It might not be a smear tactic, but it sure has the scent of one.

Blowjobs and infidelity certainly are less serious than American boys and gets getting their brains blown out in Iraq every day when there is no threat the to US.

Ed Gillespie would be proud of you.

As would other practitioners of the art:

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

"Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth ..."

Ed,

And yet your post says very little to the points I made. I do a lot of public speaking and so I know about keeping messages simple, confining them to a few points that people can remember, but that is just form.

The other side of my message is that the Bush Campaign is not responsible for this scandal. To bolster my claim, I put forward three simple reasons why the Bush Campaign has nothing to do with this.

So, can you answer the content of my post or not? Simply calling my post a lie and leaving it at that does not qualify as an answer.

So, what are your counter-points to my three points? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks.

David Flanagan

...when there is no threat the to US.

Ms. Tek,

You and Ed must read from the same playbook because you, as he, didn't address my post in any way, shape, or form. What does the Lewinski scandal and the liberation of Iraq have to do with a possible sexual scandal for John Kerry?

If you would please connect the dots for me, I'd be grateful.

Thanks.

David Flanagan

since we don't really know where this info comes from, you are right...it's not coming from the bush camp. that is the 'truth' at this point in time.

your second and third 'points', are merely conjecture.

Besides what Mark said, your claim about California is simply wrong:

The Davis Campaign in California tried this tactic against Governor Schwarzenegger and there is every indication that it backfired miserably.

Schwarzenneger admitted to the groping.

Mr Flanagan -

My problem with this kind of stuff is: does the information alter how this candidate would do at the job he is applying for?

We have all these character assasination stories -- popular on both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, unfortunately -- and I think these things have very little to do with whether the candidate is able to do the job today.

Mr. Flanagan, assuming everything in the Drudgereport piece turns out to be true and the worst moral imperfections about Kerry are right then please tell me how directly and specifically this will change how he would perform the duties of the President of the United States, if elected?

As a taxpayer that is the information I'm most concerned about. I don't care how many anti-war rallies Kerry might have attended in the 60's, his stellar or less than stellar Vietnam war record, whether he knew Jane Fonda, or whether he has recently cheated on his wife and then tried to cover it up.

We had a sitting President who tried to cover up a blowjob! How much taxpayer money was wasted on that Starr crusade?

I do care what Kerry's agenda is for the terrorist situation and Iraq situation in 2004 and specifically what his plan is to deal with that situation. Also, what are his plans for taxes and business. These are the things that I want from a President. I don't look at the President as a moral figure that I will tell my children to look up to -- either Republican or Democrat or _____.

Unfortunately, I think the days of having a morally perfect candidate are long, long gone. There would be almost zero candidates if traditional, wholesome values for candidates was a job requirement.

your second and third 'points', are merely conjecture.

Actually, my second and third points are common sense. No politician, even one as unscrupulous as Grey Davis would try this tactic at this time in the campaign.

Besides, Kerry has so many other deficits, theres no need to take the risk of outing a scandal like this. Besides, the media doesn't need the help of any politician to destroy political careers, they do so quite well all by themselves.

Thanks.

David Flanagan

common sense or not, that doesn't change the fact that they are opinions.

My problem with this kind of stuff is: does the information alter how this candidate would do at the job he is applying for?

TDavid,

I think you ask an excellent question. I would recommend that you post this question and your points above because this issue deserves a whole debate on its own, not just as a counter-point to my post.

Overall, I will say that I disagree that someone who violates the most fundamental and important commitment of his/her life remains unscathed. If you can lie to your spouse, you can lie to anyone.

Beyond that, the main purpose of this post is to explain why all these people who are now trying to point at the Bush Campaign as the instigator of this scandal are wrong. The actual truth or falsehoods of the scandal are incidental.

Thanks.

David

common sense or not, that doesn't change the fact that they are opinions.

Opinions, yes, or theories, to be more precise. And these theories are very likely correct based on the way this whole issue has bloomed. Really, do you think the Bush Campaign would be so thoughtless as to try and hurt Kerry in this way at this time? If I can figure this out, so can any person who posts to this site, much less Karl Rove and the other professionals who work for Bush.

Thanks.

David Flanagan

do you think the Bush Campaign would be so thoughtless as to try and hurt Kerry in this way at this time

if they were able to figure out how to do it without being implicated? yes?

rove & company are extremely smart. their achilles heel may turn out to be their monumental arrogance.

rove & company are extremely smart. their achilles heel may turn out to be their monumental arrogance.

Well, if Rove is as smart as you say, he's WAY too smart to get the Bush Campaign in hot water over something like this. The fact is, I'm sure that many liberals hope that Bush is the instigator just on the fact that this could hurt far worse than it could ever help him. Which is why, of course, they would be the last ones to try and pull such a stunt.

As I say above, this is just the juicy-scandal-hungry media at work. When it comes to stuff like this, the media recognizes no creed, party, or worldview and they certainly DO NOT take prisoners.

Thanks.

David Flanagan

Remember that Flanagan's great revelation came from Drudge. Unless a better source than that produces some evidence this effort to SHIFT ATTENTION away from the quicksand Bush has stepped in has merit, this is already yesterday's 'news'.

There is sometimes no underestimating the public, but I don't think a weak effort to Lewinsky Kerry has legs. Not with two big issues at the forefront of political discourse:

1) Just what was Bush up to during his military service? Where was he during the missing months or years? Why was he sent to a disciplinary unit?

2) Will opposition to gay marriage become an albatross for the GOP or its best idea (for winning votes, not the country) since the Southern Strategy?

Perhaps there are people who care more about Kerry's zipper than big, meaty issues like this. I'm not one of them.

other than the internet gig...is matt drudge part of the fox news network?

there is so much money to be made in right wing tv as well as christian tv.

it is very simple to be a talking head for any of these shows. you just need to be angry, not have a grasp of all the facts, and just be the loudest.

i am serious. watch any debate between a right winger, like ann coulter, and any liberal viewpoint. the right winger begins yelling from the get go and doesn't shut up.

jack e. jett
not angry enough to be a republican yet.

Flanagan. Flanagan. Flanagan. You have a potential ally on the thread in TDavid, who is also on the Right. But, you are talking down to him and evading any substantive response when he asks a question just like you do with the rest of us. Have you no sense of fair play? Do you think we are all fools, including those who share some of your political views? Are you under the impression that it is as easy to pull the wool over people's eyes here as it is at your home, Free Republic?

There is a lot of the kind of sneaky bait and switch stuff you like to do in this thread. Other commenters have already pointed much of it out. However, the aspect that cracks me up is the game you are playing with 'the media.' You go into the typical reactionary's rant against the media. But, at the same time you kneel at the altar of your second favorite person in the world (behind Bush), Matt Drudge. Who just happens to be . . . part of the media. And, apparently, you expect us not to see right throught that.

Ms. Diva,

Welcome to this thread. :-) First of all, how is it that I'm talking down to TDavid? I think he has a good point, but, just as you are doing, he missed the point of this post.

Really, if you want links to other media sources (all outside of the US so far) talking about this scandal and interviewing the parents of Alex Polier, who is the woman behind the whole story, then you can Google it up for yourself. As I've said numerous times to others, the point of my post is to debunk those who are hoping to point fingers at the Bush campaign for playing "dirty tricks."

You understand that, but you just enjoy clouding the issue and taking shots at anyone you do not like, which accounts for about 80% of the people at Blogcritics.org I would think. If you have any intelligent comments regarding the substance of this post, please add them.

Should I hold my breathe? Maybe not.

Thanks.

David Flanagan

First of all, how is it that I'm talking down to TDavid? I think he has a good point, but, just as you are doing, he missed the point of this post.

Whoa! Hey, now that isn't very nice. I asked you a reasonable question and then you go and start being condescending with me? I was going to leave it with you answering my question with a question, but now you have stepped off the pier.

What kind of ego do you have, dude?

Writing is open to wide forms of interpretation. Now, I'm going to press you much, much harder to answer my question. If you didn't want to answer my "excellent question" -- your words, not mine -- then you should have just said: I'm not going to answer your question. And then you could have added: "I'm just here to be a conduit of information and I have no opinion myself."

So you are saying you had absolutely no agenda for writing this piece? You have no opinion on what you are writing?

I love it when people make an argument and then decide on a whim what side of an argument they are going to be on by the way the wind blows.

Your writing just took a huge nose dive in the credibility scale with me.

Some stones are in order here.

David Flanagan, you say:

". . .the point of my post is to debunk those who are hoping to point fingers at the Bush campaign for playing "dirty tricks."

After reading my post above, I thought I better explain myself a bit better so that you would be able to specifically address my original question and not get caught up thinking it was just some cheap flame.

Please clarify if you really meant what you said here:

the main purpose of this post is to explain why all these people who are now trying to point at the Bush Campaign as the instigator of this scandal are wrong. The actual truth or falsehoods of the scandal are incidental.

Overall, I will say that I disagree that someone who violates the most fundamental and important commitment of his/her life remains unscathed. If you can lie to your spouse, you can lie to anyone.

DIVA: I looked at some of the international publications (American media seems to be leaving this alone) you linked to and they seem to lean towards the Fox scandal-sheet type. I couldn't find out if any are owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp (it may have different names internationally), but at least two might be.

DAVID FLANAGAN:

You ramble a lot, but as far as I can tell, your points may be that a rumor from a very suspect source is true because:

1. You claim that the suspect source claims that the information was from another party that got it from still another who was a friend of the woman involved, sort of like the chains of "evidence" the National Enquirer is famous for.

2. You say that you think that the Bush Campaign wouldn't do this because they'd be afraid of the consequences if the story were false, even though the the Bush administration is notorious for spreading false and misleading information.

3. You say you think that even if they were going to do it, they wouldn't do it now, which seems to indicate that you at least believe they are capable of doing it.

If I got all that right, I'd think your post was spreading an unfounded smear.

Did I get it right?

Hal: the Bush administration is notorious for spreading false and misleading information.

Just to support that, here are some links:

Most Think Truth Was Stretched To Justify Iraq War 2/13/04

Data From Iraqi Exiles Under Scrutiny 2/12/04

Now They Tell Us

Of course it was an "under the cuff" smear, otherwise why bog it here? Anything from Drudge goes out the window as far as I am concerned.

Besides, a lot of polls and even key conservatives themselves are starting to distance themselves from the Bush Administration (regime). Kerry looks like he may get the Democratic nomination, so this is the time of year when all kinds of "hidden" things supposedly come to life.

What I can wait for is when they accuse Kerry of having a homosexual relationship in the past and that is why his agenda is to make gay marriage legal. Or that he has a love child by one of Osama's daughters and a homosexual relationship with Saddam's and Michael Moore's love child and that is why he wants to pull people out of Iraq.

This is the time when inane rumor and innuendos come out to see which candidate has the least amount of poop smeared on his face and can still kiss the babies without the babies screaming "GET ME OUT OF HERE!"

"a lot of polls and even key conservatives themselves are starting to distance themselves from the Bush Administration (regime)"

I mentioned that in Is the bloom off the Bush?

I also ran across an article that suggests that Bush has "passed the tipping point" and it's all downhill from here. May be wishful thinking, though.

I think that is a bit premature. I don't trust Bush one bit. There is still a lot of time between now and November. Anything can happen. I'm hoping peole will be smarter than that but thus far, my faith in the American public at large isn't very sound.

So you are saying you had absolutely no agenda for writing this piece? You have no opinion on what you are writing?

TDavid,

I told you what my agenda is for this post, to refute the growing chorus of libs who are hoping that the airing of this possible scandal can be attributed to the Bush Campaign.

My goal is to discuss this topic and try to stick to this topic as much as possible. Not that I'm totally innocent of straying from the thread topic, but I don't want to go off on tangents here if we can avoid it and your questions were centered on something else.

I apologize if I offended you with my remark to Mac, but I answered you quite plainly before then that I'm not interested in addressing your questions on THIS post. Please post your questions as their own topic and I will gladly answer them there.

Thanks.

David

Instead, they seem to think Bush's military record and the gay marriage issue are what's important.

Thanks for your comments. Its very true that the mainstream media in the US has barely mentioned the allegations posted to DrudgeReport.com. There are, however, some secondary news sources plus a whole lot of bloggers who are beginning to say that this is dirty politics. So I thought that, with my post, I would air my counter-arguments right at the beginning rather than in a reactionary manner later.

The fact is, the mainstream media may well start airing this story in a roundabout way, choosing to "explore" the sources of the rumor rather than going on about the rumor itself. If I were a liberal media mogul and wanted to hurt Bush, thats exactly what I would do.

As for Bush's military record being a pertinet issue, I hope the media continues to make this its focus. It will certainly make Bush's reelection efforts far easier.

Thanks again.

David

Lord, David. Why don't you just say: "I am Bush's man at Blogcritics. Come Hell or high water I will stand by him." That is the truth. My opinion of you would not be any lower if you stated it and I don't think anyone else's would be, either. Come on, you laud yourself as a Christian. So, what is up with the evasions and untruths?

I don't think we can accurately make the prediction that because a candidate lies and/or is unfaithful to his wife, he's not going to do as good or better job in the White House than someone who is faithful and doesn't lie to his wife.


Based on what evidence? Do we know exactly how many of our Presidents have cheated for certain (rumors don't count) and what their presidential legacies are?

I've been married to my wife now for over 12 years. Not as long as you, but a decent amount of time. The day I went to the alter with her was one of the most significant days of my life and, if were to ever get divorced, it would not automatically invalidate that significant commitment that I had made, it would just say that I, or both of us, had screwed up badly enough that we ruined our marriage. On the other hand, you and I both know that marriage in this country is so easy to get out of that it just begs for a higher rate of divorce.

that was my question. If you think it does make him worse at his job then please lay out for me how specifically this does make a difference?

I answered that question but I'll clarify. Anyone who actively deceives their spouse, who is often the person closest to them in their life, is far more likely to then also deceive others. If you deceive the most significant people in your life, don't you think it would then follow that the less significant people in your life would be even easier to deceive?

moralities and job performance IMO are two wholly separate issues in the office of the Presidency in 2004.

With this statement, you tell me that you've bought into the biggest lie of our day. Your morality has everything to do with the way you perform in your job. If you believe in honesty, loyalty, service, and consistency, these things will be reflected in how you perform your job. If you believe in power and pleasing yourself, if you are loyal to yourself first and everyone else last, then THAT is what will be reflected in your job performance. As a guy who leads 25 people at my company, I can tell the difference.

With thousands of pages of documentation they committed our troops to this war and they only perpetuate the lie by saying that they just made a mistake.

Who is they and who, other than Kay, has said that we made a mistake? We don't know for sure what the answer is in regards to those weapons. We do know that Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, and a host of other Democratic leaders are on the books over the past decade saying over and over that there ARE such weapons and that Saddam is a threat to world peace and the stability of that region. How quickly we forget that Kerry was a strong supporter of Clinton when he chose to attack Saddam Hussein in December of 1998.

Some other things we know about Saddam, he was in material breach of resolution 1441. Saddam was actively attempting to build rockets capable of carrying chemical and biological weapons. Saddam was using the UN Oil for Food program to divert UN funds into private accounts so that he could build his many palaces and use the money to purchase all kinds of weapons on the black market in clear violation of the cease fire agreement that he signed with the UN. Kay, during his Congressional hearing said that, in some ways, Saddam was MORE dangerous than they thought and that his removal was the right thing to do. And to top it all off, we've known since the eighties that Saddam was a heavy supporter of terrorism. Saddam proudly boasted of the fact that he was paying $25 or $30 thousand dollars to the families of anyone who chose to become a suicide bomber.

Wesley Clark is on the books as saying that our policy of containment of Saddam was failing and that, eventually, something had to be done about him anyway. And it was Bill Clinton who, in 1998, made the US's official policy on Iraq the removal of Saddam Hussein. And yet it is Bush who is being called to task for successfully deposing and capturing Hussein and ending the threat that he posed.

I would call that the definition of irony.

Finally, you accuse me of furthering the Kerry scandal, but, you see, one of the reasons for not answering your first post on this thread was because I was trying very hard NOT to further the scandal, while, at the same time, not to allow this cheap scandal to be used by political opportunists against President Bush.

I hope this is a clear enough set of answers for you.

Thanks.

David

Flanagan: I told you what my agenda is for this post, to refute the growing chorus of libs who are hoping that the airing of this possible scandal can be attributed to the Bush Campaign.

The "growing chorus of libs" I've heard are hoping that rabid righties will stop smearing Kerry with the rumor, and wait until they have some facts. They're not asking "who started it" but are instead deploring the vicious underhanded tactics of those spreading an unsubstantiated smear.

So far, I've seen only Republicans spreading the smear, so I'd say that your "Republican dirty tricks" is very apt.

If I got all that right, I'd think your post was spreading an unfounded smear.

Hal,

Sorry, but not even close. As I said to TDavid, the reason why I'm trying not to address questions to me regarding this rumor is that I'm trying NOT to further the rumor. I truly hope that its not true.

What I don't want to see happen is all the political opportunists begin to try and pin this on the Bush Campaign as a "dirty trick." You see, during Kerry's visit to Imus in The Morning, where he denied the rumor had any truth, he was asked if he was ready to take on Bush, at which point he said this:

"Absolutely. I think we've seen evidence, we know exactly where these guys are going to go. I'm ready for it because I have been at this for a while. I've been through some tough races. I've been pretty well examined from one side to the other. I think they are in for a surprise. I'm going to fight back. I am a fighter and I am ready to fight back and I think that the American people want the truth about a whole bunch of things."

When I heard this, I took it as a first volley that Kerry was going to do whatever he could to make it seem as if the President was ineptly trying to smear his name. THAT is why I wrote this article.

Thanks.

David

Gawd, Flanagan. Not getting divorced no matter what is a formula for a lot of bad marriages lasting forever. Considering the commonality of incompatibility and domestic violence, I can't get behind such thinking at all.

You consider yourself a Reagan Republican, I gather. Ronald Reagan was a divorced man who had alienated all of his children. (They came back once his mind was gone and inheritance seemed just around the corner.) How do you reconcile the reality of Republican leaders being just as flawed in regard to their domestic relations as Democrats with your 'the GOP can do no wrong' views?

(I don't expect that question to be answered.)

Lord, David. Why don't you just say: "I am Bush's man at Blogcritics. Come Hell or high water I will stand by him."

Mac,

I'm sorry, does it look as I'm being evasive? Let me clarify then:

I support the President of The United States, George W. Bush. Will I support him, even if I know he did something wrong? Not a chance, I'll tell you that I don't support him on some issue.

Case in point, signing the new Medicare bill was a huge mistake. I knew that $400 billion was low-balling it and I was right. Now they are saying $550 billion or more and the thought of all that money for one program makes me sick. The President and the Republican controlled House and Senate are spending too much money and that, too, has to stop. The President's FY 2005 budget is MUCH more in line with what I expect from my government in the way of spending and I want to see that trend continue.

And with that said, I fully intend to vote for President Bush in the upcoming election. If Kerry is the best candidate that Democrats can field, against this President, then I feel quite confident that 2004 will be the year that Americans give Bush a second term.

Thanks.

David

Gawd, Flanagan. Not getting divorced no matter what is a formula for a lot of bad marriages lasting forever.

I'll be happy to answer your question, but first you have to tell me where it is that you assumed I believed there should never be any divorces? Even the Bible allows for divorces in the case of marital infidelity and I don't think that a spouse should ever stay in a home where they are being abused.

As you can see from my post above, I did not even fail to rule out my wife and I ever getting a divorce. What I did say was that marriage was way too easy to get out of these days, which is absolutely true.

Thanks.

David

The question was about your support for Republican politicians despite their failures in the domestic sphere you say you hold so dear, Flanagan. I used Ronald Reagan as an example.

A related issue: If your religion should determine the rules for divorce, what about all the people of other religions or who aren't relgious at all?

Well, you still did not answer my question, but let me answer your second point:

A related issue: If your religion should determine the rules for divorce, what about all the people of other religions or who aren't relgious at all?

Here's a better question:

If my religion is not the law of the land, yet is much more strict in terms of its conditions for divorce while still allowing divorce, why worry about the issue in the first place?

The fact is, divorce happens, but the no fault divorce system we have in place now is the opposite extreme of not allowing any divorces at all. Do you know how many women have been left in near poverty, with or without children, because men have been able to simply walk away without showing cause?

Its a system that gets abused because it is open to abuse.

Thanks.

David

As I said to TDavid, the reason why I'm trying not to address questions to me regarding this rumor is that I'm trying NOT to further the rumor.

I saw what you said but that claim isn't credible: it was you who posted the item.

Do you not see that as spreading an unfounded, vicious underhanded smear?

I do. The unfounded, vicious underhanded smear would not be here had you not posted it. (Some day it may prove to be a fact; today it's an unfounded, vicious underhanded smear.)

It's like Howard Dean bringing up a rumor and saying that he didn't believe it: that was a smear, too.

I saw what you said but that claim isn't credible: it was you who posted the item.

You are absolutely right that I posted the article, which clearly says, right in the title, the article blurb, and the article itself, that this article is all about refuting anyone who claims that this whole rumor is a dirty trick of the Bush Campaign.

If you choose not to believe me then so be it.

Thanks.

David

The President's FY 2005 budget is MUCH more in line with what I expect from my government in the way of spending and I want to see that trend continue,

The budget is based on lies, as I said in another post:

When President Bush presented the 2005 budget [he] said his goal was to cut the deficit in half over five years ... but as he spoke, the President knew that the long term budget projections were far more dire. On page 191 of the "Analytical Perspectives" in the very budget he presented we find: "Long-run budget projections show clearly that the [federal] budget is on an unsustainable path." On the following page we find that the deficit grows to more than 10% of the Gross Domestic Product (we're at about 4% now). [ANOTHER BUSH LIE? OR JUST "MISLEADING?" 2/10/04]

It sounds like we're dealing with both rumor and conjecture, here.

Rumor: Kerry had a fling with an intern, not too long ago.

Conjecture: The GOP did or didn't have something to do with the rumor.

We don't know if the rumor is true or if the GOP did or didn't have anything to do with spreading it.

I don't really have a problem, as a Democrat, with someone posting about this rumor. Someone else started it, and it's fair game. This post isn't saying, "Hey, Kerry had an affair!" It's saying, "I don't think the GOP started the rumor." Opinion/theory/conjecture/whatever about where the rumor came from.

I'm more worried, honestly, about the people denying the truth of the rumor [and with Kerry not just dealing iwth it outright RIGHT NOW]. People are saying there's no proof, so there's no story. That's not true -- the proof will probably surface soon, if you ask me, because I think it's more likely to be true than not true. [more opinion]

If it's true, Kerry needs to be the first one to say it. And he better not finger-wagging lie about it; that's worse. If the mainstream media reports it and he has to start stammering to explain, he's in trouble.

(Scratching head. I seem to be doing a lot of that at Blogcritics lately.)

You are absolutely right that I posted the article, which clearly says, right in the title, the article blurb, and the article itself, that this article is all about refuting anyone who claims that this whole rumor is a dirty trick of the Bush Campaign.

To make that claim you are posting the smear of Kerry. Since this the blogosphere and it relies on links, other Right Wing blogs may pick up the smear you published and pass it on. Furthermore, people who read the smear may believe it. So, clearly you are part of the smear campaign, right?

I could post an entry to my blog saying someone, say Blog Bloke, is rumored to be out of his mind. I could totally disagree with that opinion in my entry and pretend to be sincere about that. But, in the process of posting the entry, I would have passed on the rumor that BB is bonkers to the hundreds of readers of Mac-a-ro-nies and the scores of blogs that link to it. Except for a smaller audience, how is your entry different from my hypothetical?

I guess I should point out though, that the poster's theory that the GOP had nothing to do with the rumor also lays blame for said rumor squarely on the feet of the media.

That would be the same liberal media that tried to smear Bush in 2000 with his [very real] drunk driving arrest and the same liberal media that's now trying to smear him by alleging he skipped service time in the National Guard, right?

Just checkin' on how the liberal media is doing these days.

;-)

Mr. Flanagan - first you say you aren't going to answer my question -- I must go to a different thread and get an answer -- and then you go ahead and answer it anyway? I'm glad that you did answer, but it would be less confusing if you'd make up your mind :)

You wrote:

With this statement, you tell me that you've bought into the biggest lie of our day.
Your morality has everything to do with the way you perform in your job. If you believe in honesty, loyalty, service, and consistency, these things will be reflected in how you perform your job. If you believe in power and pleasing yourself, if you are loyal to yourself first and everyone else last, then THAT is what will be reflected in your job performance. As a guy who leads 25 people at my company, I can tell the difference.

David, what you say is clearly contadicted by what you did:

You, all by yourself, posted the smear.

What you say about why you posted the posted the smear is irrelevant: you posted it and brought it here.

I didn't. Eric didn't. Mac Diva didn't.

You did.

Trying to excuse the spreading by claiming you had higher motives is disingenuous (to put a kind face on it).

Gang, it ain't a smear unless it's untrue. We don't know if it is or isn't. It's a rumor and people are talking about it ALL over the Web, including at leftie sites like TalkLeft. I don't know why it would be off limits here at BC.

I realize this hasn't been proven true yet, but I am saying: so what if this is true.

I'll say it again: 50 years ago moral issues in the Presidency would have been so much more relevant than they are today.

Here are the specific job requirements for being eligible for the Presidency:

The Constitution requires that a candidate for the presidency must be a "natural-born" citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. years.

Does a person need to be married to be President?
Nope. There have been several Presidents who were not married at the time of their election or during their term of office.

I'm still waiting to hear how Reagan, an actual divorced man, is acceptable as president but somehow a vague, unsubstantiated rumor about Kerry disqualifies him.

In Flanagan's sort of defense, he is a veteran participant in Free Republic. I know because I snoop around that site. (It is a good source for neo-Confederate material.) I had read him before he arrived here. FR is a kind of ingrown far Right world of its own. He can post entries like this there and no one will question him. In fact, praise might be the response. Heck, they might crown him the Drudge of FR, which they would consider a compliment. So, Flanagan is not used to being questioned. That may partly explain why he is doesn't respond to what I think are intelligent questions about the entries he posts. The other part is just plain sneakiness.

(The Diva said someone was, Lord forbid, sneaky. I suppose you will want to make a note of that, TDavid. Got to keep tabs on uppity colored folks, eh? J. Edgar Hoover would have loved you. Rolling eyes heavenward.)

Gang, it ain't a smear unless it's untrue.

So if I hear something unproven but slimey about you and pass it around to your friends and the world at large, that's not a smear?

Sure it is.

Agreed, bhw. But, if it is a smear, then Flanagan has done his part to spread it. We are only asking that he acknowledge that.

Also, I think discussing it in general, and having an agenda of using it because one is a political operative, or thinks he is, are somewhat different.

Did you say something, Mac Diva? I've got the volume turned so low on you that you barely register any more. You'll have to speak up a bit more if you want to be heard.

Better yet, go munch on some Valentine's candy ;) I think we are sort of on the same side of this one, as eerie as that might sound.

Well, if you heard someone say something icky about me [it's not true, I swear!] and then learned that another person was being blamed for it, and you defended the blamee, then no, you wouldn't be smearaing me. You'd be defending the blamee.

So, in the context of a specific rumor, if someone wants to write about rumors and how they start and who gets blamed for them in politics, I don't see that as smearing the person who's the subject of the rumor. It's a valid discussion.

Doesn't mean it's nice to be John Kerry right now, but that IS politics. It's dirty and he has to expect this type of thing.

I guess my problem here is that I think the rumor may very well turn out to be true, but maybe not exactly as we've heard it. I'm not going to be shocked to hear that there's evidence Kerry has had one or more affairs while married.

I mean, a politician and an intern? NEVER!

I don't like Drudge, either, but the story is out there. Why not talk about how it got there?

Is the candy poisoned-:), TDavid. You need to go back and read what you said there, I think. It is pretty awful. Maybe you got caught up in the feverish craziness BB was urging people to partake of. BTW, he has achieved something, apparently: The second closing of a thread at Blogcritics. And me? Annoyed, but amused, too.

Agreed, bhw. But, if it is a smear, then Flanagan has done his part to spread it. We are only asking that he acknowledge that.

I guess I'd agree that the smear [if it is a smear] is being spread, perhaps, but not that Flanagan has personally smeared Kerry himself, unless he already knows that the rumor is untrue. At this point, he's just repeating a rumor.

Unfortunately, Drudge does make noise/news on the Web, and it's hard for people to ignore the stuff he says, even when he's just "reporting" hearsay.

At this point, though, I don't care who started the rumor or who gets blamed for starting it. I just want Kerry to NOT FUCK IT UP IF IT'S TRUE.

If he wants to be president, he has to handle it well. And sitting down next to Teresa on 60 Minutes' couch ain't going to cut it, primarily because she'll cut his balls off right there in front of the camera.

Are you listening John? Please say yes.

Agreed, again, bhw.

Another thing I wonder about is how seriously we should take married men having affairs with young women. The last time I saw a stat for infidelity, it was pretty high, like 70 percent of husbands cheat at some point or something. So, chances are that most men who run for president have cheated on their wives, even the boring ones. In fact, it might be higher because men with power have an easier time getting into women's panties. At some point, don't we more or less have to say that affairs, while not encouraged, are largely wallpaper?

Incidentally, I just got back from Starbucks, where I met a friend who gave me, a diabetic, Valentine's Day candy. (I didn't want to hurt his feelings, so I took it anyway.) There were at least a dozen Valentine's couples there. I found myself wondering which ones were with their actual spouses-:).

I wrote to a friend this week that it might actually help Kerry if we learn that he's gotten freaky once or twice in his life. I mean, he comes across so stiff and boring! Maybe some kinky sex with a young thang will humanize him a little.

If 70% of all men have affairs, I can only believe that the percentage of politicians who step out, particularly those in DC, has to be about 90%.

Wallpaper, for sure.

Maybe the real reason the mainstream press isn't talking about the rumor is that they're tired of affair stories, too.

So, clearly you are part of the smear campaign, right?

Mac,

You are going to believe whatever it is you want to believer. You always do and each person, like you, has the power to decide on their own.

My great concern is, again, that people such as yourself are going to try and make the President the fall guy for the media's interest in this issue.

Right from nearly the beginning, members of the Kerry Campaign were trying to pin this on the Bush Campaign. What happens with this issue is anyone's guess and I don't care to discuss it, but I won't stand by and let ignore all common sense and paint this one on Bush. This whole thing is not a Republican dirty trick, though, it is a conservative media source that outed the story.

If the story develops, then we'll see what happens. If it doesn't, then there is no doubt in my mind that a full scale effort will be made by Kerry to blame the President for this rumor.

It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. Politics as usual.

David

BHW,

Actually, this rumor was outed by conservative media. I think Drudge published it when he did because he wanted to scoop other media sources, some of which are liberal.

As for the media's love of 30-year-old issues, I think they should continue to obsess on it. Its amusing to watch.

David

This isn't Hollywood, and even if it was, that sentence would have high cheese factor. Seriously, what are the job interview questions here?

TDavid,

Have you ever lead people before? How about hiring; ever done any of that? I've led teams on and off for several years now, depending on my job role, and I've helped hire or directly hired hundreds of people.

You test for loyalty, honesty, consistency, etc. this way:

FIRST - Look at their resume. Are they jumping from job to job over short periods of time? Not a good sign. If they are consultants, then its understandable since consultants are turned over on a yearly basis, but if they work for a company and have a series of jobs lasting a year or less, thats a red flag.

SECOND - Meet with the candidate and test their people skills. How do they answer questions, do they look you in the eye, do they show enthusiasm? We call these "soft skills" and professionals need to have them.

THIRD - CHECK THEIR REFERENCES!!!! So many companies interview their candidates and hire them without checking references and confirming other details of their resume. We always check references and we check to make sure that the schools listed there were actually attended and the degrees were actually conferred. We once had to eliminate a candidate because they had lied about their degree. They went to the school but never graduated.

This is very basic, but I really don't want to write 10 pages spelling out in detail how to hire good people. No system is foolproof, but, really, I pity you if you are a manager and think there is no way to test for positive traits in the people you want to hire.

I'm fortunate that I work with very intelligent and talented people at my company. We care about what we do and we care about how well it gets done. Part of the reason for that is the very high standard that the company holds around who it hires.

Thanks.

David

I'm still waiting to hear how Reagan, an actual divorced man, is acceptable as president but somehow a vague, unsubstantiated rumor about Kerry disqualifies him.

A veteran poster to Free Republic? Thank you for that compliment Diva. :-)

Who was it on this board that said that Kerry was disqualified to be Prez if the scandal turns out to be true?

And I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions. You have this interesting double standard in that you are the only one allowed to ask the questions. You seem to feel no obligation to answer them in turn. I realize that you understand that the person who asks the questions maintains control of the conversation, but I thought you believed in debate and dialogue? I guess we now know the answer to that.

To be fair, I understood the answer very early on in our dealings.

Thanks.

David

[sarcasm] Nope Mr. Flanagan, I've never hired anybody before. [end sarcasm] What does that have to do with the office of the Presidency?

If you come to the Seattle area then drop me a line and I'll be happy to share our brick and mortar business bio with you. I'm not applying for a job with you, so that my management or ownership experience is irrelevant to this situation. So is yours, for that matter.

Why the odd obsession with me?

I didn't ask how you hired people or how I hire people in our respective businesses, because we aren't talking about us, nor how you or I go about our own personal lives, I asked specifically what are the requirements of the position of the President of the United States and how whether Mr. Kerry cheated on or lied to his wife -- or not -- specifically would affect his job performance as President.

You said loyalty, honesty, consistency were traits you tested for in your own line of work, great, but I wasn't asking for or testing that information.

I was asking for the interview questions for the President. Specifically how those traits would be measured in the office of the Presidency. Let's take the interview criteria and judge them one by one.

"FIRST - Look at their resume. Are they jumping from job to job over short periods of time? Not a good sign."

So how does Kerry's resume hold up here relevant to becoming President of the United States? How does Bush's resume hold up? Did they have some pattern of jumping from job to job? Let's say that they did, then what, are you saying they are going to quit the Office in the middle of the term and leave the american people?

"SECOND - Meet with the candidate and test their people skills."

If you saw the interview with Russert last week then you'd know that President Bush suffers in people's skills. He looked like he was back hitting the bottle. How is that for a test? Was he just nervous? Maybe. What about Kerry, is he good with other people?

"THIRD - CHECK THEIR REFERENCES!!!! So many companies interview their candidates and hire them without checking references and confirming other details of their resume."

Laws protect references, which anybody who has really done any recruiting knows that there is limited legal information available in reference checking. All a prospective employer can do is see if a person worked at the times/dates that he/she said. You cannot be told by the former employer what type of worker they were, whether they slept with other employees, etc. You can't be told what the circumstances for the separation were. Only did or didn't he/she work there during these dates/times.

From Virginia Tech:

Giving references can expose employers to a host of legal problems, such as charges of discrimination, libel and slander, and invasion of privacy. Normally, it is recognized that an employer has a legitimate need to share information about former and prospective workers that may be defamatory, if such information is in the legitimate interest of the employer and its disclosure to the inquiring party will protect or further that interest. As such, employers that give job references generally are immune from liability so long as they:

Provide the reference in good faith, without malice or reckless disregard for the truth, and give accurate, job related information.

Furnish the information in the proper manner, during the proper occasion, and to the proper party.
Limit the information to the inquiry.

[sarcasm] Nope Mr. Flanagan, I've never hired anybody before. [end sarcasm] What does that have to do with the office of the Presidency?

TDavid,

I'm not obsessing with you, or on you, or anything of the sort. I'm trying to make my points clear, and the best way to do that is to relate them to real-life experiences that you and I can understand.

And the experience of hiring someone (an experience that I'm glad to hear that you've had) is directly related when it comes to finding ways to evaluate a candidate for a job or for President. You look at their previous experience and see how successful they were, then you look at and listen to the people endorsing the candidate (their references), and then there is the process of listening to the candidate to see if their experience and endorsements jibe with what they say in public (live interview).

Your point to the President's people skills is well taken. I saw the interview and was very dissapointed with the way it went. What I will say for the President is that he does great speeches. Already in his first three years, the President has given several memorable speeches. When it comes to public speaking, however, there is much to be desired. Bush is not the only President who has had this problem.

With politicians you have to give some leeway with both speeches and interviews because, as you know, they all have issues related to giving you the straight facts. Part of the problem is that politicians who get too honest have their words used against them by the opposition.

And as for insulting my work history while not knowing hardly a thing about me, that speaks to YOUR character. You've taken several things that I've written as insults when I had not meant them to be insulting. So, for miscommunications on my part, I do apologize for that. I hope that, perhaps on other posts or other threads, we'll have better success.

Thanks.

David

Flanagan, you haven't asked me a question. You seldom ask people questions, you are too busy telling us what is what.

Still waiting for your answer in regard to the messy domestic lives of Republican pols. Why are they acceptable to you?

I notice that you have posted not one, but two entries about the possilbe smear campaign against Kerry that you say you mention only with reluctance, on your blog. Is a third, 'I hate to talk about Kerry jumping the bones of sweet young things, but I have to' entry on the way?

Is a third, 'I hate to talk about Kerry jumping the bones of sweet young things, but I have to' entry on the way?

Looks like you just took care of that for me Mac. I guess I won't need to.

Thanks.

David

The relationship itself is not worth note EXCEPT if Kerry lied to Don Imus about it. In fact, FAR MORE TROUBLESOME than any dallying with an intern is Kerry's wife Teresa Heinz Kerry's contributions to Communist-sponsored anti-war groups such as International A.N.S.W.E.R. and The Committee for Justice and Peace through her family's Tides Foundation's contributions to these radical groups. Amongst the groups the Tides Foundation funnels millions of dollars to support are Ramsey Clark's International Action Center which fund's A.N.S.W.E.R., and supports Lynne Stewart, counsel for Sheik Abdul Rahman (known as "The Blind Sheik") who was an architect of the first World Trade Center bombing. Ms. Stewart is under indictment for her suspected support of Al-Qaeda operatives.

There are many radical Islamist groups the Tides Foundation supports. A list of contributors is available and anyone who wants to do some research can come up with plenty to worry about besides dallying with an intern, should the Kerry's win the next election.

Flan mentions the Matt Drudge (Mr. Pillar of Objective Truth) 'rumor' and only spreads it around in order to elucidate the REAL issue:

"Was it or was it not spread by a Republican dirty tricks campaign? America wants to know."

Disingenuous indeed.

BTW, Dave; for me, this is similar to the Bush/AWOL story: it wouldn't matter if these Repubs didn't run on this "Holier than Thou Family Values" crap.

They make sex an issue and then cry foul when it's applied to them.

They make patriotism (Military Service, ie clinton the draft-dodging commie) an issue, and then cry foul when drunken frat boy is caught skipping out on Viet Nam.

In reality, few Americans REALLY care about fidelity in their leaders: (if those are the standards, we'd better just appoint a Pope and keep young boys away from the Oval Office.)

Frankly, I could care less what a politician does with his dick, as long as its legal and he doesn't do it to me or the country (is screwing the country still illegal under the current administration, or has that been "de-regulized" yet?).

Bush portraying himself as GI Joe makes criticisms of his Nat. Guard 'called-in-sick' days FAIR GAME.

The Repubs made 'family values' an issue and then cried "unfair!" when it was pointed out that there then-leader, Newt Gingrich, was on his um-teenth marriage.

Again, FAIR GAME.

BTW: many Republicans said Clinton's sexcapades weren't about the sex, but about 'LYING UNDER OATH."

Yeah. uh-huh.




PS: David, a quick disclaimer:

Because I might oppose you does not mean that I endorse the opinions or tactics of MacDiva. Given a piece of paper and a #2 pencil, Matt Drudge can prove she is Satan incarnate.


Best,
Shark

Oh, and Dave, I LOVE the title:

"SIMMERING KERRY SCANDAL..."

A few more 'essays' like this one and it should be up to a boil.

Were you the genius that came up with that "Faith-based Initiative" euphemism?

man, you guys are sharp.

Somehow I missed this tempest over the last few days. I would agree that the actionable issue now is did Kerry lie to Imus when he stated unequivocally that he did not have an affair with that intern - whoa, deja vu.

Maybe Kerry will be the person who finally blows this whole thing wide open. I can see it now:

"Yeah, I hit it. Dude, she is hot - have you seen her? We're not in love or anything, but I need about 57 varieties, if you know what I mean, and my wife is a busy gal. So? Can we talk about Vietnam?"

Someday, somebody's going to do it, and politics will be the better for it in the long-term. Why not Kerry?

It's not too late. He can spin Imus and still "come out".

Please?

Shark,

Your point is taken and appreciated. Thanks for your comments and for your challenges.

Regards,

David

I think everyone can agree that politicians and the truth are often like oil and water, whereas, politicians and sex scandals are an unfortunately common occurence. No party has a corner on that market and everyone likes to use them to best effect against the other party whenever possible.

I could go on endlessly with examples that support my point, but most of those who have posted comments to this thread likely already know what I'm talking about. Instead, I just want to reiterate that my greatest worry is NOT the truth or falsehood of this story regarding Kerry, rather, its the fact that there are already attempts to make this look like a GOP/Bush attack on Kerry, which could not be further from the truth. It used to be that President Bush was called "stupid" by his opponents. They've stopped calling him that and now the new script to follow is Bush as a liar. The fact is, President Bush is way too saavy a politician to attack Kerry with a salacious rumor like this right now, if at all.

If you want to reveal this kind of rumor, you don't do it while the candidate is still fighting it out in the primaries. Rather, you wait until its much closer to the election to reveal this kind of rumor, when it has the chance of doing far more damage.

Obviously I think that Bush would never use such a tactic, which is why I wrote this post in the first place. I know that many others have their doubts. :-)

Thanks.

David

The fact is, President Bush is way too saavy a politician to attack Kerry with a salacious rumor like this right now, if at all.

Well, now you're going too far. Savvy? Not so much.

Maybe Bush's advisors or the GOP head honchos, but Bush himself seems ... um ... a little light in the savvy department.

If you want to reveal this kind of rumor, you don't do it while the candidate is still fighting it out in the primaries.

Unless you prefer to run against another candidate in the general election. See: Gray Davis, who was, if nothing else, a savvy politician.

I can't say anything else. When I read this thread now, I just giggle a lot. Instead, I am going to refer people to Eric's new entry about the alleged victim denying there was an affair. Look under the Etc. titles.

Mac,

Didn't you hear, the "Bush is Stupid" script is not being used any longer. That was so two years ago. The new script is "Bush Is A Liar."

As for the President's political saavy, just knowing who to surround yourself with is a measure of that saavy. Most any leader will tell you that, including Bill Clinton.

Thanks.

David Flanagan

I think that was me and not MD you were responding to.

Personally, I'll never let go of the "Bush is stoopid" script. I don't really think he's stupid as much as he is anti-intellectual, a non-thinker, and therefore not really a good guy to have his finger on the button, no matter how astute his advisors.

BTW, his advisors may have political savvy, but that doesn't make them good for the country.

I don't really think he's stupid as much as he is anti-intellectual, a non-thinker...

Actually, I think what some liberals object to with Bush is that fact that he's anti-elite. He has the same upbringing and education as Al Gore and John Kerry, but he's a plain spoken person who, for example, would prefer steaks on the grill rather a five star meal at New York's fanciest restaraunt.

In other words, he's more like the rest of us. And that is part of his appeal.

Thanks.

David

No, a guy who doesn't read the newspaper or have any curiosity whatsoever isn't really like the rest of us. I like beer and steaks, too, and I live in my blue jeans. And I love to watch sports, particularly basketball and football.

But I also like to think. Thinking is NOT elitism or elitist. It's thinking, and it's a practice the leader of the free world should engage in from time to time.

...President Bush is way too saavy a politician to attack Kerry with a salacious rumor like this...

Savvy?

How savvy was exposing a CIA agent whose husband did't stick to the Cheney WMD propaganda program?

Now I've heard it all. A person from old WASP money on both sides of his family is 'anti-elite'? A guy who is a member of several exclusive clubs open only to the financial, political and social elite is 'anti-elite'? A person who will inherit more wealth than everyone on the Blogcritics blogroll combined is anti-elite? I must not understand what 'elite' means.

I would have to say that GW Bush and John Kerry are both elites in every meaningful sense of the word.

Yes, and they know they are the elite. I went to school with people like that from eigth grade on. They know from childhood that they are supposed to run the world.

Well Mac, did you vote for Al Gore? It was VP Gore whom the press continually reminded us was "groomed" for the Presidency from childhood. And that by a father who was adamantly against the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

But I don't believe in this right that people think they have because they are monied, whether it be Al Gore or George W Bush. I think liberals are worse when it comes to elitist thinking of this sort. Average people won't let them pass the kind of socialist legislation they want, so that pack the courts with judges who override our elected officials and force the changes that intellectuals think are right.

The problem is, many of these people with money are educated beyond their intelligence. They have no grasp of common sense or the needs of people who are required to work for a living.

Now, you can certainly claim that Bush is one of the elite, but what I'm saying, and I hope you can grasp the argument here, is that Bush does not ACT like one of them, which is what the elites find so incredibly offensive about him. George W Bush can trace his ancestry directly back to the original settlers who came to this country via the Mayflower, yet he doesn't act the part.

Bush-haters regularly complain that Bush acts like a redneck, driving around his ranch in an old pickup truck, cooking steaks on the grill, etc. This is what offends liberals, that he acts like a "commoner," rather than a "leader" (as defined by liberals, a leader is a monied person who tells the commoners in this nation how they should live their lives).

Now, lets contrast that to Kerry, who, if elected, will become the third wealthiest President ever to take office. He DOES act as the liberal elites expect him to. He has gone to all the "right" schools, has married into even more money than he originally had in the first place, is a proper member of upper class society, etc.

Of course liberal elites want this guy over Dean, Edwards, or Leiberman. They can relate to him. Dean they think of as an upstart commoner who would DARE to challenge the Democratic establishment, Leiberman is FAR too conservative, and Edwards does not have the rights connections or societal standing because his money was self-made as an attorney.

No, Kerry is the one for our nation's upper crust liberals, which is why Soros is sparing no expense to support him. The only problem is that Kerry is just the kind of Washington insider that makes most Americans nervous, and when the real campaign starts and Americans begin to see that, Kerry is going to lose a lot of those big poll numbers that we are seeing currently.

I feel quite confident of that, but, I'll guess we'll see for sure in November.

David Flanagan

The problem is, many of these people with money are educated beyond their intelligence. They have no grasp of common sense or the needs of people who are required to work for a living.

And this describes ... who? Dick Cheney, perhaps?

Now, lets contrast that to Kerry, who, if elected, will become the third wealthiest President ever to take office.

That's his wife's money, which she inherited, and they have a pre-nup. His own income is relatively small, by comparison. I think he earned about $150K last year. He comes from a wealthy background, but not as wealthy as G.W. Bush.

Next, let's compare the wealth of the VPs!

"liberal elites","socialist legislation","liberal elites"...

all that talk radio propagand you listen to has gone to your head.

It came up because Flanagan thinks Shrub is anti-elitist, Mark. (Stop laughing.)

Actually, it came up because I made the point the Bush does not ACT like an elitist. Certainly his upbringing was one of priviledge, just as was that of Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, etc., but his image is completely different from the others.

Thats why Democrats worked so hard to create the image that Bush was stupid, because they couldn't stand the thought of a plain-spoken man with a Texas accent beating their carefully groomed and cultured candidate in 2000. Then, in 2002, when Bush helped win the Senate back from Democrats and helped Republicans gain even more seats in the house against all precedent, Democrats were even more upset.

How could a plain-spoken DUMB president such as George W Bush do this to them? Now, because Democrats finally have learned that the "stupid" script doesn't work, they've switched to the "liar" script and are desperately selling that.

Unfortunately for Democrats, its look as if your candidate will be John Kerry, the guy who flip flops more than a fish on dry land... A guy SO desperate to win the Democratic nomination that he had to steal all of Dean's best lines in order to win enough support to beat Dean in Iowa.

Its going to be great fun listing all of Kerry's flip-flops during his years in Washington. Voting against the "Defense of Marriage" act but then saying he is against gay marriage, voting to authorize military action against Iraq, then saying he only voted to authorize the "threat" of force, not its actual use. Then, later, voting against funding for Iraq efforts while, at the same time, accusing the President of not being able to "win the peace" in Iraq.

And all of that hardly scratches the surface of this guy. As I said, this will be great fun.

Thanks.

David

Okay, I'll admit Bush is a good actor.

But the evidence indicates that he's as ignorant as a stick.

I would hope that the damage done through him is because he is so ignorant and doesn't realize how he is being manipulated by much sharper business and political heads.

The alternative is that he's "dumb like a fox" and the biggest weasel in the history of this nation.

Which do you think it is?

What is 'not acting like an elitist'? If one has money, power and influence as the Bush's have had for generations, then it is part and parcel of what one is and does. If Bush sits on the porch eating pork rinds, it is not because he doesn't have other options. He is justly slumming. Rich people have always done that when they felt like it, I think.

Not dumb like a fox, Hal. Sneaky. But, being sneaky is different from being sly. Sly implies more applied intelligence, I guess. Sneaky is seeing opportunities and grabbing advantage, I'd say.

And Kerry doesn't have money? The five wealthies presidents have all been Democrats.

Didn't say that. Kerry comes from money and his wife can bathe in it by inheritance and her first hubby. Eric and I acknowledged Kerry is from the same elite above.

But, I think whether there is a tradition of noblesse oblige in a rich family matters. (Though, on a personal level I hated being patted on the head by hoitie-toities as the little scholarship girl in school. Broke with a mentor in law school over that. My company was just as much a favor to him as his was to me, but he didn't see it that way.) Families like the Kennedy's inculcate a sense of having a duty of public service along with the elitist values. I don't believe the Bushes are that way. All the gravy is supposed to be for them.