|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 12, 2004 15:03:32 GMT -5
When I was finishing up at Gtown in 99, i worked as a butcher at Dean & Deluca. I have dirt on Kerry shopping for groceries in this obsncely priced Euro haven. I even sold him a piece of fish once. It looked like intern-bate to me.... ;D I don't think it is an intern issue, as Clark alluded to. He probably simply used those words to make an analogy. I do think what is probably at issue are his relationships during the period when he sought a divorce from his first wife. What is probably the issue is how he engaged in relationships with other women while he was still legally married. None of us knows any of the details, so we'll have to wait and see. If this is truly coming from the White House, I encourage Kerry et. al. to engage in a no-holds barred campaign. There is plenty of dirt on Bush (and his wife, for that matter) for those who are willing to open their mouths.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 12, 2004 15:07:00 GMT -5
maybe he cut a VP deal with Kerry- but Lehane is a loose cannon? It is getting weirder. For conspiracy theorists, I wonder whether Kerry's team put this out just to enable it to run its course before the general election. Why they would do it before Super Tuesday, I do not know. Clark's endorsement would by no means ensure that he becomes the VP nominee, although it probably gets him on the short list. Kerry apparently made such a deal with Warner. No similar news came out of the Gephardt endorsement, although we can only suspect that such a deal was made.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 12, 2004 15:17:54 GMT -5
The facts on this thing are completely bizarre, and I would suggest that Drudge does not know everything either. He is getting his quotes from Clark second-hand. Why in the world would Clark come around and endorse Kerry if a) this story had legs or b) Kerry's campaign would really implode over the issue? Anyway, here is another article on the matter that includes a discussion of why major media has not picked up on it: www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2089679. Judging from what I am reading and from the history of these allegations (dating to the selection process for VP in 2000), I don't think this breaks Kerry's candidacy.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Feb 12, 2004 18:33:05 GMT -5
If this is truly coming from the White House, I encourage Kerry et. al. to engage in a no-holds barred campaign. There is plenty of dirt on Bush (and his wife, for that matter) for those who are willing to open their mouths. This is a loaded quote if I've ever heard one. What's out there on Laura Bush that could be damaging to President Bush? Did she attend an anti-Dewey Decimal rally back in college or something?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 12, 2004 19:56:25 GMT -5
If you would like to know, there are allegations floating around, which were put in ink when Bush was the Governor of Texas, that she ran over a male friend in high school, killing him. Allegedly, because of her connections, she was able to avoid legal proceedings.
If I can find a link to the newspaper article, I will post it. I had it awhile ago, but got rid of it. If I have some time in the next couple of days, I will post it.
Anyway, I won't say any of these allegations are true, but, at this point, they are as true as those against Kerry, which is why I suggest that Kerry be ready with some ammunition to fight back against the RNC, Rove machine.
For context, I should also note that I am a strong supporter of Kerry's candidacy. That said, I was prepared to vote for Bush (or strongly consider him) if Dean was the nominee, pending the spring and fall campaign season. I am a moderate Democrat, so I don't want to come across as a strong party loyalist.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 12, 2004 21:30:32 GMT -5
I don't understand your position on Kerry v Dean. On voting records, Kerry's record is far less centrist. Kerry may have more mainstream political cred- merely becuas he is a senator from a populous state and not a gov of a tiny state- but Kerry's voting record is to the left of Ted Kennedy's according to congressional voting watch groups who moniter spending, etc. He is one of the more radical members of the Senate any way you slice it. I don't think anyone could call him a moderate Dem with his voting record.He is actually considered liberal in massachusetts- which is a hell of a feat.
I have to say I am actually disappointed to see you even bring up for a second a tragic accident that Laura Bush may have been involved in before she had ever heard of George Bush. We are not talking about Bush even- like when Ted Kennedy used his family to get him out of hot water for Chapaquidick- we are talking about a woman who has never run for office. There is a reason nobody has run with this story- it is PURE DIRT, WITH ZERO RAMIFICATIONS ON BUSH himself. This "story" is the lowest form of smear campaign I have yet seen. If you want to find a link on that particular topic- just troll some of the really reprehensible radical left wing web sites that compare Bush to Hitler. That is about the only place with decorum levels low enough to be considering this Laura Bush story appropriate. I can honestly say I think Michael Moore would find himself above using this in public. PS. please note I do not intend to lend a molecule of creadence to this smear on a teenage Laura (she was not a Bush then.) I have NO IDEA if it is true- I only know that only the slimiest of groups have run with any part of this story. That may be because it is not true, or it maybe because it is a totally inappropriate story re: candidate George W. Bush. I don't have any idea which it is.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 13, 2004 10:57:22 GMT -5
I don't understand your position on Kerry v Dean. On voting records, Kerry's record is far less centrist. Kerry may have more mainstream political cred- merely becuas he is a senator from a populous state and not a gov of a tiny state- but Kerry's voting record is to the left of Ted Kennedy's according to congressional voting watch groups who moniter spending, etc. He is one of the more radical members of the Senate any way you slice it. I don't think anyone could call him a moderate Dem with his voting record.He is actually considered liberal in massachusetts- which is a hell of a feat. I have to say I am actually disappointed to see you even bring up for a second a tragic accident that Laura Bush may have been involved in before she had ever heard of George Bush. We are not talking about Bush even- like when Ted Kennedy used his family to get him out of hot water for Chapaquidick- we are talking about a woman who has never run for office. There is a reason nobody has run with this story- it is PURE DIRT, WITH ZERO RAMIFICATIONS ON BUSH himself. This "story" is the lowest form of smear campaign I have yet seen. If you want to find a link on that particular topic- just troll some of the really reprehensible radical left wing web sites that compare Bush to Hitler. That is about the only place with decorum levels low enough to be considering this Laura Bush story appropriate. I can honestly say I think Michael Moore would find himself above using this in public. PS. please note I do not intend to lend a molecule of creadence to this smear on a teenage Laura (she was not a Bush then.) I have NO IDEA if it is true- I only know that only the slimiest of groups have run with any part of this story. That may be because it is not true, or it maybe because it is a totally inappropriate story re: candidate George W. Bush. I don't have any idea which it is. On Kerry's voting record, I don't give much credence to Congressional watchdog groups. The fact is that the so-called watchdogs have political agendas of their own, and many of them that put Kerry to the left of Kennedy are those that want to take Kerry down a peg for partisan political gain. Many of the so-called watchdogs are PACs etc., for example, and not what you might call an independent source of "facts." On the Laura Bush incident, I tried to temper my language because this story is one that no one will touch, similar to the Prescott Bush-Hitler connection. So, I don't want to discuss them further. I just point them out to show that there are some things in the first family's past that do not reflect well upon the President. I hope that the election does not come down to this kind of crap, but I do expect that Kerry will fight hard and initiate some attacks if right-wing media, like Drudge, run with an alleged intern story like the one with Kerry. The long and short of it all is that there are too many issues to discuss to make this election about sex, lies about sex, and the like. Hopefully Rove will get the message because the Republican policy of the 1990's to do nothing but discuss the President's sex in fact backfired and contributed to high poll numbers for Clinton.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 13, 2004 11:06:18 GMT -5
yeah but these watchdog groups are extremely objective in their source data. They don't just sit their making up liberal and coversatvie values. They look at votes to increase welfare spending, taxes, defense, etc. They are not really controversial. Usually you get Kerry and Boxer and Kennedy on one end and people like Helms (before obviously) on the other and usually both parties are happy to be where they are on the spectrum. The watchdogs are partisan but not the rankings. I don't think their findings are ever truly contested by anyone. And Kerry's rankings far precede his presidential run. Kerry never met a defense bill he didn't vote down- which I think is his biggest weakness in the coming showdown, and will be fairly used by Bush when he gets going.
Why are you putting the honus squarely on Rove to run a clean race? Its a two way street Jersey. and this scandal, in so far as it is one, is more likely to have come from Lehane than rove. There is no reason to attack Rove because of this.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 13, 2004 11:27:53 GMT -5
yeah but these watchdog groups are extremely objective in their source data. They don't just sit their making up liberal and coversatvie values. They look at votes to increase welfare spending, taxes, defense, etc. They are not really controversial. Usually you get Kerry and Boxer and Kennedy on one end and people like Helms (before obviously) on the other and usually both parties are happy to be where they are on the spectrum. The watchdogs are partisan but not the rankings. I don't think their findings are ever truly contested by anyone. And Kerry's rankings far precede his presidential run. Kerry never met a defense bill he didn't vote down- which I think is his biggest weakness in the coming showdown, and will be fairly used by Bush when he gets going. Why are you putting the honus squarely on Rove to run a clean race? Its a two way street Jersey. and this scandal, in so far as it is one, is more likely to have come from Lehane than rove. There is no reason to attack Rove because of this. I think you make fair points about the watchdogs. I guess my thing is that, if you ask a self-appointed Pro-Life watchdog to rate Kennedy and Kerry and Kerry comes out farther to the left, so what? If you are pro-life, then your views on Kerry can be reinforced. If you are pro-choice, you may become even more inclined to support Kerry. So, I see these alleged watchdogs are often used as scare devices with the real substance often overlooked so as to paint a candidate in a certain way. It goes on with both parties. I do emphasize Rove in saying that the campaign should be clean because his tactics are fairly legendary. Kerry's campaign has yet to initiate a personal attack, although DNC types have. For the most part, the attacks in the Dem primary have been issue-oriented, which is fair game, and none of this intern kind of crap has come out. So, I do not yet know what Kerry's campaign is capable of doing on the dirty politics front.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 13, 2004 11:52:59 GMT -5
The dirtiest poltical tactics I have ever seen publically admitted to are coming fromt the far left already... from NRO's The Corner
THE PERILS OF MOBYISM [Jonah Goldberg]
Until now, I've always used the phrase "Lying for Justice" to describe how environmenatlists, racial hucksters and other leftists seem perfectly willing to make up "crises," racist incidents (from Tawana Brawley through the epidemic of racial hoaxes on college campuses) and the like in order to mobilize society in a "progressive" direction (this will be a big subject of my book, btw). Well, now we have Mobyism. The rock singer recently explained to the Daily News:
"No one's talking about how to keep the other side home on Election Day," Moby tells us. "It's a lot easier than you think and it doesn't cost that much. This election can be won by 200,000 votes." Moby suggests that it's possible to seed doubt among Bush's far-right supporters on the Web.
"You target his natural constituencies," says the Grammy-nominated techno-wizard. "For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you're an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion.
"Then you go to an anti-immigration Web site chat room and ask, 'What's all this about George Bush proposing amnesty for illegal aliens?'"
A couple of weeks ago, several liberal bloggers announced that they wanted their readers to deliberately make up fake emails and send them to NR because they found the real emails we were posting in the Corner too unhelpful to their cause. So far they've all been way too stupid to fool us, but that could change. And now, last night, Andrew Sullivan received an email that he -- and I, and a lot of our mutual readers -- think was made up.
Whether it was or wasn't, it now seems safe to predict that the Moby-Moore fringe of liberalism is ratcheting-up it's ends justify-the-means approach to political discourse. Get ready for the Age of Mobyism, it won't be pretty.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 13, 2004 12:22:52 GMT -5
My initial comment was about campaign-initiated attacks, so this article is not germane to that debate. I still maintain that attacks coming from the Dem campaigns have been issue-oriented, not oriented toward the candidates' personal lives.
On this Moby article, I am not sure what to think. Republicans go around and tell folks that the Dems are going to take their guns away. The fact is that characitures are made by both sides for partisan political gain, so the Moby stuff does not phase me too much, except for this Bush-abortion thing.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 13, 2004 12:34:03 GMT -5
well I still think it is germane, since this started by you getting on Rove because of a likely Dem operative leak. Since you don't I think have much basis to start attacking Rove right now, I saw the thread turning into a general dirty tactics subject. Which is germane. Anyway, I do see your point.
Not even your Republicnas and guns thing rises to this level of deceit. not even close really, Moby is formenting, or perhaps just passing along a plan from DNC hq, to infiltrate and lie- not just just standard political discourse, is it? The stupid thing is the moron admited it to a large circulation daily. (Moby- keep the extremely dirty tricks confidential.)
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 13, 2004 12:55:13 GMT -5
Moby is formenting, or perhaps just passing along a plan from DNC hq, to infiltrate and lie- not just just standard political discourse, is it? The stupid thing is the moron admited it to a large circulation daily. (Moby- keep the extremely dirty tricks confidential.) I have no evidence to prove or refute the issue of DNC involvement. Given the nature of Internet blogging and just life in general right now, I would tend to doubt it. Most decisions and tactics are initiated on a decentralized level methinks in this political era. Anyway, I won't go further on about this Moby thing because it can't be proven or refuted with respect to the DNC. Regardless, we've steered away from the Kerry-alleged intern issue, and I'll look around for something to steer us back on that course.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 13, 2004 13:05:27 GMT -5
please let's not get all strict about what topic is being addressed- its a miscelenous message board jersey! You were the one who started on dirty politics from Rove, for which he holds no particular edge over say Carville, but let's be a little more lax about letting these conversations flow where they may.... I mean come on, you are calling "off topic" on a post about internet/dirty politics on a thread that started about Drudge and a potential poltical scandal. i think your definition of germane is too narrow.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 13, 2004 13:08:54 GMT -5
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3486879.stmThe news today on the Kerry-intern thing is just that Kerry has denied it on Imus and has said that it is a non-story. Given how sources say that it is not something that can be proven, I would tend to doubt that we are looking at another Lewinsky-type thing, no matter how much Drudge or Bill O'Reilly would want otherwise. As far as news coverage, Drudge is reporting that it received some coverage on local media outlets, but it has not received much, if any, treatment on national media. Most newspaper stories have come from Europe. The article linked above discusses the intern story, but also discusses Wes Clark's endorsement. Looking back on it, I find Clark's candidacy to be a disappointment. However, Kerry stands ready to utilize Clark in the campaign. We can only speculate on how he might become involved, but I see him taking on a role in Kerry's Band of Brothers with Max Cleland.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 15, 2004 10:33:11 GMT -5
Does this Kerry-intern thing have legs? It seemed not, but there is a strange reluctance from plugged in members of the press, even leftish pundits, to pronounce this thing DOA, as seems so sensical given how little has actually come out. On the McLaughlin Group today, I was suprised when John asked in his exit question if the story had legs or not, all 5 of them said yes- including a yes from a pained Eleanor Clift and a couple of "yes" answers that were accompaniied by knowing looks. Its very rare when all of them agree to something.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 15, 2004 11:02:33 GMT -5
It's hard to say a story doesn't have legs when there's no clear understanding of what the story is - you'll look foolish saying "no" if it turns out to be Lewinski Redux. Better to say "yes" until there's a clearer picture of what its actually about.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 15, 2004 17:30:53 GMT -5
Does this Kerry-intern thing have legs? It seemed not, but there is a strange reluctance from plugged in members of the press, even leftish pundits, to pronounce this thing DOA, as seems so sensical given how little has actually come out. On the McLaughlin Group today, I was suprised when John asked in his exit question if the story had legs or not, all 5 of them said yes- including a yes from a pained Eleanor Clift and a couple of "yes" answers that were accompaniied by knowing looks. Its very rare when all of them agree to something. This story, obviously, will have some legs insofar as it relates in appearance to what happened with Clinton. So, I expected that it would receive some attention in the press. Still, do I believe that it will break his candidacy? Absolutely not. Do I think it could help him? Maybe. It helped Clinton's numbers. Do I believe that it is as major as the Lewinsky scandal? No way.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 15, 2004 21:47:04 GMT -5
So far, with what we KNOW, it is nothing. So if nothing else comes forward, it is not even close to a Lewinsky. I have been inclined for a few days to think this thing is nothing- but there still lingers a strange reluctance for media types who are in the know to decalre this thing dead. It is bizzarre really. It should have been burried by now- perhaps even with a backlash by this point. But yet, it isn't going away- it just seems to be in a holding pattern. We'll see. But this is speculation based upon watching the Sunday political programming. Based on what has ACTUALLY come out... it is a non-story.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 16, 2004 12:20:09 GMT -5
So far, with what we KNOW, it is nothing. So if nothing else comes forward, it is not even close to a Lewinsky. I have been inclined for a few days to think this thing is nothing- but there still lingers a strange reluctance for media types who are in the know to decalre this thing dead. It is bizzarre really. It should have been burried by now- perhaps even with a backlash by this point. But yet, it isn't going away- it just seems to be in a holding pattern. We'll see. But this is speculation based upon watching the Sunday political programming. Based on what has ACTUALLY come out... it is a non-story. www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004072203,00.html This, if true, could be damaging. However, I am just having a tough time lining everything up here. Clearly, her family is upset about something. That I cannot dispute. However, at the same time, they say nothing can be proven. Why would she agree to leave the country for Kenya based on Kerry's request? I don't expect answers here, but it does not appear entirely credible even if what has come out is true. Additionally, I have to consider the agendas of those currently pushing the story.
|
|