New Heinz nugget

[thebin]

I predicted Teresa Heinz was going to be an achilles heel months ago....It continues...

(And these are political observations of her liability to the campaign, I don't necessarily think these are important events on their own- but I do think she exacerbates a substantial likability gap for the already wooden Kerry. And yes, swing voters decide on such intangibles among others...)

from Drudge....

TERESA HEINZ UNEARTHED: 'I DON'T TRUST TED KENNEDY'; DEMOCRATS 'PUTRID'

A historic bombshell interview has surfaced of Teresa Heinz Kerry ripping Ted Kennedy and the Democrat political machine!

The interview is set for splashing at the BOSTON HERALD, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the newspaper which originally ran the session with a then Republican Teresa Heinz.

The candid flashback hits as both Teresa and "Bastard" Kennedy prepare to address the Democrat convention in Boston.

ABCNEWS's GOOD MORNING AMERICA plans to highlight the Teresa Heinz interview Tuesday.

[jerseyhoya34]

A good find for the Herald, which is a paper that hasn't exactly been pro-Kerry. It comes as no surprise that they would run this at an opportune time.

When all is said and done, I think Americans will like THK, although these comments probably do not sit well with Democrats. My guess is that you probably agree with THK that Dems are putrid and that you don't trust Ted Kennedy.

Teresa speaks her mind, and, to many, that is a breath of fresh air.

After a bit of research, I found that relations between Heinz and Kennedy may not be as bad as certain newspapers portray. She has been a donor to Kennedy's Senate campaign even when Heinz was a Republican (2000). www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?xst=OH&last=Heinz&first=Teresa

She has also donated to Dick Lugar and Jim Greenwood, who are both Republicans.

[showcase]

Aren't those quotes from almost thirty years ago? If so, these seem about as relevant to today as Bush saying "Sure, I'd love one for the road!" thirty years ago.

[kchoya]

So do we just ignore everything people say in the past? Do we ignore one's voting record in the past? Or is it only certain comments/actions in the past that are relevant?

Where do we draw the line? 10 years ago? 20 years ago?

Does Bush's National Guard service now become irrelevant? What about Kerry throwing back his medals/ribbons/whatever?

[showcase]

Hey, I'm not trying to draw lines. I'm simply pointing out that (if these statements really are from 30 years ago) this hardly seems like a "breaking" story, and that Drudge may have left out a little bit of context in presenting his 'scoop.'

If one finds an interesting expression of opinion by a current public figure from thirty years ago, I see no reason to make that subject taboo based on the passage of time. On the other hand, I think such superficial contradictions are easily dispelled by virtue of the passage of time. I mean, "we" don't assume that Dubya is the same person he was when he got that DUI however-many years ago, right?

Is it worth bringing to THK's attention? Sure.

Does the timing of this seem a bit curious? Does from here.

Did Drudge spice up the report a bit by leaving relevant context out? "Developing..."

[kchoya]

showcase said:

Did Drudge spice up the report a bit by leaving relevant context out? "Developing..."

He puts that tag on a lot of his stories.

[showcase]

I know that's his 'tag de guerre' - that wasn't what I felt was "spicing up" the story. I used his developing tag line only because I hadn't seen independent confirmation that THK's statements were from thirty years ago, so my assessment of the latest Drugery could have been off the mark.

[jerseyhoya34]

I think it is important to take everything in context, which is why I'd like to see a news story that discusses these Heinz Kerry quotes in context. It could be that she said something like this: "If Ted Kennedy insists on spending our government into the ground, then (and only then) he is a bastard and I don't trust him." That's quite different from something like "Kennedy is a bastard."

It is interesting how all of this is dumped during the convention and how BC04 felt it necessary to open up shop near the Fleet Center. This is a real dogfight.

I'll be interested to see if Dems perform a similar dump in September offering up such things as quotes from Bush when he ran for Congress as more-or-less a pro-choice candidate. Then, he flip-flopped to get votes in his Gubernatorial elections. Maybe we could offer up his statements about wanting OBL dead or alive and then saying he doesn't care where he is.

[jerseyhoya34]

Joe Conasan offers up a good discussion of the Pittsburgh paper and its history of slamming Theresa Heinz Kerry for the sake of furthering its right-wing agenda.

"A few days after the Massachusetts Senator and his wife celebrated their second Christmas together, the Tribune-Review ran a column suggesting that Mr. Kerry had been enjoying a "very private" relationship with another woman. There was no byline on the story and no evidence to support the salacious insinuation. There was nothing to it, in fact, except pure malice.

When fresh accusations about her husband’s fidelity erupted earlier this year in the right-wing press, Ms. Heinz Kerry could scarcely have been surprised that the smear’s most eager purveyors included Internet sites financed by Mr. Scaife and his family foundations. Those "news sources" have also impugned Mr. Kerry’s patriotism, maligned his military service and distorted his voting record. They happen to be operated by the same discredited scribblers who once tried to convince America that Bill and Hillary Clinton were murderers and drug smugglers.

Meanwhile, Ms. Kerry herself is hardly exempt from the angry fantasies emanating from Mr. Scaife’s strange universe. Last spring, a Scaife-funded "research group" sent out a study that accused her of covertly financing violent radicals of various kinds, including Islamists, through the straitlaced Heinz foundations that she controls. There was absolutely no basis for that tale—as the right-wing sleuths could have learned by making a single phone call. The Heinz money they had "traced" through a San Francisco group had actually gone in its entirety to support anti-pollution projects in Pennsylvania.

Those are only a few brief examples among dozens. The Scaife disinformation conglomerate has churned out nastiness about Ms. Heinz Kerry by the carload for years, and finally she talked back. The guy she scorched last Sunday was meant to take that message back to his boss in Pittsburgh—a man who has deserved the brunt of such refreshing candor for a long, long time."

www.observer.com/pages/conason.asp

[kchoya]

That's what I was wondering, if this was a paper funded by that Scaife guy.

That being said, the reporter wasn't doing anything other than asking her what she meant by the use of the term "un-American" and she flat out denied even using the term when the video shows her using it.

[jerseyhoya34]

kchoya said:

That's what I was wondering, if this was a paper funded by that Scaife guy.

That being said, the reporter wasn't doing anything other than asking her what she meant by the use of the term "un-American" and she flat out denied even using the term when the video shows her using it.

Fair points, kc. She did say un-American and was incorrect in denying that she said it. At worst, it was a one day story that got some play on television. I think that Teresa handled it gracefully last night, and folks will end up giving her the benefit of the doubt much like folks gave Bush the benefit of the doubt when he called a NYT reporter an "a**hole."

These folks are humans after all, and I would guess that most on this board would have a similar reaction to a newspaper reporter if his newspaper "reported" some of the things that this Pittsburgh rag did.