Less than a day after the Drudge Report led with this headline: CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS: KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT ALLEGED INFIDELITY, RIVALS PREDICT RUIN, and already accusations of "Republican dirty tricks" are being made by the Kerry Campaign and liberal media sources all over the world. Their attempt, of course, is to smear the Bush Campaign with their own scandal.
The only problem is, nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, if the rumors of Kerry's affair are true, the world will soon know that the Bush Campaign has been unfairly smeared and Kerry will look even worse than he does now.
Why would Republicans in general and Bush in particular leave this one alone? Three reasons:
1) Every indication up to this point is that the information came from tips given to Drudge through other media sources. On Matt's site DrudgeReport.com, he claims that the original investigation began when "A close friend of the woman first approached a reporter late last year claiming fantastic stories — stories that now threaten to turn the race for the presidency on its head!"
2) The Bush Campaign, even if it knew of this brewing storm, would never have touched it purely on the knowledge that they could be burned if the story turned out to be either untrue or unprovable. The Davis Campaign in California tried this tactic against Governor Schwarzenegger and there is every indication that it backfired miserably.
3) Even if the Bush campaign knew of this situation and intended to use it against Kerry, they would have waited until AFTER the Democratic Convention in Boston to air the scandal. Starting this rumor now will do the Bush Campaign no good, and might even harm it if an even more electable candidate, like Edwards, were to take Kerry's place as the frontrunner to the Democratic nomination. The fact is, Kerry has contradicted himself so many times, that he is a huge target for the Bush Campaign just on legitimate issues, such as for warning special interests that they are on their way out in Washington just a day before a congressional report shows that he is the single largest recipient of special interest campaign funds.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - TDavid
It might not be a smear tactic, but it sure has the scent of one.
2 - Ms. Tek
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.
3 - Hal Pawluk
Ed Gillespie would be proud of you.
As would other practitioners of the art:
Note that it doesn't matter whether the points are true or not:
4 - David Flanagan
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
5 - 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
6 - Mark Saleski
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.
7 - Hal Pawluk
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.
8 - TDavid
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.
9 - David Flanagan
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
10 - Mark Saleski
common sense or not, that doesn't change the fact that they are opinions.
11 - David 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?
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
12 - David Flanagan
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
13 - Mark Saleski
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.
14 - David Flanagan
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
15 - Mac Diva
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.
16 - jack e .jett
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.
17 - Mac Diva
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.
18 - David Flanagan
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
19 - TDavid
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.
20 - Mac Diva
David Flanagan, you say:
If that is so, you need to write letters to CBS and NBC. I watched the news on both yesterday and your 'Kerry is the one with a real scandal' claim hasn't come to their attention. Instead, they seem to think Bush's military record and the gay marriage issue are what's important.
This is a Google search of the phrase "Alex Polier." There are six non-redundant stories. Several of those are in foreign papers with a reputation for gossip mongering. Even among them, the fact the rumors came from the hardly unbiased Matt Drudge is acknowledged. If there is a scandal here, I am a rich woman.
These are latest my "unintelligent" thoughts.
21 - TDavid
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:
Incidental? This is your point? "all these people" ... hmm, ok, so who are "all these people"? The media? Democrats? The American people in general?
I have to wonder here where our part as writers is in "instigating this scandal" begins and ends? Is this simply objective reporting or do we have an opinion of our own on this, really?
This article, for this reader, left your viewpoint very vague and I was asking for clarification. That's part of what the comment section is for, yes/no?
Some of the writing here at Blogcritics assumes way too much on the reader's part. I find myself repeatedly asking for details on certain pieces. Most of the writing is good and provides links, but there are some pieces written where where there aren't even links to the source material.
So when I asked a relevant question you moved to be condescending to me and then further suggesting that I "didn't get your point". Please.
Perhaps, I got your point all too well. Perhaps, in fact, I struck a nerve.
If I go and create another entry it makes it rather easy for you to ignore my entries and not reply. Have you ever replied to any of the 21 entries I've written to date? (I don't remember you ever doing so, but I could be wrong). So my interpretation was that this was your impolite way of saying: go play in your own sandbox.
So by putting my questioning of your point of view and intentions here, it makes it a bit harder to ignore, capiche?
When I visited your blog, before writing my original comment, the first thing I saw was a Bush/Cheney newsfeed so that immediately indicated to me: hmm, this viewpoint could be biased.
As for the statement where you did offer your opinion (thank you, BTW) on it making a difference about if Kerry was being unfaithful to his wife, you said:
Let's dissect this train of thought in real world application today, in 2004.
First of all, more than 50% of all marriages today end in divorce. This is a fact. So coining marriage "the fundamental most important committment of one's life" greatly depends on the person.
In my case I've been happily married for 14 going on 15 years and I would personally agree 100% with your statement. However, statistics show that from my point of view and possibly yours as well, that this is not how the majority of Americans think and act in 2004.
Therefore, 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.
Secondly, as a technical aside, your use of the word "you" here is suspect. If a candidate lies to his spouse, does that make him/her better or worse at his job as President of The United States? To paraphrase a bit, 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'm all ears on this point of view because moralities and job performance IMO are two wholly separate issues in the office of the Presidency in 2004.
We should keep in mind that this isn't the 40's or 50's, and that era of public high ground morals and private immoralities is long, long gone. Whether we both like it or not one too many Presidential Playboys has stained the office worse than that ceremonial blue dress.
If the President is off screwing some foreign diplomat and gets us in some sort of political trouble then heck yes, this news would be relevant, but screwing a secretary, an intern, or some other person in his private life, well, I can't go that far. Can you?
Really, who is to say that he didn't have his wife's permission with this activity? You know, there is such a thing as swinging. Maybe John Kerry and his wife in their private life are swingers? The 60's and 70's certainly had their share of this type of activity, just as this type of activity exists today, yes/no?
And please don't say if Kerry will lie to his wife then he'll have no hesitation lying to the American people, because then that will open the floodgate of lies that other politicians -- including our current sitting President -- have propogated, again, on both sides of the aisle.
I think this whole "they have weapons of mass destruction" thing was a crock. Who did the reconnaissance on this data? 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. With all the tax money spent and the lives of our brave men and women soldiers lost, making a mistake in this situation is unnacceptable.
The Investigation part of FBI is lacking and the Intelligence in CIA is now definitely in question.
I'm not so naive to believe everything the media tries to forcefeed me, but perhaps some others are. I'm also not so naive to believe that every writer doesn't have personal and professional biases of some sort. At least spell them out when writing so that readers know this without having to play Sherlock Holmes. You do agree that your viewpoint journal should make it clear what your viewpoint is, yes/no?
Therefore, Mr. Flanagan, I resubmit to you that there was something beyond just passing along information in this post. I think your part in furthering this scandal is far from disinterested third party or innocent blogger bystander who is disturbed by the injustice of blaming the Bush camp as the source of these news stories.
I'd be interested to hear you explain specifically where and how I'm wrong here. This isn't some cheap flame, I took time to vet these words carefully, civilly and respectfully, so I hope in your response you'll be able to do the same.
Thank you.
22 - Hal Pawluk
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?
23 - Hal Pawluk
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
24 - Ms. Tek
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!"
25 - Hal Pawluk
"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.