing a better job now since McSame's campaign blamed everything on the media and is NOT granting interviews with Palin.
They are pissed off now and will be harder on McSame than they were before.

[applebutter]

Wow. Palin is on the cover of the NE:

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/sarah_palin_at_war_with_her_daughter_over_pregnancy_wedding/celebrity/65370

Is this the "liberal media" the campaign is mad at? lol

[Veratruth]

Regardless if we respond to these allegations or not, the Republicans will blame the Democrats or the media. They make up dumb lies all the time about Obama, and I am certain they don't question the truthfulness on McCain Website. They have fun, just like we do.

[nancinca]

the back-stabbing two-faced religious right are besides themselves with all the "oops," they are facing. John Steward had a great spot last night when he juxtaposed their comments they are backtrackign from now.

I just wish people would give the same consideration to others they ask for themselves.
since when is it Christian to become an attack dog. Obama's camp is acting more like the good loving people than the right...

odd

[Horus45]

The Obama campaign should use that stuff that was on The Daily Show last week, especially the show from Friday night.

That juxtaposition of McCain and Bush giving the EXACT SAME SPEECH at the conventions was incredible!!

The McCain story they did was priceless as well.

[doctordoubt]

Her comment about lipstick was on the mark. The problem is, even lipstick won't change her.

[schicklett3]

Where can I buy a copy! LOL

[enoughalready]

Charges about Palin if proven true are open for debate. McCain has only himself to blame for this story coming to light in the Enquirer. No vetting! He knew about trooper-gate!

Last night I thought she delivered her speech very well. I didn't have to like the right wing rhetoric and lack of substance of any issue -we know she stands for drilling more oil to rid us of our energy dilemma. She distorted Obama's senate record, seemed to bemoan all those very well intentioned Americans that work for community action groups. Soup kitchens, health care assistance,, aids awareness, birth control to reduce unwanted abortions, low income housing, etc. Most that are helped are poor women with children to support, something the GOP has never been anxious to support. Bush used his first veto on a childrens health care bill. It says volumes.

I want to hear about the issues. She commented that Obama would raise your taxes when the truth is that he would lower middle-class taxes and only raise the taxes on those earning over $250,000 per/yr. McCain will have the larger tax burden on the middle-class and continues the tax cuts on the rich. She also said he would expand government - Bush created the largest expansion of government in history. I don't know how she says that with a straight face.

She is not going to attract the really serious Hillary voters. She simply is the exact opposite of Hillary.

[Shadow08]

"She simply is the exact opposite of Hillary".

That's the part of her nomination the republicans don't get. They take it for granted that the people who voted for Hillary are stupid enough to vote for a right wing wing extremist because she's a woman. Also, do the republicans think all 18 million people that voted for Sen. Clinton are women?

[macracan]

Ohh, this is just too juicy. If true, it is an immense blow to the hypocrite party. Good work NE! I'm starting to buy your issues. Who would have thought, NE being the only paper I end up buying and reading this election..­.

[xmw]

I keep saying the more he tree is shaken the more S#!t will fall off. This is going to be good.