How does Bush get away with it?

The Boston Globe recently followed up on its May 2000 story that George W. Bush was effectively AWOL for about two years during his National Guard service in the 1970’s. Obviously this story has not been picked up by the national press which is too busy spreading the false accusation that Al Gore claimed to have “invented” the internet. What forces are at work that allow Bush to get a free ride like this?
See link for story on Gov. Bush’s National Guard service:

Where Was W?

And what, Gore has been under the scrutinizing eye of the press? And what about Clinton? I think all these guys get free rides.

I saw a headline in the Washington Times that said something like ‘Bush says He Has Many Characteristics of Reagan’.

“Oh?” I thought. Like loss of body functions and only being able to remember one other person’s name?

Really? You don’t think Clinton’s been the object of press scrutiny? Can you think of any aspect of his entire life that HAS NOT been scrutinized? In Clinton’s case, the details were presented and the public decided they were not relevant to his duties. In Bush’s case, the press is acting as a mute accomplice to his stonewalling.

Free ride!? What free ride? Bush never went AWOL. If there were really anything to this story, the Gore camp would have been all over it. I don’t see Bush getting a free ride. I’ve seen him attacked on many sides and the reason they don’t make a big deal out of this is because it’s not a big deal. Gore and Bush, both, get away with a lot, but they both get scrutinized a lot. That’s the way the media works.

The headline for is about Bush admitting to getting a DUI in Kennebunkport, Maine. It says that Gore said nothing about Bush’s confession at his last campaign stop, so maybe the Gore camp doesn’t care too much about further exploiting Bush problems. They probably figure that the press does enough of a good job of it. Here is the link to the article:

Because the reporters covering his campaign personally like the guy? All it takes is some backslapping and a cute nickname, apparently.

Try Eric Alterman’s takes on it, whether you agree with him or not:

I think the free ride is now officially over, as “the liberal media” get a late attack of conscience. The news of Bush hiding his drunk-driving conviction will be their license over the next few days to do what they should have been doing all along.

I’m sure the Gore people are dancing and laughing (behind the closed doors, of course). But it would be poor form to appear to gloat, besides fanning suspicions that they were behind the release of the info at a damaging time.

Anyway, Gore knows the old rule of campaigning: If your opponent is shooting himself in the foot, don’t interrupt him.

or IMHO?



Actually my first suspicion was that the Bush camp started the story because it exposes an old and relatively harmless episode of his earlier “wild” days to contrast with how “sober” he is now. Then they can claim he is getting press scrutiny without any of the really damaging stuff (AWOL, cocaine) being discussed. AND he can claim that Gore is dredging stuff up even if he isn’t. Kind of like the debate tapes thing, though that one didn’t work.

Sputnik- the person who gave a copy of the court transcript to an ABC journalist (thus starting the entire story) was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Unless he’s in really deep cover, I seriously doubt you can state that the Republicans started this story.

BTW, on that OP, make sure there isn’t a space between the “a” and “r” in the word “Guard” or the link won’t work.

Did you have a cite for that John, or does it just sound good? It seems likely to me that whoever leaked the information was someone hoping to damage Bush’s chances, but I haven’t read anywhere who that person is. I really can’t understand why this information didn’t come out earlier.

I’ve heard the AWOL story too, but I don’t know whether to consider it accurate or not.

Let’s get this straight, once and for all. It was not a false accusation. Gore’s exact words were that he “was instrumental in inventing the internet.” Admittedly, that is not exactly the same, but it is not a false accusation either.

Another question is why Bush’s drug use has been hushed up? His alcoholism is coming to light, belatedly, but little has been said concerning his drug use. (Perhaps he did not inhale.)

Is that how Rush is explaining it today? Sorry, it was a Fox station doing the digging (network owned by Rupert Murdoch, heavy conservative);

The source was someone in the county courthouse, and the Dem delegate was just a conduit (willing, of course).

Why do you think it matters how the information came to light, anyway? The point is that Bush DID do it and he kept covered it up - even from his own family. He’ll have to explain that very carefully in light of his preaching about morality and responsibility. Should be a very interesting weekend, eh what?

Yes, let’s DO get this straight, once and for all. His “exact words” (your phrasing) were:
“As a member of Congress, I took the lead in creating the Internet.”
If you look into who sponsored the legislation that converted DOD’s ARPANET into the commercial Internet, you’ll find the above statement to be true.

Looks like the Dems were behind the leak after all.\Nation\archive\200011\NAT20001103b.html

Color me surprised! :rolleyes:

I thought his exact words were “…I took the initiative in creating the internet”.

I guess some people think if it doesn’t come from Katie Couric or Rosie then it must not be true.

Actually, Bush has been very open about his past (Compared to guys like Clinton, at least). He had admitted that he used to drink long before this. I don’t think it will have much effect on the polls. Everyone knew Clinton used to smoke dope, and it didn’t seem to effect the outcome of either of the two previous elections. And remember that Bush’s base of support is stronger than Gore’s. In other words, Gore supporters are more fickle than Bush supporters.