2004 US Presidential Election
February 12, 2004
Kerry | Kerry Fights Off Media Probe of Recent Alleged Infidelity
This is a duplicate of a post on the nikita demosthenes website.
This is a breaking news item from the Drudge Report:
- - - - - - -
A frantic behind-the-scenes drama is unfolding around Sen. John Kerry and his quest to lockup the Democratic nomination for president, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
Intrigue surrounds a woman who recently fled the country, reportedly at the prodding of Kerry, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
- - - - - - -
In an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, General Wesley Clark plainly stated: “Kerry will implode over an intern issue.” [Three reporters in attendance confirm Clark made the startling comments.]
The Kerry commotion is why Howard Dean has turned increasingly aggressive against Kerry in recent days, and is the key reason why Dean reversed his decision not to drop out of the race after Wisconsin, top campaign sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
- - - - - - -
Posted by nikita demosthenes at February 12, 2004 12:07 PM | TrackBack
DAMN...gotta learn to type faster.
Nikita, you beat me to it…! :)
Gee, I wonder if they divorce if HE gets 1/2…of the 600-700 MILLION!!! Yeah, the poor-common man Kerry…fighting for the underpriviliged, and AGAINST all those tax cuts for those RICH BAST@RDS!
Posted by: American_Defender at February 12, 2004 12:15 PM
I got you both beat! see the last thread.
Posted by: mark buehner at February 12, 2004 12:17 PM
Just did…you win!:)
Posted by: American_Defender at February 12, 2004 12:18 PM
Why can’t the Democrats find an electable candidate? With all of their whining, accusations, and complaints, they had me thinking they had a better solution ready…
Posted by: Alex Dale at February 12, 2004 12:26 PM
Wasn’t there talk earlier thet he signed a pre-nup?
Posted by: david at February 12, 2004 12:35 PM
Alex im pretty much hip deep in liberals every hour of my life (dont ask), and for the most part it seems they are only listening to the speaking styles and speeches without doing any extensive digging into the candidates stances and history. The accusations come as a complete shock to the majority of them and few even know where the candidates stood on the war on terror.
The speed at which all other candidates fell out of the race really turned my stomach, even if they come back into the race (dean) they still now have the stigma of being quitters. Im very dissapointed in clark especially but it seems hes shown his true colors, hes a patriot, hes a soldier, but he sure as hell isnt a politician.
If edwards drops out soon and Kerry keeps getting hit by these accusations then bush may just have this wrapped up in a couple months, and well just be having a show election.
Posted by: Ronin at February 12, 2004 12:38 PM
take a tranquilizer folks
the fun is just starting. there will be breaking stories all season long. example, did you see how quickly the questions stopped on the draft dodger “breaking story”? Lessee…started in 2000…that’s old news…this morning’s news-NG generals (retired of course) questioning the Chickenhawk in Chief.
Whaddya want—Mr. Privilege or Mr. Testosterone? Give me a real man any day!!!
Morally Correct Patriots for Bush - greed is better than lust
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 12:41 PM
next official DNC report that will come out: “McAuliffe says ‘Kerry matter’ is between Senator and his wife…”
Gilespie for GOP: “This serious report goes to Senator Kerry’s integrity, trustworthiness and honesty…”
…. wait for it ….
Posted by: nikita demosthenes at February 12, 2004 12:41 PM
Somehow this will be Bush’s fault.
or Ken Starr’s.
Posted by: jones at February 12, 2004 12:45 PM
Hey jones! Monica started it! :o)
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 12, 2004 12:47 PM
Nikita (isn’t that a Commie name?) Demosthenes (still looking?)
I have never seen a more cynical post in my life. What side are you on?
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 12:49 PM
holy cow, carl! i guess it IS Ken Starr’s fault!
Posted by: nikita demosthenes at February 12, 2004 12:54 PM
this is going mainstream … it’s on Instapundit too:
Posted by: nikita demosthenes at February 12, 2004 12:59 PM
Nikita (you commie bastard…!):)
I sent you an email (hotmail acct.)
Posted by: American_Defender at February 12, 2004 01:08 PM
So do you guys think Howard Dean is praying right now, thanking G-d for this second chance?
Posted by: FH at February 12, 2004 01:09 PM
instapundit is mainstream?
Posted by: Tim at February 12, 2004 01:13 PM
Damn Tim beat me to it.
Posted by: Ronin at February 12, 2004 01:26 PM
John Kerry is AWOL on the “Kerry Affair.”
He is too cowardly to speak out. His gravy-train wife might cut him off from the trust fund.
Kerry will confer with his spin team and figure out the appropriate spin - to be delivered under somber, knotted brows.
Theresa Heinz will launch an expensive lawsuit against Matt Drudge - seeking to quell Matt’s free speech rights.
P.S. How many factories does the Heinz company have overseas? 57!!
Heinz: screw you, American workers!
Posted by: nikita demosthenes at February 12, 2004 01:29 PM
“I have never seen a more cynical post in my life. What side are you on?”
Yeah ND, you are History’s greatest villian. Right in front of GW Bush.
Posted by: jones at February 12, 2004 01:38 PM
The real problem with Kerry, of course (beyond an alleged affair) is his lack of new substantive ideas for the country.
That’s why Kerry’s surrogates must throw mud at Bush on 30-year old Guard duty - which everyone agrees was fully completed.
Kerry’s only new substantive ideas are real losers: (1) raise taxes, (2) socialize health care - Hillary’s Marxism on the Potomac revisited, and (3) make the war on terror a “law enforcement matter” - hello 9-11 all over again.
No wonder Kerry wants to focus on Bush’s 30-year old, Honorable Discharge, Guard service: Kerry’s own ideas are going nowhere fast.
Yes - please - let’s talk about the issues. What are Kerry’s new substantive ideas for the country? The above three? You’re looking at a Bush-Kerry landslide reminiscent of Bush-Dukakis.
Posted by: nikita demosthenes at February 12, 2004 01:47 PM
The Conservative Web blogs need to sing song, “Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton trashing John Kerry’s Campaign!”
The Liberals are out there head over heels in love with Hillary Clinton. Clinton stole the testosterone out of the manhood of male liberals across America.
And the truth is that only weeks ago Bill Clinton held a secret meeting among democrats. It is asbolutely CLEAR that that meeting was prepping Hillary Clinton for presidency.
This is all Hillary Clinton’s fault and we need to convince these liberals of this. The more they understand what is ‘actually’ going on (or why it is) the greater chance we have in defeeating Hillary Clinton 2008.
PEACE! err I mean WAR!
Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 12, 2004 02:03 PM
okay ND. it’s now clear about where you stand. Thanks for clearing that up.
Ken Starr has nothing whatsoever to do with this. He’s running a questionable shop near Times Square.
I knew that Karl had a few tricks up his sleeve. suspected the martial law trick. i know, i know, let’s get people to think he’s just like that bad man, Mr. Clinton. We haven’t seen the end of this. Karl has discovered bugs in the OO washroom. Label says Made in Boston. you know what that means.
No question—everyone agrees that GWB was honorably discharged. Could he have gotten that from the same place he got the fake driver’s license. Two National Guard Generals are suspicious of the story.
Absolutely correct on the lack of JK substance. I much prefer GWB/Cheney—“Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” wait, wait, there’ll be jobs…trust me. i no dis trigernomics thang. Call me in 2007, I’ll be on my Caribbean island. Make that my dad’s Caribbean island.
Lesbians for Bush—emough said.
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 02:07 PM
ND, re the Heinz overseas factories comments. have you seen this:
Mankiw, head of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, discussed the advantages that offshore outsourcing of jobs can provide to U.S. companies in the “Economic Report of the President” released this week.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday that Mankiw’s job was not in jeopardy, calling the suggestion that the remarks might get Mankiw fired “laughable.”
Mankiw was also being called to task for a section of the economic report which stated China had not played a role in the huge loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs even though America’s trade deficit with that country has soared in recent years, running at an annual rate of $124 billion through November of last year.
read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-White-House-Jobs.html
Your prediction of a landslide may prove true; just be prepared for an alternate victor.
Posted by: Todd at February 12, 2004 02:10 PM
Karl: Dude, you didn’t do so well.
GWB: I tried. Didn’t I get those parts down you coached me on?
Karl: Yeah, but the make-up…and we gotta get you a chair next time where your feet reach the floor.
GWB: Whadda we do?! Whadda we do?! They might find out. We need to flush this stuff. You didn’t tell me that it was going to be like this. Karl, do something! I’m gonna get in trouble.
Karl: well, I could call Novak or … let’s get the attention on—Kerry is just like Bill and Gennifer.
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 02:20 PM
from the Kerry blog:
“Looks like this [the “Kerry Affair” story] had nothing to do with the GOP.
Lehane has been Drudge’s inside source during the entire campaign season and this looks like Lehane’s parting shot. I am guessing he got paid a pretty penny for the story from Drudge, or maybe he just gave it to him because he was mad at Kerry.
So if all you Kerryites are looking for someone to blame, blame General Clark for giving the backstabbing mudslinging Lehane a job.”
Posted by: nikita demosthenes at February 12, 2004 02:38 PM
Wesley Clark is about to endorse Kerry. That was reported by Foxnews, not the Drodge Report. I expect that it is accurate.
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 02:43 PM
So what does that say about this story?
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 02:45 PM
2:47pm. Soap opera time.
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 02:47 PM
Nikita. //The real problem with Kerry, of course (beyond an alleged affair) is his lack of new substantive ideas for the country. That’s why Kerry’s surrogates must throw mud at Bush on 30-year old Guard duty - which everyone agrees was fully completed.//
What did the Bush administration do to McCain during last the 2000 campaign? What were the resons for that?
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 02:53 PM
“suspected the martial law trick”
rofl. BDS, bad case.
Posted by: mark buehner at February 12, 2004 02:53 PM
Anthony! Would that be ‘As the World Turns…errr (SPINS)’, ‘General Hospital (BloodLineLetting)’, or ‘Young and the Restless’? :o)
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 12, 2004 02:59 PM
“What did the Bush administration do to McCain during last the 2000 campaign? What were the resons for that?”
As I recall and I have some links I can bring out… A lot of the smearing on John McCain (On the environment, on conservative issues, on abortion) have all been conducted by independant rich business owners. Two of which funded the T.V. ad showing a smoke stack with John McCain’s face superimposed on it.
But then again I do not know what your problem is. What is it ‘Anthony’ that you are upset over in the 2000 campaign? Every Primary Season and Every Election in America’s history has had some mud slinging going on.
People have been complaining about mud slinging ever since after George Washington’s presidency. People accused Thomas Jefferson of infidelity with a black slave of his during his presidency!!!
I mean??? All of this has been there and done that and then some. The ‘Tyler’ campaign began during the first year of the rival president. And mud slinging was made 4 years straight!
If you are upset about President George W. Bush mud slinging. that is absolutely unfair. It is double standard. Either we Republicans are allowed to mud sling just as much as the Democrats are allowed to do.. Or no one is allowed to! You can’t tell the Republicans to shut the @#$% up ya know?
Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 12, 2004 02:59 PM
Jeff: Did I hit a raw nerve? Please, read my post a few more times. Then you can apologize for your outburst.
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 03:02 PM
Thanks Mark. Thought you might like that martial law bit. Hang on to those guns. Just cuz it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t, Rummy said so.
Allow me, Anthony if I may be permitted to jump into this private conversation…Bush and his minions slung mud. (Slight correction - He was not President Select yet; so not the Admin) GWB and crew got their fannies handed to them in NH by StraightTalkAmerica and Reform. One week later, Bush was at BobJonesU. with military people dishing (lies later retracted) on McC and one of the now famous background signs - Reformer with Results. People related to GWB campaign saying McC had black children out of wedlock. Sex-it gets everyone hot and bothered.
The reasons then as now. Win at all costs. Likely one of the reasons the Ds are so testy and mean. Station KARL-bringing you the nastiest in U.S. politics…not copyrighted.
Good people for Bush - he’s just like you.
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 03:14 PM
\ so not the Admin \
I knew that. So, what’s the difference?
\McC had black children out of wedlock.\
Gee, carl I so wanted Nikita, to answer that question? Oh well.
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 03:17 PM
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 03:28 PM
Not a problem. I was just kidding.
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 03:30 PM
I am requesting a link or point of referrence for proof of these allegations.
I do not remember anyone ever saying that John McCain had black people out of wedlock ever. Not GWB camp and not rich business owners and no one.
Where’s the proof and evidence? Where do I need to go?
Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 12, 2004 03:30 PM
I am requesting a link or point of referrence for proof of these allegations.
I do not remember anyone ever saying that John McCain had black people out of wedlock ever. Not GWB camp and not rich business owners and no one.
Where’s the proof and evidence? Where do I need to go?
Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 12, 2004 03:30 PM
Jeff: Where were you in 2000? Where have you been lately? Where’s my apology?
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 03:31 PM
I payed close attention to the entire primary season. I live in Michigan and not New Hampshire. Was this a strictly New Hamshire or post New Hamshire (localized) comment?
where is a link? proof? where do I need to go to verify all of what Carl and yourself believe happened? Perhaps you are 100% correct. But until we see what you saw…. a news article? Periodical? T.V. Speech? Transcript?
where’s the proof? Can’t spin anything until you see what should be spun.
Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 12, 2004 03:34 PM
Carl and Anthony,
What is really bothering you guys? I can’t follow your posts, they don’t really seem to “say” anything. Just a lot of Bush-directed anger that really doesn’t have a place on this thread, since Bush is not involved…
The best defense is not a poor offense.
Posted by: Alex Dale at February 12, 2004 03:38 PM
It’s much calmer than four years ago, when voters in South Carolina received mysterious calls prior to the GOP primary asking what they thought of front-runner John McCain’s “black child.” Presumably that tactic won’t be revived any time soon, what with the ghost of Strom Thurmond shuffling and mumbling off stage.
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 03:40 PM
Publicly, McCain says that what infuriated him — and made his team go negative — was an accusation that he had abandoned fellow veterans after returning from five years of torture as a POW in Vietnam. Privately, though, McCain went ballistic because of a whispering campaign that spread like wildfire in South Carolina: did voters know, Bush’s surrogates asked them in mass phone-ins, that 63-year-old McCain is the father of a black child?
That, in possibly the most racist state in the country, was enough to secure a mass victory for Bush alone. Little Bridget McCain, aged eight, remained unaware of how she had been dragged into Election 2000: she was adopted by the McCains when she was five weeks old, a baby with a cleft palate left with no family or home by floods in Bangladesh
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 03:45 PM
i can’t help you. If you want to look back on this thread, you might see that Bush and Kerry look like they might be running for the same lollipop. Notice that there are still people bringing up GWB’s embarrassment about his military record.
Nothing is bothering me. I am sitting here doing nothing, except looking at my trust fund account and praising the Lord for my tax bill.
And you know something…just like Bush says, “Don’t look into my heart,” suggest that you have no idea about my anger or where it is directed. Example, no anger in the following comment…only disappointment that seemingly intelligent people can’t see through the smoke of the Bush Admin.
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 03:48 PM
“Hang on to those guns. Just cuz it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t, Rummy said so.”
Dont worry, I will. And trust me, the day Bush runs ramshackle over the constitution would be the day his own neighbors from Texas will be the first in the march to pull him down. You can count on that.
Posted by: mark buehner at February 12, 2004 03:49 PM
Alex: You haunted by the past?
Nikita said that since “Kerry, of course (beyond an alleged affair) is his lack of new substantive ideas for the country”that Kerry surrogates must “throw mud at Bush on 30-year old Guard duty.” (quotes are Nikita’s words. Noticed here the mention of Bush on Nikita’s part.)
So I asked Nikita why she thought Bush’s attacked McCain with lies. I wasn’t trying to attack Bush; just Nikita’s silly assertion.
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 03:54 PM
Have never debated gun control. Would be happy to debate the Bill of Rights and see if all involved would be as protective of the right of peaceable assembly and freedom of religion as they are about the right to keep and bear arms.
Ran across a quote the other day that might be helpful (to the current admin and to the people on this blog who want to stifle opposing thought) “A moral policeman’s lot is not a happy one, particularly when his own morality is in question.”—John Toland (passed away a few months ago; fabulous historian; talking about the U.S. role in Asia)
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 03:54 PM
Mark: I have no problem with gun control and owning a gun.
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 03:56 PM
Carl, I am more confused now. I wanted you to actually say the things you were saying, but you seem to be content with unrelated jabs.
Anthony: Bush’s surrogates? Who actually was phoning these people in this McCain smear campaign? Was it Bush’s campaign staffers, or Southerners that felt they needed to inform voters (wrongly) of something they felt was important? You know, there are people who are on Bush’s side yet do things he doesn’t condone… that article you linked drips with anti-Bush sentiments, so I imagine it would not be out of line to suggest the author is trying to incriminate him for something he did not initiate.
Posted by: Alex Dale at February 12, 2004 04:00 PM
just re-read the thread.
To quote a very famous poster:
Better than what? Uuuh…Bush?
From the same post from Alex Dale…”Why can’t the Democrats find an electable candidate?” They did (notice the “they”; I’m a Republican…since Goldwater)…They did. Their electable candidates…Bill beat George I and Al beat George II. George’s “whining, accusations, and complaints” made it all the way to the Supremes.
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 04:02 PM
Stifle opposing thought? WHEN HAS THIS HAPPENED? I’m tired of liberals claiming they are being stifled… I have seen no evidence of this, and I hear them complaining, accusing, and whining all the time. Look to other countries such as Russia, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia if you want real examples of stifled speech.
This board doesn’t ban people, to my knowledge, and you are free to say whatever you want. When did you think otherwise?
Posted by: Alex Dale at February 12, 2004 04:04 PM
Alex: We may never know who did it. The link I offered was to Jeff, who had no idea about this incident. I wasn’t looking for the perfect link. Just a few to get him started on his search over the ‘algorenet.’ You suggestion is plausible, but since the terms this administration is skilled at deception, I would not put it past his campaign.
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 04:05 PM
Correction: You suggestion is plausible, but since this administration is skilled at deception, I would not put it past his campaign.
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 04:06 PM
Carl, I would love nothing better than to see a good alternative to Bush come election year. Our political system was designed to foster change every four years, if that is what the people want. The Dems are being very loud, but are not offering what I consider electable candidates, this year. I was not referring to the history of time, I was talking about our current situation, I thought that was very clear.
I dislike Bush in some ways, but dislike the Democratic candidates even more. I wish the Democratic voters could get behind one candidate that promises to improve our country’s situation instead of pitting them against each other between Bush-bashing statements.
Your quote: “To quote a very famous poster:
Better than what? Uuuh…Bush?”
Yes, than Bush. Again, I thought that was clear. I don’t believe that we would be better off with Kerry or Dean in office. That is my belief, but we have different priorities, so you certainly are allowed to disagree. Just don’t go too far, I read someone say “The only way I will not vote against Bush is if the Democrats run a serial rapist against him.” That is ridiculous, since I can find non-serial-rapists that would be horrible presidents.
Posted by: Alex Dale at February 12, 2004 04:16 PM
This board, not this thread. You bet. some of your thin-skinned colleagues don’t want to think, despite your stand on that.
The only whining I’ve heard about being stifled is from
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 04:16 PM
Anthony: “You suggestion is plausible, but since this administration is skilled at deception, I would not put it past his campaign.”
Find me an administration that is not skilled at deception, and that administration is simply better at it than you thought.
Guilty until proven innocent, eh? I love how people can take unsubstantiated allegations, even if they are simply inferred by a biased source, and turn them into fact. That’s how you turn rumors into truth in the world of the Left.
Posted by: Alex Dale at February 12, 2004 04:21 PM
// Guilty until proven innocent, eh? //
Not so. Although your doing a good job of that yourself. You need to reread the thread. You’re accusing me of things I didn’t say.
// That’s how you turn rumors into truth in the world of the Left //
You think someone on the left phoned the South Carolina residents in-mass to tell them that McCain had a child out of wed-lock.
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 04:26 PM
You think someone on the left phoned the South Carolina residents in-mass to tell them that McCain had a black child out of wed-lock?
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 04:27 PM
so if kerry would have been a drug abuser, a la rush limbaugh, this would have been no issue?
Posted by: x at February 12, 2004 04:35 PM
Alex: You’re right about one thing. I did say “What did the Bush administration do to McCain during last the 2000 campaign?” I retract that statement. I should have said “What did the Bush administration and/or their surrogates do to McCain during last the 2000 campaign?”
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 04:36 PM
Are Rush, Sean Ann and BO‘R giving lessons in how to argue with someone from the LEFT?
Man alive. I will give Bush one thing. He got a bad guy. He may have broken international law to do it, but he did it. More accurately, his military did. Even more accurately, Clinton’s military did (ref. Colin Powell).
Other than that, this bunch sucks. They have NO vision for the future except to cheerlead us about how great everything is gonna be…all we have to do is wait.
Reading this morning in Inc Magazine (sorry, no link to Inc…capitalist magazine) SBA Slams the Door on Borrowers Contrast that with GWB’s latest State of the Union “With unemployment rising, our nation needs more small businesses to open”. The most effective program in the country for supporting small business has been shut down. From the article…”Speaking to a group of entrepreneurs two days after the shutdown, the President himself said, ‘Make no mistake about it, the role of government is to create the architecture in which people are willing to take risk.’ “
As Bush flung mud at Al…This guy will say anything to get elected.
And y’all are complaining about no vision from the Ds. Wow!
This is one heck of a vision. Pretty dim.
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 04:45 PM
by the way…
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 04:48 PM
Anthony I despise the thought of someone dragging a child into this political arena. Has anyone, anywhere fessed up to this crap? Meaning, that sounds like a ripe melon. Why would an organized effort be made to focus attention on a verifiable falsehood? For what gain? At what cost? This was four years ago now, but this just seems like more negative crap to pin on the President, when in fact this could have been a Liberal effort to make him look bad, even four years ago. I’m ashamed that you would drag this up without some kind of proof that the Bush campaign was behind this, or you end up looking like just another whiner.
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 12, 2004 04:53 PM
Carl You cook a real mean pot of stew there, sir. Add some Herb (ala Kucinich) and throw in a Civil Union or two (ala Kerry), a little righteous Anger (ala Dean) and you’ve got yourself a fine mess of… nothin. Did I forget Abortion Rights? Anything else that I left out? You got a fine bunch of candidates, there Carl. Geeesh. I bow to your wisdom. I ain’t eatin’ at your table, Carl.
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 12, 2004 05:03 PM
DOC: I didn’t bring it up per se for the content, as much as for effect. The point I was trying to make to Nikita was that mud gets slung by both sides in any campaigm; it has nothing to do with the substance or the lack of.
But since you brought it up, that smear campaign lead to a loss of McCain’s momentum. That was the end for him. I hear you outrage over the incident. Were was Bush’s?
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 05:05 PM
Back to the issue at hand, the Dean dream lives on!
Posted by: mark buehner at February 12, 2004 05:05 PM
DOC: What is it that you so often say about silence?
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 05:06 PM
BTW, Carl. Not that your rants ain’t readable, but they are just rants. Say something positive about someone who would make a good alternative, and I’ll read that as well with just as much attention. Frankly, I think you’re goin’ to be hard-pressed to find anything positive about any of the current crop, but I’ve been wrong before…
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 12, 2004 05:08 PM
DOC: // when in fact this could have been a Liberal effort to make him look bad, even four years ago //
You say you know alot about politics. Does this make any political sense to you?
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 05:12 PM
coming from a Cap’n I appreciate the honor in being called “sir”
there’s nothing to throw in the stew from the current Prez. so i can only assume that you are voting local and state races?
The vegan is gone. ditto dean. it’s the Johns (whoops another opening for Karl’s sexual pranks). civil unions and abortion rights are off the table this year. The Boss Man is a uniter, not a divider.
Either of the Johns has done more and will do more for the people of this country than this fiasco we’ve got. That’s why empty R raving is so refreshing. don’t have anything to brag about, might as well stew.
Bush moves on to his Next Big Adventure. Supported by his dad and his dad’s friends.
Phi Beta Kappas for Bush - his dad was one of us; and acorns don’t fall far from the oak.
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 05:20 PM
History has proved that presidents who cheat on their wives generally do an excellent job as leaders.
Eisonhower, F. Roosevelt, LBJ and Kennedy are excellent examples of this sort of thing.
Posted by: ericl at February 12, 2004 05:52 PM
you are a real man.
you left out Clinton, was that on purpose?
Testosterone Addicts for Bush - they clang when he struts
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 05:59 PM
i don’t think that anything positive about the D candidates would mean diddly here. And i have asked several times what y’all are so proud about with Bush, so i guess we’re all just doing the circle thingy.
But here goes:
i’d take either of them and their backgrounds over the current WH occupant. please let me know if you want me to synopsize GWB’s illustrious career.
Now whaddya so proud of with George? Or should we wait until all those jobs come back down the Laugher Curve?
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 06:14 PM
Carl When it all shakes out, I will weigh each condidate against MY standards. I will vote as I have voted in the past - based on what they each have to say about their programs and plans. There are several issues which to me are non-negotiable. I expect that any person who aspires to an elected office express their values in their their words. This is ME and Mine that I am concerned with, not You and Yours. The closer they come to expressing my perspective, the more likely I am to vote for them. I dislike having to choose between the lesser of two ‘evils’, but if I must, I then look to their past. Could I vote for a Kerry? Not now. Probably not in November, either. He has NO Moral Compass, Carl. He is carrying 30+ years of baggage which I am not at all pleased with. He has time and again failed to even follow his own compass. He has been dishonest with an issue that is near and dear to me. I have names on The Wall which cry out to me, and Senator Kerry turned his back on them because it was politically expedient that he do that. To me, that is just plain Wrong.
I referred only to the StewPot that others have said is a DemoDerby. I have no clue where you stand in the political arena, but I am an Independent. If you point out a Legitimate reason for voting FOR one of these Democratic Candidates, I will read it. You seem to be only more than willing to bash the President, but give no positive reasons for voting for any of those that are currently in the Stew.
I’ll just give you back the Ladle. Put something in MY bowl.
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 12, 2004 06:30 PM
Carl We may have cross-posted, but you said - ‘Notice he never dished on the people fighting; only the crooks. Therein is MY problem with him, sir, because he DID diss on the people fighting, and he dissed on them in a very big way. I’m sorry Carl, but I’ve read his testimony, and what he ascribed to US troops in his testimony WAS a lie.
AFA working with McCain? If he’d had his way, he’d have abandoned McCain! Luckily, McCain was in a word, ‘Charitable’ in ignoring Kerry’s past sins. And I do consider them sins.
Why do you think that anything positive about any of the D’s would mean ‘diddy’? I’ve already told you I will LISTEN. I will READ. I will do my own research, and I have already done some of that. Do not mistake my perspective as being one of the Bush ‘sheep’. I am not. Because I respect duly elected Authority does not mean that I am blind or dumb or stupid. I am none of those.
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 12, 2004 06:44 PM
DOC: Off-topic. How do you feel about the memorial?
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 06:44 PM
Good message. Thanks!
I’ll let the candidates run their own soup pots. thought that you were going for GWB re-election. my error. my mind is not made up, leaning toward 1 - the OO won’t be vacant and 2 - anybody but Bush…within limits.
The other thing that drives my rants is that GWB ran on Mr. Clean and from what i see he’s anything but. He’s as dishonest with more damage than the last guy.
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 06:47 PM
Cap’n DOC, careful with the “duly elected” Authority. We don’t want to touch of that whole debate again.
Posted by: Todd at February 12, 2004 06:47 PM
Anthony The Wall? I’m assuming you are being serious here… There is not a day goes by that I do not remember those of my Brothers whose names are on The Wall, Anthony. I don’t talk about it much, and it took 15 years before I could bear to talk about it at all. I get choked up about it, Anthony. I ain’t much of a talker. I lost Classmates. Guys I spent time with in School, and playing baseball during the Summer.
How do you feel about it?
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 12, 2004 06:51 PM
Todd And why is that off-limits? If you want to discuss misguided Voting, talk to me about who exactly wanted to throw the Military votes out the window. Geeesh, Todd. Don’t even go there? Why bring it up? Ever heard of the Electoral College? We chose this system, Todd. If you don’t like it, then ‘Bring it on’!
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 12, 2004 06:54 PM
Carl Notice please, that not even on this thread have I mentioned the very subject of this post. I’m a believer in the ‘Until Death do you part’ thing, and I ain’t impressed that Mr. Kerry has been married not once, but twice. And now, this… I’m reserving judgement. He has a lot bigger problems with me than his (possible) infidelity.
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 12, 2004 06:59 PM
There is no one on that wall that I knew personally. Nonetheless, visiting the memorial — which I’ve done twice — was a very moving experience for me. I know some were offended by the design and by the origin of the designer. Were you? I found that out after I had visited the memorial. I felt a deep sense of loss, sacrifice and gratitude.
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 07:02 PM
huge respect and appreciation for your communication
I can find the references to the testimony - link that refers to the Detroit meeting which includes this line “They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.” It goes on to say some pretty nasty stuff, i agree with you. the way i read it is that this is what vets were saying. Not what Kerry is saying about them.
i wasn’t there and i wasn’t in VN (i had a high draft number in the ‘69 lottery). i have talked with people who served. They have told me similar bad stuff.
Is there another resource that says more or different than this? I believe you when you say it was a lie. What are you basing your statement on?
And notice, the testimony is saying that this country, in a sense, made them do it. that’s my point. LBJ, et al lied about VN (Tonkin). And the situation in Iraq was not as it was presented to this country. Corrupt leadership.
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 07:07 PM
I have never had the opportunity to visit. The Moving Wall has been here twice. I know it is not the same, and I may never visit. Thank you for asking, Anthony. Your words mean a lot to me, despite my past sins and poor language.
I am offended neither by the design, nor the designer. Truly a gifted person. I admire her for what she has given to me and to us all.
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 12, 2004 07:11 PM
Carl I can only say that what Mr. Kerry ascribed to US troops made Mi Lai look like a SundaySchool picnic. Yes, he claims that he has no first hand knowledge of such atrocities, but I was there.
And no one, including our Leadership would call upon US troops to needlesslessly or senselessly kill unarmed civilians. Those things did not happen on my watch.
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 12, 2004 07:21 PM
went looking for something on rich wife #1 - Julia Thorne. Not much to find. she has endorsed his candidacy and reports being happy. I’m a piker, only married 33 years; one time. Got married when i was six. don’t have bad things to say about marriages that fail. My view, “Let no man put asunder what God has put together.” So if it has been put asunder, maybe God didn’t put it together. Personal preference. Because I’m from Wyoming, my wife has to pat my hand every time we go by a herd of sheep.
ran across Boston Globe article - link seems like a balanced article. Looks like Tricky Dicky and Spiro tried to get him and failed. they also were afraid that he was going to be the next Ralph Nader. Guess he’s gonna get the Greens.
Thought about giving my spin. Read it yourself and decide.
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 07:38 PM
A lot of garbage above. It is fun to read
I DO want to mention that throughout
Job changes are continuing today. Yes, it
It is currently on the 100 year cycle and
(Read the book “Cycles” for more information).
Yeah! People will be BITCHING about change
Face it! The human animal is naturally lazy
Posted by: leaddog2 at February 12, 2004 07:55 PM
DOC I hope, if you are inclined, get a chance to visit it. I walked into the memorial not knowing what I was in for. You get almost immediately transported back in time, it like being in another place. You suddenly faced with the enormity of the sacrifice that was made.
I have alot of respect for military men. My uncle, who I close to, served in the Air Force. He spent 18 months in VN. Thank you for your service.
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 08:27 PM
Thanks for getting us back to what we’re supposed to be talking about. Always great to see your posts; guaranteed to be something other than garbage.
I’m not bitching about change. I’m bitching about corrupt mis-leaders. Regarding jobs…current budget, more lies. What are they smokin’?
Posted by: carl at February 12, 2004 09:10 PM
“Bush’s surrogates asked them in mass phone-ins, that 63-year-old McCain is the father of a black child?”
So what’s the big deal? John McCain is the father of a black child? As long as the phone calls were malicious and they sound like they weren’t. Just mere calling people and asking them a question (what do you think about….)
So what? I was at first thinking that CARL and ANTHONY were going to say that Bush used an Outrageous Lie to smear John McCain.
Not that President Bush used the truth to win votes.
Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 12, 2004 10:02 PM
Ok so apparently the theory is that no one knows whether or not Bush’s Staffers made the phone calls or independant people made them.
As I already mentioned before… There were several independant sources that funneled millions of dollars in T.V. commercials, Radio Commercials, and many other things. Some of these commercials absolutely lied and distorted John McCain.
But those T.V. ads and Radio ads.. Well they were from independant sources. Based on that I’d say that this whole phone calling thing was from indpendant sources.
The only basis YOU have Anthony and Carl is your own personal Hatred of Bush. You have to do better than that. ‘ANGER’ is not a basis to determine your own beliefs.
Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 12, 2004 10:11 PM
Jeff: // The only basis YOU have Anthony and Carl is your own personal Hatred of Bush. //
This seems a little short-sided on your part. For me this isn’t about hatred. Their is no anger involved. Let’s be real. If this happened on the other side and you accused a Democratic candidate or his surrogates of a smear campaign, I would agree that it was probable.
Secondly, Bush did not speak out against this outrageous behavior that he was the beneficiary of. What does that say about Bush?
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 10:18 PM
This board, not this thread. You bet. some of your thin-skinned colleagues don’t want to think, despite your stand on that.
The only whining I’ve heard about being stifled is from
Oh good grief. How on God’s Green Earth is it that Conservatives who fight back through legislation and through the hierarchy of the university to stop teachers and professors from discriminating against Conservatives a ‘Wussy, Whiny’ thing?
It isn’t. Do you even know what ‘Wussy and Whiny?’ actually is?
‘Wussy’ are people who won’t stick up for themselves. Sorta like the Anti War Peacenik playing dead in the middle of the streets. When stepped on, the peacenik doesn’t bother to move.
‘Whiny’ are the Anti-War peaceniks waving signs and screaming and shouting on microphones and blocking traffic. ‘Whiny’ are the HATE-BUSH Rallies.
Conservatives fighting against political discrimination is something we all can appreciate. At least SOMEONE is doing something about it.
I had a room-mate who was liberal that did not want to admit that his teacher was discriminating against conservatives. I eventually got him to tell me ‘HOW’ the teacher was discriminating against conservatives. But I never got enough information from my room-mate to fight this. Could not get a name fo the teacher or class.
If you have a SPINE then you fight. If you are a LIBERAL… Instead of fighting you ‘WHINE’ and ‘WAVE SIGNS’
Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 12, 2004 10:26 PM
I’ve never met a liberal with a spine. I never met a conservative without a spine.
I had to help liberals out.. I had to baby them.. I had to take care of liberal’s problems. I had to almost practically be their nannies at Eastern Michigan University.
Do you know how disheartening it is to see some stupid liberal knock on your door and whine and cry about how his room-mates are making too much noise? I mean futher interrogation of this whiny liberal and I discovered that this guy hadn’t really bothered to grow a spine on the situation.
Eventually… I went down to the room-mates myself and straightened things out. Good grief. I weight 108 pounds! Do I have to take care of these liberals cause Liberals can’t take care of themselves? It’s disgusting.
Another liberal was upset and whining about the loud noise outside. He kept saying that he wants to call the police. But he never bothered to call the police. NOT ONCE!
So??? After I donno.. 15 minutes of whining and seeing that he’s going to do absolutely nothing. I called the police myself. On behalf of this whiny liberal.
Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 12, 2004 10:31 PM
Carl I refuse to address the issue of infidelity. Period. The assertions that Kerry made in his testimony are of primary concern to me. He was making statements that behavior by US troops was atrocious and abhorent. Yes, I saw mistreatment of A prisoner - Yes, I spoke up and addressed an officer who ought to have known better than to let his men treat a wounded prisoner in the manner in which they were trating him. But Kerry himself witnessed no such behavior or HE would have been responsible for corrrecting it. Killing innocents routinely? Never happened.
Anyway, I did read the article, Carl, and thank you for posting the link. I thought it was evenly balanced on the whole.
BTW - What those folks knew (I’m talking the White House here) knew about Navy casualties was next to nothing. Perhaps I should reel off the names of fellow Hospital Corpsman who I PERSONALLY knew who gave their lives in Vietnam? I won’t. Indeed, as the article indicates, I believe what Kerry voiced were lies. There is a time and a place for being truthful, and that was one time that he did not have to sully the service of those who gave their all.
It is a painful admission on my part that although he had the opportunity to speak to the issue properly, he chose rather to take the easy road, and in the process he left a bitter taste in my mouth and my mind. I am not alone, and I will never forget what he said.
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 12, 2004 10:52 PM
For Kerry to run as an anti-war candidate in the early 70’s was very self serving in Massachusetts. Voting for the war in Iraq in 2002 kept his options open. Voting against funding the war kept him competitive with Dean. He’s also hopped around on capital punishment. The man has no rudder.
The big thing about the alleged affair is it will highlight his record of using wealthy women. I don’t believe he’s ever had a job.
Posted by: Frank at February 12, 2004 10:54 PM
If this happened on the other side and you accused a Democratic candidate or his surrogates of a smear campaign, I would agree that it was probable.
Secondly, Bush did not speak out against this outrageous behavior that he was the beneficiary of. What does that say about Bush?”
I have posted above my feelings about smear campaigns and mud slinging. My feelings are that basically anything goes in my book. I only get ‘upset’ when outrageous lies are made or outrageous accuastions are made.
So far you have not shown me anything that suggests Bush’s Surrogates lied. It appears that it is 100% true that John McCain did indeed have an adopted black girl.
And the phone calls were only in the form of a ‘question’ saying ” What do you think about John McCain fathering a black child?”
You paint this as a horrible and disgusting thing but you have not shown me that it is a ‘lie.’
Anything GOES except LIES!
Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 12, 2004 11:10 PM
NY Times Feb 29th, 2000
As he has for weeks, Mr. McCain today accused Mr. Robertson of slandering his national campaign co-chairman, former Senator Warren B. Rudman, in telephone calls to South Carolina voters, by calling him a ”vicious bigot” for criticisms he had made of the religious right. Mr. McCain also suggested that leaders of the religious right might have been behind other calls and e-mail messages to South Carolina voters accusing him of fathering illegitimate children and pointing out that he and his wife, Cindy, have adopted a dark-skinned daughter from Bangladesh.
Time; Canadian edition 02-28-2000
Phone calls from Bush polling operations appear to have been attacks masquerading as opinion surveys-so-called push polls. These calls distorted McCain’s record- exaggerating his role in the Keating Five savings and loan scandal, for example in an attempt to push voters away from him. Though the Bush campaign claims only 300 of the calls were made in South Carolina, Bush’s Michigan pollster, Fred Steeper, told TIME last week that his firm had placed several thousand such calls in his state. Steeper says he has stopped making the calls.
To see how Bush’s words went further to the right as he narrowcast them, consider the way he worked the issue of gay rights. In the debate last Tuesday, Bush said he had refused to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans, the c.o.p.’s largest gay organization, because “they had made a commitment to John McCain. ” When McCain said the group had not endorsed him, Bush replied, “It doesn’t matter.” To conservatives, though, it mattered a great deal. A few days later, a Baptist church in Kentucky began faxing a flyer to South Carolina radio stations, railing against “John McCain’s fag army.”
The most corrosive material of all came from groups and individuals independent of Bush’s campaign. A Bob Jones professor named Richard Hand sent out an e-mail falsely alleging that McCain had sired two children out of wedlock.
And a pro-Confederate flag group called Keep It Flying, founded just last week, sent out 250 000 pieces of misleading mail about the candidates position on the flag flying above the state capitol. Both McCain and Bush ducked the issue, but the flyer said, “Of the major candidates, only George Bush has refused to call the Confederate flag a racist symbol ,”
Inside the room, people started eating cold pizza from the night before, shaking their heads over reports that the state G.O.P. had failed-to open 21 polling places in black areas of Greenville.
Posted by: Anthony at February 12, 2004 11:38 PM
OK, back on topic.
As of this posting, I can’t find any major media that is covering this.
On Glenn “Mainstream” Reynold’s site, there are links suggesting a connection with Chris Lehane, who sounds every bit the equal of Carl Rove:
Now, Lehane was part of the Kerry campaign, then went to the Clark campaign. Recall that Clark was cited by Drudge as asserting that Kerry would fall prey to a bimbo erruption, and that major media companies were investigating.
Conjecture: someone’s getting punk’d. Who? Who’s got the most invested in this story right now?
See, Clark’s campaign has long been posited to be nothing more than a stalking horse for the Clintons. Recall that the Clintons want to retain control over the party, and don’t want Deaniacs and newcomers like Edwards to share the pie. Clark came in, helped show Dean the door, took votes away from Edwards, and then dropped out - leaving the field to the “establishment Dem” (Kerry) while sposedly still holding the intern card?! As the Johnny Cochran character in that famous “South Park” episode would say, that does not make sense.
Now Clark is reportedly going to endorse Kerry? Again, that does not make sense.
Who has the knives out for Drudge? Clinton. And, the mainstream media. Who is whoring for the Clintons? Clark. Who would know that the Kerry intern shtupn’ story really has no legs at all? Chris Lehane. Where is this story coming from? Clark and Lehane. Does it make sense for them to be delivering this story this way, right now? No. Who stands to lose the most if it doesn’t pan out?
Matt Drudge, you’ve been punk’d. The Clintons have served you some poetic payback, wiped off the fingerprints (most of them), and the mainstream media will take up the story - but it will be the story of how you fell for a bunch of crap.
(Of course, I could be wrong. In fact, I probably am. But if I got this right, I’ll be hailed as a genius. If I’m wrong, nobody will remember on Monday).
Posted by: lewy14 at February 13, 2004 12:43 AM
Theright has (as usual) already tried and convicted Kerry based on a Drudge “accustion”. No names, no evidence, no hard facts, - just slime printed on a partisan blog, and truebelievers leap to the conclusion that Kerry is guilty. Typical and revealing.
Running victory laps and claiming victories for battles never fought and wars not won is common practice for theright.
First this slime could be just another Rove fart floated into the myst to midirect attention from all the Bush badnews.
Second IF there is any truth to the matter, and IF this allegation has legs, then Kerry’s response will determine the course.
If this slime is true, and that’s a big “IF” Kerry could admit the impropriety tomorrow, apologize sincerely, suffer the consequences, and continue pressing Bush on the long and festering list of deceptions, abuses, failures and neglect.
The election is still more than 8 months away, and the infidelity issue may or may not wiegh heavily on an American public fed a steady diet of jackass, Xtreme, sensationalist, scatological, and sexually explicit media.
Kerry could survie relatively unscathed, or Edwards or another unknown democrat could emerge as the front runner in the next few weeks. The timing of the release of this slime is exceedingly curious.
If however, this slime proves to be false, and we are witness to yet another of many attempts by the rightwingideologues in the Rove propaganda and disinformation covens to demonize and slime “libruls”, and democrats, any opposition, and Kerry specifically - then the huge and festering Bush “credibility gap” will have expanded to critical mass. - and America will have even more reason to execute a regime change in 2004.
Don’t count your chickenhawks before they are hatched truebelievers.
Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 13, 2004 01:20 AM
lewy14: Exactly my thoughts on Matt getting socked.
Posted by: Anthony at February 13, 2004 01:27 AM
I don’t want a bank robber guarding the bank.
I don’t want a child molester guarding my kids.
I don’t want anyone negotiating contracts for me that dishonors contracts already made, including marraige contracts.
Posted by: jeffers at February 13, 2004 02:34 AM
I don’t want TonytheTrollery telling me how I convicted Kerry of Infidelity - unless it’s to his nation.
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 13, 2004 07:40 AM
The stuff above about NO DEMOCRAT telling
Sorry, friend, you are either smoking crack
Most recently in Iowa with the Osama Bin
“Slimy” Torricelli from New Jersey is a Kerry
I TOTALLY AGREE with the commercial as
Posted by: leaddog2 at February 13, 2004 10:10 AM
Liberals I have known
FDR...biggest commie the U.S. has ever known. Even came from that elitist liberal Northeast. Kicked ass in Europe and Asia.
Truman…finished the job. And kicked ass in Korea. Refused to knuckle under to uberego MacArthur.
Clinton…gave George a surplus, which he promptly wasted…and then some. Not known for backing down from the constant haranguing.
I don’t think that this is liberal vs conservative. Look somewhere else for your rationale.
You may also want to read the Ailes/Rove book on dirty politics. it’s called pushpolling. slimy, slimy, slimy…and your Georgie Porgie is doing it.
It is perfectly permissible to make decisions made on anger. People do it all the time. i am not doing that. And i find it remarkable that you are able to assess my mental condition. But intrusiveness is part of the conservative bag of tricks, isn’t it?
Here’s the deal…Bush campaigned on restoring honor and dignity to the WH. He’s a liar or he is the boss of liars. He says one thing and does another…just like he accused Al. (If you want me to do your research for you, just say so.) His own wife says that he’s a liar. He is dealing with this country like LBJ (“misconstruing” us into wars) and Tricky Dicky (dirty political dealing, Watergate, etc.) doesn’t that make you the tiniest bit irritated?
Posted by: carl at February 13, 2004 11:13 AM
Tony In a word? No. YOU irritate me.
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 13, 2004 01:36 PM