when is it ok to believe the National Enquirer?

When it's about Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction.

Damn it, man! Didn't you see the condition of his hair?!?

Cut the guy some SLACK, for Chris' sake!

So his wife is dying? W-E-L-L, I guess the whole friggin' world has to stop, huh?

He's just a MAN, man. Da' boy got NEEDS.

WWJD, muther-scratcher.

National Enquirer researches their major stories much more thoroughly than the NYT does theirs.

The story has to be true as MSM as ignored it.

It isn't a career killer if everyone suspects it's a beard

So I take it Jake thinks that Bush is back on the booze. The National Enquirer ran it and the MSM ignored it. It must be true!

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/63426

I suppose I am willing to give Edwards the benefit of the doubt on this one considering the source and the simple fact that Edwards is pretty much done on the national stage despite the nutty talk of Obama-Edwards 08(yes I know Thomas Hendricks went down with Sam Tilden only to come back in 1884 with Grover the Good but the likes of Thomas Hendricks comes around once in a blue moon-I mean come on, how many other minor VPs ended up on our money?). Having said that, I would not have believed Larry Craig would be hanging out in men's room looking for sodomite love had it not been for the police.

I think Democrats are more likely to get a pass than Republicans on this, and I think that's pretty reasonable. If you're running as a social conservative it's reasonable for the voters to hold your personal behavior to a higher standard. Larry Craig, please resign and/or join some other party. Please.

By the same token this guy (20,000 sq ft mansion, private jet) who's trying to get me (900 sq foot apartment, Toyota Carolla) to shrink my carbon footprint deserves the vitriol that comes his way on that issue.

I'll concede that the National Enquirer hasn't had the best reputation. But its reporting here seems simple enough to face check. It would be borderline insane to fake a whole piece on this, in particular one that involves an actual confrontation with Edwards.

If there was any way Edwards could plausibly (let alone definitively) deny this, he would have released the lawyer-hounds already. He's toast.

And the respectable media takes another hit from the crack pipe, shoots another vein, snorts another line, and downs another shot of mescal, confident all the while the nanny state it spawns will pay for the liver transplant as befits the undoubtedly grateful child it will be.

Considering that Mr. Edwards is a premier Trial Lawyer, I am sure that he will use "the Viagra made me do it" defense. All will be fine PR Wise. Now, will someone please pass the Slim Jims?

I’m certainly no a apologist for the Enquirer, but how friggin’ stupid would they have to be to deliberately slander a nationally known, and very successful (despite total douche-bag) trial lawyer?

If there’s nothing to this, he could (& would) sue them out of existence in a heart-beat.

My bet is he’s re-counting his (mis)steps to estimate how much evidence (pictures & phonecons) they might have against him.

Have the tearful press conference, beg wife for forgiveness, and then go off to spend the millions while waiting for the cancer to do it's thing.

What? You guys thought it too!

He might just divorce her and go off with a younger, richer woman called, ooh, cyndi maybe.

It's okay to believe the National Enquirer when Mickey Kaus believes it.

True. But Bryan, you gotta admit--at least Cyndi was somewhat of an upgrade. I'm not understanding what this woman brings to the party that Elizabeth doesn't other than being cancer free.

Ha Ha, fair point James ;)