Jack, let’s take it to e-mail. No need to clutter up a perfectly ridiculous thread with our mutual snidery.
(It would, of course, be utterly pointless to ask for a cite in which you used the word “intangibles” or in fact addressed the questions raised in mine and RickJay’s last posts in that thread, so I won’t bother.)
Yvette Lozano got a year in the pokey for sneaking the tapes. Sez the Washington Times (howzat for a source December can’t brush off?), she’s a “lifelong Democrat”. Even they don’t suggest money passed hands, making a “corruption” charge hard to sustain. When Tom Downey received them, he immediately turned them over and took himself out of Gore’s preparation efforts. So who came out behind as a result?
Which raises the question of why a Republican campaign let her work on a project they’d hired her company for, but that’s a different story.
For a contrast, FAIR has George Will “somehow” seeing Carter’s debate prep materials, using them to coach Reagan (including suggesting some one-liners), and then praising his performance in his columns and TV appearances later. The Carter materials were found in Reagan’s files years later.
Class, your homework assignment is to compare and contrast the ethics displayed in these 2 situations. December, after failing to list an example of the underinvestigated Democratic corruption you deplored in your troll of an OP, your grade is hanging by a thread - do your best with this one.
The question of Bonds’ worth and your posting style are not even worth cluttering up e-mail.
But I genuinely hope that in your forthcoming Fox News thread you’ll discuss your conviction that there is economics-based major news media bias favoring the Right that counterbalances a tilt on social issues favoring the Left.
Should be interesting.
A couple of things to keep in mind regarding the OP:
I love baseball. Baseball has no place in this thread, gentlemen.
Oh, so you asked for a cite when you knew exactly what incident I was referring to and could have provided the cite? Thank you so much for refusing to enlighten us. Your flame was oh so uninformative. As for you live in Austin and hang out in political circles in Austin and your pal the judge is a salt of the earth and you would have heard of any further hanky panky, is that the “i’m-a-gossip-exception-to-the-hearsay-rule”? All that means is you believe you would have been privy to information that would prove a negative.
Do I think that Karl Rove would set her up and pay her off later. Of course he is that low.
This is the same Karl Rove who told James Hatfield that his own candidate had been busted for cocaine. (See Hatfield’s last edition of Fortunate Son, where he names his source.) She was working for Republicans when she did this. She was definitely not working for Democrats. Is it reasonable to think on balance she was possibly a plant. Yes.
Let us review our facts, not speculations: This woman worked for a trusted Bush campaign consultant and was trusted by them. She took a videotape of debate preparation and mailed them to the opposition, which refused to look at them and turned them over to police. She then lied to investigators when asked if she did it. It was proven that this trusted Republican campaign consultant employee did it and was not in any way connected with the opposing campaign.
Now, may I safely conclude she was a Republican? Yes, because she worked on the campaign. I work for campaigns all the time. People who are not trusted completely are kept far from the candidate or any potentially sensitive work. It is usually a good sign that if someone is has access to sensitive matters, they are loyal. Do I need to look up her voter registration. Nope. Does this constitute “slightest” evidence? It’s actually a lot better than slightest. Was her true affiliation relevant to the charge of theft and lying? No, and it wouldn’t have been admitted if anyone objected. If she was allowed to use authorization as a defense, then she might have been allowed to introduce her affiliation, but if she were trying to set Gore up, she’d hardly fess up having succeeded. (I will concede that is not at all probative of her motives, only that any way you slice it, she is best served by shutting up and getting her sentence over with once caught.)
Have the Republicans participated in stolen briefing book hanky panky before. Yes, in 1980 someone stole Jimmy Carter’s briefing book, which was used by George Will in briefing Ronald Reagan.
Now, may I also reasonably use Rove and Hughes’ statements after the fact that no one on the campaign staff who had access would have stolen them. In an argument I may use these as an admission against them. They have admitted that there was no unauthorized stealing. If there was no unauthorized stealing and the tape got to the opposition, then it was authorized, now wasn’t it? Rove and Hughes as far as I know have never denied this. If the woman who perpetrated it didn’t use it at her trial as a defense that it was not unauthorized, that may mean these things:
She was authorized to send this out:
1) She was authorized but chose not to plead (or was not allowed to plead) this as it may not have constituted a defense.
2) She knew it was a slap on the wrist offense and was authorized, but chose to stay loyal to the people who put her up to it.
3) She was authorized to do this but did not know it.
She was not authorized to send it out:
1) She was guilty as charged
2) She was all on her own trying to hurt Bush
3) She was all on her own trying to hurt Gore
Now minty, if you know what her true motivation was, please send a cite to the url in her heart. In the meantime, this is a free country and I’ll speculate all I want. But unlike a Republican, I am more than happy to point out the weaknesses in my own arguments.
(twisting bow tie and harrumphing lemon-suckingly) Not even when we’re referring to George Will?
Stoid, I’m afraid you and I are conducting two different debates. You’re making some good points, but they aren’t relevent to what I intended in my OP. I just don’t know any way to explain my thesis more clearly, so I must give up. We’re just not communicating. Sorry. 
december:
You’re a liar.
Sorry.
stoid
Counterbalances? The funny thing is that I’ve actually never made that claim. Cite, please?
Elvis, I never claimed that there was, “underinvestigated Democratic corruption.” Stoid seems to be under a similar misapprehension. All I can do is invite you to re-read my OP and my posts, wherein I tried to explain the OP.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gadarene *
**
“even in issues (f) and (g), neither as whole-heartedly liberal as liberals would like nor as whole-heartedly conservative as conservatives would like.”
In other words, “balanced” due to opposing biases.**
Nope. But there’s always hope you’ll rise above your sub-Mendoza Line average and drive home your point about the media’s “economic bias” with a single mighty blow, backed by persuasive evidence.
I’m not certain what you mean, but this seems to fit the bill:
Funny…
December posts a thread positing that when Republicans expose corruption in the Democratic party the Democrats have all too frequently responded by demonizing the messenger, doing everything in their power to slime them, to impugn their reputations, and destroy their credibility.
And by way of rebuttal, DBWhite, identifying himself as a Democratic “Party official,” proceeds to do PRECISELY that, in his 5:12 pm post.
What’s next? Ya gonna say Juanita Broderick was obviously a little slut who was asking for it?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**
Yes, that’s another good example for you, Mandelstam.
Implicit in the diatribes about the “corporate media” is the assumption that their supposed “economic biases” benefit the Right in much the same way as their “social issue” biases benefit the Left; therefore the question of media bias is a wash.
Instead of generating platitudes, I suggest that Gadarene provide concrete examples of how “economic bias” in reporting benefits the Right. No need to hurry (it takes time to rifle the FAIR website). For starters, he can research how media coverage of the Nestle infant formula controversy made that company look good. Or how Nike benefited from right-slanted coverage on the subject of its exploitation of foreign labor. Or how unions in general get shafted in coverage in favor of the corporate line. Or how companies charged with sleazy practices (for example, Food Lion) or pollution violations get an easy line of questions on network newsmagazines like “60 Minutes” or in the nightly news.
Again, no hurry. This deserves its own thread.
DP, your post hoc reasoning is exactly the sort of reasoning why I frequently hesitate to identify myself with any party whatsoever. You asserted that the person responsible for that tape being mailed to the Gore campaign was trying to set them up. I challenged you to prove that assertion. And what do you come back with? Let’s examine your evidence:
No, I couldn’t provide a cite. Of course, you are the one asserting the existence of a conspiracy.
Yeah, there’s a pretty good chance that I would have heard any information demonstrating she was a Republican. But even more to the point, somebody would have uncovered such evidence. It doesn’t freaking exist. Feel free to prove me wrong, however.
So freakin’ what? I think Rove is a scumbag opportunistic s.o.b. That does nothing whatsoever to demonstrate the truth or your assertion.
Is it reasonable to consider the possibility? Hell yes. It was also reasonable to consider the possibility that the Clintons used their political influence to make a ton of money on an Arkansas land development deal in the early 80s. It is unbelievably stupid to assert that they did so because you dislike them and they were in a position to do so. Same thing with Ms. Saldazar.
So freakin’ what? I work for a firm that was instrumental in getting Bush elected to the presidency last fall. Am I a Republican?
The Democrats did good, so that proves the Republicans did bad?
All liars are Republicans? One would think that the threat of jail time would be enough to prompt a little fibbing, but apparently not. :rolleyes:
My point exactly.
And finally, I’m going to let you dangle on your own ridiculously pertinent words from earlier in this thread. Please take this opportunity to look in a mirrow and examine your own preconceptions:
Myopic much?
It’s a free country. I am a local official. And she has posed in Penthouse doing activities which would certainly make it appropriate to call her a professional woman. And yes, I’ve seen the photos. While she is free to do this because this is a free country, it strikes me as odd that she claims to have been offended by it all. And yes, Democrats can dish it out as well as take it. Republicans, however, can only dish it out.
Show me where I said anything “counterbalances” anything, Jack. I’m not going to get dragged into a monumental rehash of previous threads right now, let alone subject the rest of these poor people to a monumental hijack (I provided my media snapshot with that caveat, remember).
When I decide to start the Fox News thread, you can ask me as many questions as your little heart desires.
panzerman, you’re confusing fact with conjecture. Pointing out something Paula Jones has actually done is hardly on the same level as expressing an unbased opinion about the character of Juanita Broaddrick.
If the latter were to be engaged in, there would be much more to go on regarding the constant changes in her story, and the fact that she earlier testified under oath that it didn’t happen. Speaking of irony, btw, to say you believe the most recent version of her story (WSJ Editorial Page of all places) is to accuse her of perjury.
So what DO you believe about the Broaddrick story?
December, would you be able to provide an answer if the word you’re complaining about was “undercondemned” instead of “underinvestigated”? Either way, we’re still waiting for you to point out a single example for a debate. At this point, it can even be backed up only with your usual complaining, not even cites, if that’s easier for you. Or can we simply dismiss you as a troll?
Let’s see Juanita Broderick. Denied for twenty years that Clinton had forced himself upon her when he was AG. Starr meets with her, threatens her and she changes her story. I think it is a safe bet to say that she was raped at least once by a prosecutor. Juries have concluded that Julie Hiatt-Steele and Ms. McDougal were given that shaft by Kenneth Starr, buying their arguments that he attempted to coerce testimony out of them.
Let’s see Minty, you work at a firm that help elect Bush. And supposedly that doesn’t make you a Republican. I don’t know what kind of firm, but if it is a political consulting firm and you don’t think you are a Republican, well you are entitled to define yourself I suppose. But from where I am standing, if you are not a Republican, well, that is up to you. The firms I use for politics don’t play both sides of the fence.
And next you think that Lucianne Goldberg having got deep into the McGovern campaign disproves my assertion that campaigns do not let untrusted people inside. I guess I need to back off here just a wee bit: we sure try hard not to let people intent on information theft and disruptive activity into our confidence. Goldberg was not the first, nor the last, to get inside. In this instance, however, there was a vigorous prosecution, and had there been a conspiracy on the part of Democrats, the Republican prosecutorial officials in the Dept of Justice failed to unearth it, and these folks (like Ted Olson) are used to inflating just the slightest evidence into something it is not.
I am of the opinion that it is just as likely that this woman was a Bush/Rove plant as not. I don’t think that a Republican prosecutorial team (and I don’t know if they were Republican or not) has any incentive to keep pushing this. But in light of the fact that we agree that Rove is capable of dirty business, I don’t think that I have invented something out of whole cloth.
As for whether Clinton made a ton of money out of dirty deals in Arkansas, no less than five investigations have spent well over 50 million dollars and were conducted by people quite hostile to Clinton, and all of them have come up either exonerating Clinton or whimpering that there was no conclusive evidence (and coming up with none.)
I for one am quite tired of Republicans substituting character assassination for policy. I am more than willing to throw some mud back if there is any reasonable basis to do so.
You’ve been provided with examples (Izzy’s is especially good). If being confronted with them makes you uncomfortable, you may go on pretending that they don’t exist.**
No, this relates to a claim you made in this very thread. But please, take all the time for researching “economic bias in the media” that you need.