Does anyone else find this pathetic? Please, conservatives. Gain some credibility. Cast out Matt Drudge for what he is: A FRAUD.

Posted by: Todd at February 13, 2004 07:15 PM

Todd:

I suppose, to be fair, you’re also indicating that Alex’s father, Terry Polier, is a “fraud.”

I suppose, to be fair, you’re also indicating that journalists pursing the Bush Guard story - despite the fact that all admit that Bush fully fulfilled his duty - are “frauds” too.

You’re not so indicating?

Perhaps you’re the fraud.

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at February 13, 2004 07:20 PM

anyway, a switch to policy substance is preferable to me too.

here’s the important substance:

if Kerry had been President, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.

see, e.g.:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/2/1/22011/45251/28#28

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at February 13, 2004 07:22 PM

Yup, there it is, the hypocracy laid bare:

It is dirty politics when an acusation is raised against the president, he categorically denies it, the issue is not allowed to linger despite unanswered questions.

But when an allegation is thrown up against Kerry, he categorically denies it, that cannot be the end of it because there are unanswered questions.

That, ND, is the fraud.

Posted by: Todd at February 13, 2004 07:29 PM

…and don’t forget that Reagan had nothing to do with supporting Saddam’s brutal reign, Bush I had nothing to do with blocking a congressional action calling for sanctions in response to the infamous Kurd genocide and please don’t forget that Bush I had nothing to do with calling on the Shia to rise up and then allowed them to be slaughtered. Don’t forget that it was Rummy shaking hands with Saddam in the mid-80’s. Are we better off with Saddam in prison? Lets ask Poppy, I’m sure he feels so, he’s just hoping there isn’t an open trial.

As for the above aligations, what has been printed here are opinions of people with no known crediblity or motive. If there is something like this, or worse, in Kerry’s past the person most upset by its revelation would be Carl Rove who is probably trying to keep his powder dry until the general election. I personally hope that something does come out during the primaries that is more substantially and relavent than the petty stuff Nikita has been throwing up of late. There is something generally unsettling about Kerry, I’m not sure she has hit upon it yet. Maybe if you are born a patrician you have to have something very special to overcome this handicap that this JFK lacks.

Posted by: mac33 at February 13, 2004 07:36 PM

alan:

your revision to my kerry story is less accurate.

Drudge didn’t say “sleazeball” and “chased” - Mr. and Mrs. Polier did.

my post was 100% accurate. your revision is less so. (see, e.g., my blog post on the subject).

Drudge merely repeated what was reported independently in the UK Sun.

if Drudge merely repeats material from, say, the Washington Times, do you post it as: “Drudge says …”?

I don’t think so.

(e.g., i could - and i suppose you could - leave out the “via Drudge Report” language all together. but the usual standard i’ve seen is to put in the “via ___” part in fairness to the person who posted the material first).

in any event - you should at least change the title to say: “UK Sun says ….”. it was their reporting.

respectfully-

-nikita demosthenes

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at February 13, 2004 07:36 PM

mac33:

the US under FDR was also an ally of Stalin.

i suppose Franklin D. Roosevelt is, therefore, responsible for all of Stalin’s massacres, using your logic.

your logic is not sound.

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at February 13, 2004 07:39 PM

And to be clear. I would not go so far as to call Mr. Polier a fraud. But he does seem to offer scant support for his postition other than his own appearant bias, to wit:

“there is no evidence of an affair”

“I did kinda wonder if” my daughter might have thought? How out of touch is he?

Kerry might have wanted their daughter to join his campaign, and the parents automatically assume he was trying to bag their daughter. This is a legitimate issue?

Posted by: Todd at February 13, 2004 07:39 PM

todd:

mr. polier is the one who called kerry a “sleazeball”.

ms. polier is the one who said kerry “chased” her daughter.

24-yr-old Alex Polier is the one who fled to Africa over the incident.

your beef should be with them.

or with kerry.

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at February 13, 2004 07:43 PM

nikita: that’s a great job you’re doing as reporter, posting a message from one source without any independent confirmation.

…and don’t say the sun was the original source, because they’re quoting drudge as well.

Posted by: x at February 13, 2004 07:46 PM

alan & michele:

honestly, in fairness it should at least be posted as:

“UK Sun: Kerry “chased” 24-year-old Alex Polier for his campaign”

your approach could just as easily replace Drudge’s name with mine - we’re both just repeating the UK Sun reporting.

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at February 13, 2004 07:47 PM

No, my beef is with Matt Drudge for promoting this kind of yellow journalism, and those who support him by blindly gobbling up the rancid kibbles he spews, despite his lack of credibility.

Posted by: Todd at February 13, 2004 07:48 PM

x:

it was reported in the UK Sun with quotes from the parents. i suppose i’m supposed to hop a flight to the polier’s home.

or call them: “um, excuse me, Mr. and Mrs. Polier? hi. you don’t know me. i’d like to post something about the story on you in the UK Sun. but x might say something snarky if i don’t call you guys first, so….”

i’m not a reporter, duh

i’m a blogger

what are you again?

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at February 13, 2004 07:50 PM

i hereby declare Alan to be demonstrably and eminently fair

Alan - thank you

i’m going to have a beer. or several.

night all.

(if i were a democrat, i’d go get a beer AND an intern. sorry - just funnin’ - couldn’t help myself! ok - ‘night.)

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at February 13, 2004 07:56 PM

How is arguing on the internet like competing in the Special Olympics?

It may be fun while you’re there, but at the end of the day, you’re still retarded.

Oh, and [sarcasm]the UK Sun has never made up stories in the past.[/sarcasm]

Posted by: Jack Frost at February 13, 2004 07:58 PM

How is arguing on the internet like competing in the Special Olympics?

It may be fun while you’re there, but at the end of the day, you’re still retarded.

Oh, and btw. [sarcasm]the UK Sun has never made up stories in the past.[/sarcasm]

Posted by: Jack Frost at February 13, 2004 07:58 PM

According to Truman, we were supplying the soviets against the germans pretty much to make sure we could kill as many on both sides. It’s true that during the Iran/Iraq war we supplied both sides too, however, it’s hard to compare the result of Bush leading the Shia on and then hanging them out to dry to the events at Stalingrad. I perfer to chalk the former up to bumbling and the latter up to Hitler. Your logic is the one that is thin, you just have mine wrong. I also don’t necessarily object to realpolitik, I just think it’s a game that should be played with a little more finesse. The idea that the Bushes run the world so well is just laughable.

Posted by: mac33 at February 13, 2004 07:59 PM

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/stories/news.cfm?instanceid=5978

“Tammy alleges that she and Gov. Bush made passionate love that very day before leaving the hotel. “

Quotes from the Sun are about as reliable as quotes from the Enquirer, so now we’re saying that W had an affair as well, I guess…

Posted by: x at February 13, 2004 08:07 PM

also, show me the original place (with links) where the story broke, and where the body of the article doesn’t have the word “drudge” in it.

Posted by: x at February 13, 2004 08:09 PM

Todd…..I like Drudge ‘cause he isn’t a “pinko” ass-hat like you. :-)

Posted by: Gawdamman at February 13, 2004 08:10 PM

Todd…..I like Drudge ‘cause he isn’t a “pinko” ass-hat like you. :-)

Posted by: Gawdamman at February 13, 2004 08:11 PM

ooooops!

Posted by: Gawdamman at February 13, 2004 08:12 PM

GDM. Pinko ass-hat? Really? Thats all you got?

Sorry, I didn’t mean to take you away from your Valentines Day love fest with Mr. Drudge at the S.F. Courthouse. I am very glad to see that you two will soon be paying the marriage tax penalty like the rest of us poor saps that signed on the dotted line. Then, perhaps, you will get pissed that a good portion of your income is going into making Haliburton executives real fat cats.

Posted by: Todd at February 13, 2004 08:30 PM

Todd Rub two pennies together. That’s about what all of this is worth. Oh. Including your comment. :o)

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 13, 2004 08:52 PM

In 1989 poor crowd control at an FA Cup semi-final led to death by asphyxiation for 96 Liverpool supporters. The Sun led the next day with a front page story reporting other Liverpool fans ransacked the pockets of their dead and dying colleagues, in some cases urinating on the corpses. But I’m sure their facts are straight this time.

And Drudge is a ‘pinko’ ass-hat, but not in the sense used previously.

Posted by: dirk strom at February 13, 2004 10:15 PM

Isn’t the Sun a Murdoch rag?

Posted by: Anthony at February 13, 2004 10:47 PM

The new JFK thing? Was that started by Mark Steyn? Doesn’t he write for the Telegraph? Isn’t Perle a director of the Telegraph?

Posted by: Anthony at February 13, 2004 10:57 PM

The right-wing consevative media is churning? (that includes you!)

// Another Kerry rival, Howard Dean, has reversed his decision to quit the race because of the scandal. //

Did Dean tell them this?

// Her mother Donna claims Kerry, 60 — dubbed the new JFK — once chased Alex to be on his campaign team and was “after her”. //

Dubbed by who, and to what purpose?

// Twice-married Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, was last night believed to be relaxing with his wife Teresa, a Heinz heiress with a £350million fortune. //

What the f_, Who the F__ cares? LOL.

Posted by: Anthony at February 13, 2004 11:04 PM

evidently, you do Anthony, or you wouldn’t be posting on the topic.

Posted by: CERDIP at February 13, 2004 11:51 PM

CERDIP: Does that mean you do to?

Posted by: Anthony at February 13, 2004 11:58 PM

If it was just Republicans damning Kerry, one could dismiss it as simple politics. But Gore refused him the VP ticket in 2000 for his instability over women, and Clark said he was going to implode over an intern issue.

That and the fact that a 60 year old man is personally calling up campaign assistants, at least pretty young girls, tells me that Kerry is just another sleazeball like Clinton, and this country absolutely can NOT stand another 8 years of a President dipping his wick while Al Qaeda runs around scott free.

We also aren’t going to stand for another humiliating impeachment process.

The answer, Dems, is “No”, find someone else.

Posted by: jeffers at February 14, 2004 06:53 AM

// Clark said he was going to implode over an intern issue //

Did Clark actually say that? Where?

Posted by: Anthony at February 14, 2004 07:37 AM

Twelve reporters, off the record.

or else Drudge gets sued for everything he has and ever will have.

Speaking of which, why isn’t Kerry saying anything about suing over this “awful slander”?

Nary a peep.

Don’t see Clark denying his quote, and not a single one of the news agencies Drudge listed denies his repoerts of their investigation.

Hmmm, the only guy making any definitive statements is Kerry himself, in as clear-cut a denial as i’ve ever seen a politician make.

Starting to think “implosion” is a very kind understatement.

Posted by: jeffers at February 15, 2004 12:18 AM

jeffers, my understanding of libel law is that since Clark and Kerry are “public figures”, the bar to prove libel is set more or less impossibly high. In England it would be a different story.

Oh, and Gawdamman: your error wasn’t with your second post. It was with your first. Asshat.

Posted by: lewy14 at February 15, 2004 01:19 AM

Lewy, that may explain Kerry’s silence, but not Clark’s, and not the agencies Drudge reported to be investigating all this.

Any of those not only has all the right they need to deny but also the platform to do it from and yet….nothing but silence.

From the numbers indicated by the primaries since the disclosure, it appears the left isn’t paying any attention either.

Dangerous to let sleeping dogs lie, given the clear connection in most people’s minds between Clinton’s philandering and the uncontested rise of Al Qaeda.

Proceeding forward without answers puts 4 aces into Bush’s hand, to be played any time he chooses.

Posted by: jeffers at February 15, 2004 08:08 AM

“the clear connection in most people’s minds between Clinton’s philandering and the uncontested rise of Al Qaeda.”

Only one way to check this: DNA tests on Saddam’s clothing.

Posted by: dirk strom at February 15, 2004 11:06 AM

From today’s NY Times:

Also today, the woman at the center of allegations that she had an extramarital affair with Mr. Kerry came forward to deny the rumors, which first appeared on the Web site of the Internet gossip columnist Matt Drudge. Mr. Kerry had also denied the allegations last week.

In a statement to The Associated Press, her former employer, the woman, Alexandra Polier, called the allegations “lies.”

“Because these stories were false, I assumed the media would ignore them,” she said. “It seems that efforts to peddle these lies continue, so I feel compelled to address them. I have never had a relationship with Senator Kerry, and the rumors in the press are completely false. Whoever is spreading these rumors and allegations does not know me, but should know the pain they have caused me and my family.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/16/politics/campaign/16CND-CAMP.html

Posted by: Todd at February 16, 2004 06:03 PM

todd:

so why did polier’s father call kerry a “sleazeball”?

why did miss polier flee to africa?

why did mr. and mrs. polier say that kerry “chased” their daughter?

you seem oh-so-happy to dismiss the foregoing and develop instant amnesia to help your guy.

is there a possibility that heinz-kerry money got miss polier to sing the right tune. this would make the father’s “sleazeball” comments and miss polier’s comments you note jive completely.

but i’ll leave it to you. how do you explain mr. and mrs. polier’s commentary?

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at February 16, 2004 06:38 PM

ND,

Are you serious? I don’t know why the Polier’s said what they said. But I can come up with 1000 other explanations that are more plausible than yours, such as perhaps Mr. Polier is the gunman from the grassy knoll, and their statements are meant to distract attention from those who would out him. Maybey they are certifiably crazy. Maybey they just don’t like Kerry. Not an indefensible position. But damn, dude. Get real.

Posted by: Todd at February 16, 2004 07:44 PM

But of course Polier never said those things at all.

It was all lies made up by Mr. Murdoch’s house rag, The Sun.

” Her outraged father and mother announced their intention to vote for Kerry. The father said that the notorious “sleazeball” quote attributed to him had been fabricated.” -Salon 2/19

Don’t you look the fool?

Posted by: Jim Ausman at March 25, 2004 02:56 AM