Presumably everyone here has now heard about the Kerry sex business. Briefly stated, Matt Drudge links to reports claiming that Kerry had had an affair with a young woman and the situation quickly became the only subject in town for the Limbaugh crowd for about forty-eight hours. Then a few sensible people decided to investigate the rumors, and it turns out (surprise, surprise) that they were complete and total bullshit.
So here’s my question: what were the conservatives really trying to accomplish here?
One might suggest that they were hoping the story would prove true, thus giving them a moral below-the-belt punch to act as a counterweight to the latest evidence of Shrub’s draft-dodging and lying. But if so, couldn’t they easily have investigated the story first before sending their minions off on a shrill ranting spree? Wouldn’t that have avoided the current round of embarrassment?
Here’s a different thought. Think back to Clinton. He was accused of criminal activity in the Whitewater Scandal. We now know he was innocent. He was accused of improperly acquiring FBI files. We now know he was innocent. He was accused of assisting the Chinese get information from Los Alamos. We now know he was innocent. He was charged with perjury in the Lewinsky scandal. He was found innocent. He was accused of mishandling plots in Arlington national Cemetery. He was innocent. And obviously this paragraph could keep going for a long time. But the point is that despite his always being vindicated when the truth was brought to light, many people assume that he must have been corrupt to some degree. It a psychological effect, in essence. When you hear so many accusations being lobbed against him, you tend to assume that he must actually be guilty of at least something even if there’s never any evidence against him.
So is that what the conservatives are really gunning for with the Kerry business. Fabricate one “scandal” after another from thin air, and even though the facts will always show thgat it’s bullshit in the end, people will eventually assume that Kerry is a general sleaze even there’s no reason for it.
I take a slightly less cynical view, if not by much. First off, of course, there is no such thing as “conservatives”. It is a term we use for convenience, but point of fact there is no such critter, nor do they have a single view nor a single purpose.
There is no doubt that some “conservatives” will use anything in order to smear Kerry, he is a threat. But many of them actually believe what they read and hear. largely due to a predisposition. This is weak and false, but entirely human.
This is looking to be a very rancorous and shrill election cycle. When its over, we’re all going to have to do a lot of forgiving. Might as well start now.
Don’t forget one very important fact in public scandals.
Many, hell, most people don’t remember if someone is vindicated. They don’t have the memory after the fact, and they don’t have the attention span during. All that filters through is that there was a scandal. It’s not so much that guilt is presumed, it’s that the question is never raised in many minds (and I use the term lightly).
The world becomes a much easier place to understand when you stop assigning the capacity for rational thought as a universal human trait.
The failing point in the Kerry scandal-mongering wasn’t that it turned out to not be true. It was that it never got legs outside of right-wing extremist circles. If CNN, Fox, and the like had covered it the way Limbaugh did, it would have been a disaster for his campaign. As it was, only dyed in the wool Republicans really got an earful of it.
Makes Hilary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” remark look not so crazy, after all. I don’t bother visiting Drudge much anymore. He’s SUCH a scandal-mongering whore for Republicans. Does a disservice to them, actually.
Oh, well, I guess when you are so weak on the issues, you’ve got to run a dirty campaign. (And I voted for Bush in 2000.)
Oddly enough, it was Wesley Clark who started the Kerry intern rumors. And he is a Democrat, at least until he is definitely out of the VP running.
And FTR, Kerry is not a sleaze because of rumors about zipper problems. The stuff about him trying to use his influence on behalf of Chinese spies and other sleazeballs in return for illegal campaign contributions, maybe just a trace.
Gosh, if he were so innocent, how come Larry Lawrence’s wife asked that he be disinterred because he never served on the merchant ship that was the alleged basis for his internment there?
Well I dont listen to Rush or watch cnbc or any of that; going by these boards, it was people of the democrat persuasion who seemed to be making the most noise and getting the most worried about it. My impression was a big stink being made by people freaking out that the conservatives were going to be making a big stink out of it.
But, nonetheless, I really like friend Shodan’s idea: lets compare the candidates in terms of thier truthfulness, and the consequences of thier comparative honesty. Which is to say, the one who told the most lies, and the most damaging lies, should lose.
From my understanding the story goes like this: Clark made the comments regarding Kerry having an intern problem that would cause his campaign to implode in an “off the record” conversation with members of the press corps. Then had the audacity to be upset when it hit the news the following day. Gives me a warm feeling to think that people were actually supporting this guy to be elected to the most powerful position in the world.
Also, it’s not a foregone conclusion that conservatives are behind this “attack” at all. This could be a power struggle within the Democratic party being played out just as easily.
Welll, not quite. Clark was alleged to have made that comment to some reporters, according to an un-named source, according to Drudge. No reporter has stepped forward to confirm this, but some explicitly deny it. Here’s one example, from Ryan Lizza, NRO Washington Correspondent:
As for this:
Yeah, he had the audacity to get upset about an off the record comment being publicly mis-quoted by an anonymous source.
That would be because Mr. Lawrence never served on the merchant ship that was the alleged basis for his internment there. If you would like to explain how that disproves Clinton’s innocence, I’d love to listen. You may recall that the initial decision regarding Lawrence was made by Secretary Togo D. West. you may also recall that the ridiculous rumors tieing Clinton to the business were proven to be utter nonsense. you may also recall that the dozens of other cases that conservatives chimed about as examples of Clinton’s corrupt handling of Arlington plots never materialized. Remember?
Cite? Why should I provide cites for things that are common knowledge? In my universe, a highly biased prosecutor named Kenneth Starr set out with the intention of lynching Clinton. After over a hundred million dollars of our money and abuses of his power, he came up with zero convictions on Whitewater, zero convictions on the FBI files, zero on zippergate, zero on the investigation of the Agriculture Department, etc… If an intense investigation turns up no meaningful evidence of the crime, then to me that means innocent. You do remember that whole innocent until proven guilty bit, right?
True, I am making an assumption that the “off the record” conversation by Clark took place. If you are looking for someone to step forward and document that it took place, it’s not likely to happen (at least if that reporter wishes to retain their position and source relationships).
My comment regarding Clark’s audacity to be upset (again assuming that it took place) after dropping such a bombshell is perhaps a snapshot of his experience and naivety in dealing with the press corps.
This thread is a charade! That’s right, I said, “Charade!”
I’m conservative. I get the newsletter. I know what’s going on.
I listened to Rush Limbaugh the day this thing came out, and he was dubious and skeptical.
He assured all us listeners that this was the conservative attempt to frame and villanize Kerry.
That isn’t scheduled until July. July!
So I can assure you we have nothing to do this. Anyone saying otherwise is obviously a knee-jerk liberal trying to villainize and misrepresent us conservatives.
First of all the rumors came from the woman in question – HERSELF.
Second, she talked to some people about it. (In the media, if she talked to two people that’s – arguably – double sourced, and a story)
Third, the first publication was in the UK.
Fourth, the “conservative” US media ran with the story at the exact same time the “objective (hah!)” media did, when there was a denial by all the parties.
Now, the “scandal” will die a slow death. Nobody cared, or cares. It will be a study in how a “non-story” can erupt into “something” but maybe turn out to be nothing. Of course, everyone denying what went on is pro forma. I’d have been shocked if someone involved hadn’t denied it.
If Kerry challenges the media to “prove it” or testifies in front of a federal grand jury that he never slept with this girl, I was wrong. If she stays less than one ocean away from Kerry, I might have been wrong.
We can argue on unfounded assumptionsin GD, now ? Cool.
But seriously, seeing as the only media outlet reporting this conversation has been proven wrong in just about every specific in this case, what are you basing your assumption on ?
Yes, I agree, but the thing is - some of them have come forward to document that he never said it.
Fair enough (again, assuming it went down the way you’re assuming).
To be fair to flickster, it seems obvious Clark made some kind of “off the record” unflattering comment about Kerry’s campaign (see my cite), and I don’t think he’s that stupid or naive to have thought that his “off the record” comments wouldn’t leak.
Probably just the opposite - he wanted something to leak - but maybe it was about something entirely different, Drudge decided to gamble on spinning it as a sex scandal, and it backfired on him (how’s that for an assumption!)…
When Drudge just makes stuff up out of whole cloth, why doesn’t he get sued for libel? I think there needs to be a big, big lawsuit to force a little bit of accuracy and accountability into certain news outlets. If Drudge can prove what he prints, with even a shred of evidence, then fine. Otherwise he should be thrown to the dogs. This is the Big Lie all over again.