And Kilpatrick goes to jail

[Gan]

DETROIT (AP) - Only hours after agreeing to resign and serve time in jail as part of plea deal, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick expressed regret for the scandal that has engulfed the city - and left the door open for a return to public life.

Kilpatrick walked into a City Hall conference room Thursday to thunderous applause and thanked his family, backers and staff members for sticking by him during his rocky 6 1/2-year tenure.

"I truly know who I am. I truly know where I come from. In Detroit I know who I am. And I know because of that, there's another day for me," he said in a 20-minute speech on live television. "I want to tell you, Detroit, that you done set me up for a comeback."

In exchange for pleading guilty to two counts of obstruction of justice, the Democrat will get four months behind bars, pay the city $1 million in restitution, lose his license to practice law, and cannot run for any elected office for five years.

His resignation will take effect in two weeks and his sentence will be officially imposed on Oct. 28. Under the city charter, any mayor guilty of a felony is automatically expelled from office.

"I always said I would stand strong for the city of Detroit," the 38-year-old mayor said in his address. "But sometimes standing strong means stepping down."
Coming after nearly eight months of turmoil and demands that Kilpatrick resign, the plea bargain was met with relief from politicians and ordinary Detroit residents alike.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080905/D930HKN00.html
__________________________________________________ ______

"I want to tell you, Detroit, that you done set me up for a comeback." - Kilpatrick.

I would say he's high on crack. But then Marion Barry comes to mind...

[Ashliana]

Always nice to see corrupt politicians (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/05/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4417971.shtml) get what they deserve, like Kilpatrick. When will Democrats learn to stop lying about sex under oath?

[NocturnalRob]

STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!

i'm busting out the Jim Carrey quotes today

[crb]

Of course... no party identification in the articles as usually.

[AnticorRifling]

They were comparing Kilpatrick's speech to Red's parole speech in The Shawshank Redemption on the radio this morning. Pretty funny.

[Drew]

Of course... no party identification in the articles as usually.

Well of course, he's a Democrat.


Always nice to see corrupt politicians (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/05/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4417971.shtml) get what they deserve, like Kilpatrick. When will Democrats learn to stop lying about sex under oath?


And this identifies the party in the second word of the article. I wonder what the difference between the two is??? :thinking:

[Stanley Burrell]

So what did the guy do exactly? Expose members of a task force's identity as collateral damage to silence their brazen insider knowledge that could expose this particular politician?

Prison is too good for this guy.

[Ashliana]

Abramoff's scandal dealt directly with the GOP. Inpropriety of a GOP lobbyist, versus the lying of an extra-marital affair by Kilpatrick, a democrat. In which story is party affiliation more relevant?

Oh.. right. Silly media bias!

[Parkbandit]

Always nice to see corrupt politicians (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/05/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4417971.shtml) get what they deserve, like Kilpatrick. When will Democrats learn to stop lying about sex under oath?

:rofl:

The over / under on the first liberal to respond with "yea, but Republicans are corrupt too!" was 3 posts. I KNEW I should have taken the under!!!

[Gan]

Not like she could have started her own thread or anything.

LOL

[crb]

Abramoff's scandal dealt directly with the GOP. Inpropriety of a GOP lobbyist, versus the lying of an extra-marital affair by Kilpatrick, a democrat. In which story is party affiliation more relevant?

Oh.. right. Silly media bias!
That isn't all.

You know who lead the Jack Abramoff investigation in the Senate?

I'll give you two hints. 1. He is running for president. 2. He has experience.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/reed_reality.html

[Gan]

That isn't all.

You know who lead the Jack Abramoff investigation in the Senate?

I'll give you two hints. 1. He is running for president. 2. He has experience.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/reed_reality.html

hahahahaha. Reminds me of a gameshow I saw once.

http://faithsambition.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/whammy.jpg

[Ashliana]

That isn't all.

You know who lead the Jack Abramoff investigation in the Senate?

I'll give you two hints. 1. He is running for president. 2. He has experience.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/reed_reality.html

So what? A GOP scandal being investigated by McCain doesn't mean the party affiliation was irrelevant. That's why it would be reported right up front--"GOP"--in the news article, as opposed to Kilpatrick lying about adultery in a civil lawsuit, where they didn't.

[crb]

Was the mistress a city employee?

Did he assault anyone?

Larry Craig tapped his foot in a bathroom and GOP and Republican was branded all over his news stories.

[Gan]

Tapping a foot.

Tapping out scandelous text messages.

Tapping that crack pipe.

Tapping that ass.

PEOPLE NEED TO STOP TAPPING!

[Ashliana]

Was the mistress a city employee?

Did he assault anyone?

Larry Craig tapped his foot in a bathroom and GOP and Republican was branded all over his news stories.

That's more of an issue of gay hypocrisy. An anti-gay critic (or members of the clearly anti-gay Republican Party) being outed as closeted homosexuals is juicy, watercooler talk. I don't think it's about "partisan politics" anymore than what the media did to John Edwards. I clearly remember his affiliation being constantly rolled right along with mentionings of his name.

[Clove]

Tapping a foot.

Tapping out scandelous text messages.

Tapping that crack pipe.

Tapping that ass.

PEOPLE NEED TO STOP TAPPING!:rofl:

[crb]

Well they probably would have a hard time not describing edwards as a "former democratic presidential candidate."

You have like the thickest pair of beer goggles ever.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/sen_john_edwards_caught_with_mistress_and_love_chi ld_in_la_hotel/celebrity/65193

Story breaking edwards, 1 mention of democratic.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/08/edwards_payment_to_mistress_de.html

0 mentions of party affiliation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/29/politics/main4303372.shtml
ted stevens, party mentioned in subtitle and all over article

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-stevens21-2008aug21,0,826841.story
more mentions of party affiliation

.... I could do this all day.

[Ashliana]

Yay! Beer goggles! ::swims around in smirnoff ice::

Also, ::rofl:: @ the picture of Edward's mistress (wife?) in that first link.

On the issue itself, I'm sure that biased news sources leave things out, or incorrectly report things--like FOX News's Bill O'Reilly labeling Mark Foley as a Democrat during his gay scandal. But in the articles I read about Edwards, at least, there were constant mentions of it. On CSPAN, on the news, online, etc.

[Parkbandit]

That's more of an issue of gay hypocrisy. An anti-gay critic (or members of the clearly anti-gay Republican Party) being outed as closeted homosexuals is juicy, watercooler talk. I don't think it's about "partisan politics" anymore than what the media did to John Edwards. I clearly remember his affiliation being constantly rolled right along with mentionings of his name.

Youwould have a point IF the regular media didn't sit on the Edwards story until the NATIONAL ENQUIRER out scooped them all.

[Parkbandit]

Yay! Beer goggles! ::swims around in smirnoff ice::

Also, ::rofl:: @ the picture of Edward's mistress (wife?) in that first link.

On the issue itself, I'm sure that biased news sources leave things out, or incorrectly report things--like FOX News's Bill O'Reilly labeling Mark Foley as a Democrat during his gay scandal. But in the articles I read about Edwards, at least, there were constant mentions of it. On CSPAN, on the news, online, etc.

Bill oreilly isn't a news show... It's a political entertainment show

[Gan]

Youwould have a point IF the regular media didn't sit on the Edwards story until the NATIONAL ENQUIRER out scooped them all.

Word.

The Enquirer made the regular media look stupid.

Now people arent so quick to dismiss the wierd shit they print. There's the What If factor thanks to Edwards.

WAY TO GO EDWARDS!!!

PS. I hear he's upped his speech rate charge.

[Drunken Durfin]

"I want to tell you, Detroit, that you done set me up for a comeback."

Please, someone shank him in the yard.

If you want to see what this wonderful guy, and the one before him, have done for Detroit go to this website:

http://www.dallasmolerin.com/

Scroll down on the left pane and select Detroit. The photos are two years old if memory serves.

[Gan]

Maybe he can be the mayor of all the inmates at the prison he's heading too.

I'm willing the bet that election process is a little rougher than what he's used to. ;)

[BigWorm]

Word.

The Enquirer made the regular media look stupid.

Now people arent so quick to dismiss the wierd shit they print. There's the What If factor thanks to Edwards.

WAY TO GO EDWARDS!!!

PS. I hear he's upped his speech rate charge.

Seriously? Hypocrite much? The reason the National Enquirer beats the MSM to stories is because they don't bother to check their sources. They are also willing to pay sources money for stories. This means that sometimes they get a story early, but a lot of times they get the story wrong.

If you really think the Enquirer is a source of news, you should check out this story (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/sarah_palin_at_war_with_her_daughter_over_pregnanc y_wedding/celebrity/65370) about Palin and her daughter feuding about the bastard status of her grandkid. If you really think this is good journalism... well I don't know what to tell you.

[Gan]

Seriously? Hypocrite much? The reason the National Enquirer beats the MSM to stories is because they don't bother to check their sources. They are also willing to pay sources money for stories. This means that sometimes they get a story early, but a lot of times they get the story wrong.

If you really think the Enquirer is a source of news, you should check out this story (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/sarah_palin_at_war_with_her_daughter_over_pregnanc y_wedding/celebrity/65370) about Palin and her daughter feuding about the bastard status of her grandkid. If you really think this is good journalism... well I don't know what to tell you.

Reading comprehension FTL.

Please have someone re-read my post to you.

Slowly, using small words.

FFS

PS. Many of the large media news outlets confirmed that they were unwilling to chase down such a preposterous story against someone like Edwards *during an election season. Please try and not be biased in how you present your opinions... or not. Simply saying the Enquirer 'rushed without sourcing' is at best half the issue.

**And I still stand on the opinion that the Enquirer is a piece of shit rag not even worthy of lining a cat box. But if you think that by their 'validation' of the Edwards scoop makes them a news source then I cant help you if all those stories of 2 headed martian babies confuse you from the truth.

AND LOL @ NEWSPAPERS AND TELEVISION NEWS STATIONS/NETWORKS NOT PAYING FOR NEWS MATERIAL, VIDEO, SOURCING, ETC. What world do you live in again?

Bottom line, Enquirer got lucky and teabagged the other 'news' agencies doing what they do best - publishing unfounded rumors and stories. Probably with the aid of an exclusive source that knew the details behind the Edwards meetings. DAMNIT - THIS SMACKS OF KARL ROVE!!!

[BigWorm]

"I want to tell you, Detroit, that you done set me up for a comeback."

Please, someone shank him in the yard.

If you want to see what this wonderful guy, and the one before him, have done for Detroit go to this website:

http://www.dallasmolerin.com/

Scroll down on the left pane and select Detroit. The photos are two years old if memory serves.

I've been to Detroit and this is not representative of most of the city, though they do have a serious problem with urban blight. And its not like it developed that problem during Kilpatrick's service. I'm defending the city not Kilpatrick here; from what I know I would consider him one of the worst mayors in the history of Detroit or any other city. The guy is surrounded by so many scandals I can't believe he won reelection.

Either way, I think calling for the guy to get shanked is a little extreme here.

[Gan]

The guy is surrounded by so many scandals I can't believe he won reelection.

Two words:

Marion Barry


The only people you can fault are the people who elected him into office the second time around.

[Ashliana]

Two words:

Marion Barry


The only people you can fault are the people who elected him into office the second time around.

Gotta love DC voters. A shining beacon of intellectualism. :rofl:

[TheEschaton]

Two words:

Marion Barry


The only people you can fault are the people who elected him into office the second time around.

I feel the same way about the people who voted for Dubya the second time around.

[BigWorm]

Reading comprehension FTL.

Please have someone re-read my post to you.

Slowly, using small words.

FFS

PS. Many of the large media news outlets confirmed that they were unwilling to chase down such a preposterous story against someone like Edwards *during an election season. Please try and not be biased in how you present your opinions... or not. Simply saying the Enquirer 'rushed without sourcing' is at best half the issue.


Living in a fantasy world FTL. Do you seriously think that there was a conspiracy by every member of the "liberal" mainstream media to hide the Edwards affair? Even the NYT would have taken that story and run with it if there had been solid evidence to support it. I guarantee you that there is at least one person in the media who puts breaking news above politics.



**And I still stand on the opinion that the Enquirer is a piece of shit rag not even worthy of lining a cat box. But if you think that by their 'validation' of the Edwards scoop makes them a news source then I cant help you if all those stories of 2 headed martian babies confuse you from the truth.

AND LOL @ NEWSPAPERS AND TELEVISION NEWS STATIONS/NETWORKS NOT PAYING FOR NEWS MATERIAL, VIDEO, SOURCING, ETC. What world do you live in again?

Bottom line, Enquirer got lucky and teabagged the other 'news' agencies doing what they do best - publishing unfounded rumors and stories. Probably with the aid of an exclusive source that knew the details behind the Edwards meetings. DAMNIT - THIS SMACKS OF KARL ROVE!!!

Yeah but most newspapers and TV news stations don't advertise paying for gossip literally at the top of their website.

And invoking Karl Rove is like the new Godwin's Law.

[Gan]

Gotta love DC voters. A shining beacon of intellectualism. :rofl:

LOL

(elitist)

[Gan]

Living in a fantasy world FTL. Do you seriously think that there was a conspiracy by every member of the "liberal" mainstream media to hide the Edwards affair? Even the NYT would have taken that story and run with it if there had been solid evidence to support it. I guarantee you that there is at least one person in the media who puts breaking news above politics.



Yeah but most newspapers and TV news stations don't advertise paying for gossip literally at the top of their website.

And invoking Karl Rove is like the new Godwin's Law.

And yet you still pick and choose what suits you out of the post to substantiate your rebuttal. And you FAIL hard at seeing the humor in invoking Rove.

You are beyond my ability to help.

[crb]

Living in a fantasy world FTL. Do you seriously think that there was a conspiracy by every member of the "liberal" mainstream media to hide the Edwards affair? Even the NYT would have taken that story and run with it if there had been solid evidence to support it. I guarantee you that there is at least one person in the media who puts breaking news above politics.



Yeah but most newspapers and TV news stations don't advertise paying for gossip literally at the top of their website.

And invoking Karl Rove is like the new Godwin's Law.
Do you seriously think that there isn't a bias in the mainstream media?

How many reporters with how large of a budget were sent to Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin? How many are trying to dig up dirt from the recently released papers on Obama & Ayers?

Unless a negative story about a liberal falls in their lap, they don't put effort into tracking them down. And in their stories they tend to equivocate the negativity to lessen it.

The examples of liberal bias are everywhere. It isn't usually a conscious effort on their part, just a result of the single mindedness of most newsrooms.

[BigWorm]

Do you seriously think that there isn't a bias in the mainstream media?

How many reporters with how large of a budget were sent to Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin? How many are trying to dig up dirt from the recently released papers on Obama & Ayers?

Unless a negative story about a liberal falls in their lap, they don't put effort into tracking them down. And in their stories they tend to equivocate the negativity to lessen it.

The examples of liberal bias are everywhere. It isn't usually a conscious effort on their part, just a result of the single mindedness of most newsrooms.

It's cute how you think that the media is being biased by doing their job.

[AnticorRifling]

I thought being biased was their job.

Kind of like:

Local man shoots X.

FORMER MARINE shoots X.

Adding the titles that sell the prints is what they do.

[Tsa`ah]

That isn't all.

You know who lead the Jack Abramoff investigation in the Senate?

I'll give you two hints. 1. He is running for president. 2. He has experience.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/reed_reality.html

So Palin co-chairing Stevens' 527 and receiving a ringing last minute endorsement from the corrupt politician makes it all a wash then?

[Gan]

Living in a fantasy world FTL. Do you seriously think that there was a conspiracy by every member of the "liberal" mainstream media to hide the Edwards affair? Even the NYT would have taken that story and run with it if there had been solid evidence to support it. I guarantee you that there is at least one person in the media who puts breaking news above politics.

And I quote:


Sometimes, There’s News in the Gutter
By CLARK HOYT

THE John Edwards “love child” story finally hit the national news media and made the front page of yesterday’s Times. For weeks, Jay Leno joked about it, the Internet was abuzz, and readers wondered why The Times and most of the mainstream media seemed to be studiously ignoring a story of sex and betrayal involving a former Democratic presidential candidate who remains prominent on the political stage.

They could ignore it no longer when Edwards, who had been running away from reporters for weeks, sat down with ABC News and admitted he had an extra-marital affair and lied repeatedly about it. He denied he fathered Rielle Hunter’s 5-month-old daughter, as the National Enquirer reported in December before the baby was born.

Before Edwards’s admission, The Times never made a serious effort to investigate the story, even as the Enquirer wrote one sensational report after another: a 2:40 a.m. ambush by the tabloid’s reporters at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Los Angeles after Edwards spent hours in a room with Hunter and her baby; an allegation of $15,000 a month in “hush money;” a grainy “spy photo” of him with a baby.

Murray Bromberg of Bellmore, N.Y., was glad The Times was not touching this seamy business. “I heartily approve,” he said. But everyone else I heard from over the past several weeks was either puzzled or outraged that the newspaper, which carried front-page allegations of a John McCain affair, was ignoring the relationship between Edwards and Hunter. John Boyle of Bloomfield Hills, Mich., said, “I hope you will find the time to tell me why this news story is not reported by your paper.” Some readers, like Bert A. Getz Jr. of Winnetka, Ill., were sure they already knew the answer: liberal bias.

I do not think liberal bias had anything to do with it. But I think The Times — like The Washington Post, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, major networks and wire services — was far too squeamish about tackling the story. The Times did not want to regurgitate the Enquirer’s reporting without verifying it, which is responsible. But The Times did not try to verify it, beyond a few perfunctory efforts, which I think was wrong. Until the ABC report, only one mainstream news organization, McClatchy newspapers, seemed to be making headway with the story.

Not that it would have been easy. David Perel, the editor of the Enquirer, said, “This is a very hard story to prove, and I think that has frozen people in place.”

It is also the kind of story that The Times seems instinctively to recoil from, just as it ignored such stories in its own backyard as A-Rod and Madonna and Christie Brinkley’s ugly divorce, and played down the “love child” scandal involving New York City’s only Republican congressman, Vito Fossella, earlier this year. But Edwards was different. When the Enquirer first published its allegations, he was a major presidential candidate with a compelling personal story that included a wife of 30 years with incurable breast cancer.

As he told Katie Couric on “60 Minutes” early last year, “I think every single candidate for president, Republican and Democratic, have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation ... to look at what kind of human beings each of us are.”

Still, Edwards-Hunter was “classically not a Times-like story,” said Craig Whitney, the standards editor.

Times editors said that when the first Enquirer story appeared and they could not verify it after fairly cursory inquiries, they left it alone. “I’m not going to recycle a supermarket tabloid’s anonymously sourced story,” said Bill Keller, the executive editor. By the time the Enquirer reported on its hotel stakeout, Edwards was no longer a presidential candidate and, according to Times reporting, not even under serious consideration as a running mate to Barack Obama.

“Edwards isn’t a player at the moment,” said Richard Stevenson, who directs the newspaper’s campaign coverage. “There are a lot of big issues facing the country. The two candidates are compelling figures, and we have finite resources.” He said he agreed that Edwards was “fair game for journalism of this sort, but this hasn’t seemed to me to be a high priority for us at this moment.” I spoke with Stevenson and Keller last week before Edwards’s ABC interview.

Keller and Stevenson said it was wrong to equate the McCain and Edwards stories, as so many readers and bloggers have. The editors saw the McCain story as describing a powerful senator’s dealings with lobbyists trying to influence government decisions, including one who anonymous sources believed was having a romantic relationship with him. “Our interest in that story was not in his private romantic life,” Keller said. “It was in his relationship with lobbyists, plural, and that story took many, many weeks of intensive reporting effort.”

I would not have published the allegation of a McCain affair, because The Times did not convincingly establish its truth. I would not have recycled the National Enquirer story, either. But I think it was a mistake for Times editors to turn up their noses and not pursue it. “There was a tendency, fair or not, to dismiss what you read in the National Enquirer,” Keller said. “I know they are sometimes right.” When the Enquirer published its first “love child” report, The Times was going energetically after the McCain story. It should have pursued the other story as well.

Later, after the July confrontation at the Beverly Hilton, some other news organizations made serious efforts to report the story, but not The Times. The Charlotte Observer, a McClatchy newspaper in Edwards’s home state of North Carolina, reported Thursday that because Edwards had been ducking questions about his relationship with Hunter and her child for weeks, he was in danger of being pushed aside as a featured speaker at the Democratic National Convention.

Richard Berke, an assistant managing editor, said that The Times has sometimes struggled in an increasingly tabloid news environment to figure out how to deal with such stories. “We are still feeling our way on this,” he said.

Berke said he convened a luncheon of Times editors late last year after controversy in the newsroom over a decision to put an article about Paris Hilton on the front page. Some staffers thought the paper was finally getting with it, while others were embarrassed, he said. Berke said there was a consensus at the luncheon that The Times should “be a little more open and flexible.”

It is a delicate balance to strike for a newspaper like The Times, with a long history of serious purpose and few tabloid instincts.

“We run the risk of looking like we’re totally out of it,” Berke said, “or we’re just like the rest of them — we have no standards.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10pubed.html?_r=4&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

More on Clark Hoyt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Hoyt

There's more stories out there. Just run a google search for "did the media ignore the edwards affair".

Enjoy!

[BigWorm]

I do not think liberal bias had anything to do with it. But I think The Times — like The Washington Post, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, major networks and wire services — was far too squeamish about tackling the story. The Times did not want to regurgitate the Enquirer’s reporting without verifying it, which is responsible. But The Times did not try to verify it, beyond a few perfunctory efforts, which I think was wrong. Until the ABC report, only one mainstream news organization, McClatchy newspapers, seemed to be making headway with the story.

You obviously missed the entire point of that piece.

[Gan]

You obviously missed the entire point of that piece.

No, the point of the piece, the point of my quoting your response was that the Edwards affair was ignored, regardless if one can or can not attribute it to media bias. *Hint - take a look at the title of his op/ed if you really want to see the point of his piece. (now THAT sounded dirty!)

Nice try at diversion though.

*Not to mention it flys right into the teeth of your claim that NYT would have covered it...

:clap: