He said that Time was investigating the story. Furthermore, he closed his post with a reminder that if Time ran this story next week, you heard it here first
Which was last week. Guess there was nothing to it.
Except guess who's keeping the faith? Do you really think this would have ever risen above the level of static if Drudge hadn't run it? And why this? If I combed the blogs I bet I could find "rumors" of practically anything I cared to assert. Drudge picked the one that could hurt Kerry. The people who ran with it (as opposed to a brief mention, which is what your other outlets gave it), are, without exception, right wing outlets: Drudge, Rush, Murdoch owned british tabloids, and some of Fox's more egriegous wind bags.
Drudge and Rush are still giving this play, mostly, as I said, based on the linking to people who linked to them.
The only one pulling a fast one around here is you, by pretending that this was some kind of neutral ambient info that got duly reported by a range of news organizations. That's a straight up lie, and I think you must know that.
... Drudge and Rush are still giving this play, mostly, as I said, based on the linking to people who linked to them...
Rush is still giving this play? His last show was friday. That's when Imus had his interview with Kerry. What coverage this story has had since then was wasn't off of Rush or Drudge. It was off of the Imus interview. Not that anyone would notice. Bush's service in the TANG has gathered a LOT more attention than has Kerry's story. Drudge has covered that story too but of course that doesn't fit your little, hermetic view of how things really work.
Rush is still giving this play? His last show was friday. That's when Imus had his interview with Kerry. What coverage this story has had since then was wasn't off of Rush or Drudge. It was off of the Imus interview. Not that anyone would notice. Bush's service in the TANG has gathered a LOT more attention than has Kerry's story. Drudge has covered that story too but of course that doesn't fit your little, hermetic view of how things really work.
Of course the bush story has been given more play, it's an actual story. There are actual assertions, actual people are involved, there are actual records to check.
The Kerry "story" is nothing at all. Rush is flogging it on his website, Drudge too. If it hasn't got legs it's because there is not now, nor has there ever been, any story.
Of course the bush story has been given more play...
Then WHAT are you bitching about? Rush is flogging the Kerry story on his website? So freaking what? He's just preaching to the choir. No different than what you find on the other side on the Dean for America weblog.
Then WHAT are you bitching about? Rush is flogging the Kerry story on his website? So freaking what? He's just preaching to the choir. No different than what you find on the other side on the Dean for America weblog.
Funny, I can't find any made-up stories about Bush on the Dean for America site.
I also can't help but notice the obvious difference between a candidate's site during an election year and an established right wing pundit and his faithful
audience.
"What I'm bitching about" (are you always this irritable?) is the synergistic power of right wing media to create the illusion of "controversy" out of whole cloth by repeating each other's lies. This one might fade way but the next one might not. Cumulatively, a series of baseless allegations can start to reenforce one another, entering the larger discourse as a vague sense of "something" being wrong.
Ergo: Al Gore is a serial liar and will say anything to get elected. No right wing echo chamber-- just election year mud slinging. Right wing echo chamber-- still in circulation as having some basis in fact, although the specifics have been refuted time and again.
My hermetic little world view is informed by, among other things, watching eight years of Clinton slandering with no apparent limit or shame, with endless "scandals" that had no basis in fact paraded before the American people until it seemed the man was some kind of monster, utterly amoral and ruthless. Haircut gate, travel gate, whitewater, the "murder" of Vince Foster, and on and on until they finally nailed him for lying about an affair. Oh the horror.
I fully expect the same treatment for Kerry, and this looks like the opening trial balloon. To imagine otherwise is to ignore the recent past, which, of course, you're free to do.
It would be great if TIME investigated this story, found nothing, and then attacked the right-wing echo chamber for repeating an unsubstantiated and ultimately completely fabricated rumor. It could show in detail how the right-wing media machine operates in spreading such a lie-- and perhaps it could show how the mainstream media rightfully resisted reporting it- and what a victory that is for the public's interest.
Funny, I can't find any made-up stories about Bush on the Dean for America site.
I also can't help but notice the obvious difference between a candidate's site during an election year and an established right wing pundit and his faithful
audience.
"What I'm bitching about" (are you always this irritable?) is the synergistic power of right wing media to create the illusion of "controversy" out of whole cloth by repeating each other's lies. This one might fade way but the next one might not. Cumulatively, a series of baseless allegations can start to reenforce one another, entering the larger discourse as a vague sense of "something" being wrong.
Ergo: Al Gore is a serial liar and will say anything to get elected. No right wing echo chamber-- just election year mud slinging. Right wing echo chamber-- still in circulation as having some basis in fact, although the specifics have been refuted time and again.
My hermetic little world view is informed by, among other things, watching eight years of Clinton slandering with no apparent limit or shame, with endless "scandals" that had no basis in fact paraded before the American people until it seemed the man was some kind of monster, utterly amoral and ruthless. Haircut gate, travel gate, whitewater, the "murder" of Vince Foster, and on and on until they finally nailed him for lying about an affair. Oh the horror.
I fully expect the same treatment for Kerry, and this looks like the opening trial balloon. To imagine otherwise is to ignore the recent past, which, of course, you're free to do.
It would be great if TIME investigated this story, found nothing, and then attacked the right-wing echo chamber for repeating an unsubstantiated and ultimately completely fabricated rumor. It could show in detail how the right-wing media machine operates in spreading such a lie-- and perhaps it could show how the mainstream media rightfully resisted reporting it- and what a victory that is for the public's interest.
Wishful thinking.
Or instead if blaming this on a conspiracy theory, you could look at the last time Drudge posted a big story involving an intern, see if his track record was accurate, and realize that the mainstream press will likely report on it when they can get enough information (semen stained dress, tapes, etc.) to make them comfortable.
You are welcome to show the long list of fabricated rumors Drudge has reported on regarding politicians and sex. If not then you have to begrudge him his track record and realize he is likely right and just reporting on it earlier than the mainstream press.
Seems like Drudge is doing a little defending of his own. I'll post the whole text since it is small and this sort of thing changes quickly and often linkwise at his site.
Quote:
FLASHBACK: MEDIA GRILLED BUSH OVER 'ADULTERY' CLAIMS
As main press players blast the DRUDGE REPORT and foreign outlets for revealing details of a behind-the-scenes campaign drama surrounding candidate Kerry and the nature of his relationship with a mystery woman -- just 12 years ago the same players peppered former President George Bush with questions surrounding an infidelity rumor!
In 1992 top reporters swiftly reacted to a footnote in a book quoting a long dead ambassador.
CNN rushed to get the rumor into the media stream as White House correspondent Mary Tillotson confronted President Bush as he hosted Israel Prime Minister Rabin in the Oval Office.
"There is an extensive series of reports in today's New York Post alleging that a former U.S. ambassador, a man now deceased, had told several persons that he arranged for a sexual tryst involving you and one of your female staffers in Geneva in 1984."
Asked NBC's Stone Phillips to the president's face at the height of the "rumor mongering":
"Have you ever had an affair?"
CBS' Harry Smith then confronted Bush spokesperson Mary Matalin over on-air morning coffee:
"Let me ask you about something else. There's a book out, or a book that's just about out that in a footnote names that then-Vice President Bush had an affair with an assistant when he was on a mission in Geneva. Well, that footnote has turned into frontpage news (holding up N.Y.POST), at least in New York, in the N.Y. POST. Albeit a tabloid, it is usually a conservative newspaper. Are you ready to say that accusation is a flat out lie?"
NEWSWEEK's Jonathan Alter defended the aggressive adultery rumor line-of-questioning of the first President Bush on ABC's NIGHTLINE on August 12, 1992, on a broadcast titled: "The Media Charges George Bush With Adultery."
"In this situation, the Oval Office isn't a temple," Alter explained. "The President is a candidate and he has to be asked tough, often distasteful, but nonetheless important kinds of questions."
UPI's Helen Thomas also defended the Bush affair reportage:
"Some people might have felt that it wasn't appropriate. But when you have the President there, I think it's very legitimate to ask him any question."
CUT TO 2004:
NEWSWEEK'S Alter blasted any and all coverage of the Kerry infidelity probe last week on a New York City talkradio outlet -- calling the investigation "sleazy."
The media outrage over an erupting story of possible infidelity of a presidential candidate -- 2004 -- peaked with Joe Conason's cover story in SALON late last week ["There he goes again! Matt Drudge and the GOP smear machine are back in the Democrats' pants"]
Conason lamented:
"But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations isn't what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation."
But is this really the same Joe Conason who in the Summer of 1992 wrote a magazine cover story entitled "1,000 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR GEORGE BUSH?"
Consaon's reason #1:
"He cheats on his wife."
The rumor of President Bush having an affair was never proved by the media.
The developing Kerry drama may or may not join it on the shelf.
I find the Conason bit quite humorous. Especially when some have been declaring there is a conservative echo chamber while they themselves have been listening too and participating in an echo chamber news bit, specifically pushed by ol'Terry at the DNC about Bush, AWOL, and the National Guard. Amazingly this week Time is running a story, not on Kerry and possible philandering, but on Bush called "How well did he serve?"
I guess that is the "liberal" echo chamber who cares more about what a sitting president was doing in the early 70's than what he is doing in the early 21st century.
Oh, I forgot, it is only an echo chamber, only bias, only dirty politics, when it is looking into the past of the Democratic candidate.
snip: george bush naked, covered in foam, standing in the shower, his eyes shut and his lips parted
Nick:
If the President of the United States has the gall to land on an aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit and claiming to have piloted the plane to announce the end of 'major combat operations' (tee hee), playing the war-leader hero, then yes, what he did in the army in the 1970s is still relevant.
Nick, I want you badly, take me from behind you stallion of a man.
I suppose Kerry isn't fair play when currently running for office, he has borrowed millions of dollars from a house he co-owns with his wife while possibly cheating on her?
I forgot, being rich is only evil when you are a Republican. Self-financing by borrowing millions from yourself is okay when you are a Democrat. I mean Bush and Cheney worked for oil so they must be evil. Actually being married to a woman is actually worth millions from owning a large corporation is of course the correct way to fight "special interests."
Kerry's campaign would be dead now if he hadn't borrowed millions from himself. The borrowing he did is from a house he co-owns with the woman he may have cheated on.
I think that is just as relevant, if not more so, than the lame Bush excuse. BTW, considering Kerry's past, I think the last thing Democrats want is for the media to be looking back into the 70's, but hey they can make the rules and then live with them. I personally look forward to the commercial of Kerry, shown with several scruffy war protesters and the U.S. flag upside down. Perhaps they can make it a mocking commercial promoting the selling of the book by Kerry on which that was the cover.
What is relevant is up to each voter to deside. You can disagree with the preferences and sometimes people decide based on sheer stupidity. But one vote count as one vote.
I remember one time on washington journal they were talking about Liebermann. A woman called in and said: "All I want to know is if its right he have been married twice?". Some people have some ****ed up priorities.
Seems like Drudge is doing a little defending of his own. I'll post the whole text since it is small and this sort of thing changes quickly and often linkwise at his site.
I find the Conason bit quite humorous. Especially when some have been declaring there is a conservative echo chamber while they themselves have been listening too and participating in an echo chamber news bit, specifically pushed by ol'Terry at the DNC about Bush, AWOL, and the National Guard. Amazingly this week Time is running a story, not on Kerry and possible philandering, but on Bush called "How well did he serve?"
I guess that is the "liberal" echo chamber who cares more about what a sitting president was doing in the early 70's than what he is doing in the early 21st century.
Oh, I forgot, it is only an echo chamber, only bias, only dirty politics, when it is looking into the past of the Democratic candidate.
Nick
More of the tiresome fake symetry notion. Anything that the Republicans do must be matched by "just the same" from the Democrats.
Except: the Bush National Guard story is a story. There is still no real proof that he did his full service. For a self-professed "war president" that has some resonance.
The Kerry vapor is nothing. There is no real allegation. No one has come forward. Today the woman named denied it, and her parents denied it, and said they were voting for Kerry. All there is is a rumor. Real news media don't publish rumors without any susbstance.
Do you not get that? Say I hear that you plan to head up a car theft sting operation, but have a history of car theft. I look into it. I find people that corraborate the story. Your police record is oddly truncated. I try to get records, talk to more people. Although not entirely conclusive, there seems to be enough evidence to publish. I run a story, saying that the question is there, and giving the evidence at hand. It probably wouldn't be a story but for your plans to head up that sting operation.
You then say you heard I am a drunk. You have no corraborating evidence what-so-ever. It's just something you say. Then you stand back and claim we are on equal footing, except that you are being picked on while I am being given a pass.
So my echo chamber is called "journalism", while yours just makes shit up. You want to call that a wash, fine.
I'm no fan of Kerry's, but another anti-Kerry piece of rightwing BS propaganda thats cropping up all over the net and the news is the picture of (Kerry) with "Hanoi Jane" Fonda by his side. Now they are calling him "Hanoi John"?
I'm no fan of Kerry's, but another anti-Kerry piece of rightwing BS propaganda thats cropping up all over the net and the news is the picture of (Kerry) with "Hanoi Jane" Fonda by his side. Now they are calling him "Hanoi John"?
More of the tiresome fake symetry notion. Anything that the Republicans do must be matched by "just the same" from the Democrats.
Except: the Bush National Guard story is a story. There is still no real proof that he did his full service...
Yes there is. He was honorably discharged. We've now seen the pay records. Not good enough for you? Well, that's a surprise. Doesn't matter, though. This story is what it is. There's nothing here but you're welcome to keep flogging it. It only highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of the left.
Comments
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
He said that Time was investigating the story. Furthermore, he closed his post with a reminder that if Time ran this story next week, you heard it here first
Which was last week. Guess there was nothing to it.
Except guess who's keeping the faith? Do you really think this would have ever risen above the level of static if Drudge hadn't run it? And why this? If I combed the blogs I bet I could find "rumors" of practically anything I cared to assert. Drudge picked the one that could hurt Kerry. The people who ran with it (as opposed to a brief mention, which is what your other outlets gave it), are, without exception, right wing outlets: Drudge, Rush, Murdoch owned british tabloids, and some of Fox's more egriegous wind bags.
Drudge and Rush are still giving this play, mostly, as I said, based on the linking to people who linked to them.
The only one pulling a fast one around here is you, by pretending that this was some kind of neutral ambient info that got duly reported by a range of news organizations. That's a straight up lie, and I think you must know that.
Originally posted by addabox
... Drudge and Rush are still giving this play, mostly, as I said, based on the linking to people who linked to them...
Rush is still giving this play? His last show was friday. That's when Imus had his interview with Kerry. What coverage this story has had since then was wasn't off of Rush or Drudge. It was off of the Imus interview. Not that anyone would notice. Bush's service in the TANG has gathered a LOT more attention than has Kerry's story. Drudge has covered that story too but of course that doesn't fit your little, hermetic view of how things really work.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Rush is still giving this play? His last show was friday. That's when Imus had his interview with Kerry. What coverage this story has had since then was wasn't off of Rush or Drudge. It was off of the Imus interview. Not that anyone would notice. Bush's service in the TANG has gathered a LOT more attention than has Kerry's story. Drudge has covered that story too but of course that doesn't fit your little, hermetic view of how things really work.
Of course the bush story has been given more play, it's an actual story. There are actual assertions, actual people are involved, there are actual records to check.
The Kerry "story" is nothing at all. Rush is flogging it on his website, Drudge too. If it hasn't got legs it's because there is not now, nor has there ever been, any story.
Originally posted by addabox
Of course the bush story has been given more play...
Then WHAT are you bitching about? Rush is flogging the Kerry story on his website? So freaking what? He's just preaching to the choir. No different than what you find on the other side on the Dean for America weblog.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Then WHAT are you bitching about? Rush is flogging the Kerry story on his website? So freaking what? He's just preaching to the choir. No different than what you find on the other side on the Dean for America weblog.
Funny, I can't find any made-up stories about Bush on the Dean for America site.
I also can't help but notice the obvious difference between a candidate's site during an election year and an established right wing pundit and his faithful
audience.
"What I'm bitching about" (are you always this irritable?) is the synergistic power of right wing media to create the illusion of "controversy" out of whole cloth by repeating each other's lies. This one might fade way but the next one might not. Cumulatively, a series of baseless allegations can start to reenforce one another, entering the larger discourse as a vague sense of "something" being wrong.
Ergo: Al Gore is a serial liar and will say anything to get elected. No right wing echo chamber-- just election year mud slinging. Right wing echo chamber-- still in circulation as having some basis in fact, although the specifics have been refuted time and again.
My hermetic little world view is informed by, among other things, watching eight years of Clinton slandering with no apparent limit or shame, with endless "scandals" that had no basis in fact paraded before the American people until it seemed the man was some kind of monster, utterly amoral and ruthless. Haircut gate, travel gate, whitewater, the "murder" of Vince Foster, and on and on until they finally nailed him for lying about an affair. Oh the horror.
I fully expect the same treatment for Kerry, and this looks like the opening trial balloon. To imagine otherwise is to ignore the recent past, which, of course, you're free to do.
Wishful thinking.
Originally posted by addabox
Funny, I can't find any made-up stories about Bush on the Dean for America site.
I also can't help but notice the obvious difference between a candidate's site during an election year and an established right wing pundit and his faithful
audience.
"What I'm bitching about" (are you always this irritable?) is the synergistic power of right wing media to create the illusion of "controversy" out of whole cloth by repeating each other's lies. This one might fade way but the next one might not. Cumulatively, a series of baseless allegations can start to reenforce one another, entering the larger discourse as a vague sense of "something" being wrong.
Ergo: Al Gore is a serial liar and will say anything to get elected. No right wing echo chamber-- just election year mud slinging. Right wing echo chamber-- still in circulation as having some basis in fact, although the specifics have been refuted time and again.
My hermetic little world view is informed by, among other things, watching eight years of Clinton slandering with no apparent limit or shame, with endless "scandals" that had no basis in fact paraded before the American people until it seemed the man was some kind of monster, utterly amoral and ruthless. Haircut gate, travel gate, whitewater, the "murder" of Vince Foster, and on and on until they finally nailed him for lying about an affair. Oh the horror.
I fully expect the same treatment for Kerry, and this looks like the opening trial balloon. To imagine otherwise is to ignore the recent past, which, of course, you're free to do.
Perfect. Thank you for speaking the truth.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
It would be great if TIME investigated this story, found nothing, and then attacked the right-wing echo chamber for repeating an unsubstantiated and ultimately completely fabricated rumor. It could show in detail how the right-wing media machine operates in spreading such a lie-- and perhaps it could show how the mainstream media rightfully resisted reporting it- and what a victory that is for the public's interest.
Wishful thinking.
Or instead if blaming this on a conspiracy theory, you could look at the last time Drudge posted a big story involving an intern, see if his track record was accurate, and realize that the mainstream press will likely report on it when they can get enough information (semen stained dress, tapes, etc.) to make them comfortable.
You are welcome to show the long list of fabricated rumors Drudge has reported on regarding politicians and sex. If not then you have to begrudge him his track record and realize he is likely right and just reporting on it earlier than the mainstream press.
Nick
FLASHBACK: MEDIA GRILLED BUSH OVER 'ADULTERY' CLAIMS
As main press players blast the DRUDGE REPORT and foreign outlets for revealing details of a behind-the-scenes campaign drama surrounding candidate Kerry and the nature of his relationship with a mystery woman -- just 12 years ago the same players peppered former President George Bush with questions surrounding an infidelity rumor!
In 1992 top reporters swiftly reacted to a footnote in a book quoting a long dead ambassador.
CNN rushed to get the rumor into the media stream as White House correspondent Mary Tillotson confronted President Bush as he hosted Israel Prime Minister Rabin in the Oval Office.
"There is an extensive series of reports in today's New York Post alleging that a former U.S. ambassador, a man now deceased, had told several persons that he arranged for a sexual tryst involving you and one of your female staffers in Geneva in 1984."
Asked NBC's Stone Phillips to the president's face at the height of the "rumor mongering":
"Have you ever had an affair?"
CBS' Harry Smith then confronted Bush spokesperson Mary Matalin over on-air morning coffee:
"Let me ask you about something else. There's a book out, or a book that's just about out that in a footnote names that then-Vice President Bush had an affair with an assistant when he was on a mission in Geneva. Well, that footnote has turned into frontpage news (holding up N.Y.POST), at least in New York, in the N.Y. POST. Albeit a tabloid, it is usually a conservative newspaper. Are you ready to say that accusation is a flat out lie?"
NEWSWEEK's Jonathan Alter defended the aggressive adultery rumor line-of-questioning of the first President Bush on ABC's NIGHTLINE on August 12, 1992, on a broadcast titled: "The Media Charges George Bush With Adultery."
"In this situation, the Oval Office isn't a temple," Alter explained. "The President is a candidate and he has to be asked tough, often distasteful, but nonetheless important kinds of questions."
UPI's Helen Thomas also defended the Bush affair reportage:
"Some people might have felt that it wasn't appropriate. But when you have the President there, I think it's very legitimate to ask him any question."
CUT TO 2004:
NEWSWEEK'S Alter blasted any and all coverage of the Kerry infidelity probe last week on a New York City talkradio outlet -- calling the investigation "sleazy."
The media outrage over an erupting story of possible infidelity of a presidential candidate -- 2004 -- peaked with Joe Conason's cover story in SALON late last week ["There he goes again! Matt Drudge and the GOP smear machine are back in the Democrats' pants"]
Conason lamented:
"But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations isn't what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation."
But is this really the same Joe Conason who in the Summer of 1992 wrote a magazine cover story entitled "1,000 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR GEORGE BUSH?"
Consaon's reason #1:
"He cheats on his wife."
The rumor of President Bush having an affair was never proved by the media.
The developing Kerry drama may or may not join it on the shelf.
I find the Conason bit quite humorous. Especially when some have been declaring there is a conservative echo chamber while they themselves have been listening too and participating in an echo chamber news bit, specifically pushed by ol'Terry at the DNC about Bush, AWOL, and the National Guard. Amazingly this week Time is running a story, not on Kerry and possible philandering, but on Bush called "How well did he serve?"
I guess that is the "liberal" echo chamber who cares more about what a sitting president was doing in the early 70's than what he is doing in the early 21st century.
Oh, I forgot, it is only an echo chamber, only bias, only dirty politics, when it is looking into the past of the Democratic candidate.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
snip: george bush naked, covered in foam, standing in the shower, his eyes shut and his lips parted
Nick:
If the President of the United States has the gall to land on an aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit and claiming to have piloted the plane to announce the end of 'major combat operations' (tee hee), playing the war-leader hero, then yes, what he did in the army in the 1970s is still relevant.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Nick, I want you badly, take me from behind you stallion of a man.
I suppose Kerry isn't fair play when currently running for office, he has borrowed millions of dollars from a house he co-owns with his wife while possibly cheating on her?
I forgot, being rich is only evil when you are a Republican. Self-financing by borrowing millions from yourself is okay when you are a Democrat. I mean Bush and Cheney worked for oil so they must be evil. Actually being married to a woman is actually worth millions from owning a large corporation is of course the correct way to fight "special interests."
Kerry's campaign would be dead now if he hadn't borrowed millions from himself. The borrowing he did is from a house he co-owns with the woman he may have cheated on.
I think that is just as relevant, if not more so, than the lame Bush excuse. BTW, considering Kerry's past, I think the last thing Democrats want is for the media to be looking back into the 70's, but hey they can make the rules and then live with them. I personally look forward to the commercial of Kerry, shown with several scruffy war protesters and the U.S. flag upside down. Perhaps they can make it a mocking commercial promoting the selling of the book by Kerry on which that was the cover.
Nick
I remember one time on washington journal they were talking about Liebermann. A woman called in and said: "All I want to know is if its right he have been married twice?". Some people have some ****ed up priorities.
Originally posted by trumptman
Seems like Drudge is doing a little defending of his own. I'll post the whole text since it is small and this sort of thing changes quickly and often linkwise at his site.
I find the Conason bit quite humorous. Especially when some have been declaring there is a conservative echo chamber while they themselves have been listening too and participating in an echo chamber news bit, specifically pushed by ol'Terry at the DNC about Bush, AWOL, and the National Guard. Amazingly this week Time is running a story, not on Kerry and possible philandering, but on Bush called "How well did he serve?"
I guess that is the "liberal" echo chamber who cares more about what a sitting president was doing in the early 70's than what he is doing in the early 21st century.
Oh, I forgot, it is only an echo chamber, only bias, only dirty politics, when it is looking into the past of the Democratic candidate.
Nick
More of the tiresome fake symetry notion. Anything that the Republicans do must be matched by "just the same" from the Democrats.
Except: the Bush National Guard story is a story. There is still no real proof that he did his full service. For a self-professed "war president" that has some resonance.
The Kerry vapor is nothing. There is no real allegation. No one has come forward. Today the woman named denied it, and her parents denied it, and said they were voting for Kerry. All there is is a rumor. Real news media don't publish rumors without any susbstance.
Do you not get that? Say I hear that you plan to head up a car theft sting operation, but have a history of car theft. I look into it. I find people that corraborate the story. Your police record is oddly truncated. I try to get records, talk to more people. Although not entirely conclusive, there seems to be enough evidence to publish. I run a story, saying that the question is there, and giving the evidence at hand. It probably wouldn't be a story but for your plans to head up that sting operation.
You then say you heard I am a drunk. You have no corraborating evidence what-so-ever. It's just something you say. Then you stand back and claim we are on equal footing, except that you are being picked on while I am being given a pass.
So my echo chamber is called "journalism", while yours just makes shit up. You want to call that a wash, fine.
The photo, naturally, is a fake...
http://www.newsday.com/ny-kerry0215,...-top-headlines
Originally posted by sammi jo
I'm no fan of Kerry's, but another anti-Kerry piece of rightwing BS propaganda thats cropping up all over the net and the news is the picture of (Kerry) with "Hanoi Jane" Fonda by his side. Now they are calling him "Hanoi John"?
The photo, naturally, is a fake...
http://www.newsday.com/ny-kerry0215,...-top-headlines
Actually I think the news is reporting that it was being emailed around but they discovered it was a fake.
Nick
Originally posted by addabox
More of the tiresome fake symetry notion. Anything that the Republicans do must be matched by "just the same" from the Democrats.
Except: the Bush National Guard story is a story. There is still no real proof that he did his full service...
Yes there is. He was honorably discharged. We've now seen the pay records. Not good enough for you? Well, that's a surprise. Doesn't matter, though. This story is what it is. There's nothing here but you're welcome to keep flogging it. It only highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of the left.
would that qualify as "another anti-Bush piece of leftwing BS propaganda thats cropping up all over the net"?
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
How reputable is the Drudge Report?
Never mind. Looks like the Drudge Report is a pile of crap.
Thanks.
Originally posted by alcimedes
i wonder if that's like the "photo" of bush reading to the kids while the book is upside down.
would that qualify as "another anti-Bush piece of leftwing BS propaganda thats cropping up all over the net"?
Only if you believe lefties think he really is a monkey.