Kerry was just on "Imus in the Morning" and denied that anything happened. So he's on the record as denying it and now we'll see if the story continues.
I posted this earlier but for some reason it's not here anymore:
Kerry gave a classic "non-denial" denial. His answer kind of creeps me out...because it's so technical and legal-sounding.
I'm not saying he did anyting, but somehow that answer doesn't seem right to me. Support him or not, but do you see my point with that answer? Imus asked him if there was anything in his background that might cause Imus to "jump off his bandwagon"...Kerry responded:
"Well, there is nothing to report," Kerry told IMUS. "So there is nothing to talk about. I'm not worried about it. No."
SDW2001, that's Kerry for you. When he's not pandering, he's double talking.
Hello? How is that double talk? If the rumors are false, then that's exactly what I would say. I wouldn't articlulate the rumor itself, since that would be giving it life. Instead, just, "Nope, nothing here, move along."
And wasn't the Drudge thing supposed to be quickly picked up by the mainstream media? The only places I've seen giving it play are blogs, Rush, and some wind-bags on Fox.
Hello? How is that double talk? If the rumors are false, then that's exactly what I would say. I wouldn't articlulate the rumor itself, since that would be giving it life. Instead, just, "Nope, nothing here, move along."
And wasn't the Drudge thing supposed to be quickly picked up by the mainstream media? The only places I've seen giving it play are blogs, Rush, and some wind-bags on Fox.
Here in Holland there's a paper (read the online version of it )who wrote about it, but they said that it was a rumour by the American gossip/tabloid king Matt drudge.
Hello? How is that double talk? If the rumors are false, then that's exactly what I would say. I wouldn't articlulate the rumor itself, since that would be giving it life. Instead, just, "Nope, nothing here, move along."
And wasn't the Drudge thing supposed to be quickly picked up by the mainstream media? The only places I've seen giving it play are blogs, Rush, and some wind-bags on Fox.
That's the point. It sounded like he was playing a "let's not give this legs" answer. It's like it was rehearsed and calculated. Don't you see this?
sort of like how bush refuses to talk about his drug past...did he deny it? no, just said, "i'm not talking about that"...i actually applaud him for that and will be glad if politicians in the present and future do the same...i look forward to "not something i will discuss, next question" becoming a more frequent answer...then we can move forward on issues
sort of like how bush refuses to talk about his drug past...did he deny it? no, just said, "i'm not talking about that"...i actually applaud him for that and will be glad if politicians in the present and future do the same...i look forward to "not something i will discuss, next question" becoming a more frequent answer...then we can move forward on issues
How it works. Right out in the open for all to see.
A rumor with no actual accusation, much less substantiation. Picked up/invented by the right wing media in the person of Drudge. Basically, a story about a rumor of a story.
Rush starts some kind of insane ranting about how this has been generated by the "Clinton People" so that a Bush victory in the fall will clear the way for Hillary in '08. At the same time, he's loath not to get in his attacks on a "liberal", so he quotes the purported love interest's father as calling Kerry a "sleezebag" (oddly, since dad doesn't think his daughter had an affair) , a term he manages to use abut 15 times in the course of a few paragraphs (I get the impression that by just saying this over and over he's hoping it will stick as the official Kerry shorthand, ala Gore the "serial liar". And you know a lot of ditto heads out there will start chanting "Kerry's a sleezebag" without anything but Rush's say so and a firm conviction that the "liberal media" hushed up the story.
Meanwhile, Murdoch's british holdings give the "story" play, tabloid style, with Kerry's unequivocal dismissals of anything going on serving as fodder for more headlines. Still no actual allegations or substaniation, mind you, just the notion that it's interesting that there is a rumor.
This feeds back into the American right wing pundit industry, keeping tongues wagging about how, any second now, this bombshell is going to break. A few legitimate news outlets do stories on the existence of a rumor and how blogs, Rush and Fox seem to be batting this around. Who are then cited by blogs, Rush, and Fox as evidence that the "story" has legs and is beginning to move into the "mainstream media".
Back at where it started, Drudge is faithfully noting and linking to each tautological rereferencing of the (still completely content free) rumor in order to give the impression that something must be going on, because look at all the ink it's getting.
And Rush has the gall to suggest that the fact that Bush's (actual, documented troubles with his) national guard record has gotten so much scrutiny compared to the relative silence on Kerry's (nonexistent, no evidence, no allegation, no facts) "scandal" is proof of the liberal media conspiracy.
And we get posters here absolutely sure this whole tower of bullshit is definitely the end of Kerry and we commence speculating on what the post-Kerry race will look like.
I expect this race to be pretty low-down, on both sides, but if this is a precursor to the kind of substance free right wing echo chamber tactics we can expect, in the hopes that there will be some kind of cumulative meme put into play without having to prove or, indeed, even truly assert anything, then my disgust with what passes for "conservatism" in America will turn to rage, and I don't think I'm alone.
If the republicans think they can play "sex toys on the white house christmas tree" or "I invented the internet and will say anything to get elected" this time, I think they may be in for a bit of a suprise. The anger is palpable.
How it works. Right out in the open for all to see.
A rumor with no actual accusation, much less substantiation. Picked up/invented by the right wing media...
Except this story was first run on a weblog a WEEK before Drudge posted it. Watchblog, the blog in question, has an arm's length relationship with Cameron Barrett who until recently was employed by the Clark campaign. Kind of screws up your little fantasy I'd say.
Except this story was first run on a weblog a WEEK before Drudge posted it. Watchblog, the blog in question, has an arm's length relationship with Cameron Barrett who until recently was employed by the Clark campaign. Kind of screws up your little fantasy I'd say.
So the fact that an indie blog mentioned a rumor, not giving it too much credit, in the context of how dirty politics works, which was subsequently run by Drudge as a big scoop, "screws up my little fantasy?" Are you even paying attention at all?
I said Drudge picked-up/invented. Looks like he picked up a very slight rumor, on a f*cking blog, for god's sake, and with the complicity of the right wing echo chamber has tried to turn this NOTHING WHATSOEVER into a scandal. My point stands.
The blog in question had this big story being broken by Time magazine last week.
No it ISN'T. Neither you nor I know who the source is for this story but from what we do know so far it doesn't appear to be the Republicans. Moreover, your convenient little time-line leaves out everybody but those on the right - as if they were the only ones talking about it! Is Don Imus part of the right-wing? He claims to be backing Kerry! How about the Daily News?
I know how badly you want to blame this on the Republicans but the facts just don't back you up.
Which other group is that? Which other group has access to the analogue of a steady supply of pundits, radio stations and news outlets that are explicitly eager to belittle "liberalism" and its practitioners, even if it means making shit up? Where is the "liberal" (or any other group, for that matter) Rush? O'Reilly? Savage? Murdoch?
So the fact that an indie blog mentioned a rumor, not giving it too much credit...
He said that Time was investigating the story which is what Drudge said. Furthermore, he closed his post with a reminder that if Time ran this story next week, you heard it here first.
Quote:
Are you even paying attention at all?
Yep, and you're trying to pull a fast one. Find some other suckers, pal.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
Someone wake me up. This is a dream come true. What could be better than a sex scandal in the middle of a primary. It's 1992 all over again!
Yipppeeee!
Yep. A couple of comments posted over at Asymetrical Information capture my thinking exactly:
Come on; for political junkies, this is like free crack...
I'm taking the low road. How does one go about getting an intern?
Originally posted by bunge
No one claims Bush is a bad president because he's from Texas.
Actually Bush was born in Connecticut. Ann Richards made a point of it when running against him.
Originally posted by Fran441
Kerry was just on "Imus in the Morning" and denied that anything happened. So he's on the record as denying it and now we'll see if the story continues.
I posted this earlier but for some reason it's not here anymore:
Kerry gave a classic "non-denial" denial. His answer kind of creeps me out...because it's so technical and legal-sounding.
I'm not saying he did anyting, but somehow that answer doesn't seem right to me. Support him or not, but do you see my point with that answer? Imus asked him if there was anything in his background that might cause Imus to "jump off his bandwagon"...Kerry responded:
"Well, there is nothing to report," Kerry told IMUS. "So there is nothing to talk about. I'm not worried about it. No."
Originally posted by Existence
SDW2001, that's Kerry for you. When he's not pandering, he's double talking.
Hello? How is that double talk? If the rumors are false, then that's exactly what I would say. I wouldn't articlulate the rumor itself, since that would be giving it life. Instead, just, "Nope, nothing here, move along."
And wasn't the Drudge thing supposed to be quickly picked up by the mainstream media? The only places I've seen giving it play are blogs, Rush, and some wind-bags on Fox.
Originally posted by addabox
Hello? How is that double talk? If the rumors are false, then that's exactly what I would say. I wouldn't articlulate the rumor itself, since that would be giving it life. Instead, just, "Nope, nothing here, move along."
And wasn't the Drudge thing supposed to be quickly picked up by the mainstream media? The only places I've seen giving it play are blogs, Rush, and some wind-bags on Fox.
Here in Holland there's a paper (read the online version of it )who wrote about it, but they said that it was a rumour by the American gossip/tabloid king Matt drudge.
Originally posted by addabox
Hello? How is that double talk? If the rumors are false, then that's exactly what I would say. I wouldn't articlulate the rumor itself, since that would be giving it life. Instead, just, "Nope, nothing here, move along."
And wasn't the Drudge thing supposed to be quickly picked up by the mainstream media? The only places I've seen giving it play are blogs, Rush, and some wind-bags on Fox.
That's the point. It sounded like he was playing a "let's not give this legs" answer. It's like it was rehearsed and calculated. Don't you see this?
Now, I did find this as well from the Daily News:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-144049c.html
"I just deny it categorically. It's rumor. It's untrue. Period," Kerry told reporters in Wisconsin. "It's not true."
After denying the report, Kerry added, "And that's the last time I intend to."
Now that's a little different, but what about that last part? It just seems like a calculated answer. Maybe I'm wrong.
g
In France this is a sign of good health (having sex with staff young women) ;-)
Jacques Chirac's nickname was, when he was younger "Dix minutes; douche comprise" witch is approximately in English "10 minutes; Shower Included"
;-)
Hope you will laugh and won't prone "abstinence".
Originally posted by thegelding
sort of like how bush refuses to talk about his drug past...did he deny it? no, just said, "i'm not talking about that"...i actually applaud him for that and will be glad if politicians in the present and future do the same...i look forward to "not something i will discuss, next question" becoming a more frequent answer...then we can move forward on issues
g
That's not the same thing. Kerry didn't say that.
A rumor with no actual accusation, much less substantiation. Picked up/invented by the right wing media in the person of Drudge. Basically, a story about a rumor of a story.
Rush starts some kind of insane ranting about how this has been generated by the "Clinton People" so that a Bush victory in the fall will clear the way for Hillary in '08. At the same time, he's loath not to get in his attacks on a "liberal", so he quotes the purported love interest's father as calling Kerry a "sleezebag" (oddly, since dad doesn't think his daughter had an affair) , a term he manages to use abut 15 times in the course of a few paragraphs (I get the impression that by just saying this over and over he's hoping it will stick as the official Kerry shorthand, ala Gore the "serial liar". And you know a lot of ditto heads out there will start chanting "Kerry's a sleezebag" without anything but Rush's say so and a firm conviction that the "liberal media" hushed up the story.
Meanwhile, Murdoch's british holdings give the "story" play, tabloid style, with Kerry's unequivocal dismissals of anything going on serving as fodder for more headlines. Still no actual allegations or substaniation, mind you, just the notion that it's interesting that there is a rumor.
This feeds back into the American right wing pundit industry, keeping tongues wagging about how, any second now, this bombshell is going to break. A few legitimate news outlets do stories on the existence of a rumor and how blogs, Rush and Fox seem to be batting this around. Who are then cited by blogs, Rush, and Fox as evidence that the "story" has legs and is beginning to move into the "mainstream media".
Back at where it started, Drudge is faithfully noting and linking to each tautological rereferencing of the (still completely content free) rumor in order to give the impression that something must be going on, because look at all the ink it's getting.
And Rush has the gall to suggest that the fact that Bush's (actual, documented troubles with his) national guard record has gotten so much scrutiny compared to the relative silence on Kerry's (nonexistent, no evidence, no allegation, no facts) "scandal" is proof of the liberal media conspiracy.
And we get posters here absolutely sure this whole tower of bullshit is definitely the end of Kerry and we commence speculating on what the post-Kerry race will look like.
I expect this race to be pretty low-down, on both sides, but if this is a precursor to the kind of substance free right wing echo chamber tactics we can expect, in the hopes that there will be some kind of cumulative meme put into play without having to prove or, indeed, even truly assert anything, then my disgust with what passes for "conservatism" in America will turn to rage, and I don't think I'm alone.
If the republicans think they can play "sex toys on the white house christmas tree" or "I invented the internet and will say anything to get elected" this time, I think they may be in for a bit of a suprise. The anger is palpable.
Originally posted by addabox
How it works. Right out in the open for all to see.
A rumor with no actual accusation, much less substantiation. Picked up/invented by the right wing media...
Except this story was first run on a weblog a WEEK before Drudge posted it. Watchblog, the blog in question, has an arm's length relationship with Cameron Barrett who until recently was employed by the Clark campaign. Kind of screws up your little fantasy I'd say.
Originally posted by SDW2001
As said, addabox: It's all a right-wing conspiracy.
In this case it most certainly is. Why? You don't think the right wing is capable of conspiring?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Except this story was first run on a weblog a WEEK before Drudge posted it. Watchblog, the blog in question, has an arm's length relationship with Cameron Barrett who until recently was employed by the Clark campaign. Kind of screws up your little fantasy I'd say.
So the fact that an indie blog mentioned a rumor, not giving it too much credit, in the context of how dirty politics works, which was subsequently run by Drudge as a big scoop, "screws up my little fantasy?" Are you even paying attention at all?
I said Drudge picked-up/invented. Looks like he picked up a very slight rumor, on a f*cking blog, for god's sake, and with the complicity of the right wing echo chamber has tried to turn this NOTHING WHATSOEVER into a scandal. My point stands.
The blog in question had this big story being broken by Time magazine last week.
Originally posted by addabox
In this case it most certainly is...
No it ISN'T. Neither you nor I know who the source is for this story but from what we do know so far it doesn't appear to be the Republicans. Moreover, your convenient little time-line leaves out everybody but those on the right - as if they were the only ones talking about it! Is Don Imus part of the right-wing? He claims to be backing Kerry! How about the Daily News?
I know how badly you want to blame this on the Republicans but the facts just don't back you up.
Originally posted by rageous
no more so than any other group.
Which other group is that? Which other group has access to the analogue of a steady supply of pundits, radio stations and news outlets that are explicitly eager to belittle "liberalism" and its practitioners, even if it means making shit up? Where is the "liberal" (or any other group, for that matter) Rush? O'Reilly? Savage? Murdoch?
Originally posted by addabox
So the fact that an indie blog mentioned a rumor, not giving it too much credit...
He said that Time was investigating the story which is what Drudge said. Furthermore, he closed his post with a reminder that if Time ran this story next week, you heard it here first.
Are you even paying attention at all?
Yep, and you're trying to pull a fast one. Find some other suckers, pal.