[GovernmentShrinker]

I’ll give the LAT the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re trying to minimize this story out of respect for his dying wife and his children. If he was still a candidate for President, or even a contender for VP, it would need to be covered, but since he’s not, this is really pure tabloid trash that drags in some third parties who really shouldn’t be dragged in. There’s plenty of other tabloidy material available in which all the characters are deserving of shame and ridicule, to fill however many pages/screens the LAT sees fit to devote to tabloidy stuff.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

So what about the stories regarding Rush and Senator Larry Craig?

[sloop]

I’ll give the LAT the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re trying to minimize this story out of respect for his dying wife and his children.

wasn't it the same paper that allowed nasty posts about tony snow after his passing? as i understand it, every post is reviewed before it is allowed to pass on to the public web site - they approved those posts without concern for tony's widow or children - but they want to protect a cheater's wife? (did you know that condoms do not protect against hpv? why should a 'newspaper' protect his wife more than her husband?) i wonder if they 'protected' the the family of the shoe tapping craig - or the targets of the angry, vengeful old queen at crew when he decided to out republicans - did they run stories about those? there is no benefit of the doubt to be given to the la times - they are partisan hacks and deserve none of the privileges of the press

[Political Junkie Too]

The same LAT that dredged up 20-year-old groping allegations towards Schwarzenneger on the Thursday before the recall election?

-PJ

[SpinyNorman]

“I’ll give the LAT the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re trying to minimize this story out of respect for his dying wife and his children.”

It would be better if the respect for the dying wife and children came from Edwards, don’t you think?