Third-Hand Rumor-Mongering

Ron Rosenbaum spread s gossip:

So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that “everyone knows” The LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate. “Everyone knows” meaning everyone in the DC mainstream media political reporting world. “Sitting on it” because the paper couldn’t decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it. The way I heard it they’d had it for a while but don’t know what to do. The person who told me (not an LAT person) knows I write and didn’t say “don’t write about this”.

He refers, of course, to the case of M. Kaus and the goats. More seriously, I guess I'm not in the DC mainstream media political reporting world, because I haven't heard anything about this. Maybe Ambinder knows something.

Comments

"He refers, of course, to the case of M. Kaus and the goats."

no no no. the story i have heard is that kaus' goats have transferred their affections to mitt romney.

mickey is shattered, of course.
the goats are unavailable for comment.

Posted by kid bitzer | October 31, 2007 2:26 PM

Obviously it's a republican, else there would be no issue.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | October 31, 2007 2:39 PM

There have been rumors about Edwards, popularized by the repugnant M. Kaus. Other than that, I don't have a clue. Giuliani seems the most likely culprit, being a known philanderer anyway.

Posted by jason | October 31, 2007 2:44 PM

I guess it's not-so-big-media Matt, then.

Posted by Thomas Allen | October 31, 2007 2:46 PM

I am reminded of 2 apocryphal anecdotes, possibly related:

the first is regarding a certain politician, never named, who is considered to be so embedded in his office that no scandal will touch him unless it involves either a live boy or a dead girl. Clearly, this needs to be updated to reflect the rash of "non-gay" same sex hanky panky afflicting today's republican party.

The second anecdote involved that most underrated of brutal campaigners, Lyndon B. Johnson. Allegedly, when faced with a strong challenger, Johnson told his aides to spread some kind of atrocious slander (possibly involving goat-f***ing, who knows). When one of the underlings protested, saying that the story was false, Johnson supposedly replied, "Of course it isn't true. I just want to watch the sumbitch deny it."

Posted by jonathan | October 31, 2007 2:47 PM

There have been rumors about Edwards, popularized by the repugnant M. Kaus.

I bet it is these rumors. All of this talk being spread around will ensure that whatever the "potentially devistating" non-story is will become big as it is being talked up. Meanwhile the right-wing noise machine can go on and on about how the liberal media sat on a story involving a liberal Dem and how biased they are as they'd never do that with a GOoPer. And the story will come out at a conveniently bad time for Dems. as a whole.

Of course, the story needn't actually have anything to do with reality. Once people start repeating "potentially devistating sex scandal" it could be that the scandal itself is that Edwards once whispered to his wife jokingly "if you'd go along with you, me and the lovely Miss X having a 3-some, I'd have a 3-some with you and a hunk of your choosing". It doesn't matter what it is ("I have lusted in my heart" anyone) ... as long as it has to do with naughty bits in any way, shape or form and the media says it's devistating, it will be devistating or at least treated by the media as such.

Posted by DAS | October 31, 2007 2:51 PM

Why is this "third hand" rumor mongering when Kaus himself posted the same rumor (that LAT was sitting on a scandal that everyone knows) on his blog a few days ago?

Posted by Al | October 31, 2007 2:55 PM

I'm not in the DC mainstream media political reporting world either, apparently ... even though I work for the aforementioned L.A. Times, write about national politics, and was in DC all last week. Rosenbaum's source (and Rosenbaum himself, apparently) have curious notions of "everyone" ...

Posted by Matt Welch | October 31, 2007 3:01 PM

I feel like if it was Clinton, these catty village insiders would be so full of glee about it that one of them would have let it slip by now.

Possible sources of ethical qualms:
1) It involves a spouse, not the candidate
2) It involves something that happened a long time ago

Otherwise I don't see why sit on it.

Posted by Ryan | October 31, 2007 3:04 PM

Read the link, people! He writes:

[i]t's not the Edwards rumor, it's something else

My experience with "everybody knows" rumors when it comes to politician is that, almost literally, "everybody" knows them. So if Matt Welch reports that he has no idea what this is about, then I suspect that this rumor is much more obscure than is being portrayed.

Posted by Tyro | October 31, 2007 3:05 PM

I'm the person who always wants to open presents early. I hate secrets. I also tend to believe that most of the horrible gossip that people say about other people is true--or at least it isn't all false. So, the source says it isn't Edwards. Who is it???? Maybe it makes me a gossip monger, but now I want to know...

Posted by JMS | October 31, 2007 3:05 PM

oh, c'mon matt welch.
that's what everyone says when they want to deny that they know what everyone knows.
and everyone knows that everyone who knows what everyone knows, knows enough to deny it in those very words. but we know what you're up to.

look--i sympathize with you. you have been fingered by rosenbaum as part of the cover-up on the kaus-romney-goat threesome, and you want to maintain plausible deniability. but it just doesn't wash.

Posted by kid bitzer | October 31, 2007 3:08 PM

Jonthan: I've actually heard the "dead girl or live boy" remark attributed to Louisiana's infamous Edwin Edwards (no relation to John as far as I know). It probably is an apocryphal remark that became attached to his name, however.

Posted by James Kabala | October 31, 2007 3:11 PM

No, Al, that disgusting little worm Kaus referred to the very same Rosenbaum piece that MY links to.

Nice try at setting up a little rumor echo chamber, though. You can cash that RNC check with your head held high this week!

Posted by Woody Bombay | October 31, 2007 3:15 PM

JMS -

You're not playing the game right. The way to play it would be to just make an unsubstantiated claim about a "leading Presidential candidate" and then make them prove you wrong.

For example: I think that the rumor is about Giulianni. Some folks who won't go on record but who know what they're talking about tell me that Giulianni is getting ready to dump his third wife and move in with his current "mistress" as soon as the campaign is over. More as soon as I get back from this cocktail party I'm going to tonight - I'm sure someone there will spill a little bit once I get a few martinis into them. The LA Times is sitting on the story because Giulianni threatened to 9/11 their 9/11 if they published it 9/11.

See - completely fabricated but it sure SOUNDS juicy.

Posted by NonyNony | October 31, 2007 3:18 PM

Matt's right. It's more obscure than Rosenbaum thinks. According to a producer friend at CNN, the Edwards rumor has been around for months...but not any others.

Posted by Nathan | October 31, 2007 3:21 PM

I don't know about the presidential candidates, but I hear that Salon is going to run a banner story about Mickey Kaus' compulsive goat blowing problem.

C'mon Mick. Just admit that you're a sex addict and get some help. With the right treatment, the odds are good that you'll never blow another goat again.

Posted by The Fool | October 31, 2007 3:29 PM

"everyone" knew that valerie plame was cia, too.

which is to say, media types have some very, very strange definitions of words, and not only "everyone" (as matt welch notes) but also "knows."

Posted by howard | October 31, 2007 3:33 PM

No, Al, that disgusting little worm Kaus referred to the very same Rosenbaum piece that MY links to.

Oh, sorry, I didn't actually click Kaus's link.

Posted by Al | October 31, 2007 3:35 PM

Hmm, a rumor "everyone knows" about that no one, in fact, actually knows about?

I'd guess the Hillary camp has been quietly planting this rumor, hoping it would show up on bogs without any fingerprints. Viral marketing, if you will.

Since the Edwards rumor is specifically excluded, the obvious target is Obama.

Posted by beowulf | October 31, 2007 3:45 PM

Oh, sorry, I didn't actually click Kaus's link.

Of course you didn't. Of course.

Posted by Woody Bombay | October 31, 2007 3:54 PM

In other words, Mickey Kaus knows what he's talking about.

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 31, 2007 3:54 PM

Oh, sorry, I didn't actually click Kaus's link.

Of course you didn't. Of course.

Posted by Woody Bombay | October 31, 2007 3:55 PM

[i]t's not the Edwards rumor, it's something else

Spoilsport!

Since the Edwards rumor is specifically excluded, the obvious target is Obama.

Now you're talking.

Posted by Jimbo | October 31, 2007 3:58 PM

You are all wrong, dimwit moonbats.

The scandal is that Rudy Giuliani had an affair with Gerry Adams at a time when the state departement considered him a terrorist.

All the business with the string of mistresses is just cover.

The ethical qualms that the LA Times has is that the editor has been told his wife and children are on a one way ticket to Gitmo if he publishes.

Its a completely pointless threat since nobody is ever going to beleive it even if the LA Times does publish.

The NYT even published a photo of Rudy and Gerry together and still nobody gets it. Search for Giuliani, Adams and Crystal Apple on Google.

Posted by Karl Rove | October 31, 2007 4:00 PM

The rumor is definitely floating around.

All I can say is that it involves a GOP candidate and sexual relations with two Y chromosomes.

Posted by blah | October 31, 2007 4:08 PM

Edwards most likely.

But:

1. Fred Thmpson lives and works in LA and was a noted cocksman in his Watergate days. You know - those Hollywood types and their affairs.

2. Dennis Kuchinich and a space alien off his UFO.

3. Rudy, just because I hope it is.

4. McCain has had dalliances. Another?

5. Obama, cheating on the wife that calls him "Stinky" for a cute, blonde campaign worker who doesn't diss him - but calls him "My Master!!"

6. Richardson is discovered to have a foreign diplomat mistress rumored to work with the Cubans.

Then there are the knock me over with a puff of wind - unlikely bombshells -

a. The Hildebeast caught en flagrante delecto with a loyal staffer known for her always wearing power suits and sensible shoes.

b. Mitt Romney, photographed in a tryst with 2 women in Utah...Ned Flanders of the 2008 campaign explains that they are his other two, previously secret wives...

Posted by Chris Ford | October 31, 2007 4:20 PM

All I can say is that it involves a GOP candidate and sexual relations with two Y chromosomes.

Neither Sen. X nor Sen. Y are running for anything. It must be someone new.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 31, 2007 4:20 PM

All I can say is that it involves a GOP candidate and sexual relations with two Y chromosomes.

Neither Sen. X nor Sen. Y are running for anything. It must be someone new.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 31, 2007 4:21 PM

It's not Edwards, people. The original Rosenbaum post says specifically that it's not Edwards.

Click on it if you don't believe me.

Posted by bob | October 31, 2007 4:24 PM

two Y chromosomes

Do you mean two X chromosomes? Someone with a Y chromosome?

A person without an X chromosome couldn't make it past the fetus stage and would die as a miscarriage. On the other hand, maybe you're implying some internet-grade creep/kinkiness?

Posted by Rice | October 31, 2007 4:30 PM

In other words, Mickey Kaus knows what he's talking about.

Only if the suject is capriphilia

Posted by rea | October 31, 2007 4:32 PM

If you counted the total number of Y chromosomes of the participants in the sexual relations, they would add up to two. X chromosomes were also involved, but that is less interesting from the scandal perspective.

Posted by blah | October 31, 2007 4:35 PM

All I can say is that it involves a GOP candidate and sexual relations with two Y chromosomes.

So it involves a Republican candidate and an embryo which would be spontaneously aborted because it could not survive without an X chromosome. Scientifically, it's nonsense, but I can almost imagine it in a crazy, rally the fundies, anti-abortion kind of way..

Posted by Crusty Dem | October 31, 2007 4:38 PM

Also, you guys have never heard of XYY syndrome?

Posted by blah | October 31, 2007 4:43 PM

Rosenbaum says: "I’ve been sensing hints that something’s going on, something’s going unspoken in certain insider coverage of the campaign"

That makes me think it's Obama.

Posted by Algernon | October 31, 2007 5:00 PM

Knowing what I do about the sometimes bizarre notion of journalistic ethics, I would say that this story almost certainly deals with Bill Clinton. Outing him for doing what we all know he is doing is an ethical dilemma because he isn't actually running for anything.

Posted by Bruce Bartlett | October 31, 2007 5:04 PM

Please God, let it be Giuliani.

Posted by jason | October 31, 2007 5:28 PM

"In other words, Mickey Kaus knows what he's talking about."

In other words, Steve Sailer didn't click the link.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 31, 2007 5:45 PM

Looking back at the Rosenbaum piece, I do get the feeling that the rumor is probably about Bill Clinton. A lot of Rosenbaum's wordings & questions make sense in that context.

Posted by Christopher M | October 31, 2007 5:54 PM

Talking of goats, the Guardian references an unsubstantiated rumour about a Republican politician!

Posted by blowback | October 31, 2007 6:15 PM

Unless its a story about Hillary and Andrew Sullivan getting it on why would anyone be surprised?

Posted by Cindrella Ferret | October 31, 2007 6:24 PM

According to Wikipedia people with XYY syndrome are taller and have a 10-15 point lower IQ on average. My vote is Thompson. It would explain why the LAT was sitting on it as he wasn't in the race a couple of months ago and they didn't want to seem biased by dropping the story on the same day that he officially announced.

Posted by eriks | October 31, 2007 6:26 PM

XY + XY = 2 MEN

Posted by bob | October 31, 2007 6:47 PM

Steve Sailer: Huh? I don't support Edwards and have no idea whether he is an adulterer or not, but Rosenbaum explicitly denies that this rumor is about Edwards, so this new rumor proves nothing about Kaus's old claims.

Posted by James Kabala | October 31, 2007 6:58 PM

I like the way Blah thinks. Bob has it correct. To be devastating it has to affect someone at or near the front of the pack. Hillary with a couple of guys, Bill payback perhaps? Or, more juicily, Giuliani getting loaded and playing more than house with his roomies a whiles back.

Posted by Nat | October 31, 2007 7:05 PM

There's a rumor that pajamas media won't become profitable within the next ten years,

Posted by Comment | October 31, 2007 7:09 PM

My money's on Romney. The phoniness that Josh Marshall's always going on about would fit with a closet case, as would a Mormon background. I'm not buying Giuliani -- we would have heard about it already. Dude doesn't exactly keep his private life private. Altho it would be sweet...

Posted by lemuel pitkin | October 31, 2007 7:21 PM

Hillary with two guys?

She can't even get any from BILL, since Chelsey! She might get some from me if she asked nice and agreed not to attack Iran (would that make me an "unregistered agent of Iran?"), but otherwise, fergeddaboudit.

Now, Hillary with one or two other women - or a goat? That I could buy.

As for the other Dems, well, you know what Arianna says: she switched from conservative to liberal because the sex was better. But if the culprit isn't Hillary or Obama, who would care? The others aren't significantly in the running, anyway.

As for the Republicans, hell, take your pick! That whole lot has to be the kinkiest sex bunch US politics has ever seen, just based on their general nuttiness. Just based on probabilities, at least one of them has to be a closet gay.

Did you see the news report today about 20+ guys busted at a rest stop for "public lewd behavior"? They got one Catholic priest - who was arrested for "forceful touching" - plus the head of the local Rotary Club and around 19 other guys - ALL OF WHOM (except the priest, of course) WERE MARRIED!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 31, 2007 8:09 PM

What makes it more likely it is a Republican scandal is that the wingnut blogs and their front Drudge are far more wired into the gossip - and they have been mute.

If it isn't Giuliani though not so sure I want it - were it Romney, then Rudy would have that much less strong opposition.

Posted by hopeless pedant | October 31, 2007 8:35 PM

The shocking news is the Hillary and Bill still
have sex.

Posted by oh my god | October 31, 2007 9:23 PM

So, Matt Yglesias, what the fuck are you doing getting in bed with Ron Rosenbaum with this pseudo-titillating scrap of innuendo-mongering?

Do you think it drolly amusing to provoke utterly unsubstantiated speculation about who has been sticking it where?

Grow-up, you little twerp. This is yet another example of why baby boomers find smarty-pants, ethically clueless, blathering wankers like yourself sooooooo fucking annoying.

If ever there was an epitome of blog wank, pip-squeak 'vert that you are, you've busted a nut on this one.

Posted by teknozen | October 31, 2007 9:41 PM

To join with someone else who stated something similar above, the only rumor I'm familiar with has been floating around for at least two years. The gist is that Bill Clinton has been cheating on HRC again, and not being discreet about it. Some variations of this usually involve LA playboy Ron Burkle as a facilitator. Every so often it vaguely surfaces via MSM figures like Chris Matthews, or outlets like the NY Times (remember that weird story about the Clinton marriage from several months ago).

FWIW.

Posted by dry_fish | October 31, 2007 10:08 PM

oh for pete's sake. Can we please just not give a shit about sex scandals? What is it with people and sex scandals anyway? Seems to be that you can do about any goddam thing to the detriment of other human beings as long as you pretend to be smooth between the legs. But if you indulge in normal human biological activity, watch out! And included in "normal human biological activity" is same sex activities. What a species!

Posted by rxbusa | October 31, 2007 10:58 PM

Got to agree with rxbusa completely.

However, the sad reality is that sex scandals do affect political campaigns.

Personally, I think the biggest mistake Bill Clinton ever made was denying he had sex with Monica. If he'd been as smart as he's supposed to be, he would have said publicly, "Yeah, I screwed her! So what? Have you seen Hillary lately?"

That would have been the end of it for everybody except the "vast rightwing conspiracy". Even Hillary would have knuckled under...

In fact, if it turns out Hillary is getting some "pay back", that would probably be great for her campaign. Every woman in America would vote for her then. And probably more men, too - even it turns out she's getting it from another woman.

But if it turns out one of the Republican candidates is gay, oh, man... If it's just some infidelity, though, it won't hurt them much. It'll be ignored by all but the most religious base.

After all, Hillary can't make a big deal about it, can she? She's hardly in a position. Some of the other Dems might make an issue of it, but it would be really weak, since all the Dems are really vulnerable to Bill Clinton's problem.

No, the only way a scandal will hurt either side much is if it involves homosexuality (at least for the Republicans) or something seriously kinky (for either side.) Simple infidelity is not much of a scandal any more in this world - unless it was not simple, such as being "serial" or "multiple" or "with more than one person at a time." If somebody went to an orgy, well, that would be a problem.

Besides, until the LAT reveals it, it really isn't real, is it?

So we might as well ignore this until it becomes something other than a rumor.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 1, 2007 12:47 AM

I would disagree about the dems not being able to make hay about a Republican scandal given Bill's past, for two reasons. First, most of the dems acted like the same sort of self righteous schmucks as the republicans about Clinton. Secondly, they can say that even if they personally wouldn't care, the republicans have set the standard.

Posted by MikeJ | November 1, 2007 4:58 AM

Yeah, the Dems did act like that. But that's why nobody would care now what they said about a Republican case of infidelity. The Dems might use it to attack Hillary, but that's sort of stupid if the real issue is a Republican incident.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 1, 2007 6:15 AM

Can't you people follow links? Now, I'm not sure I buy "the rumor," but it is very easy to follow the links on memorandum and see that "the rumor" is that Hillary supposedly shares a DC home with her Muslim female aide, that Hillary and this aide, Huma Abedin, get it on, and that if you randomly called Hillary's DC home early in the morning or late at night, Huma answers. And someone at the Department of Justice (or from a DOJ computer) "corroborated" it. And one of the websites quotes to p.41 of some Gennifer Flowers book in which she quotes Bill as saying Hillary has had more action with girls than he has. That is the rumor: Hillary and Huma do it. Is it true? I have no idea.I just read it on the websites memeorandum is linking to. But that is what the rumor supposedly is.

Posted by It's all about Huma | November 1, 2007 1:49 PM

http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2007/11/hillary-clinton.html

Posted by See? | November 1, 2007 1:50 PM

More of it

Posted by More of it | November 1, 2007 1:55 PM

"Hillary is a lesbian" has been making the rumor rounds for years. I suppose that would fit the "everybody knows" criteria, but it doesn't have the "shiny new scandal" feel this rumor has.

Posted by Persia | November 1, 2007 3:07 PM

That Huma chick looks pretty hot. No ways she's banging Hilary.

Posted by blah | November 1, 2007 3:39 PM

Both in the primary and in the general for his Senate seat, Obama was helped by sex scandals around his strongest opponents. Lucky him that self-destructing opponents have a tendency to ease things his way. Perhaps it will happen again.

Posted by John Z. | November 1, 2007 10:47 PM

Rumors are meant to plant doubt. Without proof,
rumor is only "water cooler" talk and wild speculation.

Remember "Swift-Boating" of candidates is a popular smear weapon during any political campaign.

We, the public, need to be very aware of the source of the rumor...and why they may want to destroy another's reputation. Don't be so quick to believe "tales" from people who do not lay out the facts...they only hint at scandal.

Investigate and get the truth. Be way more skeptical than to swallow rumors that can't be documented. In short, consider who is spreading the rumor.

Posted by Gloria | November 2, 2007 11:39 PM