Kerry's intern problem and hypocrisy

From the Drudge Report

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 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.

You know, with the year-long media coverage of Clinton''s sexy escapades, I don''t think the conservatives have much of a ""we''re being treated unfairly in the media"" leg to stand on. 12 years ago people weren''t so monumentally exhausted with the titilating exploits of politicians, now it''s so annoying that to try and drum up a Kerry-affair story would only irritate viewers. Times change, and on the sexual exploits in politics landscape times have changed dramatically.

now it''s so annoying that to try and drum up a Kerry-affair story would only irritate viewers

So basically, because you find it annoying, the voting public has no right to know about the character of the man the Democrats will be nominating for President?

Times change, and on the sexual exploits in politics landscape times have changed dramatically.

I still think cheating on your wife is a very big deal. I guess it is a waste of time to lament the fact that you don''t. But I personally am of the opinion that if you lack the character to honor your core obligation to society - i.e. your marriage vow - you should be found unfit for office. Perhaps if there were ramifications for those sort of actions, there would be less of them.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

I still think cheating on your wife is a very big deal. I guess it is a waste of time to lament the fact that you don''t. But I personally am of the opinion that if you lack the character to honor your core obligation to society - i.e. your marriage vow - you should be found unfit for office. Perhaps if there were ramifications for those sort of actions, there would be less of them.

There`s always stoning to death.

The rumor of President Bush having an affair was never proved by the media.

Nor was it disproved, by the media or the President, who simply refused ""to dignify"" the questions with a response.

""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?""

Wow. Good thing Conason didn''t publish in a major news outlet, but rather in Spy, a magazine dedicated to rumor and innuendo, sometimes racey.

How is Matt gonna look if there''s no there, there, with Kerry? Hmmm. I can see why he''s prepping his attacks.

Robear

I still think cheating on your wife is a very big deal. I guess it is a waste of time to lament the fact that you don''t.

First, JMJ, I''d appreciate it if you could spare me the personal rhetoric about what I think. In case you missed it my entire post was about what the media''s outlook on the current case is, and I avoided my personal opinions on infidelity entirely. I can put plenty of words in my own mouth. I don''t need help.

But on topic past indiscretions swing both ways. I find it much more an indictment of a person''s character that in their past they had such a selfish and careless personality that they drove drunk putting families directly at risk so they wouldn''t be inconvenienced or cheated of party time. I might just as easily suppose it''s a waste of time to lament that you don''t care about drunk drivers.

Now, if you''d like to argue that that incident is far in the past and that Bush is a changed man who''s turned against the sins of his past, then you''re going to have to flip it both ways.

12 years ago people weren''t so monumentally exhausted with the titilating exploits of politicians, now it''s so annoying that to try and drum up a Kerry-affair story would only irritate viewers.

Ely, this is the statement that led me to make mine. I can only assume that you meant that you are irritated to hear about the infidelities of political candidates and you see no merit in following up.

I find it much more an indictment of a person''s character that in their past they had such a selfish and careless personality that they drove drunk putting families directly at risk so they wouldn''t be inconvenienced or cheated of party time. I might just as easily suppose it''s a waste of time to lament that you don''t care about drunk drivers.

Well, given that most drunk driving laws were lax or non-existent prior to 1983 (when MADD started to gain attention), there wasn''t really an awareness that it was something you shouldn''t do. Mind you, I am not defending it, as it is irresponsible. But if you want to equate driving drunk pre-MADD with breaking your marriage vow then go ahead.

Now, if you''d like to argue that that incident is far in the past and that Bush is a changed man who''s turned against the sins of his past, then you''re going to have to flip it both ways.

Can you actually not see the moral difference between doing an act that was irresponsible but not widely criminalized at the time vs. doing an act that violates the basic contract of our society?

"Elysium" wrote:

12 years ago people weren''t so monumentally exhausted with the titilating exploits of politicians, now it''s so annoying that to try and drum up a Kerry-affair story would only irritate viewers. Times change, and on the sexual exploits in politics landscape times have changed dramatically.

But the sexual exploits in sports is still fair game?

I''ll be sure to phone Kobe.

I can only assume that you meant that you are irritated to hear about the infidelities of political candidates and you see no merit in following up.

I don''t know why you came to that conclusion, but maybe it''s a good example of how all of us are assuming way too much what others are actually saying. I often talk in generalizations about the media. In fact, we all do. I don''t agree with the majority on a lot of things, but I have a good enough eye for the positions they seem to take to talk about it.

Anyway, if you ever really want to piss me off, tell me I don''t take marriage (which, must include my own) seriously.

Mind you, I am not defending it, as it is irresponsible. But if you want to equate driving drunk pre-MADD with breaking your marriage vow then go ahead.

I don''t want to equate them, but I want you to recognize that a president you seem to respect has also made some pretty stupid, selfish, and monumentally irresponsible mistakes in his time that would reflect on his character. It''s been many people''s contention that those things have passed, and he''s matured beyond them. I just find it extraordinarily ironic how people''s morality and indignance changes across a political spectrum. I find this such a case.

Can you actually not see the moral difference between doing an act that was irresponsible but not widely criminalized at the time vs. doing an act that violates the basic contract of our society?

This stikes me as clever rationalization at best. If that''s what you want to do, then you certainly won''t be the first, but widely criminalized or not, in this case it was a law, and he broke it, and was charged. And, why was it against the law? Because police, lawmakers, and society recognized that driving under the influence of alcohol put innocent lives in danger. You want to talk about social contracts, I think not recklessly endangering the lives of others should rank up there. I don''t know, maybe that''s not a big deal to you. (Isn''t a statement like that irritating?)

I think drunk driving reflects poor judgement and could have negative consequences, but I would venture a guess that everyone who drinks has done it at one point or another. I don''t necessarily mean can''t-keep-my-eyes-open-all-over-the-road driving, but certainly I think most people have gotten behind the wheel when it was borderline at best, and might also have gotten a DWI/DUI had they been pulled over.

So is it a bad idea that has the potential for horrible consequences? Yes. But in the vast majority of cases, there are no actual consequences for having a few drinks and driving home.

Do you feel there are also no actual consequences for cheating on your wife?

No, that statement isn''t irritating, as I know you are merely saying because I annoyed you.

I don''t plan to derail the thread, so within the next 24 hours, I''ll launch two thread to cover the issues we''re talking about: one about morals and one about criminalization of behavior.

Suffice to say, I don''t approve of either drunk driving or infidelity. But I do see a difference between the two, and think that they reflect differently on the character of the men that performed them.

Anyway, if you ever really want to piss me off, tell me I don''t take marriage (which, must include my own) seriously.

Then you should be outraged that your party is nominating yet another man that doesn''t share your belief.

Do you feel there are also no actual consequences for cheating on your wife?

Not if you don''t get caught. Same with drunk driving really

Not if you don''t get caught. Same with drunk driving really

Really? Do you still feel the same way if it''s Hoochie who has been cheating on you?

What do you know, conservatives jumping to the worst possible conclusion based on flimsy evidence and rumor. One wonders why I bother looking around here anymore; nothing''s changed. You''d think they''d be little more careful about doing that which they accuse liberals of doing over Bush and the ANG.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

What do you know, conservatives jumping to the worst possible conclusion based on flimsy evidence and rumor.

If you''re talking about the National Guard story, it''s liberals pushing that unfounded smear...

"Rat Boy" wrote:

One wonders why I bother looking around here anymore; nothing''s changed.

Speaking of ""nothing''s changed"" - if that''s all you have to add, I wonder why you bother looking around here too...

"ralcydan" wrote:

If you''re talking about the National Guard story, it''s liberals pushing that unfounded smear...

An ""unfounded smear"" that has some basis in fact, seeing how the Guard requires you to serve one weekend a month and two full weeks in the year, and Bush was only paid for nine days in the year in question. Sure, he probably wasn''t AWOL, but a lot of the published stuff out there indicates he wasn''t a spectacular officer at best, a spoiled son of a Congressman who got by on the clout of Daddy at worst.

Again, I refer to this garbage about Kerry being pushed by a web hack trying to regain his former glory. There''s nothing to this story other than a few unverifiable quotes and a couple pictures of some person. Before you whine once again of a liberal media conspiracy, do a quick glance at the front pages of Fox News and Townhall. Strange how neither of the two biggest conservative news sites are touching this with a ten-foot pole. Are they part of the liberal conspiracy, too?

So since the Kerry story isn''t being pushed by the media, including the Conservative media, what''s your beef? Even here, nobody has said they know for a fact he did it. Are we not allowed to discuss hypotheticals in the political forum of a gaming website?

BTW the thread was about the hypocrisy of people in the media pushing the same rumors about a Republican but being unwilling to do so with a Democrat. There''s your liberal media. Fox News and conservative pundits are too classy to touch this story while it is nothing but a rumor - but the other media outlets have shown they aren''t above it - they are just biased as to when they feel like pursuing it.

I found this article entertaining. My favorite part?

Miss Polier''s parents, Terry and Donna, from Malvern, Pennsylvania, added fuel to the fire by claiming that Mr Kerry did pursue their daughter.

""I think he''s a sleazeball. I did wonder if she didn''t get that feeling herself,"" said Mr Polier. ""He''s not the sort of guy I''d choose to be with my daughter.

"ralcydan" wrote:

BTW the thread was about the hypocrisy of people in the media pushing the same rumors about a Republican but being unwilling to do so with a Democrat.

And I was pointing out that the rumors about a Republican had a little more factual grounding than a tabloid story on a Democrat. If the media chooses to publish a story that says that the head of the DNC accuses the president of going AWOL, that is one thing. If they publish a story that accuses John Kerry of committing adultery, that''s slander on the part of the media.

And I was pointing out that the rumors about a Republican had a little more factual grounding than a tabloid story on a Democrat

What were the facts about George Bush Sr.''s infidelity? What evidence showed that he was unfaithful?

You know, I was actually going to calmly correct you and say that I was referring to the ANG story, but I think I''ll leave that alone. No need to reply to intentional baiting.

Ah. But you realize that the label of hypocrisy discussed here is specific to the media publishing allegations of George Bush Sr. having an affair but avoiding doing the same for John Kerry, right?

Yes, but I brought in the ANG story beacuse it is also topical and some here regard that in the same light as we on the left regard the Kerry story.

But, then again, a sourced quote to a dead ambassador carries a bit more weight than an unsourced line in a web blog, doesn''t it?

Ah. But you realize that the label of hypocrisy discussed here is specific to the media publishing allegations of George Bush Sr. having an affair but avoiding doing the same for John Kerry, right?

I think it''s too early to conclude this. Drudge noted in his break of the story that several major newspapers were looking into this story in a big way. So, the same guy who posted an incomplete description of the earlier questions against Bush Sr. noted that the major news outlets *are* looking into it.

Given that and the short time that''s passed, we need to wait a while before the media can be said to have passed this up. Drudge is basically the only ""media"" source for this, and he''s got an openly partisan position on politics.

Robear (edited to correct tense)

Really? Do you still feel the same way if it''s Hoochie who has been cheating on you?

I''m not sure what you and Johnny are on lately Ral, but you guys sure are getting aggressive and kind of un-fun these days. Notice the smiley? That means I was kidding.

I''m not sure what you and Johnny are on lately Ral, but you guys sure are getting aggressive and kind of un-fun these days.

I''m always fun.

I think it''s too early to conclude this...

...Given that and the short time that''s passed, we need to wait a while before the media can be said to have passed this up.

Point taken.

And this just popped up on Drudge...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/2004...

Basically, the woman and her family deny everything.

I think the implications for the presidential race are clear - this one''s gonna be ugly, my friends...

Robear

"Certis" wrote:

I''m not sure what you and Johnny are on lately Ral, but you guys sure are getting aggressive and kind of un-fun these days. Notice the smiley? That means I was kidding.

In fairness, it''s kind of hard to tell from a smiley whether it means that you don''t believe what you are saying, or whether you think your comment is funny because it is true, though most people wouldn''t admit it. I see them used all sorts of ways... Sorry if I offended.

Also, glad to see you singling out JMJ and I as aggressive and un-fun for being challenging on a controversial topic, while ignoring the ""I see you guys are still assholes"" post there in the middle from Rat.

Do you feel there are also no actual consequences for cheating on your wife?

No, but I would say that while it often breaks up families in tragic and painful ways, it rarely leaves them all dead.

No, that statement isn''t irritating, as I know you are merely saying because I annoyed you.

Dammit, don''t see through my thin veneer like that. It ruins all the fun for me.

Then you should be outraged that your party is nominating yet another man that doesn''t share your belief.

I don''t really care much for Kerry, but do I think his potential infidelity will lead him to push the country in social and political directions I disagree with? No. For the record I don''t think Bush''s driving record does either. Which is why I listen to what the two men want to do as President to make my decision. Between the two, I side more with Kerry than with Bush. I''m guessing you don''t.

My point is that in everyone''s past is something that humiliates them, embarrasses them, and casts judgement on their character, much like Ral said. There is no perfect candidate, and I''m not sure I want anyone in the White House who hasn''t made some of the big mistakes, the kind you can learn from. I just wouldn''t trust them to know what life is like for most of the people they are charged with leading.

There is no perfect candidate, and I''m not sure I want anyone in the White House who hasn''t made some of the big mistakes, the kind you can learn from. I just wouldn''t trust them to know what life is like for most of the people they are charged with leading.

That''s an excellent point. In Bush''s case, he stopped drinking and became a serious, responsible person back in the ''80s. And in Kerry''s case - oh, in Kerry''s case this just happened. Never mind. Maybe he''ll be ready for the presidency by 2020.