|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 16, 2004 13:20:31 GMT -5
story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=2&u=/ap/20040216/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_polierNot this candidate. Not this time. The rumors about an intern affair are indeed unfounded, and the person who has been linked to Kerry as part of a potential scandal has denied having an affair with the distinguished Senator. She and her family have issued separate statements denying the allegations and praising the Senator's candidacy. I have to admit that the weird keeps getting weirder here. We may never know fact v. fiction here as far as how this alleged affair played when Gore was selecting his VP candidate, for example. After all, this thing seemed to get settled in a matter of days, contrary to what Drudge et. al. initially anticipated. As far as the current race, we'll see if this denial gets reported given how the rumors percolated in European press, and, as Bin has noted, in the Sunday talk shows. If indeed the denial gets reported, it would be great for Kerry and would solidify his character against an apparent smear attempt, which could, perhaps wrongly, be associated with the Rove types.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 16, 2004 14:49:58 GMT -5
[my best 'Bin imitation]Where's Drudge's apology?!![/my best 'Bin imitation] Now don't go killing me just yet, 'Bin; I'm just kidding around. On a more serious note, I'm not entirely sure this puts the story to bed. I would HOPE that it would suffice, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it will continue on a while longer. After all, there were allegations that the woman's parents had 'confirmed' it, not to mention the fact that the UK's Sun was trumpeting it from the rooftops. Polier also took issue with reports that referred to her as a former Kerry intern.
"I never interned or worked for John Kerry," she told AP over the phone.
In a separate statement, Polier's parents, Terry and Donna Polier of Malvern, Pa., dismissed the "completely false and unsubstantiated" allegations about their daughter.
"We love and support her 100 percent and these unfounded rumors are hurtful to our entire family," the statement said. "We appreciate the way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him for president of the United States."
The statement did not address purported quotes by Polier's parents in the British tabloid The Sun that were harshly critical of Kerry.This is just the kind of gristle conspiracy theorists need to keep the flame alive. www.baltimoresun.com/news/elections/bal-kerry-woman0216,0,4429023.story?coll=bal-home-headlines
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 16, 2004 17:38:04 GMT -5
[my best 'Bin imitation]Where's Drudge's apology?!![/my best 'Bin imitation] Now don't go killing me just yet, 'Bin; I'm just kidding around. On a more serious note, I'm not entirely sure this puts the story to bed. I would HOPE that it would suffice, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it will continue on a while longer. After all, there were allegations that the woman's parents had 'confirmed' it, not to mention the fact that the UK's Sun was trumpeting it from the rooftops. Polier also took issue with reports that referred to her as a former Kerry intern.
"I never interned or worked for John Kerry," she told AP over the phone.
In a separate statement, Polier's parents, Terry and Donna Polier of Malvern, Pa., dismissed the "completely false and unsubstantiated" allegations about their daughter.
"We love and support her 100 percent and these unfounded rumors are hurtful to our entire family," the statement said. "We appreciate the way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him for president of the United States."
The statement did not address purported quotes by Polier's parents in the British tabloid The Sun that were harshly critical of Kerry.This is just the kind of gristle conspiracy theorists need to keep the flame alive. www.baltimoresun.com/news/elections/bal-kerry-woman0216,0,4429023.story?coll=bal-home-headlines Showcase, I would not believe anything that is printed in the Sun. The UK has a tradition of tabloid journalism that is often passed of as if it were true reportage, but the Sun is something that belongs more in an aisle of the supermarket. Now, Drudge is saying that the woman in question is dating Kerry's Finance Chief www.drudgereport.com/mattjk7.htm. First of all, who cares? Second of all, does Drudge have any respect for the woman in question, who has asked for her privacy to be respected? Third of all, even if the Finance Chief and Kerry allegations were both true, what would that say about the woman in question? I could go on and on here, but this thing has no legs, and it is high time that Drudge went back into his cave.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Feb 17, 2004 9:47:27 GMT -5
First off, I think it's impossible to say that this story doesn't have legs when it's not even done developing yet. If no new information comes out, then yes, the story is going nowhere.
However, I side with bin on this one in that I just get the feeling that there's something more to this story. Is part of that the Republican in me? Yes. But also, something just doesn't feel right here. Like, why would the woman's father call Kerry a sleazeball and so on last week and now say he's planning on voting for the guy?
I just think there's something more to this story and, if there is, I think the flat out denials will hurt just as much, or more, as the fact that John Kerry was having an affair.
It's way too early to say "case closed."
Plus, if you're going to say "case closed" simply based on the denial of the two parties involved in the alleged relationship, then why wouldn't you say case closed when President Bush said he fulfilled his National Guard duties?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 17, 2004 13:10:12 GMT -5
First off, I think it's impossible to say that this story doesn't have legs when it's not even done developing yet. If no new information comes out, then yes, the story is going nowhere. However, I side with bin on this one in that I just get the feeling that there's something more to this story. Is part of that the Republican in me? Yes. But also, something just doesn't feel right here. Like, why would the woman's father call Kerry a sleazeball and so on last week and now say he's planning on voting for the guy? I just think there's something more to this story and, if there is, I think the flat out denials will hurt just as much, or more, as the fact that John Kerry was having an affair. It's way too early to say "case closed." Plus, if you're going to say "case closed" simply based on the denial of the two parties involved in the alleged relationship, then why wouldn't you say case closed when President Bush said he fulfilled his National Guard duties? How do you know whether the intern story is not done developing? Denials from both parties seems to be pretty good evidence. The woman's father said yesterday that he was misquoted regarding Kerry/sleazeball. I should also note that this quote appeared in the UK's Sun, which is the equivalent of what you would find near checkout counter #9 of the supermarket. If there is something to the story, which is apparently not the case, the false denials, as you have mentioned, will be the killer. See Gary Hart for an example. I do question what it would take for you to say case closed on the intern affair. As for the AWOL story, I applaud Kerry for not making it an issue and for calling on other Democrats to stop attacking the President on that issue. Personally, this has become a non-issue for me. In my opinion, President Bush has done or not done far more to damage the military than what apparently occurred back in the day.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Feb 17, 2004 13:42:25 GMT -5
How do you know whether the intern story is not done developing? Denials from both parties seems to be pretty good evidence. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." There seemed to be more coming out after we heard this denial. The point is, I don't know whether there's more to come or not. My gut feeling says there is, but either way, I don't think one can make a definitive statement one way or the other. As for the AWOL story, I applaud Kerry for not making it an issue and for calling on other Democrats to stop attacking the President on that issue. Well, it's easy to stay quiet when Terry McAuliffe (honestly, how can Dem's not be embarassed by this guy?) and other Democrats are out there harping on this day after day. If Sen. Kerry truly wanted this stop, why didn't he come out with a statement like he did when Clinton's Vietnam era activities were being questioned back in 1992?
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 17, 2004 14:07:07 GMT -5
Indeed, where are the Republicans who decried the allegations about GHB's purported infidelity back in 1988 or 1992 now that similar charges are being leveled against Sen. Kerry?
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Feb 17, 2004 14:19:24 GMT -5
my only hope is that this "incident" (drudge's publication of an unsubstantied, uninvestigated rumor) finally exposes the truth about drudge--that he is a partisan hack with no journalistic standards or integrity. let's not forget this is a "journalist" who first made his splash falsely accusing sid blumenthal of beating his wife.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Feb 17, 2004 14:20:33 GMT -5
Indeed, where are the Republicans who decried the allegations about GHB's purported infidelity back in 1988 or 1992 now that similar charges are being leveled against Sen. Kerry? I was just waiting for someone to bring this up. Let's see, back in 1992, you had reporters from all the major networks bombarding the White House about this issue based on what? A footnote in a book about a deceased ambassador. You had Stone Phillips asking the President about this affair when he was meeting with PM Rabin. I have yet to see the mainstream press feeding frenzy over this issue. Wake me up when Wolf Blitzer begins grilling Kery about this alleged affair. That's the difference between the two situations. The Kerry affair story is right where it belongs at this point - on talk radio, message boards, and some newspapers. Until there's more, that's where it will stay. And that's where the Bush 41 story should have stayed.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 17, 2004 14:40:58 GMT -5
I was just waiting for someone to bring this up. Happy to have obliged. That's the difference between the two situations. The Kerry affair story is right where it belongs at this point - on talk radio, message boards, and some newspapers. Until there's more, that's where it will stay. And that's where the Bush 41 story should have stayed. Uh, the story was mentioned on ABC's nightly news last week, so it's not like it's confined to talk radio, message boards, and some newspapers, and while I get your point that there are differences in kind, my point was that I wasn't sure what more you could reasonably want out of Sen. Kerry. The man's running against the President, for crying out loud; he's supposed to congratulate him for not being able to substantiate his claim that he did indeed discharge his Guard duties while in Alabama in any meaningful way? What if Kerry did issue a sweeping condemnation of the issue & then this story suddenly grew legs? You'd be harping on him for going back on his statement that this was a non-issue.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 17, 2004 14:49:35 GMT -5
Kerry said last week that he would not comment on the AWOL story because it wasn't something that he wanted to bring out and because he is not an expert in analyzing military records.
No harm, no foul. Let's have a discussion of issues like healthcare, WMD, "preemption," taxes, the economy, defense spending, veterans issues...
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Feb 18, 2004 11:32:28 GMT -5
Kerry said last week that he would not comment on the AWOL story because it wasn't something that he wanted to bring out and because he is not an expert in analyzing military records. No harm, no foul. Let's have a discussion of issues like healthcare, WMD, "preemption," taxes, the economy, defense spending, veterans issues... He's touting his military service and "he's not an expert in analyzing military records?" He can sure analyze his purple heart military records to remind us ad nauseum of that issue. On the second point, agreed. However, I don't think the DNC chairman will follow your advice.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 18, 2004 12:30:26 GMT -5
The Bush file contains more than his personal accolades while in the Guard and contains some nitty-gritty, circumstantial kind of stuff, so I do not expect that Kerry would know how to analyze the documents, not to mention that he hasn't even read the documents, so he is certainly not an expert in the situation.
My more general question would be why do you [and other Republicans] complain when the attack on Bush is made with respect to his service in the Guard and subsequently complain now that Kerry hasn't taken up the issue? Do I sense a flip-flop on your part?
With respect to the DNC chairman, in fairness, I think you can levy the same charge against Gillespie. No sooner had he won primaries in VA and TN did he decide to go out to Nevada and attack Kerry in advance of their primary.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Feb 18, 2004 12:41:01 GMT -5
My more general question would be why do you [and other Republicans] complain when the attack on Bush is made with respect to his service in the Guard and subsequently complain now that Kerry hasn't taken up the issue? Do I sense a flip-flop on your part? With respect to the DNC chairman, in fairness, I think you can levy the same charge against Gillespie. No sooner had he won primaries in VA and TN did he decide to go out to Nevada and attack Kerry in advance of their primary. I'm not sure what you mean about the flip-flop. Maybe you could clarify. As far as the party chairmen go, I have no problem with what Gillespie does. He's a political operative. He's supposed to be on the attack. That goes for both sides. What I question is McAuliffe's approach and scorched earth style with the AWOL attacks and stuff like that. I have no problems with other DNC chairs (Rendell, Fowler, etc.) I obviously didn't agree with them, but I respected the way they went about their job.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 18, 2004 13:40:52 GMT -5
By flip-flop, I intended to point out that Republicans complained at charges against Bush's service and that you now have complained about Kerry not making an issue out of Bush's service. Seems pretty petty to me.
With respect to McAuliffe, I don't like him too much either, but the scorched earth approach, I would suggest, is nothing new. After all, a former President (D-AR) did get accused of being a draft dodger, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, I think McAuliffe represents probably a bitter wing of the Dem party which resents what happened to a President of the United States (as a result of his own actions and the persistent "holier than thou" nonsense of the right wing).
Incidentally, would you consider President Bush a draft dodger considering his stated unwillingness to go to Vietnam on his military records and his joining of the National Guard?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Feb 18, 2004 14:33:49 GMT -5
By flip-flop, I intended to point out that Republicans complained at charges against Bush's service and that you now have complained about Kerry not making an issue out of Bush's service. Seems pretty petty to me. I'm not complaining about Kerry not making an issue out of it. I'm saying that it's pretty convenient for Kerry to act like he's above the fray while he's letter McAuliffe, et al do his dirty work for him. Do you think he's not smiling inside about the attacks on Bush? And to say that he's not weighing in on the issue because he's not an expert on the records is disingenuous. With respect to McAuliffe, I don't like him too much either, but the scorched earth approach, I would suggest, is nothing new. After all, a former President (D-AR) did get accused of being a draft dodger, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, I think McAuliffe represents probably a bitter wing of the Dem party which resents what happened to a President of the United States (as a result of his own actions and the persistent "holier than thou" nonsense of the right wing).Umm, I think that being on foreign soil and denouncing the United States might support the charge of draft dodger. Incidentally, would you consider President Bush a draft dodger considering his stated unwillingness to go to Vietnam on his military records and his joining of the National Guard?I've heard this thing about not wanting to go to Vietnam on some form, but I haven't seen any support for this statement. Does it reflect poorly on Bush that he went into the Guard instead of the Army or whatever? Yeah. I also agree that it's not good to have your Father the congressman pulling strings for you (though I'm not sure exactly what Bush Sr. did, if anything). However, the option to join the National Guard instead of taking your chances with the draft was a legitimate option back then. And it's not like he was sitting behind a desk pushing papers. He was a pilot and that part of the Guard actually had a very high rate of being sent to Vietnam. And on the scale of things, joining the Guard versus ranks higher on my list than running away to Europe and attacking the US. All that being said, this was not a high point on the President's resume. But that's it. We went over this four years ago. Why do we need to go through it again? Aren't there enough policy issues to attack the President on?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 18, 2004 15:17:58 GMT -5
Kerry has asked the Dems to stop attacking the President on the basis of his National Guard records. He said as much in the Wisconsin Debate.
With respect to draft dodger/Bush, by joining the National Guard, he was able to avoid the draft while asking not to serve in combat duty in Vietnam. Historically, the National Guard was one avenue by which people could avoid the draft process without using other tactics, such as fleeing to Canada. Bush took a high road, but it was still a road by which he could dodge the draft. So, the adjective still applies and is factual, although we can distinguish him from other draft dodgers by their tactics.
Like you said, I want this issue to be put to bed, and I look forward to policy debates if both parties allow them to happen.
|
|