Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
this is such a non-issue. Clinton lied and draft dodged and it didn't hurt him

Wrong. People like you continue to call him a "draft-dodger" (though he didn't do anything illegal as that label connotes; he just remained a student. Maybe if his daddy could have gotten him into the National Guard like Bush's did, he would've behaved differently.)

To some small fraction of people, this rap may well have affected their view of Clinton, as opposed to merely confirming their views.

And, similarly, I expect that this will affect Bush with some small portion of the electorate, and that Kerry will be able to make the "chicken-hawk" label stick. You remember the way Dan Quayle cringed when Al Gore mentioned his (certainly non-heroic) service in Vietnam?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
If you engage in behavior that the other "side" sees as racist, but only when you do it to certain races, I think it becomes a valid and effective way to make someone confront a central issue that maybe has been slipped aside in public debate.

That may be so, but again, it is not consistent with your suggestion that they believe that we would all be better off without such racist conduct, "in both the long run and the short run."

Unless "short run" means "after we finish this particular program"

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You do know, don't you, that there have been persistent rumors about a Bush senior affair before and while in the White House, and that the name of the women is well-known inside the beltway? It has received a few mentions in the press over the years but is generally ignored. I have no idea if it is true, but it is a persistent rumor. And it is one the press has ignored because they both never had evidence and it never seemed relevant.

Au contraire.

"FLASHBACK: MEDIA GRILLED BUSH OVER 'ADULTERY' CLAIMS

As main press players blast the DRUDGE REPORT and foreign outlets for revealing details of a behind-the-scenes campaign drama surrounding candidate Kerry and the nature of his relationship with a mystery woman -- just 12 years ago the same players peppered former President George Bush with questions surrounding an infidelity rumor!

In 1992 top reporters swiftly reacted to a footnote in a book quoting a long dead ambassador.

CNN rushed to get the rumor into the media stream as White House correspondent Mary Tillotson confronted President Bush as he hosted Israel Prime Minister Rabin in the Oval Office.

"There is an extensive series of reports in today's New York Post alleging that a former U.S. ambassador, a man now deceased, had told several persons that he arranged for a sexual tryst involving you and one of your female staffers in Geneva in 1984."

Asked NBC's Stone Phillips to the president's face at the height of the "rumor mongering":

"Have you ever had an affair?"

CBS' Harry Smith then confronted Bush spokesperson Mary Matalin over on-air morning coffee:

"Let me ask you about something else. There's a book out, or a book that's just about out that in a footnote names that then-Vice President Bush had an affair with an assistant when he was on a mission in Geneva. Well, that footnote has turned into frontpage news (holding up N.Y.POST), at least in New York, in the N.Y. POST. Albeit a tabloid, it is usually a conservative newspaper. Are you ready to say that accusation is a flat out lie?"

NEWSWEEK's Jonathan Alter defended the aggressive adultery rumor line-of-questioning of the first President Bush on ABC's NIGHTLINE on August 12, 1992, on a broadcast titled: "The Media Charges George Bush With Adultery."

"In this situation, the Oval Office isn't a temple," Alter explained. "The President is a candidate and he has to be asked tough, often distasteful, but nonetheless important kinds of questions."

UPI's Helen Thomas also defended the Bush affair reportage:

"Some people might have felt that it wasn't appropriate. But when you have the President there, I think it's very legitimate to ask him any question."

CUT TO 2004:

NEWSWEEK'S Alter blasted any and all coverage of the Kerry infidelity probe last week on a New York City talkradio outlet -- calling the investigation "sleazy."

The media outrage over an erupting story of possible infidelity of a presidential candidate -- 2004 -- peaked with Joe Conason's cover story in SALON late last week ["There he goes again! Matt Drudge and the GOP smear machine are back in the Democrats' pants"]

Conason lamented:

"But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations isn't what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation."

But is this really the same Joe Conason who in the Summer of 1992 wrote a magazine cover story entitled "1,000 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR GEORGE BUSH?"

Consaon's reason #1:

"He cheats on his wife."

The rumor of President Bush having an affair was never proved by the media.

The developing Kerry drama may or may not join it on the shelf.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
bilmore knew that. bilmore knows ALL.

Board motto?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
this is such a non-issue. Clinton lied and draft dodged and it didn't hurt him- you all burned the issue, combined with what Kerry said about the soldiers in Vietnam you guys are better off running
very fast from any discussion of military service.
Would John-John rather that W had gone to Vietnam and assisted when the US soldiers "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads.....cut off limbs,...randomely shoot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminescent of Genghis Khan..."

Sorry, but the righteousness of W's Dad on the issue makes it one. Clearly, it was an issue with Clinton, and it was made an issue and repeated quite regularly on the campaign trail. From the fight over that issue, you guys get some nice quotes from John Kerry you can use now. The fact that it didn't hurt Clinton enough so that he lost doesn't mean it wasn't an issue and that it didn't get Bush some support back then.

Now, we will see how the swing voters who heard Bush's Dad and his minions rip into Clinton over the issue feel when the shoe is on the other foot. I suspect that it will cost Bush something, and we will see if it is enough to cost him the election. But I'm really looking forward to hearing Dad on the campaign trail defending his son on this issue. Can you say Hypocrit?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That may be so, but again, it is not consistent with your suggestion that they believe that we would all be better off without such racist conduct, "in both the long run and the short run."

Unless "short run" means "after we finish this particular program"

If they see no way to even get the issue acknowledged, much less discussed, then, without this demonstration, the goal will NEVER be realized. If you do believe that AA is not racist, why does this action provoke your contempt?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Au contraire.

[Self-serving Drudge Stuff]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge[/i]

Two problems:

(1) Not that affair. The other one. (FYI, I've been told of a third, by a friend of someone who allegedly participated -- yawn!)

(2) That's a pretty seriously overblown report. That little media story barely lasted a cycle, was mostly limited, like the Kerry story, to modest TV coverage and a bit of tabloid coverage. It was also based on a reputable source that attached their name to the accusation.

Tthe fact that Stone Phillips asked the question doesn't mean the story was run (very carefully worded, wasn't that report); note that Imus asked the question, too, as have a number of other reporters. So that one Bush story got about as much play as the Kerry story.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Not if their main point is that they can never seem to get an acknowledgement that race-driven behavior is racist in and of itself. By doing this, they (I'm assuming - I've never sold a cookie myself - well, not counting GS cookies) are forcing the issue. "So, what's wrong with this sale?" Answer - "it's racist." "Ah, but . . . " If you engage in behavior that the other "side" sees as racist, but only when you do it to certain races, I think it becomes a valid and effective way to make someone confront a central issue that maybe has been slipped aside in public debate.

In your rush to disagree with me before, you missed my point.

I'm fine with their making the statement and challenging the administration on race bias with this scholarship. It even makes me chuckle a bit -- OK, I get their point.

However, this is just a wonderful way to lose an election. It ranks right up their with raising gay marriage as an issue during a presidential race. There are some things that would be best done after the election is over.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So that one Bush story got about as much play as the Kerry story.

Cnn? NBC? ABC? CBS? Newsweek?

Versus the self-proclaimed partisan commentators today? With the mainstream press walking around it warily, waiting for it to die or grow? Naw, not even close to "as much play."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
If they see no way to even get the issue acknowledged, much less discussed, then, without this demonstration, the goal will NEVER be realized. If you do believe that AA is not racist, why does this action provoke your contempt?

Hmmm.... I'm trying to remember where I expressed "contempt" for this action.

Nope. Didn't happen. I understand the purpose of the protest, I just don't think "tit-for-tat" is a particularly effective way to express principled opposition to any form of conduct, and I don't think they quite have the sincere belief that you suggested. That's all.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
In your rush to disagree with me before, you missed my point.

I'm fine with their making the statement and challenging the administration on race bias with this scholarship. It even makes me chuckle a bit -- OK, I get their point.

However, this is just a wonderful way to lose an election. It ranks right up their with raising gay marriage as an issue during a presidential race. There are some things that would be best done after the election is over.

No, I actually did get your point - but I don't see AA as an issue they can lose with. I think they can get into a "let's treat everyone as equals, and stop making race an issue" argument, and make some mileage off of it.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't see AA as an issue they can lose with.

I don't think SHP was suggesting that it was, but rather that they could lose with a tactic that might get reported as "Repubs support white-only scholarships." The response -- "we did this to show that AA is bad" -- may or may not be a successful counter.

This assumes anyone pays attention to what happens on campus, which is a faulty assumption. But I suspect that the Repub National Committee will not sponsor a whites-only scholarship as a way of hurting the Dems on AA.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Hmmm.... I'm trying to remember where I expressed "contempt" for this action.

Nope. Didn't happen. I understand the purpose of the protest, I just don't think "tit-for-tat" is a particularly effective way to express principled opposition to any form of conduct, and I don't think they quite have the sincere belief that you suggested. That's all.

Sorry. I always forget that "idiotic" is an expression of loving criticism.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Sorry. I always forget that "idiotic" is an expression of loving criticism.

Why? Sometimes I love you.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, I actually did get your point - but I don't see AA as an issue they can lose with. I think they can get into a "let's treat everyone as equals, and stop making race an issue" argument, and make some mileage off of it.

Good for you! Stick to that one! Especially in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, please.