You mean this moderator?
.
By The Associated Press
Details of Monday's debate among Republican presidential candidates:
Who: Gary Bauer, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, Steve Forbes, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Alan Keyes and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Where: Civic Center of Greater Des Moines, Des Moines, Iowa.
When: 8 p.m.-9:30 p.m. EST.
Television: Locally by WHO-TV, and nationally by MSNBC.
Sponsors: WHO-TV and MSNBC.
Moderators: NBC's Tom Brokaw and WHO-TV anchor John Bachman.
10027. JJBiener - 12/12/1999 11:54:30 PM
Isn't it possible that Al Gore, rather than lying, simply assumed incorrectly that the characters in Love Story were based, to a greater
extent than they actually were, on himself and Tipper?
Interesting thought. That leaves us with a choice. Either Gore is a liar or an idiot. Neither one is a qualification for office.
10028. CalGal - 12/13/1999 12:00:12 AM
Jay,
I expect they'll be pleased to see movement away from regulation toward court awards based on torts incurred by the manufacturers of dangerous products that injury the liberty interests of citizens affected by those products.
You'd think so. But I've noticed that many libertarians have a strong case of the "shoulds". And I don't think they'd like the way the court cases are going.
I sure as hell don't, quite frankly. It alarms me, how cheerfully juries are willing to find ways to blame people who can pony up cash.
10029. jonesatlaw - 12/13/1999 12:09:09 AM
CalGal- rest easy, the majority of the wild verdicts you hear of are never paid. They are settled for far less, or reduced by the judge or on appeal. The insurance industry loves to parade a series of horrible cases before the public, and pretend that they have to pay those verdicts, so they can leech even more premiums out of the suckers.
Two favorite cases- One is a multi-million verdict against a Baby Bell for a guy hit by a drunk driver in a phone booth. Sounds horrible, why should a phone company be responsible for a drunk driver? What they left out of the facts was that the booth was placed too close to the street, that it had be hit before, and that the door had jammed in the past trapping customers in it. The victim saw the drunk driver, tried to get out of the booth and was trapped by a malfunctioning door. He had to watch the bastard hit him. The jury found that both the driver and the phone company were at fault, and the driver didn't have crap for assets or insurance. Get your hankies out for the phone company.
Another was a 12 milllion dollar verdict for a psychic who lost her abilities after a CAT scan. The company never paid a dime. The judge threw out the verdict, after realizing he'd found 12 suckers who call into the late night informercials for a jury. Boo Hoo...
10030. CalGal - 12/13/1999 12:14:37 AM
I was thinking more of the gun manufacturing cases and the tobacco company suits. If I understood Jay, he was asking if libertarians were happy with the recent trend of governments to take companies to court, rather than to change the laws. Juries being so much more manipulable than legislators. Who'da thunk it?
10031. jonesatlaw - 12/13/1999 12:25:28 AM
CalGal- I don't think that on average, juries are more easy to manipulate than juries, I think that the means of manipulation are different. Since local governments rarely have the ready capital for lobbying at the same rate as industry groups, and they usually have a law department already up and running, they can get more bang for their buck in a court. Bottom line, its cheaper to manipulate a jury than a legislature. Finally, if there is any justice to the claim, the cost is usually even less for the city and more for the company.
10032. CalGal - 12/13/1999 12:36:19 AM
Bottom line, its cheaper to manipulate a jury than a legislature.
That pretty much seems to contradict the rest of your post.
Cost is a component of ease.
The point is that governments are doing their damnedest to get money out of corporations to pay for expenses that they don't think they should have to cover. They are doing this because, as you say, it's cheaper to get a jury system to agree with them and bilk corporations, rather than try to get the laws changed so that they wouldn't have the expenses in the first place.
It's a fairly loathsome practice, IMO. But then, I'm a process freak. Right now, it's only being exploited by the left side of the spectrum. It will be interesting to see what happens when conservatives start to use it. I hope it's fairly soon, since that might mark the end of the trend.
10033. robertjayb - 12/13/1999 12:41:51 AM
.
ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE
The Curse of Bigness
10034. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 1:22:44 AM
What they left out of the facts was that the booth was placed too close to the street,
Irrelevant and silly. Typical bullshit. "Now your Field manual states you should place a phone booth twelve feet from this sort of thoroughfare, and yet you only placed it TEN feet away..."
that it had be hit before, and that the door had jammed in the past trapping customers in it.
This is the nonsense pretext upon which the verdict hangs. Trial lawyers know juries just want to give big payouts from big companies; they just have to conceive of a far-fetched, implausible, but legally ACCEPTABLE pretext upon which the jury can hang their billion-dollar verdict.
The jury doesn't believe the bullshit about the door being stuck; they don't believe the victim actually "watched the car coming"; they don't believe the victim could have gotten out of the path of a quickly moving car but for a "stuck door." They PRETEND to believe it to do what they're emotionally predisposed to doing: Handing out a big judgement.
And lawyers know all they have to do is come up with such an implausible, but legally permissible, theory of liability on the part of a big corporation in order to give their clients a yank on the arm of the Bullshit Million Dollar Verdict Slot Machine.
10035. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 1:35:38 AM
And that I know from experience. I worked for a law firm where we defended McDonalds from a lawsuit brought on behalf of three career criminals and drug dealers who had been shot in the parking lot in a drive-by shooting.
The pretext the three shot punks used to sue McDonald's? That the lights in the parking lot weren't quite bright enough, thus inviting such motorized assassination attempts; and that McDonald's really ought to have had patroling guards in the parking lot as well and a security checkpoint/turnstile.
Let me add, somewhat irrelevantly, that the three punks claimed to have permanent injuries which prevented them from working, but we had private detectives who videotaped them dancing vigorously just after the accident, celebrating.
10036. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 1:37:43 AM
Oh-- and of course the punks didn't just sue the individual McDonald's franchise, which was independently owned. No, they saw fit to sue the McDonald's Corporation itself, claiming that they really ought require security checkpoints and guards for all of its franchisees.
And ultrabright halogen spotlamps in its parking lot, of course.
10037. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 1:39:00 AM
It is on such phantasmal pretexts that charlatans invent a bullshit duty of care on the part of a deep-pocketed (but absurdly remote) defendant.
10038. EricCartman - 12/13/1999 1:46:11 AM
Well? Don't keep us in suspense, Ace -- what was the outcome? Did the punks win? Or did the judge tell 'em to piss up a rope? Or was it a deposition, where it's just a bunch of lawyers?
10039. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 1:46:41 AM
I don't think Jones is lying, by the way. I think he really believes the bullshit he's spewing.
But he's in that business-- on that side of the business. He has a vested interest in seeing what he does not as venal, parasitic, and dishonest, but as noble and heroic.
And thus he DOES believe that-- because deep inside he needs to believe that.
Pimps think they provide a valuable, indispensible service to society too. Just ask them. They'll tell you all about it.
10040. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 1:49:41 AM
Cart:
I dunno. I only worked on one aspect-- I was trying to get the lawsuit tossed out as to the McDonald's Corporation. We won on that count, but the lawsuit proceeded against the franchisee.
I don't know what happened there, because I didn't work on that part, and I had other work. Then the firm merged with another and one third of us (and two thirds of my class) were booted out.
10041. Stumbo - 12/13/1999 1:58:12 AM
But why on earth would "libertarian types" have a problem with that? After all, we all know that "libertarian types" equate majority-might with right.
10042. EricCartman - 12/13/1999 1:59:18 AM
Downsizing -- the sport of the '90s.
While there's plenty of scam artists out there looking to push a deep-pocket corporation into a settlement or a bloated judgement, there's also plenty of companies that cut corners and endanger people with unsafe products and services. So while Jones may defend some weasels, we also need people like him there to at least help keep corporations somewhat in check.
That said, I also find it disgusting that individuals are being allowed to receive enourmous sums from tobacco companies or gun manufacturers. Very dangerous precedents being set there. Someone needs to set those folks straight on the concept of personal responsibility.
10043. Stumbo - 12/13/1999 2:00:23 AM
Then again, "libertarian types" do believe that pimps provide a valuable, indispensable service to society.
10044. Stumbo - 12/13/1999 2:02:41 AM
The "that" in #10041 referred, of course, to #10037 and previous.
10045. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 2:09:37 AM
Cart:
Of course there are perfectly legitimate lawsuits. But in my McDonald's case, I came across million dollar awards for a woman who had been raped while working at a Kentucky Fried Chicken and other such nonsense (the pretext for the KFC judgement? That the lights in the restaurant's rear (where she was ambushed while taking out garbage, then dragged inside to be raped) should have been brighter. Lighting seems to be the pretext of last resort in a lot of these cases).
There is a BIG difference between suing a company whose product is defective (though a lot of those are bullshit, too) and suing a company because some thug raped or shot you on their premises.
10046. EricCartman - 12/13/1999 2:15:50 AM
Ace:
I could sorta understand the KFC judgement if something similar had happened there before, and the store just refused to take some safety precautions. And let's be honest, lighting is a factor to a criminal.
But yeah, lots of juries simply like to play Santa Claus with other people's money. Plus there's this weird mentality that whenever something bad happens to someone, reparations must be made. And if the perp is broke, then whoever isn't broke will suffice.
10047. Stumbo - 12/13/1999 2:23:40 AM
Ace:
"Lighting seems to be the pretext of last resort in a lot of these cases."
I'd rather guess that it's a crucial part of the emotional appeal. "Had Evil Corporation XYZ installed 85-watt lightbulbs instead of 80-watt ones, my client wouldn't have been raped." 5 watts vs. a rape, just like $5 (or whatever) vs. a few deaths, in the GM case. The less significant the alleged failing on the part of the accused, the higher the jury impact: "... and it would've only cost them this much to avoid the problem, but they didn't do it!"
10048. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 2:24:14 AM
I could sorta understand the KFC judgement if something similar had happened there before, and the store just refused to take some safety precautions.
Nothing like that had happened before. Though I'm sure evidence was presented about burglaries which occurred ten years ago or minor vandalism which occurred three years ago.
And let's be honest, lighting is a factor to a criminal.
Don't be silly. There are shadows EVERYWHERE. And lighting cannot frighten a criminal off, anyway.
What drew the criminal to the crime scene was that it was after midnight (the woman was a manager shutting down) and that she popped out of the store's rear at that time, a desolate area.
Perhaps KFC ought to have known better than to operate until 11:30 pm. Or they should have known better not to have a rear to their restaurant-- perhaps by some feat of non-Euclidean geometretical architecture they could have designed a building that faced the front on all sides. Or perhaps they should have known better to operate an area in which the concepts of "midnight" or "sleeping hours for neighbors" exits. Or perhaps they should have known better to put trash in the REAR.
Buildings have rears. Buildings exist during the nighttime hours. Trash is usually put in the rear. Businesses sometimes operate until midnight. Criminals often strike at late hours, when people are sleeping and no one will hear.
KFC was found liable due to their blithe disregard of these facts-- as if they could have altered the universe to change them.
10049. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 2:28:20 AM
...besides, it's all an accident of happenstance. The pretext of "bad lighting" presumes it wouldn't have happened but for the alleged "bad lighting."
And yet, of course, the woman most likely would have been ambushed anyway had she been walking to her car five minutes later.
10050. ButterfieldSwire - 12/13/1999 8:44:11 AM
Clinton says `don't ask, don't tell' policy not working. "Somebody should fix that," complains Commander in Chief.
10051. Cellar Door - 12/13/1999 9:36:25 AM
Somebody should lift the ban. But it won't be Dubya or Al.
Too bad elections are banned in this country.
10052. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 10:55:49 AM
Is stealing government property still a crime?
We'll find out soon enough after Hillary Clinton moves to "her house" in Westchester, New York.
10053. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 10:59:13 AM
"Trial lawyers know juries just want to give big payouts from big companies; they just have to conceive of a far-fetched, implausible, but legally ACCEPTABLE pretext upon which the jury can hang their billion-dollar verdict."
Change the word "know" to "fear" and you've identified the basis for the modern extortion system of civil litigation.
Big companies do not always lose jury trials, but the fear of losing is always there. It's pretty much malpractice not to consider settlement, especially when there's a lot of money at risk. The Home Depot class action a couple of years ago settled on the eve of trial not because there was any merit to the case, but because the downside to losing was so big -- potentially in the billions -- that even though we felt there was an extremely high probability of a defense verdict the client decided not to roll the dice.
The "soak the rich" approach to litigation doesn't translate well in the majority of my cases, however, where both parties are big companies. You might be surprised how often corporations sue each other.
10054. Ronski - 12/13/1999 11:40:04 AM
The litigation mania, whether against big corporations or gun manufacturers or what-have-you, is a natural consequence of a society hell-bent on evading any measure of personal responsibility and at the same time desperately seeking the free lunch. Eventually, people may begin to appreciate this reality, but I will not hold my breath.
10055. Dusty - 12/13/1999 12:08:05 PM
TrialShark
You might be surprised how often corporations sue each other.
I'm not. I've got to testify in Jnauary in a corporation vs. corporation suit. I still shake my head in amazement every time the lawyer calls to tell me that it hasn't yet settled.
10056. Dusty - 12/13/1999 12:11:53 PM
Jnauary?
Must be Y2K bug
10057. Cellar Door - 12/13/1999 12:42:19 PM
As long as the corporations keep getting those free lunches, Ronski, there'll be "greedy" and "envious" people out there demanding they pick up the tab.
10058. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 12:50:03 PM
Dusty --
If you're being deposed, I'm not surprised the case hasn't settled yet. If you're testifying at trial, I'd love to know why the parties haven't settled.
10059. Dantheman - 12/13/1999 1:17:22 PM
10060. Dantheman - 12/13/1999 1:17:23 PM
10061. Dantheman - 12/13/1999 1:18:03 PM
Sorry about the double post.
10062. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 1:20:42 PM
That sounds like a place the ATF plans to attack: Bush/Ridge.
10063. Dantheman - 12/13/1999 1:27:21 PM
I actually dislike Ridge for several reasons:
1. The centerpiece of his legislation proposals was a school choice plan that was state-wide, rather than addressing the schools that needed it. As such, it was basically a give-away to the suburban voters who already send their kids to private schools. He has (so far) been unable to convince the Republican-controlled legislature to approve it.
2. In his first year as governor, he torpedoed a plan to sell the (closed) Philadelphia Naval Shipyard to a Norwegian company, because he rejected the $50 million in state aid the company wanted as too much. Three years later (just in time for reelction), he approved $100 million in state aid to sell it to a German company, who promised to create fewer jobs.
3. His fund-raising practices, which are every bit as sleazy as anyone in Washington.
10064. Ronski - 12/13/1999 1:34:45 PM
Ridge hates queers almost as much as Bush does, so that would be a good fit, but I still think it will be Bush-Engler, to avoid the abortion problem.
Incidentally, PA has a large number of politicians who are liberal on economic issues, conservative on social ones, like Rep. Klink who's being enticed to run against Santorum: all the wrong positions on both sides of the economic/social divide.
10065. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 1:39:40 PM
I wondered where Rosetta got the idea that someone running for the Senate would boldly steal from the White House; just checked out Drudge and it's the lead exercise in tackiness there.
10066. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 2:16:52 PM
Clean up your act here, gang.
Detective Mu!e, the snitch of TableTalk, is cut/pasting and preposting some of your material from mote to try to convince TTers that you are jerks.
Of course, some of you liberals do fit the profile.
10067. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 2:18:13 PM
reposting, strike the p
10068. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 2:24:19 PM
Who is Det. Mu!e and how can he PREpost things from here? Is he Claire Voyant?
10069. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 2:40:34 PM
Go to TT, Politics, "Why the Left is So Filled with Hate", #206.
Detective Mu!e, who has our password, is slandering Spud, Ace, (I think) TS, and other valued motiers.
It makes you want to SCREAM!!!
10070. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 2:53:50 PM
Rosie --
Thanks for the heads-up. I checked out the message you cited, but none of my posts are excerpted there.
Still, it's nice that you're looking out for me.
10071. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 3:03:06 PM
Are you sure, TS? It sure looks like your stuff (g).
10072. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 3:06:52 PM
I don't care whose stuff it is; it's not a very good advertisement for this site. Just goes to show, you can never tell where your words will end up or how stupid some things look out of context. Or even IN it.
10073. PelleNilsson - 12/13/1999 3:10:35 PM
I have a reasonable memory. Surely some of these "quotes" are made up?
10074. Cellar Door - 12/13/1999 3:15:24 PM
I've read what Muel has posted. Pretty funny.
Lighten up guys.
10075. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 3:16:34 PM
Pelle:
So, do you think he made them up? Is he so peeved at Rosie that he would do that to discredit a place Rosie was promoting? (Pro-mote-ing!)
I've been away for the weekend and didn't read back over the posts from then...I must admit, though, I've read stuff like that here but it was mostly insult back-and-forths, not your usual discussion in Politics.
10076. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 3:28:24 PM
Much of the copy comes from the night that Spudsboy freaked out (third or fourth time actually).
Detective Mu!e is a problem and is now insulting YOU in another thread in TT's politics--"Why the RIGHT is filled with hate."
If this rumble turns into the Sparks vs the Jets in WEST SIDE STORY, I get to play Marie.
10077. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 3:29:27 PM
Maria, isn't it.
10078. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 3:30:33 PM
Sharks, in honor of TS
10079. Indiana Jones - 12/13/1999 3:39:15 PM
Bring on those goose-stepping pate-mincing commies from Salon! We'll kick their asses so bad they'll be pissing pink!
10080. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 3:40:51 PM
I'll wrap bandages and serve croissant & espresso in the canteen!
10081. Indiana Jones - 12/13/1999 3:43:29 PM
Hold on a minute...
Umph...ugh...dig...dig
Alright! Who took my frackin sackin field marshall's yoon-ee-form?
10082. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 4:00:36 PM
Rosetta:
You claim to bring more posters here than anyone but it would seem those guys on TT are a tad hateful to you for "advertising" the mote over there...why not drop it? I don't think they would be such a great addition, anyhow. They sound like pre-teens agruing over the rights to Pokémon cards.
10083. vonKreedon - 12/13/1999 4:17:35 PM
Is it worth our while for me to post, over to TT, a couple of the well written and civil interchanges from this thread? It's not that I want/expect to change the minds of Meul or DH100, but I like getting some cross-pollination between the forums. I'm thinking of copying TS,Ronski, & Cellar, posts 10053-54 & 57, and Dan & Ronski, posts 10063 & 64.
10084. CalGal - 12/13/1999 4:19:30 PM
vK,
I just posted something to the effect that the post was Simon on a rant. I would rather we not post exchanges over there, but that's entirely up to you--I wouldn't stop you.
10085. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 4:20:23 PM
Von:
No, it's not worth your time. No one has so much as commented on Muel's post.
10086. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 4:21:17 PM
I just posted something to the effect that the post was Simon on a rant
Incorrect. SOme of it is a Simon rant; some of it is a Spudboy rant; and of course my "threat" was made only in response to a similar one by Spudboy.
10087. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 4:23:14 PM
Yes, they have...in "Hate Filled RIGHT"; in fact, he posted it both places and is trashing us and Rosetta quite a bit.
It will probably keep those out who are determined to be negative about us anyhow so maybe, to quote Martha Stewart, "it's a good thing".
10088. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 4:25:09 PM
Judith:
How about I meet you in a new thread, "Both My Boots in Your Ass"?
I'll check out the "Hate filled Right" thread. Might as well. Seems tailor made for me.
10089. Dusty - 12/13/1999 4:26:44 PM
TrialShark
If you're being deposed, I'm not surprised the case hasn't settled yet. If you're testifying at trial, I'd love to know why the parties haven't settled.
I was deposed a few months ago, which is several years after the incident. (I not suggesting this is surprising, although it does take a bit of a toll on reconstructing what happened.)
In my immodest way (I trust you can believe that), I thought that once my deposition was read, the suit would go away. But it hasn't yet. They are asking me to testify at trial.
Which reminds me, I should talk to JJ, as the trial will be in St. Louis.
Although I still think that someone will wake up one day.
10090. CalGal - 12/13/1999 4:26:56 PM
Ace,
I wasn't blaming you--if you read what I wrote, I just said that it was excerpted from a rant and that, quite frankly, we liked it that way. No big.
10091. CalGal - 12/13/1999 4:28:00 PM
Judith,
Oh, I just checked out the Hate Filled Left. Thanks for the info.
10092. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 4:28:17 PM
Cal:
I know.
It really was a bad exchange, however. I feel bad about it.
10093. CalGal - 12/13/1999 4:31:23 PM
Actually, I remember you asking Arky to delete it. It was fairly ugly, but it happens. God knows that no one at TableTalk has any right to get righteous about it.
10094. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 4:33:35 PM
Over on Hate Filled Right, some one said they could select quotes from Salon and post them that would sound just as bad...so maybe this Mule or Muel character isn't as powerful as he thinks. But it still stinks that he would do that.
10095. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 4:39:02 PM
They sound like pre-teens agruing over the rights to Pokémon cards.
This is an insult. . . . to the preteen Pokemon traders. Those kids are much more reasonable and polite.
10096. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 4:40:39 PM
Dusty - Which reminds me, I should talk to JJ, as the trial will be in St. Louis.
You have my email address. Let me know when you will be in town and how much free time you will have.
10097. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 4:41:19 PM
so maybe this Mule or Muel character isn't as powerful as he thinks
Powerful? I don't understand the use of this adjective.
He's just someone who kisses the Moderator's ass constantly. I suppose she's inclined favorably towards him for his constant bun-bussing, but he has no power.
10098. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 4:43:12 PM
I meant, in his own mind he thinks he's powerful enough to dissuade others from trying the Mote merely because HE says so...
10099. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 4:44:23 PM
JJ:
You're right...I meant no disrespect to the Pokémon crowd.
10100. Indiana Jones - 12/13/1999 4:47:12 PM
"He's just someone who kisses the Moderator's ass constantly."
You mean this moderator?
10101. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 4:49:31 PM
I will let TeenSpirit know you meant no ill will. He is a serious Pokemonist, and doesn't take such comments lightly.
(g)
10102. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 4:52:10 PM
Indy:
I dunno. Is that her picture?
10103. Indiana Jones - 12/13/1999 4:55:27 PM
It's supposed to be. She thinks she looks like Molly Ringwald.
10104. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 4:56:10 PM
Is that the infamous Lady MacBeth of TableTalk? Where did you find that picutre?
10105. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 4:57:38 PM
ID: Tell you you're not Bart. Please?!
10106. Indiana Jones - 12/13/1999 4:59:33 PM
RS, I am not Bart. Her picture is available under her personal profile. It's been linked on my home page as a fond remembrance ever since I was shown the door.
10107. Goddard - 12/13/1999 5:12:26 PM
>Bring on those goose-stepping pate-mincing commies from Salon! We'll kick their asses so bad they'll be pissing pink!
OK lets go girls.
10108. Dusty - 12/13/1999 5:14:31 PM
Goddard
Are you newly from Salon?
If so welcome!!!
10109. Dantheman - 12/13/1999 5:16:07 PM
Welcome goddard. Hope your presence here takes flight, and provides us all a lift (off).
Well, someone had to say it
10110. EricCartman - 12/13/1999 5:17:37 PM
Hey, is that Doug McKenzie? How's it goin' eh?
10111. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 5:20:31 PM
Dan - No one needed to say it
10112. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 5:23:42 PM
IndianaJ:
Watch out, Mr. Muel is aware that you have posted a photo and it is an infringement of copyright law! He is not amused. Of course, he should have denied it was who it is but I think he's funny that way...acts first and thinks later, maybe.
I think he'd like it here if he'd give it a chance.....yeah, right. Sorry you can't see me chuckle.
10113. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 5:24:31 PM
Anybody remember the title of Goddard's autobiography?
I Aimed for the Stars...
(...but sometimes I missed and hit London)
10114. Goddard - 12/13/1999 5:28:49 PM
Sorry folks have to run be back to embarrass you with logic later.
10115. Indiana Jones - 12/13/1999 5:30:04 PM
Well might that mewling jackass holler, Judith, but all I have posted here is an HTML reference. The photo remains as snug as it ever was on its original server. My link is but a conduit from the original server to the end user's browser. If pathfinder doesn't want the Muel's browser loading the picture off their server, they should move it. If Muel is afraid he's violating copyright by loading the image off pathfinder, he should turn off images in his browser.
10116. Indiana Jones - 12/13/1999 5:32:11 PM
> OK lets go girls.
Damn, I missed Shania Twain.
10117. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 5:36:11 PM
Goddard - be back to embarrass you with logic later
There is no one here who would be embarrassed by logic. Confused, confounded, mystified, etc? Sure. Embarrassed? Never.
10118. Dantheman - 12/13/1999 5:47:29 PM
Ace #10113,
That was Werner von Braun, not Goddard.
10119. Ronski - 12/13/1999 5:49:18 PM
London was just practice.
10120. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 5:49:31 PM
Dusty --
If discovery is closed (and this close to trial, I'm assuming it is), both parties have a pretty good idea of what evidence is available and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each side. Unless the court has some dispositive motions pending (or evidentiary motions so significant that they will change the likely outcome of the case), what you're about to be a witness to is most likely one of two things:
a) a high-stakes game of chicken; or
b) a case where waaaaay too much ego is on the line.
There is always the possibility that both parties are committed to defending a principle that just can't be measured in dollars, but there are darned few of those.
You're probably right and the case will probably settle before you testify. If not, though, have fun in St. Louis.
10121. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 5:53:21 PM
Susan Estrich.
Susan Estrich.
What are we to make of this foul Hellbeast, this annoying partisan hack?
What are we to make of her when she actually reports the truth about the thugs in the White House?
From USA Today:
White House Pops Susan Estrich for USA Today Op-Ed on Drudge
By Susan Estrich
Matt Drudge keeps claiming that he's being sued by the White House and much to my dismay, I've got proof that he's right. It might even take care of his lawsuit for awhile.
Drudge is the Internet boy-wonder who is being sued for libel by White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal based on an item, retracted a day later, reporting on GOP-spread rumors that Blumenthal was a wife beater. Blumenthal hired a lawyer and brought suit, supposedly as a private citizen. But Drudge has argued that it is the White House that is against him; "It's the White House against Matt Drudge," he announced at a forum at USC Annenberg last month, his first public appearance since the suit was filed.
I wrote a column after that appearance, initially published last Wednesday in USA Today, focused on the first amendment concerns raised by a top White House official pursuing a private libel suit while dealing with the press, and issues of concern to the media, on behalf of the President. On Monday morning, I was informed that the Deputy Press Secretary to the President had telephoned the Editorial Page Editor of USA Today to complain about my column. Not Blumenthal's private lawyer, mind you, but the President's Deputy Press Secretary.
10122. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 5:53:52 PM
What troubled me initially in researching Matt Drudge was how the mainstream media portrayed him as if he bore no relation to them, when the reporting of rumors as news has passed as conventional journalism for at least a decade. What made this particularly ironic was that Drudge was "drudged" by his critics; with the exception of a piece by Todd Purdhum in the New York Times, virtually every other report would lead you to believe that Drudge had reported that Blumenthal beat his wife. What Drudge actually reported was that Republicans were spreading that rumor to retaliate for similar accusations against a top GOP consultant; Drudge also included in his initial report a total White House denial of the rumor, a point the responsible media almost uniformly neglected to mention in its coverage of Drudge.
That doesn't mean that spousal abuse rumors should be lightly repeated; I don't think they should be, but no one attacked columnist Lars Erik Nelson when he reported on a rumor operation run out of Newt Gingrich's office aimed at tagging incoming Speaker Tom Foley as a homosexual. Quite the contrary, most news organizations used Nelson's column as a basis to report the rumor themselves, in many cases ignoring entirely Nelson's original focus on its source. Why wasn't anyone making that comparison?
Some of Drudge's fellow conservatives would claim that it's because the press is liberal, but I don't buy that. They may vote liberal, but they also relish eating them for lunch. It's much more about power, and those who wield it, and in Washington, power is measured very simply by proximity to the President.
10123. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 5:55:47 PM
When I saw Sid Blumenthal last month in Washington, he was eager to learn of my relationship to America On-Line...
If Mr. Blumenthal's lawyer had called, I might have pointed out, as I did to Sidney himself, ...that if the subject is conflicts of interest, it is the White House which will be making decisions worth billions to America On-Line. But this wasn't a private lawyer calling. It was the Deputy Press Secretary to the President.
What does the White House care about my relationship to America On-Line?
If this is a private lawsuit pursued in a private capacity, why is the White House calling to complain, much less taking a position about anyone's contractual relationship (or lack thereof) with America On-Line?
10124. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 5:58:14 PM
"... no one attacked columnist Lars Erik Nelson when he reported on a rumor operation run out of Newt Gingrich's office aimed at tagging incoming Speaker Tom Foley as a homosexual."
Good ol' Newt.
10125. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 6:00:48 PM
Laugh.
I never defended Drudge against the libel charges, because I didn't know the facts. But hacks like Jade assured me Drudge had reported Sid Blumenthal beat his wife.
He reported no such thing. He reported Republicans were spreading that RUMOR as a payback for Democrats spreading rumors about a Republican. And he printed the WH's absolute denial. (Funny, but these people never seem to deny things themselves; it's always a WH spokesman doing the denying.)
10126. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 6:06:15 PM
Good ol' Newt.
I'm ever so glad Trialshark is above taking unsubstantiated rumors to be actual facts.
At least when it serves his ludicrously partisan interests, of course.
Lars Erik Nelson. Gold standard, there.
10127. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 6:23:35 PM
Ace --
"I'm ever so glad Trialshark is above taking unsubstantiated rumors to be actual facts."
Funny ... I thought you said "a rumor operation run out of Newt Gingrich's office," not a "rumored operation."
In any event, I never took the unsubstantiated rumors about Speaker Foley's sexual orientation to be actual facts. Neither did you, I hope.
10128. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 6:42:00 PM
Trial:
Larsy's "reportage" of a rumor operation was ITSELF a rumor.
Unless you believe that Newt's office contacted one of the most notoriously leftist columnists in America to peddle the charge.
Nope. Just like Elizabeth Drew's unsubstantiated RUMORS about a whispering campaign of RUMORS about McCain's rumored temper.
10129. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 6:52:12 PM
Ace --
So you're saying there was no truth to Nelson's reporting?
10130. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 6:53:27 PM
So you're saying there was no truth to Nelson's reporting?
Yes. Or rather, I'm saying he reported a rumor, the truth of which has not, and probably cannot, ever be established.
10131. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 6:56:17 PM
Ace - You know TS's MO. Every rumor about a Republican is proven fact. Hard evidence about a Democrat is a vicious lie.
10132. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 6:59:57 PM
JJ:
Duh. Super-duh.
It's SOP. They all do it. I don't understand what's wrong with their brains, actually, to claim Rule X for person Y and Rule Not-X for person Z.
Mature intellects abandon these sort of childish inconsistencies by age thirteen or so.
10133. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:02:35 PM
JJ --
"You know TS's MO. Every rumor about a Republican is proven fact."
Nonsense. I've written several posts disputing rumors that Senator McCain is unstable.
10134. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:02:46 PM
And JJ:
I know you don't read Table Talk, but you really ought to see the nonsense Ohio is spouting over in the White House thread "Al Gore: The Second Round."
It's so blatantly dishonest and dopey. I don't think he'd ever try that crap here.
10135. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:04:58 PM
"It's SOP. They all do it ... Mature intellects abandon these sort of childish inconsistencies by age thirteen or so."
And sweeping generalizations, as well. Or so rumor has it.
10136. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:16:06 PM
Sweeping generalization? Hardly. You all DO do it.
You want a list of who "you all" are?
Every one of "you all" shrieks "You can't believe the word of a Republican making unsubstantiated accusations against a Democrat" but then just-plum forget about this rule's converse when it a Democrat makes an unsubstantiated charge against a Republican.
Witness DramaQueen shrieking that we MUST believe Democrat Ben Barnes' charge against Gov. Bush, no matter how absurd the circumstances he describes, because-- get this-- Barnes made his charge in a deposition!!!!
Ha, ha. I'd have loved to have known that "It's true if it's said in a deposition" rule when we were discussing Monica. Or Bill Clinton's alleged coke use. Or Chinagate. Or etc.
10137. CalGal - 12/13/1999 7:20:53 PM
Sweeping generalization? Hardly. You all DO do it.
Oh, come now. You are parodying a generalizationalist. Fess up.
10138. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:21:56 PM
Ace --
"You all DO do it."
Thanks for illustrating my point, sport.
BTW, I noticed that you sidestepped the fact that JJ's charge -- which you supported with your original sweeping generalization -- is false. Wise move.
10139. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:22:43 PM
There is a specific list of the "you all," Cal. It's not a generalization. It's a shorthand for the same Dirty Dozen we all know and love.
You know who they are. So does TrialShark (he's one of them).
10140. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:24:37 PM
Note to VonKreedon:
NO, you're not one of "you all"!
10141. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:30:08 PM
About TrialShark:
While TrialShark is an offender, he's actually one of the best of that dreadful lot. He is generally cautious never to make affirmative statments, and spends most of his time anklebiting other people's statements. His technique is occasionally effective, as we've seen recently.
Plus, he generally confines himself to the one-sentence ankle-bite: "Good ole Newt," etc. It's hard to get called on having your facts wrong when you never really say much of anything.
10142. CalGal - 12/13/1999 7:30:19 PM
Ace,
I know, but I really refuse to allow you to do that unchallenged. As you've said before--Mote liberals are "good" liberals.
10143. CalGal - 12/13/1999 7:31:23 PM
My God, TS, I think you've almost received a compliment.
10144. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:34:10 PM
Ace --
"It's hard to get called on having your facts wrong when you never really say much of anything."
I'm much more impressed by your approach -- backing JJ's claim and then retreating silently when I pointed out his error.
10145. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:34:44 PM
Cal --
Wonders must be ceasing.
10146. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:35:25 PM
BTW, bonus points for identifying the movie I stole the line "wonders must be ceasing" from.
10147. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:40:59 PM
Cal:
Several of the Mote's liberals are hardly better than TT's MikeB 98.
While MOST of our liberals are SOMEWHAT reasonable, they are frequently guilty of the same nonsense.
You want an example?
Let's take Rask. A good guy, generally reasonable. But when we were discussing Al Gore's war record-- and the statement from eight men from Al Gore's unit who said he was NEVER "in the middle of a battle" or in "actual combat"-- Rask tried to parse "battle" and "combat," claiming that, while perhaps Gore was never in "battle" or "combat," perhaps he was invovled in mere FIREFIGHTS, as he stated to Vanity Fair. He claimed a difference between "combat," "battle," and "being shot at," a difference neither the dictionary nor common sense supports.
(For good measure, he then accused ME of parsing the statements in question.)
Now, Rask is certainly reasonable. I like him a lot and respect him. But I respectfully submit that his argument was a Pythonesque riff, wholly ludicrous. He never, NEVER, would accept this kind of absurd parsing were I to offer it to defend a Republican. And he'd be right to dismiss it as nonsense, were I to offer it up. He'd laugh at me. And I'd be a bit ashamed.
No offense, Rask. I like you. Now go get your fucking shinebox.
Now Rask is one of the BEST liberals. But even he is prey to this sort of nonsense when he forgets himself.
And what is an aberration for Rask is de rigeur for the Dirty Dozen. No, MOST of them don't spin the goofy Skull and Bones/New World Order conspiracy theories we see at TT; but I humbly suggest that Ohio, for example, is quite their equal in terms of dishonesty and inconsistent standards.
10148. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:42:56 PM
I'm much more impressed by your approach -- backing JJ's claim and then retreating silently when I pointed out his error.
Huh? I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Please explain to me what you mean, and if you're right, I will award you a Cookie.
10149. dusty - 12/13/1999 7:44:25 PM
AceofSpades
Perhaps, but Ohio supports Uconn, and that earns a few free passes.
10150. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:46:55 PM
If you mean this...
I've written several posts disputing rumors that Senator McCain is unstable.
...pray don't be absurd. Senator McCain is treated as an honorary Democrat by liberals. He gets the same benefit of your inconsistent standards.
The Republican/Democrat distinction is just shorthand for the longer locution: "Political allies/political foes." David Schippers, lead investigator for the Republican HJC, was a DEMOCRAT, but of course he's treated as a political foe because he threatened a much more important Democrat, Prince Billy.
John McCain, nominally a Republican, is treated as a political ally for several reasons: 1) the misperception that he is more liberal that Bush; 2) Because any damage McCain can do to Bush will ultimately harm Bush in the general election; and 3) the mistaken belief that banning soft-money will help Democrats, and that Democrats are actually in favor of such a measure.
So please.
10151. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:49:58 PM
That would be like me claiming: "Hey, I'm not biased against leftists! I support CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS!!!"
So knock it off with the silliness. We all know damn well why I support Christopher Hitchens, and it has precious little to do with his socialist political agenda.
10152. Cellar Door - 12/13/1999 7:52:25 PM
Yeah. You're just trying to get Hitchens to pass you his flask.
10153. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:54:00 PM
...I'm sure TrialShark has spoken well of Chris Shays as well-- because, of course, Chris Shays had the "courage" to vote against impeachment.
I've spoken favorably of Virgil Goode because he voted FOR impeachment. And yet I would never claim that my support of Goode disproves my militantly anti-Democratic stance.
At least not with a straight face.
But in TrialShark's world, his support of liberal-friendly John McCain disproves he applies absurdly divergent standards to Republicans and Democrats.
If you say so, dude.
10154. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:55:13 PM
Cellar:
And why shouldn't I? Are you against alcohol suddenly?
10155. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:56:13 PM
Ace --
I laughed.
It's not enough that you can't stand by your own statements: now you're deconstructing JJ's, too. "What JJ really meant was 'You know TS's MO. Every rumor about a Republican (except for those Ace has deemed to be an honorary Democrats) is proven fact.'"
Too bad he didn't actually say that. Please, keep the cookie. I'd hate to see your blood sugar level drop any lower than it already is.
"Honorary Democrat." Please.
10156. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:57:44 PM
"I'm sure TrialShark has spoken well of Chris Shays as well-- because, of course, Chris Shays had the "courage" to vote against impeachment."
Sure. Q.E.D. But wait -- Senator McCain voted to convict.
Oh, well. It was a nice theory, for the five minutes it lasted.
10157. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:59:03 PM
Three minutes and forty-four seconds, actually.
Really, Ace, you've got to come up with explanations that take longer to debunk.
10158. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:59:07 PM
Right, Trial. Let me chastise JJ and myself:
JJ (and myself):
Please stop LYING when you say TrialShark and others apply absurdly divergent standards to Republicans and Democrats.
What you (and I) really mean is that they apply absurdly divergent standards to people, whatever their nominal party affiliation, who can help the Democrats versus people, whatever their nominal party affiliation, who can HURT the Democrats.
If you (and I) don't state it just like so every time, you're lying. And so am I.
I am dreadfully, dreadfully ashamed.
10159. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 8:03:34 PM
Sure. Q.E.D. But wait -- Senator McCain voted to convict
Anklebiting. I really don't know why you even bother with this silliness.
I didn't say you supported McCain because he voted against impeachment. I stated you supported someone ELSE because he supported impeachment.
Do you know who that person is, Baby-Doll? I just mentioned him three minutes ago.
I gave THREE reasons why you supported McCain. None of them mentioned impeachment. Do you remember that list, Sugar-Ass?
What an asshole.
"I'm going to PRETEND Ace said Trialshark only supports Republicans who supported Impeachment, and then I'm going to DEMOLISH that argument I made up!"
Well, you demolished that argument, asshole. What's the next imaginary argument of mine you'll blow out of the water?
10160. spudboy - 12/13/1999 8:04:50 PM
Woddamoron. I didn't say Barnes' word was absolutely to be believed. I simply used his deposition to point out that there was at least some substance --contrary to your claims that it was "groundless" -- to the accusation that Bush had gotten help to get his position in the Air National Guard. I offered no judgment on the ultimate truthfulness of his deposition. However, the word of a retired speaker of the Texas House probably should carry more weight than that of a campaign flack.
As for rumors: You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between stories about the existence of rumors and questions about whether the rumors themselves are well-grounded. I can tell you that I never believe a rumor as truth (e.g., the recent Bush cocaine rumors), but I'm willing to look into its truthfulness. A rule of thumb that most reputable journalists use is to refuse to report on a rumor until it has been substantiated independently. However, the mere existence of the rumors often takes on a life of its own, and can become a story in itself. As in the case of the recent McCain rumors.
You, on the other hand, reflexively report any nasty rumors about Democrats as though they were factual. And then, without a hint of irony, accuse liberals of mirror behavior, covering your own hypocrisy with a trumpet of flatulent bluster. Quite a performance, really.
10161. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 8:06:29 PM
Ace --
"I am dreadfully, dreadfully ashamed."
And rightly so.
BTW, I think Senator McCain would be a much stronger candidate in November, and so as a Democrat, I have some qualms about defending him. But I also think he'd make an excellent President, and if you clowns in the GOP insist on running a candidate, I'd rather you ran one who can handle the job.
Plus the "he-was-a-POW-so-he's-unstable" crap just pissed me off.
10162. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 8:07:30 PM
Which rumors, Spudboy? Do tell.
The only rumor I can remember offering was the Clinton Love-Baby. And I specifically said: "I doubt very much this is true. It's just too perfect. But here's hoping, anyway."
I said that (or something similar) any time we discussed it. I did not urge anyone else to believe it. I expressed my deep desire that it WAS true, while simultaneously staing it was most likely false.
So... you tell me the rumors I've pedalled and insisted were true.
Go.
tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock...
10163. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 8:11:53 PM
TrialShark:
Indeed, I have similar feelings about Bradley. I'd much prefer him to Al "Rambo" Gore, but I also fear that he might be a more attractive candidate than Gore.
That hardly changes the main point. If you want me to concede you have defended two Republicans, and that you apply the same rules to them as you do to liberals, counting them as "Honarary Democrats," consider your point conceded: It is not true that you apply wildly divergent standards to ALL Republicans. You apply wildly divergent standards to 99.9% of Republicans, McCain and Shays being the exceptions.
You have proven your point. Go with God.
10164. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 8:15:54 PM
Plus the "he-was-a-POW-so-he's-unstable" crap just pissed me off
There is a healthy skepticism in the press that such a connection was ever made. Only Elizabeth Drew has reported this "whispering campaign." (Other have "reported it," but only by referring to Drew's allegations second or third or fourth hand.)
EVERY SINGLE REPORTER who's spoken about this has said "I personally have never heard such a connection made by any Republicans or any Democrats, at any time."
So it's odd that there was a "whispering campaign" that only a single reporter ever got a wiff of.
10165. spudboy - 12/13/1999 8:17:58 PM
Well, perhaps we can go back to Wen Ho Lee and the accusations that Clinton had allowed the Chinese to invade our technology as a payback for those campaign contributions. Or the Arlington Cemetery rumors. Or the Hillary's-going-to-be-indicted rumors. Or the Hillary-wants-a-divorce rumors. Or any of the Drudge sludge you've trotted out here and in the Fray.
I'm still waiting for you to start trotting out the Panama Canal stuff. I figure it's just a matter of time. You're a sucker for anything you can sling at your hated liberals.
10166. spudboy - 12/13/1999 8:19:26 PM
Incidentally, Chris Mathews was just on "Hardball" talking about the Bush-McCain rumors, indicating he'd heard them himself. As did Michael Isikoff.
10167. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 8:21:04 PM
Ace --
"If you want me to concede you have defended two Republicans, and that you apply the same rules to them as you do to liberals, counting them as "Honarary Democrats," consider your point conceded ..."
Well, that's as close to an admission of error as you're likely capable of producing, so I'll accept it.
The term "Honorary Democrat," however, remains yours. It is, I think, wholly inapposite when applied to Senator McCain. Not only do I consider him a true-blue conservative, I also regard him as the most dangerous conservative politician (for Democrats) since Ronald Reagan: McCain not only espouses conservative principles, he appears sincere in doing so. I think he can persuade a good many uncommitted to espouse them as well.
Despite the danger he poses to my party, I think McCain would be an excellent President. I voted for him when he represented my district in Congress, I voted for him for the Senate, and I expect to vote for him in California.
10168. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 8:24:53 PM
ha, hah. More bullshit from Spuddy-Boy.
Well, perhaps we can go back to Wen Ho Lee and the accusations that Clinton had allowed the Chinese to invade our technology as a payback for those campaign contributions.
Never my thesis. My theory was that Clinton had quashed the investigation to keep it from becoming public and an embarrassing juncture--during Fred Thompson's campaign finance hearings.
Further, that's a theory, not a "rumor."
Everything I said factually about Mr. Lee was true. Did you hear he was just indicted on 59 counts and held without bail? Or did that escape your attention?
Or the Arlington Cemetery rumors.
Huh? Barely remember the issue. Don't know what on earth I could have said which was a "rumor" rather than established fact.
Or the Hillary's-going-to-be-indicted rumors.
This is true, but I didn't claim this was true. I said, "Here's the rumor from Drudge." I didn't defend the rumor, as I had no way in hell of knowing if it was true or not. As a matter of fact, I think I stated it was probably wishful thinking.
If you want to count that as "rumor peddling," I plead guilty to that one. But it's plainly speculative. By its very nature it speaks to future events which may or may not come to pass.
10169. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 11:15:34 PM
Did anyone see/hear the Republican Presidential debate in Iowa tonight?
Not me, unfortunately. Homework with the kids and monitoring TT.
But something happened BIG because a female TTer has just started a thread that's burning up their political folder. Entitled "Bush Dares to Mention Jesus This Christmas Season," she says that George Bush actually used the words "Jesus Christ" on NBC--and nobody fainted.
10170. jonesatlaw - 12/13/1999 11:19:44 PM
Rosetta- Unless he said, "Jesus Christ that's a stupid question" what would you expect?
10171. jonesatlaw - 12/13/1999 11:21:54 PM
PS- Rosetta, ever watch a locker room inteview on NBC? Christ is an avid sports fan, with all those guys thanking him for their success.
10172. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 11:24:31 PM
Is that what those signs mean?
10173. jonesatlaw - 12/13/1999 11:33:48 PM
Trial- you're confusing the lord and savior signs of pointing to the heavens, kneeling and making the sign of the cross, with Vice Lords, signs, or the Precious Blood with Bloods, or healing the crippled with Crips.
10174. Al D - 12/13/1999 11:39:31 PM
Maybe it would be acceptable to the liberals if Bush walked around with a Bible as Rev. William J. Clinton is wont to do. Let's face reality, pols will utter any words that will get them votes. Bush did a pretty good job in the debate. Keys gets all the applause but not many of the votes.
By the way, this post is from the "ancient inbecile."
10175. jonesatlaw - 12/13/1999 11:40:25 PM
Nice to see you Al.
10176. CalGal - 12/13/1999 11:42:42 PM
Let me guess--you forgot your password!
While I agree that politicians will say anything to get them votes (and that's always how it has been), I don't think Bush did all that well in the debate.
10177. TheWizardofWhimsy - 12/14/1999 12:07:08 AM
Maybe not, but he was always at his best dancing on Texas bars... 
10178. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/14/1999 12:16:48 AM
AlDavis is back. Great. Just in time for Y2K. Did you ever get in touch with Jexster?
10179. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 12:34:15 AM
TS - You defended McCain against the rumors that he was unstable? BFD. The rumor was that there was a whispering campaign by the Republican leadership. By defending McCain, you are assuming the rumor was true. The fact is that Drew was the only reporter to originally report the rumor and she could only quote anonymous sources. Yet you are hook, line & sinkered and insist it's true. By doing so, you prove my point.
10180. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 12:39:28 AM
Spuds - Incidentally, Chris Mathews was just on "Hardball" talking about the Bush-McCain rumors, indicating he'd heard them himself. As did Michael Isikoff.
At this point, we have all heard them. Who did he hear them from? Is that source any more reliable than Drew's? How do we know the rumor is any more reliable than the rumor that Clinton ran drugs out of Mena when he was Governor? Why should we accept one rumor and not another?
10181. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 12:41:37 AM
JJ --
You said "You know TS's MO. Every rumor about a Republican is proven fact."
Senator McCain is a Republican. I disputed the rumors that he is unstable. Therefore, your contention that I treat "every" rumor about a Republican as a proven fact is incorrect.
10182. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 1:00:14 AM
TS - There were no rumors, or at least there is no evidence of rumors, about McCain's stability. All we have is a couple of anonymous sources claiming that the GOP leadership was spreading these rumors. By you statement you weren't defending McCain, you were attacking the GOP leadership by implicitly claiming that the rumors of the whispering campaign were true. You can't claim to have defended McCain against a rumor that didn't exist.
An example: I read a Drudge report where Gephart, Bonior and Kennedy were spreading rumors about Bradley having a mental breakdown. Drudge said he got the story from a couple of Senate staffers who overheard the conversation. I personally don't believe Bradley ever had a breakdown.
Would that really qualify as defending Bradley against a rumor? I don't think so.
10183. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:18:01 AM
JJ --
"There were no rumors, or at least there is no evidence of rumors, about McCain's stability. All we have is a couple of anonymous sources claiming that the GOP leadership was spreading these rumors."
So let me get this straight: you're saying there were no rumors about Senator McCain?
We're not talking about the source of the rumors here: representatives of the Bauer and Hatch campaigns both blamed the Bush camp, but I don't know. Unlike you, I don't think it's impossible, but I don't know.
But are you seriously saying that no one was spreading rumors about John McCain's stability?
10184. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:21:26 AM
Trialshark:
I am saying that there were no such rumors. I didn't see the Hardball you were talking about, but I've heard Matthews talk about it before, and he's made it clear he has no first or even second hand information about the rumors. He's basing it all on the Drew article.
If there were any such rumors, SOME reporter somewhere would have stated Yes, I have had this peddled to me. No one has. No one.
You can't have a whispering campaign without whispers.
10185. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:22:54 AM
Ace --
"I didn't see the Hardball you were talking about..."
???
10186. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:24:06 AM
Trial:
Either you or Spudboy. Someone said, "I was just watching Hardball and Chris Matthews was talking about the whispering campaign..."
He's been talking about the whispers for a month. But he has no information about them beyond what he read in the Elizabeth Drew piece.
10187. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:29:13 AM
The term "Honorary Democrat," however, remains yours. It is, I think, wholly inapposite when applied to Senator McCain. Not only do I consider him a true-blue conservative, I also regard him as the most dangerous conservative politician (for Democrats) since Ronald Reagan: McCain not only espouses conservative principles, he appears sincere in doing so. I think he can persuade a good many uncommitted to espouse them as well.
"Honorary Democrat" in the sense that liberals swoon over him.
Fine-- You apply the generous side of your double-standard to Democrats, liberal anti-impeachment Republicans like Chris Shays, AND John McCain, who is a true-blue conservative, but for some reason you like him.
I like the guy myself. In my heart of hearts I think I'd prefer him as a President over GWB, but I'll still support GWB as a CANDIDATE, because I still believe he has a better shot. When the polls change on this point, so will my opinion.
But I don't understand why your liberals swoon over him. I wish I knew-- I wish the Republican party knew-- but who knows. You are in love for some reason. You swoon in l'amor over any elderly fire-brand Republican with lots of conviction and a pleasant smile.
10188. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 1:29:51 AM
TS - But are you seriously saying that no one was spreading rumors about John McCain's stability?
I am saying there is no reliable evidence of rumors. Do you have a source other than the Drew article, or do you believe the Drew article is sufficient? Ace has a good point. If the GOP leadership was trying to destroy McCain's reputation, who were they whispering to, and why has no one come forward to claim they were whispered to?
The better question is why do you believe it when it is just an unsubstantiated rumor?
10189. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:30:04 AM
It's the Avuncularity, Stupid.
10190. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:31:04 AM
My last post is re: a possible explanation of the Reagan/McCain appeal.
He reminds liberals of their nice conservative law & order pro-military uncles.
10191. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 1:32:25 AM
Ace - TS will support any Republican candidate who supports knee-capping the GOP's fundraising efforts.
10192. Stumbo - 12/14/1999 1:32:44 AM
Or the Arizona-ness?
10193. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:34:11 AM
Rosetta, ever watch a locker room inteview on NBC? Christ is an avid sports fan, with all those guys thanking him for their success
SNL had a very funny sketch about this. A reporter was interviewing teams in a team Lumberjack Competition, after the competition was over.
The winners thanked Jesus for their victory.
The guys who came in second place said, "Well, our team did the best we could, but you can only go so far if one guy on your team isn't giving it his 100%. Jesus really dropped the ball on this one."
Another concurred: "I really thought we had a shot to take the Logrolling competition, but Jesus' head wasn't in the game. Jesus cost us big-time on this one."
Etc.
10194. Stumbo - 12/14/1999 1:35:08 AM
#10192 was to #10189. (More liberals swooned over Goldwater -- in his later years -- than over Reagan...)
10195. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:36:10 AM
JJ:
McCain-Feingold will not hurt Republicans all that much. Keep in mind, dude: Democrats are well behind the Republicans in hard-money donations-- around one-half the Republican total-- but are nearly equal in soft money.
Take away soft money, and Republicans are left with a big advantage in hard money. That's why Torricelli cooperated with Mitch McConnel to takn McCain-Feingold when it actually had a chance of passing this autumn.
10196. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:36:50 AM
Stumbo:
Maybe liberals have something of a crush on Western elderly Rough-Rider types.
10197. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:43:32 AM
"I am saying that there were no such rumors."
"GOP presidential hopeful Gary Bauer on Tuesday blamed the campaign of front-running Republican Texas Gov. George W. Bush for questioning McCain's fitness for office.
"Jeff Flint, spokesman for Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch's presidential campaign, said, 'There's obviously some sort of orchestrated campaign to put that information out there and it's probably coming out of the Bush campaign.'"
-- Associated Press, November 24, 1999
"Sen. Chuck Hagel had heard the stories, and he was furious. The rumor echoing in the Senate's marble corridors was about what George W. Bush's many Senate allies were up to. As Hagel had heard it, they were trashing Hagel's Vietnam buddy, Sen. John McCain, telling potential contributors that his long imprisonment in Hanoi had left him too emotionally volatile to be president. ... Several big-time contributors, Hagel says, report that GOP senators are warning them away from McCain because he's 'unstable.'"
-- Newsweek, Nov. 29, 1999
Maybe Mr. Bauer and Senator Hatch's people are wrong, and the Bush camp had nothing to do with the rumors about Senator McCain's fitness. But unless you think Senator Hagel is lying, it seems to me that he heard campaign contributors say they were warned away from Senator McCain because of his supposed instability.
10198. Stumbo - 12/14/1999 1:50:09 AM
Ace:
There was that P.J. O'Rourke line about how he didn't really mind being called a Nazi -- because nobody's ever had fantasies of being ravished by someone dressed as a liberal. Substitute a Wild-West outfit, and there you go.
10199. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:51:56 AM
Trial:
Sorry, that's evidence, but not dispositive. Hegel said he heard it from contributors.
Things get twisted around in transmission. There is no doubt people made an issue of McCain's temperament. No doubt. He's an angry guy, and his anger can apparently be frightening. Reporters have told him this to his face during interviews. And Al D'Amato, defending McCain, stated McCain didn't have the worst temper in the Senate when he was there-- he had the THIRD worst temper, after another Senator and D'Amato himself.
But I doubt anyone has linked this temper promplem to his POW experience-- which is the important point. Hegel heard that's what the rumors were; but who knows what they really were. One guy might have said, "The guy's got a temper problem. And you know, he WAS a POW for five years." Hegel hears this, goes ballistic, and thinks ALL temper stories are making the linkage to being a POW.
Once again, no one-- no one-- is on the record saying he heard these stories first hand. Not a SINGLE REPORTER has ever been peddled the story.
10200. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:55:18 AM
Ace --
"But I don't understand why your liberals swoon over [McCain]."
And I don't understand why you conservatives are down on him.
10201. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:55:49 AM
continued:
Apparently you wish very much to believe the Bush camp is spreading, or at least encouraging, these stories.
Ask yourself: Why?
The Bush campaign has been almost FLAWLESS so far. You can malign Bush himself all you like; but the campaign has been extremely tight and effective. Smart people are running this show-- you must believe this, of course, because you believe W. is dumb.
So-- please explain to me how the Republican Brain-Trust behind Bush-- years and years and years of political experience and savvy-- gets it into their head to peddle the STUPIDEST rumor imagineable?
And it was STUPID. It had NO CHANCE of working, and a 99% chance of backfiring disasterously. (In fact, it did backfire, predicatably.)
So why would they do this, dude?
10202. concerned - 12/14/1999 1:57:21 AM
Re. 10197 -
Ah, yes, the 'Great Imaginary Whispering Campaign'. GWB hasn't needed anything of the sort IAC, given that McCain has never been any real competition for him.
If you want your fill of Big Lies, rotten stunts and below-the-belt shots, just see what 'Love Story' Bore is pulling on Bradley.
10203. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:58:05 AM
TrialShark:
I am not down on McCain in the least. If you'd bothered to read my last post, you'd have seen I prefer McCain as President, but I support GWB as a good second-choice who has a better chance of actually winning.
If you mean-- why do OTHER conservatives hate McCain? I have no fucking idea. I check out Free Republic every once in a while to see McCain reviled for no good reason at all.
If I had to guess-- I'd say they hate McCain because liberals like him, and therefore he must be a liberal Manchurian Candidate.
10204. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 2:01:17 AM
Oh-- they also seem to hate him for the WTO thing. The crazies hate W. for the same reason, of course.
And because Bush Senior and Bill Clinton were running coke in through Mena Airport.
10205. Spudboy - 12/14/1999 2:04:48 AM
Here's one GOP strategist who doesn't think Bush's campaign has been "flawless."
10206. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 2:05:55 AM
One last point: There is the NWO/WTO Buchananite fringe which hates McCain, but most Republicans don't seem to.
McCain polls well as soon as he gets name recognition and exposure. He's leading Bush in NH and will undoubtedly take a few primaries from Bush along the way.
10207. Stumbo - 12/14/1999 2:06:29 AM
TS:
"And I don't understand why you conservatives are down on him."
I can only speak for myself, but I think I've previously mentioned why I'm down on him, despite his positive qualities that would otherwise put him ahead of GWB: his silly positions on (i) campaign finance, and (ii) tobacco lawsuits. And (iii) the UFC, what the hell.
10208. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 2:08:52 AM
Spudboy:
Hilarious. Severin's article concerns W. HIMSELF, not his CAMPAIGN. I specifically told TrialShark: "You can malign W. all you like, but his campaign has been flawless. His people must be smart if he is so dumb."
So, thanks once again for misreading and posting an irrelevancy.
I am always happy to read Jay Severin, though, so thanks for the irrelevant post. However, I must ask-- if we're to take Jay Severin's opinions as the Gospel, would you mind reprinting his musings on the Clinton Mob?
10209. Al D - 12/14/1999 2:13:55 AM
CalGal
I didn't forget my password and GW did a good job and that's a fact.
Rosettastone
I did get in touch with jexster and I'm about to fly off to S.F. and I hope to see him there. When i post at night, I don't expect so many posts after me. I sort of figure that the threads are mine to tread as I like. I never really worked on the Jenny, the Foss Tug, but she is real, and every word I uttered about her is true.
10210. Stumbo - 12/14/1999 2:17:25 AM
Strike "lawsuits" from #10207.
10211. concerned - 12/14/1999 2:29:03 AM
McKeating at least knows how to call a liar a liar:
"Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who is running for president, was asked yesterday about Vice President Al Gore's claim that he is the only candidate who supported campaign-finance
reform before he ran for president.
"I just think that . . . while he was inventing the Internet, I was inventing television," Mr. McCain replied on "Fox News Sunday."
"I mean, he also said that he co-sponsored McCain-Feingold three years after he left the Senate. That's a unique parliamentary maneuver."
Mr. McCain added: "Look, I welcome the vice president's involvement in this issue. But the real scandal in Washington was not Monica Lewinsky. It was the debasement of the institutions of
government by the Clinton-Gore campaign — renting the Lincoln bedroom, selling seats on official trade missions — and, frankly, that will be a stain on American history."
10212. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 2:35:15 AM
concerned:
TrialShark asked why conservatives were down on McCain. As you call him "McKeating," you seem to be one of those conservatives who is down on him.
So, please explain. What is it about McCain that wrankles you? He's got a circa 95% approval rating from conservative watchdog groups. Surely a deviation from the party line on tobacco and campaign finance can't be enough to make you call him "McKeating."
10213. concerned - 12/14/1999 2:42:17 AM
Re. 10212 -
Hey, I'd vote for McCain. But I'm afraid he'd be somewhat vulnerable against a slime merchant like 'Tobacco' Bore.
I'm down on Buchanan, myself. As a politician, he's a good commentator, and that's about it.
10214. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 2:43:32 AM
wrankles? Rankles, right?
So why call him "McKeating"? I mean, I know about the Keating Five, but why insult him if you don't have anything against him?
10215. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 2:46:18 AM
Ace --
"Sorry, that's evidence, but not dispositive. Hegel said he heard it from contributors. Things get twisted around in transmission."
Hmmm. If you're allowed to dismiss contrary evidence as being the result of miscommunication, I guess you can sustain any position you like.
"Apparently you wish very much to believe the Bush camp is spreading, or at least encouraging, these stories. Ask yourself: Why?"
My "apparent wishes" are the product of your prejudices, Ace. Kind of like your assumption that I support Congressman Shays.
I find the idea that Senator McCain's opponents spread the rumors plausible because political operatives of all stripes have been known to go on the attack, whether or not there's a high likelihood of success. Sometimes it even works.
Does this mean it was the Bush camp that did it? Beats the heck outta me. If they did it, it was a bonehead play that could only be salvaged by a conspicious denunciation from the candidate himself, preferably in the first debate.
Your observation that the Bush campaign has been "almost flawless" is incapable of proof or refutation at this point; I'm guessing that the Bush folks didn't exactly plan to have Senator McCain riding so high in New Hampshire at this point, but maybe that's not a flaw. There's still plenty of time.
I do think they bobbled the ball on the rumors; regardless of the source, I think the Bush campaign should have done a better job sticking up for Senator McCain and denouncing the rumors. It would have looked decent and noble and might even have been sincere.
10216. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 2:50:14 AM
If they did it, it was a bonehead play that could only be salvaged by a conspicious denunciation from the candidate himself, preferably in the first debate.
This is my point. It was not just a boneheaded play in twenty-twenty hindsight; it was obviously a boneheaded play ab initio.
Over in TT Fergusson Foont raised this issue three months ago and CalGal, Niner, and I all stated how collossally stupid such a play would be, and how it could only reflect badly on all of McCain's foes, none of whom was a soldier in Vietnam, all of whom had cushy berths to one extent or another.
The stupidity of the play was obvious then to pikers like me. How on earth could the stupidity of the play escaped Bush's Brain Trust?
10217. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 2:50:26 AM
Ace --
"If you'd bothered to read my last post, you'd have seen I prefer McCain as President, but I support GWB as a good second-choice who has a better chance of actually winning."
I didn't see that post before asking my question, nor did I mean to limit the question to you.
I disagree that GWB has a better shot at winning, but that's not going to be something we can ever prove or disprove.
10218. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 2:51:56 AM
I'm guessing that the Bush folks didn't exactly plan to have Senator McCain riding so high in New Hampshire at this point
Ummmmmmm... Senator McCain has his own undeniable strengths as a candidate, which Bush simply cannot negate.
McCain is talking up campaign finance, which is hugely popular with the public.
10219. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 2:52:48 AM
Ace --
"The stupidity of the play was obvious then to pikers like me. How on earth could the stupidity of the play escaped Bush's Brain Trust?"
These are in large part the people who squandered the Gulf War and lost the White House to the governor of a small southern state, right?
Seems to me that they're not exactly infallible.
10220. concerned - 12/14/1999 2:55:03 AM
Re. 10214 -
Sorry about that. I think he would probably be an effective chief executive, if he had a chance to get there.
10221. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 2:56:12 AM
These are in large part the people who squandered the Gulf War
Giggle. And you, of course, would have supported a high-casualty campaign to take Baghdad which would have demolished our support among the Gulf Coalition and detabilized the area, right?
And I remember all those brave Democrats voting against even expelling Iraq from Kuwait... and yet you urge a bloody campaign to take Baghdad.
10222. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 3:00:32 AM
Simple fact: Bush was right to stop where he did.
Unless, of course, you think it would have been better to occupy the country for ten or more years with several divisions of American troops.
10223. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 3:03:01 AM
Ace --
Quit giggling and think.
We're talking political campaigns. "Squandered the Gulf War" does not mean "lost the Gulf War," it means lost the 1992 election despite having crushed the enemy and achieving a 90%-plus approval rating.
10224. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 3:05:03 AM
Ace --
"Unless, of course, you think it would have been better to occupy the country for ten or more years with several divisions of American troops."
Again, you're off topic. But since you asked: I'm not so sure it wouldn't have been a better idea. Occupation worked wonders for Germany and Japan.
10225. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 3:10:39 AM
it means lost the 1992 election despite having crushed the enemy and achieving a 90%-plus approval rating.
Well, that's what happens when a recession occurs. I think you know damn well that if we were in a recession during the impeachment, Al Gore would be our President.
As for occupying Iraq:
I doubt very much you believe this; you suggest it mainly because you want to find fault with Bush.
No doubt it *might* have been better to take on the Soviet Union immediately after WW2 and push them back behind their borders, while our troops were over there, while they were exhausted, and while we had a monopoly on atomic firepower.
It's fun to play at might-haves, I grant you.
What if Superman's space-crib had landed in Nazi Germany rather than Smallville Kansas? We'll never really know.
10226. concerned - 12/14/1999 3:10:55 AM
American occupation of Iraq would have inflamed Muslim fundamentalism like nothing else could have, quite possibly leading to the downfall of the governments of more moderate states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
10227. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 3:13:04 AM
while the SOVIETS were exhausted, I meant; but our troops were exhausted as well.
10228. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 3:22:27 AM
Ace --
"Well, that's what happens when a recession occurs."
Maybe. But if they're as infallible as you seem to believe, it seems to me that with a decisive victory over the Iraqis the year and a 90% approval rating in the third year of his Presidency, the super-geniuses of the Bush campaign should have been able to do a bit better.
"I think you know damn well that if we were in a recession during the impeachment, Al Gore would be our President."
Interesting point, but I guess we'll never know. It is fun to play at might-haves, I grant you.
10229. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 3:25:28 AM
And one other thing, Ace: "As for occupying Iraq: I doubt very much you believe this ..." Your opinions concerning my beliefs have proven unreliable in the past. This is another instance where you're off the mark.
10230. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 3:25:33 AM
Trialshark:
The geniuses in the Bush campaign cannot win with a pair of threes. And when you're in a recession, that's the hand you hold.
People vote with their pocketbooks. Cliched but true. I voted against Bush because I didn't think the was doing enough to kick start the economy.
Looking back, I think non-intervention was the right course, as we came out of the recession just before the election. Many people no doubt feel the same way now, and felt the same way BEFORE the recession, but a bad economy changes your thinking in a hurry, if only for a time.
10231. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 3:29:18 AM
In addition, Bush did wage a very weak campaign. He was obviously tired by that point and phoning it in. Two quarts short of charisma and energy, as he has said.
And Clinton *was* an attractive candidate in 1992. Or at least I thought so.
I remember being a bit put off by his lapses of honesty and his rumored history of womanizing. "But how much harm could such character defects POSSIBLY cause?" I thought.
10232. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 3:33:16 AM
Ace --
"The geniuses in the Bush campaign cannot win with a pair of threes."
So you say. The fact remains that they lost, and lost to a man who by all rights they should have beaten. So as I said -- I'm not willing to convey the mantle of infallibility on the Bush campaign just yet.
10233. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 3:37:42 AM
"The fact remains that they lost, and lost to a man who by all rights they should have beaten."
Hah, hah. Suddenly you postulate Clinton to have been a weak candidate when it serves your current purposes.
Clinton was the best Democratic candidate since Kennedy (or LBJ, if you want to count him, but he ran as an incumbent).
He favored leftish economic intervention while the economy was in recession, and abandoned old unpopular causes like the death penalty and spineless pandering to whatever the Rainbow Coalition types wanted.
But NOW, because you wish to prove that Bush was dumb, you suggest that Bush should have "by all rights" beaten the presumably weak pretender Clinton.
During the worst recession since the mid-seventies.
Okay.
10234. robertjayb - 12/14/1999 3:43:58 AM
.
Molly Ivins with the Bush column she didn't finish---and a personal note (excerpted below).
"A personal note: I have contracted an outstanding case of breast cancer, from which I fully intend to recover. I don't need get-well cards, but I would like the beloved women readers to do something for me: Go. Get. The. Damn. Mammogram. Done."
10235. concerned - 12/14/1999 3:44:14 AM
I also think a certain jug-eared grenade with a bad haircut had something to do with Bush Sr.'s loss. I still remember Perot's specious accusations against the Bush Campaign - something having to do with selling compromising photographs of his daughter's wedding to tabloid magazines. Now, that doesn't make much sense, but Perot never really did either, AFAIC.
10236. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 3:50:05 AM
Ace --
"But NOW, because you wish to prove that Bush was dumb..."
Right, Ace. "Not infallible" means "dumb." That's exactly what I meant.
Not.
Bush had a lot going for him in '92 -- enough so that many Democrats decided not to challenge him. Yet he still lost to a realtively obscure governor who had a ton of personal baggage that somehow was never properly exploited.
This doesn't make Bush "dumb;" it makes his advisers "not infallible." And if they could lose to Governor Clinton, they can certainly lose to Senator McCain.
10237. concerned - 12/14/1999 3:55:00 AM
Then there's Lawrence Walsh's exquisitely timed Iran Contra indictment of Caspar Weinberger, what was it, four days before the 1992 elections?
Gee thanks, Walshie - you helped get Impeachment Boy elected *and* kill the IC Statute with that brilliant move!
10238. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 3:59:51 AM
"Bush had a lot going for him in '92 -- enough so that many Democrats decided not to challenge him. Yet he still lost to a realtively obscure governor who had a ton of personal baggage that somehow was never properly exploited."
Properly exploited? You mean Republicans should have played up the draft-dodging? Or the womanizing (only *rumored* at that point; and while Clinton seemed to admit it in the Steve Kroft interview, he also seemed to promise it would never happen again, and I believed him).
Eh. Whatever.
No Democrats ran against Bush because they were pussies and saw that huge 90% approval rating after the Gulf War. Clinton, Tsongas, and Brown weren't pussies (well, Brown is just nutty) and DID run.
And then the economy headed south and Bush had a 40% approval rating a year later.
Clinton is the luckiest man alive, to have his serious competitors scared out by the 90% approval rating but then going on to face a President with a 40% approval rating.
In any event, MANY people could have beaten Bush at that point, due to the economy. Tsongas would have beaten him if Clinton didn't. And Kerrey, Gore, and Bradley could have beaten him at that point to.
Re: McCain
You're mischaracterizing what we're debating; not due to maliciousness, I'm sure, but simply because you've forgotten.
I don't claim Bush's campaign is too smart to lose to McCain. He probably has too much money and support to lose, but he could lose.
I am arguing that a rock is too smart to think a whispering campaign connecting a war-hero's hellish torture in the Hanoi Hilton to unfitness to be President could ever, EVER, work.
It didn't work, assuming it was tried at all. It COULDN'T work. Ever.
And as dumb as you might think Bush is, no one is dumb enough to think it could have worked. No one. Anywhere.
10239. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 4:01:21 AM
connie --
Wow. You and Ace have me convinced.
I now believe that none of the Bush campaign advisers bear the slightest responsibility for the GOP's loss in 1992. It was all someone else's fault. The Bush brain trust did everything perfectly.
And what they did for Dad, the infallible ones will surely do for his son.
10240. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 4:07:21 AM
Ace --
"I am arguing that a rock is too smart to think a whispering campaign connecting a war-hero's hellish torture in the Hanoi Hilton to unfitness to be President could ever, EVER, work. It didn't work, assuming it was tried at all ... no one is dumb enough to think it could have worked. No one. Anywhere."
I'll grant you that it didn't work. But I won't go so far as to say no one would try.
10241. concerned - 12/14/1999 4:08:27 AM
I think it makes an awful lot more sense for McCain supporters (or people opposed to GWB) to *claim* a whispering campaign and point fingers at the Republican front runner than for there to *be* any such whispering campaign.
10242. concerned - 12/14/1999 4:10:44 AM
Re. 10239 -
Ha ha ha, TS. To the contrary. I think Bush Sr. ran a *very* lackluster campaign in '92. But he had help in losing from several quarters.
10243. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 4:13:14 AM
But I won't go so far as to say no one would try.
I grant you SOMEONE might try as an off the cuff comment. I grant someone might be stupid enough to say, without thinking too much about it, "Don't support this guy. He doesn't have the temperment. He flies off the handle at the slightest thing. And you know-- those five years in the Hanoi Hilton."
Yes, someone could be that stupid.
Now, let's take that person calling up someone else: "Hey, what do think about trying to connect McCain's temper to his torture in Hanoi? Maybe they knocked a screw loose, you know?"
Response: "Are you out of your fucking mind?"
"Heh. Um, yeah. I guess it's pretty stupid. Just brainstorming here, man."
Extemporaneous stupidity on the part of one man, or perhaps two or three men having the same stupid thought? Possible.
Calculated, planned stupidity to which more than a single person agrees?: Not possible.
Keep in mind, TrialShark: The rumor came from the CONTRIBUTORS, if anything. Guys trying to help the campaign, possibly, but not the guys who plan the campaign.
10244. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 4:18:06 AM
...contributors who I'm sure assume that because they're rich, they must be smart, and who desperately want to be more involved in the excitement of a campaign beyond merely writing a big check.
If anyone floated that whisper, I'm sure they thought it was a great idea. Just like everyone thinks every goddamn idea they have is brilliant.
No one, however, who had any experience in politics, or a super-90 IQ, would think it a good idea.
10245. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 7:00:16 AM
Concerned Message # 10241:
I think it makes an awful lot more sense for McCain supporters (or people opposed to GWB) to *claim* a whispering campaign and point fingers at the Republican front runner than for there to *be* any such whispering campaign.
Jesus H. Christ. Tell me you're not fucking serious. While it is remotely (and I use that word very generously) possible, it certainly does not "make an awful lot more sense" for McCain to pull a fast one on himself and hope the finger gets pointed at Bush. If that's the case, then John-Boy really does have snakes in his head.
But I'm inclined to agree with virtually everyone else, that someone (maybe someone from W.'s campaign, maybe not) is spreading malicious gossip about a guy who indisputably made an extreme sacrifice for his country. And I really hate to see anyone, from either "wing", fucking around with such a record.
10246. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 8:40:27 AM
I'm concerned about concerned. Sumthin just aint "right" here.
10247. Cellar Door - 12/14/1999 10:04:37 AM
E-mail from my cyber-pal Ted Zep:
"Here is my e-mail to Bob Parry(if Magazine and The
Consortium) about my televised call on C-Span.
Dear Bob,
Tonight there was a live call-in show about George
Bush, on C-Span's Presidential Portraits. It was held
at the Bush Library, with Robert Greene, a Bush
biographer as guest. They even had the "Studebaker" on
display, and mentioned it! (I've read that this is an
invented little anecdote).It was pretty much the
"sunny side" of the Bushes, so I decide to interject a
little doubt into this portrait. Surprisingly, the
screener let me ask my question.
I asked, "Much is being made of George Bush's
patriotism in serving during WWII, but there is
another side to this story, as his father, Prescott
Bush, had his assets seized under the Trading With the
Enemy
Act, for trading with Nazi Industrialists. There are
also questions that George Bush's History with the CIA
extended beyond his term as CIA Director. When he was
Vice President, he put Manuel Noriega on the CIA
payroll. Also, Caspar Weinberger's notes revealed that
Bush was not 'out of the loop' of Iran-Contra as he
claimed. The Consortium, an on-line investigative
journal, has explored the other side of this history."
10248. Cellar Door - 12/14/1999 10:05:03 AM
(continued)
"Surprisingly, Mr. Greene was nice and relatively
unruffled. (I missed the very beginning of his
response, in the gap between their hang-up and
turning the volume back up on my set): "[I think with
regard to Prescott Bush] the caller has recounted this
correctly. Much of that information is classified, but
this is part of the ongoing on-line discussion.
Having studied Iran-Contra, I believe that VP Bush was
more in the loop than he claimed, but maybe not as
much as his enemies would like to believe.
"But the key aspect of Bush is his loyalty, which cost
him politically in maintaining his allegiance to John
Sununu and Clarence Thomas."
Then they quickly switched to a photo of Bush with
LBJ--something about a troubling time--maybe it was
the JFK death?(Adrenalin was pumping so I
kind of missed it). Then they went into Bush's
letter(dictated to his assistant) telling Nixon it was
time to resign. They also talked about how difficult
it was as GOP Chairman for Bush to deal with
Watergate.
They seemed to shift things back to Watergate to
emphasize that Bush took a stand against Nixon. They
did this at least one more time during the program.
Later, they did flash a photo of him as CIA Director,
posing in the Atrium with the CIA Seal.
All the other calls seemed flattering and asking
positive questions.
I'm just having fun with this stuff--so I just wanted
to let you know that there are many of us who are
supportive of your efforts.
All the best,
Ted"
10249. Cellar Door - 12/14/1999 10:35:10 AM
10250. msgreer - 12/14/1999 11:04:47 AM
Cellar
Excellent article. Has anyone sent Rudy and his friends the Surgeon's General just released report on mental illness? No no. That would never come across his desk or any Repug's for that matter.
Homelessness is a solvable issue. No I don't have all the answers but I would be willing to work with Rudy should he call.
10251. Ronski - 12/14/1999 11:15:19 AM
Equating Hillary Clinton and Helen Douglas is one of the silliest things I've read in a long time, and I read a lot.
10252. msgreer - 12/14/1999 11:19:24 AM
AS for Ms. Heather MacDonald perhaps she should experience what it is like to live from paycheck to paycheck. Then when she has an emergency and all her paycheck is gone, she can't pay the monthly dues on her Fifth Avenue condo, nor charge to Bonwits, her car is gone because she can't make the payments, she starts selling her jewelry and various electronic devices just to EAT and darn when she goes to look for help with social agencies they don't exist because her man Rudy has closed so damn manner. Then Heather could live on the streets and be interviewed by bitches such as herself.
Cellar, would Hollywood like this one? Think there is a story for God's sake.
I see Anne Coulter playing Heather. Perfect match.
10253. 109109 - 12/14/1999 11:25:05 AM
The same gnashing and wailing accompanied welfare reform. Indeed, to have someone work while in a shelter is frightening. And to take people off of the streets by arrest in a city that regularly loses scores to deaths by freezing in the winter months. Positively Dickensian. And children of parents who cannot care for them may be taken away from them. The horror.
10254. Ronski - 12/14/1999 11:25:45 AM
Solution to "homelessness":
For the mentally ill, direct oberved treatment (DOT) to ensure they take their meds, in supervised group homes or small institutions.
For the criminally inclined, jail.
For the rest, a job, of which there are quite a few around these days.
10255. 109109 - 12/14/1999 11:29:01 AM
Since the police crackdown on the homeless started Nov. 23, about 226 people have been arrested, 577 have been transported to shelters and more than 95 have been taken to hospitals.
Sounds positively fascist.
10256. 109109 - 12/14/1999 11:30:47 AM
Here is a snapshot of homeless adults in the United States, from a Housing and Urban Development Department report released this week:
Parents
Without children 85%
With children 15%
Sex
Male 77%
Female 23%
Age
17-24 10%
25-54 81%
55+ 9%
Health problems
39% Mental illness
26% Drug abuse
38% Alcoholism
26% Acute infectious conditions (for example, bronchitis, pneumonia.)
8% Acute noninfectious conditions (for example, skin ulcers, lice.)
46% Chronic health problems (for example, arthritis, diabetes)
10257. msgreer - 12/14/1999 11:42:08 AM
Ronski
Not a bad beginning. Just one thing. Surgeon Generals report on mental illness says the jails are full of mentally ill persons whose pnly reason for being jailed was their behavior. Behavior related to their mental illness. So before we throw the "criminally inclined" into jail it might be an act of humanity if we as a society helped those folks with medication and supervised, safe places to go while getting their illness under control. I don't doubt for a minute most folks want to work and this can be achieved.
109109
You make my case for me. Thanks for those statisics. Hey, maybe some HMO wants to hop in and help these folks out. Sounds like some could get back on their feet if their medical issues were dealt with.
Spent time talking to folks with diabetes lately, Niner?
10258. 109109 - 12/14/1999 11:47:18 AM
msgreer
I'm not sure what your case is, but I am sure that my conversations with the afflicted would neither strengthen nor weaken it.
10259. 109109 - 12/14/1999 11:48:28 AM
msgreer
And I assume that in your compassion, you support the forced institutionalization of the mentally ill.
10260. dusty - 12/14/1999 11:54:17 AM
msgreer
"AS for Ms. Heather MacDonald perhaps she should experience what it is like to live from paycheck to paycheck."
Just as an aside, I was startled to read this sentence. I have a friend named Heather MacDonald, who happens to be homeless, and doesn't even get a regular paycheck. But I take it this is a different person.
10261. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 11:57:15 AM
Cellar - Only you could post a link to a Village Voice article and expect it to be taken seriously. Who will you be quoting next? Lyndon LaRouche?
10262. JudithAtHome - 12/14/1999 11:58:11 AM
Niner:
I think my irony detector is working today...love your 53 & 54.
10263. msgreer - 12/14/1999 12:01:28 PM
dusty
No I was not making reference to your friend. Cellar linked an article on the homeless where a 'reporter' was mentioned. Her name was Heather MacDonald.
10264. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 12:02:19 PM
Ace --
"Keep in mind, TrialShark: The rumor came from the CONTRIBUTORS, if anything. Guys trying to help the campaign, possibly, but not the guys who plan the campaign."
Actually, Hagel said the contributors told him the rumors came from Republican members of the Senate.
"If anyone floated that whisper, I'm sure they thought it was a great idea. Just like everyone thinks every goddamn idea they have is brilliant."
Yup. Even when they're dead wrong.
Especially when they're dead wrong.
So let's recap: you no longer think "no one is dumb enough to think it could have worked. No one. Anywhere."
Having acknowledged that someone might have thought it a bright idea, you can no longer argue there were no rumors because no one would be dumb enough to spread them. There's no need to posit that Senator Hagel was the victim of miscommunication.
Still, you're sure it couldn't possibly have been anyone in the Bush campaign who did the deed. Maybe it wasn't. But Bauer, Hatch, and McCain's advisers think it was, and given Hagel's claims I can't buy your argument that it couldn't have been.
10265. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 12:04:07 PM
MsGreer - You make my case for me. Thanks for those statisics.
Those statistics show that, despite VV's claims to the contrary, the average homeless person is not a child.
10266. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 12:06:58 PM
One more thing, Ace: despite the fact that JJ's claim -- that I always assume a rumor about a Republican must be true -- is demonstrably false, you keep on plugging. First you argue defending Senator McCain doesn't count because he's really an "honorary Democrat;" then you claim that there weren't really any rumors.
I admire your devotion to JJ. You're being silly, but at least you're loyal.
10267. 109109 - 12/14/1999 12:08:28 PM
Trial
The whispering campaign was actually created by McCain, and smartly so. He has insulated himself from legitimate criticism as to whether he is a dick to people by way of a very potent rejoinder. He is not well liked in the Senate. He has made it work for him on the level of maverick. He now has a nice elbow to those who press the point of his prickly nature.
CRITIC: "McCain is a hothead and if he doesn't get his way, he screams at you. I'm not sure this is the kind of guy we want."
SUPPORTER: "How dare you impugn this great man and suggest that his years as a captive have made him ill-suited to the presidency."
Give the man his props. He (and/or his supporters) have created an environment that transforms criticism of his style into flag burning.
10268. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 12:09:18 PM
Niner --
What does "parents without children" mean?
I always thought having kids was sort of a definitional prerequisite.
10269. 109109 - 12/14/1999 12:11:46 PM
Trial
Don't know. I lifted it from the Washington Post. I assume it means that the children aren't physically accompanying them on their homeless odyssey.
10270. JudithAtHome - 12/14/1999 12:14:13 PM
Maybe Rudy has them all in a hotel somewhere, holding them hostage til the parents get a job.
10271. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 12:16:57 PM
TS - The fact remains that the whole whispering campaign remains a rumor passed from one anonymous source to another. All accounts are second-, third-and fourth-hand. Because it tends to discredit Republicans, you believe these rumors are fact.
Let's go back in time a bit. We had direct testimony from victims of Clinton's sexual assaults. These weren't rumors or third-hand reports. If memory serves, you went out of your way to find some pretext on which to disbelieve their testimony.
I think the contrast proves the point. You can continue to deny it, but your own words betray you.
10272. msgreer - 12/14/1999 12:44:22 PM
JJ
I was not speaking of the percentage of children. My point was there are alot of physical ill persons on the street that might benefit from good health care, job training and then to work.. in that order. It would be a starting point in reducing the number of homeless.
10273. 109109 - 12/14/1999 1:02:39 PM
39% Mental illness
26% Drug abuse
38% Alcoholism
I assume overlap of all three, but 3 out of every 4 homeless persons are mentally ill, drug fiends, drunks or some combo.
You cannot job train these people. Any offer of medical assistance will be taken for as long as their addled states stay reasonable, or up until the moment that the need for drugs and alcohol becomes acute (less than 24 hours). Giuliani's offer - while certainly not warm and fuzzy - is at minimum a noisy rebuke to tired and unworkable platitudes. But these homeless will persevere in their state despite the preachy molly-coddle of the welfare state and the stinging slap of Giuliani's "You sleep, you work, you stay off the streets, and if you can't find a roof for your kids, you lose them."
In the end, the debate is only about 1/4 of those who are homeless (i.e., those who aren't mentally ill or slave to drugs/booze) . . . probably less.
10274. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:09:55 PM
JJ --
"Because it tends to discredit Republicans, you believe these rumors are fact."
Which rumors?
There are two sets here: first, the rumors about Senator McCain, which I disbelieve and have challenged. That alone demonstrates that your contention -- that I take all rumors about Republicans as established fact -- is false.
The second set are the rumors about the origin of the rumors about McCain. On this, I am prepared to accept the word of a Republican -- Senator Chuck Hagel -- that the rumors about McCain are being spread by other Republicans. He or his sources could be lying, I suppose, but I'm not willing to jump to that conclusion.
I'm also not willing to conclude -- as the campaigns of GOP candidates Bauer and Hatch have claimed -- that the rumors about Senator McCain necessarily originated with the Bush camp. But neither am I willing to assume that the Bauer and Hatch people are simply smearing Bush with baseless accusations.
So let's recap: I don't believe the rumors about Senator McCain (R-AZ) are true; I don't believe Senator Hagel (R-NE) is a liar. I'm not convinced, as the Bauer and Hatch campaigns are, that the rumors originated with the campaign of Governor Bush (R-TX); but I don't assume that the Republicans in the Bauer or Hatch campaigns are making up their claims, either.
Hmmm... maybe I am being too rough on those Republicans.
10275. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 1:13:16 PM
MsGreer - My point was there are alot of physical ill persons on the street that might benefit from good health care, job training and then to work.. in that order
I don't think it would do anything to reduce the number of homeless. The problems of the hardcore homeless go way beyond health care and job training. These things are already available. Unless you are prepared to force them into alcohol and drug treatment, job training, and medical/mental treatment programs, the effects will be minimal. Even if you force them into programs, many of them won't be helped.
10276. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:14:31 PM
Niner --
"The whispering campaign was actually created by McCain, and smartly so. ... Give the man his props. He (and/or his supporters) have created an environment that transforms criticism of his style into flag burning."
Could be. If he did come up with it to innoculate himself, he deserve credits, because it seems to have worked. I don't know that I'd have tried such a risky move, though: there are too many potential downsides.
And I would never assume, as you have, that Senator McCain would stoop to such Machiavellian maneuvers ... because if I did make such an assumption, it would hurt JJ's feelings.
10277. Ronski - 12/14/1999 1:19:00 PM
msgreer,
I agree that the number of mentally ill among the incarcerated is probably a good deal higher than the population at large (and was going to mention that). The exact numbers would be dependent on the definition of mental illness, which is a very broad term ranging from simple mood disorders to full-blown psychoses. I would caution that we not use the term mental illness to excuse any and all anti-social behavior.
Heather MacDonald, who is not a reporter but a highly-respected urban public policy analyst with the Manhattan Institute (not my favorite think tank, but it has some good people like Walter Olson), has repeatedly pointed out the real facts of homelessness. An inescapable conclusion (unless one is writing for the Village Voice) about the homelessness situation is that a good number of the homeless are single men who simply do not want to work.
Some also are profoundly anti-social people who wish to be near others (in cities) but do not want to be tied down to any material possessions other than those they lug around and do not wished to housed permanently. These people, who used to be called "feral" by Geraldo Rivera and a few others back in the early 70s, are probably suffering from some sort of mental disorder as viewed by most people, though I am not certain I would agree with that assessment myself. Bottom line: You cannot help those who refuse to be helped.
As for Giuliani, he has continued the City's longstanding policies of providing free health care to anyone who walks into municipal hospitals, forcible rounding up of the deranged homeless on sub-freezing nights who are brought by the police to emergency rooms and treated there, and an extensive low-cost housing program that dwarfs most other cities' efforts, far from being the Hun that Rosie O'Donnell thinks he is.
10278. Dantheman - 12/14/1999 1:20:29 PM
Niner #10273,
While the debate may be about how to help the remaining 25%, Giuliani's remedy criminalizes the acts of the whole group, including those who, as you concede, will persevere in their state. Unless you want to fill the prisons with these people, any sensible solution must include treatment. And yes, I support forced institutionalization of mentally ill who are unable to provide for themselves. It's better for these people to be in an institution than a prison.
10279. 109109 - 12/14/1999 1:21:18 PM
The Weekly Standard
December 6, 1999
Anatomy of a Pseudo Smear;
McCain supporters point fingers Bush backers say, Who, me?
FRED BARNES;
"SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL of Nebraska says he first got wind of the whisper campaign against John McCain while listening to columnist George Will on ABC's This Week on November 7. Will cited Republican senators as remarking on McCain's "personal pique" when opposed. It goes, said Will, "to the question about whether or not you are going to deal with all the people in [Washington] who disagree with you, even when you are president." Then, Hagel says he heard rumors that a few senators were privately suggesting McCain, the Arizona senator, was traumatized as a POW in North Vietnam and now is too unstable to be president. Hagel concluded McCain was being viciously smeared.
A McCain pal and supporter, Hagel went on the warpath. He confronted senator Paul Coverdell of Georgia, the point man in the Senate for George W. Bush's presidential campaign. Hagel also asked to meet with Karl Rove, Bush's chief strategist. Through Coverdell, Bush denied spreading any stories about McCain's fitness. Rove declined to meet with Hagel, but he, too, denied the Bush campaign was smearing McCain. Later, a number of pro-Bush senators insisted
they hadn't intimated that McCain is unstable.
10280. 109109 - 12/14/1999 1:21:54 PM
All that, however, didn't end what has become one of the oddest episodes in the GOP presidential struggle, and one that may wind up aiding McCain's White House bid. If nothing else, McCain is a sympathetic victim. He was a hero in Vietnam, who refused early release by his Hanoi jailers. So using McCain's Vietnam experience against him would indeed be a smear. But there's reason to believe the smear never occurred.
The smear story broke in the press on November 19 with a column by Elizabeth Drew in the Washington Post, followed two days later by one in the New York Times by Maureen Dowd. Drew named four Republican senators as participants in "a smear campaign of the ugliest sort." Dowd wrote about " whispered insinuations" by Republicans, including Bush backers, that McCain had been driven "cuckoo" in Vietnamese dungeons. And Dowd quoted Hagel as saying the anti- McCain talk is "an orchestrated effort, very subtle, very clever." What started as complaints about McCain's temper, Hagel said, turned into discussions
of his temperament, then to suggestions of "instability."
There's a problem, however, with the notion of a smear campaign against McCain: No actual instances of smears have been reported, no examples of Sen. X talking to reporter Y about McCain and Vietnam. Neither Drew nor Dowd cited any, though Drew said on CNN she had the "most multiple and hardest confirmations" of smears. Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, searched for instances and couldn't find any. McCain himself said on Face the Nation on November 21 that he didn't know of any. Howard Opinsky, McCain's campaign press
secretary, told me, "I don't have any evidence one way or the other, and we're not saying any exists." Even Hagel described the smears as "phantoms."
10281. 109109 - 12/14/1999 1:22:27 PM
But Hagel did say he heard that two "money men" from New York had asked two senators if they should back the McCain campaign and were told they shouldn't because McCain is unstable. But Hagel doesn't know the names of the senators. And every senator whose name has come up in connection with the alleged smear has reacted indignantly. Hagel says he talked to Senate GOP whip Don Nickles,
who was named by Drew as a smearer, and believes his denial. Majority leader Trent Lott, also named by Drew, told reporters on November 19: "I don't know what is wrong with Elizabeth Drew. . . . There is not one iota of truth to it. There is no whisper campaign." Coverdell, in a letter to the Post, said the "accusations are reckless, without merit, and quite simply, poppycock." Nickles,
in a separate letter to the Post, called the charge he'd smeared McCain "absolutely false. . . . I have the greatest respect for him and I would not undermine him or his campaign in any way whatsoever."
Perhaps these denials should be taken with a grain of salt. Drew wrote that denials should be expected. "Nobody is going to stand up in front of the world," says Hagel, and assert that McCain is unfit to be president because of what happened in Vietnam. But denials aren't proof that what's being denied is true either. It is clear that a number of McCain's Senate colleagues don't say nice things about him. McCain has bucked the leadership on campaign finance
reform and anti-tobacco legislation, and he prides himself on being a maverick. Lott and senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, an influential Republican, "have a problem with McCain," Hagel says.
10282. 109109 - 12/14/1999 1:22:41 PM
So do other Republicans. The flap over McCain's temper began with an October 25 story by Richard Berke of the New York Times in which Arizona governor Jane Hull told of McCain's "occasional eruptions at her." The story also quoted Michigan governor John Engler questioning whether McCain is a team player. The McCain campaign -- and McCain himself -- took this as a shot across the bow from the Bush campaign. McCain suggested a memo must have gone out from Bush
headquarters with orders to attack McCain's temper. The Bush camp scoffed at this. A week later, McCain's hometown paper in Phoenix, the Arizona Republic, said in an editorial that there's "reason to seriously question whether McCain has the temperament, and the political approach and skills, we want in the next president of the United States."
It's possible that gripes about McCain's temper were interpreted as tacitly alluding to the after-effects of his hideous treatment as a POW. George Will, for instance, didn't mention Vietnam. I suspect we'll never know for sure whether McCain was smeared. But lack of certainty didn't stop Newsweek from giving Lott a down arrow for trashing McCain. And presidential hopefuls Gary Bauer and senator Orrin Hatch quickly blamed the Bush campaign for smearing McCain. Mike Murphy, McCain's strategist, says the McCain campaign won the flap over his temper and Vietnam. Of that, there's no doubt.
10283. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:33:58 PM
Niner --
Thanks for the article. I especially liked the summation: "I suspect we'll never know ..."
That's what I admire about Fred Barnes -- his willingness to go out on a limb like that.
As I said before: if McCain did spread rumors about his fellow Republicans, he deserves credit for being ballsy and for winning the spin war. You don't get to be where he is now without being willing to roll the dice, but I wouldn't have counseled him to do it: too much risk.
10284. 109109 - 12/14/1999 1:35:53 PM
Dan
"While the debate may be about how to help the remaining 25%, Giuliani's remedy criminalizes the acts of the whole group, including those who, as you concede, will persevere in their state. Unless you want to fill the prisons with these people, any sensible solution must include treatment. And yes, I support forced institutionalization of mentally ill who are unable to provide for themselves. It's better for these people to be in an institution than a prison."
Vagrancy is a crime. A sad fact, but true. Additionally, it is a crime to neglect children. It is not, however, criminal to require that homeless people go to shelters, with or without their children, that when they get there, they do some work, and that if they refuse to do work, they be separated from children for whom they clearly cannot care. You may fill the prisons, you may tax the hospitals, but you will also take people off of the streets who would otherwise risk the temperatures of winter.
10285. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 1:37:51 PM
TS - I never said you were being too hard on Republicans. I said you are being a sap. Someone says someone says someone is spreading a rumor and you believe they really are.
On this, I am prepared to accept the word of a Republican -- Senator Chuck Hagel -- that the rumors about McCain are being spread by other Republicans.
But he has no first-hand knowledge. He is just passing on what others have told him.
He or his sources could be lying,
Or they could be mistaken, or misquoted, or they could be reacting to the same rumors of rumors we have heard, or they could just be acting in the interests of their candidate. If this is true, who are the contributors and who are the Senators? Why don't we have one individual who will stand up and be identified claiming that Senator Lott or any of the other accused approached them with the story? Why are the only reports second, third and fourth hand? If there was a campaign to destroy McCain's chances, who were they talking to?
but I'm not willing to jump to that conclusion.
No, you are much more willing to believe in some dark conspiracy to spread rumors about McCain.
10286. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:43:37 PM
JJ --
You seem unwilling or unable to deal with the fact that --regardless of their source -- I do not accept the rumors about Senator McCain as true, and have defended him against them. Nor am I willing to blame Bush for spreading them, though unlike you, I believe it's possible that he (or his followers) did. Nor am I willing to assume that Gary Bauer and Orrin Hatch are simply smearing Bush.
I'm defending a lot of Republicans here, sport. You claimed I always do the contrary. You were wrong.
10287. Dantheman - 12/14/1999 1:46:47 PM
Niner #10284,
I don't disagree with most of what you've said. However, I would prefer that the homeless who are unwilling to work due to addiction or mental illness be treated and if necessary institutionalized, rather than imprisoned. I dislike Giuliani's plan because it does not include any provisions to do so.
10288. 109109 - 12/14/1999 1:50:23 PM
I question the existence of the rumors as attributed to unknown senators (i.e., that McCain is mentally unstable as a byproduct of his POW experience).
I'm positive that Bush backers and McCain's colleagues have stated that they think he's a hardhead with a wicked temper.
I surmise that Hagel and Drew just decided to read between the lines for purposes both journalistic and political.
10289. Ronski - 12/14/1999 1:53:27 PM
Dan,
Scroll back. There are already and have been for decades services to help the homeless of the kind you describe. Giuliani is focusing on the able-bodied who are refusing to work.
10290. 109109 - 12/14/1999 1:53:50 PM
Dan
"However, I woul