John Kerry>Jack Ryan? How?

Great Debates
61

You don’t say. I was going to ask how old you were. I was getting a “young” vibe from your posts. Don’t take that the wrong way, though. You also strike me as bright and as a good writer. You just have a bit of that college kid hubris in your tone.

Just because he lied about a blowjob doesn’t mean he must therefore be guilty of everything else he’s ever been accused of. Should we assume he murdered Vince Foster too? How about smuggling drugs intoo Mena, Arkansas? he was acuused of all kinds of things when he was POTUS. So is GWB. I thing Bush has lied about any number of things but that doesn’t mean I believe the rape allegations against him or some of the other truly loony charges that get lobbed at him (like that he wplanned 9/11). It’s quite possible for a guy to lie about infidelity and also be falsely accused of rape. One thing does not prove the other.

Libel only pertains to written defamation or slander. If it isn’t said in print it isn’t libel (and libel is extremely hard to prove in any case). If anything, Clinton may have had a case for defamation but that would still require showing damages (i.e. he would have had to show that Broaddrick’s accusation cost him money somehow), he would have had to prove she was lying (and how do you prove you didn’t rape somebody twenty years ago, especially if you had consensual sex with that person?) and it would have been a circus of a trial if it had gone to court. All sitting presidents get accused of all manner of nutso things. It simply wouldn’t be rational or practical to try to sue everybody who makes a false accusation. That’s all they’d be doing, and defamation is hard to prove anyway. GWB has not sued the woman who accused him of rape. Accorting to some other stuff I’ve read, Larry Flynt plans to publish allegations that GWB once paid for an abortion. If Bush doesn’t sue the woman making that accusation will you assume that he did it?

62

I’m not blaming other people. I did start it. However, I’m trying to get it back to the point. Settling a suit doesn’t require you to be guilty, but it usually means you realize that you’re going to lose based on evidence, or you don’t want said evidence leaking out. Michael Jackson isn’t guilty of molestation, but he did settle a case for many dollars. It is rare that people settle just to avoid a case. I am not trying to prove that Clinton raped her, just that there are allegations that I tend to believe. Nothing short of a conviction would convince many of you people, even if he were to settle with Broaddrick for all the proceeds of his new book. The whole point of this thread is to ask why the media has as of yet not sued for John Kerry’s divorce records (or Theresa Heinz Kerry’s tax records) but did sue for Jack Ryan.

63

Having talked to people in the Kerry campaign who are familiar with the divorce issue, as I understand it, Kerry’s first wife was a very depressed unhappy woman, before she met Kerry and after they split up, and the issue isn’t so much as scandalous, but just sad for all involved.

I think the main reason they don’t want the divorce to be a big issue isn’t that the unsealing of the papers will reveal anything other than an unhappy marriage, but rather because it will bring up the issue of the annulment granted to the marriage, which won’t play well with the Catholic voters Bush is trying to lure to go his way.

64

They quit that as soon as it became big news.

It’s sad that Ryan went out the way he did. Especially if Obama wins, he deserves to have won on his own merits in a fair fight, not as a fallout of this nasty scandal. He’s going to make a great Senator for his state.

65

Or it could mean that financially and publicity-wise, it’s not worth the trouble for you to go through with it.

Cite? I think you’re very wrong.

I think your posts to this point have proven that you have no good reason for believing them aside from a dislike of Clinton.

Darn us and our consistent requests for actual proof instead of hearsay and debunked partisan trash.

I’ve seen several different points to this thread, and each have been rebuffed. And PLEASE don’t make the tired assumption that there is a “the media.” It is not a homogenous group that makes committee decisions. It’s a bunch of independent players. There are enough differences in the divorces (Ryan’s was more recent, bitter, and was from a well-known actress) that you don’t have to go asking why “the media” is treating them differently.

66

Ok, no single independent entity in the vast pool of the media has sued for the John Kerry records, while one single independent entity sued for Jack Ryan’s. As I have mentioned, you don’t have to be proven guilty to have done something. I’m sure that what happened is somewhere in the middle, between rape and never having met, but it still a partisan issue. Democrats act like nothing happened, and nobody named Juanita exists, and Republicans act like he offed her firstborn sometimes.

67

Sometimes applies to Dems and Repubs in the last post, before you all jump on that too.

68

That’s not what you said earlier…

You said in an earlier post that the Illinois Leader is suing for them!

69

Think about this for a second. You’re saying that one (conservative) media entity sued for Ryan’s divorce records, so somehow that means that some other media entity has an obligation to sue for Kerry’s. If you think it was wrong fot the Chicago Tribune to go after Ryan, then how does it make sense to demand that some other entity (preferably liberal) go after Kerry? It sounds like you’re saying if one newspaper does something sleazy that every other paper has some obligation to follow suit.

It’s not the “liberal” media’s fault that the Tribune went after Ryan and it in no way obligates them to go after Kerry. You’re mad at the wrong people here.

Or maybe you so think it was right for the Tribune to go after Ryan, in which case, why would you blame the liberal media entities any more than the conservative ones, and why aren’t you angry at the liberals for not going after Ryan?

70

I know it was a couple hours ago that this came up, but how do you not know that WND is, uh, slightly unorthodox as media sources go? Perhaps it’s not common knowledge, but off of their front page, I can find “Will your kids be adopted by homosexuals?”, “Jail won’t baptize repentant inmate”, and offers for “‘Revolve: The Complete New Testament’ for teen girls (Formatted like a modern magazine, this popular Bible is bursting with life)” and “‘Refuel: The Complete New Testament’ for teen guys (A ‘totally cool’ new way for adolescent males to read the Word of God)” (love their use of scare quotes here.)

Continuing down the page. Another special offer: “Feeling helpless against hair loss? Receive free, no-obligation information on today’s leading solutions” (I knew they were right-wing Christians, but it came as a shock to learn they also fought hair loss!) A WorldNetDaily Exclusive: “THE PARTY OF TREASON: Lies and lying liars: How Democrats corrupt morals, steal elections, aid enemies”. “The real Kerry: Flip-flops, payoffs, tax hikes, lies”. “Clinton’s devastating ‘Intelligence Failure’: How he undermined America’s defense and paved the way for 9-11” (way to deflect!). “Christian outreach: Child-sponsorship ministry impacts lives in Jesus’ name”.

Oh, and, uh, a column by Ann Coulter.

If you had glanced at the front page, or even at the articles you linked to, you probably would have noticed that they aren’t exactly the BBC. You didn’t try real hard, did you? Believe what you like, but don’t expect the rest of us to accept your say-so as evidence, ok?

71

I don’t expect you to accept it that source, and no, I didn’t read the front page, I read the pages that I was linked to. Back to the liberal media bias, however, it’s not like I came up with this idea myself.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040524-103202-3266r.htm

http://www.gallup.com/content/login.aspx?ci=9430

Are these sources moderate enough for you all to believe my “liberal media” slant, or will there be a “you used polls that involve people, and they are all stupid too” retort?

All of the rape charges against Bush and Reagan are discouted wholly. Broaddrick’s against Clinton, however, is not discounted by everyone. Just because I said I believe Clinton raped her does not make it happen, and with the definitions of rape and abuse being bandied around on this board, what happened is probably some mixture of good sex/bad sex. Could he be charged with rape based on the allegations? Yes. Has he, no.

I’m not mad at the liberal media for not going after Ryan, I’m frustrated that they go after one person based on hearsay, but not others based on different hearsay.

I said the the Illinois Leader has stated that they will, but I have yet to see any front pages saying that it is happened (that they are suing for the record).

72

You’re not mad at the liberal media. As has been clearly pointed out, the Tribune is a heavily conservative paper. However, obviously they care about muckraking (and the resulting sales) far more than any political agenda. As do all media outlets.

And one of your sources there is the Washington Times. Now, I don’t bother with debates here often enough to know how the board generally feels, but the Washington Times, while not quite like WND, is not considered by most to be a reliable newspaper either. If you’re having trouble finding real, legitimate media sources to support your allegations against Clinton, it could be the indication of massive, massive media bias, but the media have frankly never shied away from talking about his, uh, indiscretions. So it seems more likely to me that no more has come of the case.

And while conservatives love to claim the media are liberal, and have crowed about it until it’s the staple argument of every talk-radio listener, the fact is that newspapers run far more conservative columnists, talk radio is the exclusive (well, nowadays almost exclusive) domain of conservative voices, and while I wouldn’t dispute the poll you cite from the Washington Times (it does seem to have appeared in other media sources), similar polls indicate that editors have a strong conservative bias, and since they’re the ones who decide what to print, and how to chop it up first, well, you do the math . . .

Which is perhaps why conservative think tanks are quoted so much more often. And journalists may not be so left-leaning in their politics, but if they are, they seem to keep it to themselves, since even such bastions of media liberalism as National Public Radio spend way more time quoting conservative sources. (All citations from Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting.)

Not that any of this has any bearing on why you think Kerry’s divorce records should be opened. (You do, right? You don’t seem to be able to take a concrete position beyond “the media is being mean to us! they’re mean!”)

73

That doesn’t mean anyone credible came up with it, however. :stuck_out_tongue:

Neither has the accusation that Clinton had Vince Foster murdered. This contributes zero to its credibility or truth value.

Upon what do you base that?

And yet you treat the fact that he has not sued for libel as more credible than the fact that the case has never been pursued, which points to a lack of evidence. The police clearly don’t think there is a credible or prosecutable case. Yet you insist he might be a rapist. Why is that? Could it be because you’re more interested in hating Clinton than in credibility?

Ah, I see. So I take it you will post a retraction of everything in this thread if they decide to do so?

74

No, I don’t have any reason they should be opened. I also had no reason for Ryan’s to be opened. They were, it turned out bad for him. If Kerry’s are opened, and turn out bad, the electorate will go into a tailspin. The Dem’s would have to find a new candidate, and probably would still lose. It wouldn’t be fair for either side, as winning a fight that someone brings their second choice to isn’t really winning anything.
However, do you think any judge in Mass. would find reasonable cause to open said records if the Leader’s or anyone elses suits follow through?
The Wash Times cite was of the Pew poll. Maybe I should link directly to their site.
I don’t know their ideology either, and its 3 am, so I’m not going to read their poll. I found the same results of the 7% Right 33% Left poll on every media outlet I could find (ABC, CBS, etc.), and I’m sure it’s listed in the NRA too, does that make it a bad source? Doubtful.
Back to the question at hand, I think fairness is what should happen. If we had a time machine maybe we could keep Ryan’s case from being opened. Too bad, because we could do other things with it too (stopping 9/11 comes to mind). Is it tit for tat, and do I feel that Kerry’s should be opened because of Ryan’s? No, but if Ryan’s were opened for some reason, then why hasn’t Kerry’s been opened for the same, not just as a retaliation?

75

Damn 3 am, Damn Damn.

Strike poll and say “entire site, look up their donors, find their past donations, make sure someone on the board hasn’t voted anything other than Reform party, etc.”

76

As other posters have written, there are different laws in different states. Anybody can bring one, so if a conservative outlet of some sort wants to try and smear Kerry or whatever by bringing this stuff up, it’s not like they couldn’t. As you’ve been told, it was a conservative paper that brought the suit about Ryan’s papers, so I’m not sure how your claims about the liberal media come into play. Most likely, Republicans and news sources realize that this is ancient history and that there is probably nothing scandalous or newsworthy in them. On the other hand, there had been rumors about what might be in Ryan’s records for some motnhs.

77

If you’re referring toThe Washington Times, you should know that it’s owned byRev. Moon’s Unification Church.

But that’s okay, since he’s not a liberal.

78

This was just too funny.

79

qcomdrj: Okay, I gotta know. . .what in hell is “theR”? Because if it uses Drudge and only Drudge as a source for stories, then you might wanna look into finding a source that’s, y’know, credible.

Great. Then you think that Clinton is a rapist. That and $5.75 will get you a latte at Starbucks. Again, it’s your opinion. It’s not established. It’s not factual. It’s you talking outta your ass. And since you have already told us that you are parroting what your father said; and that you think that Clinton is capable of being a rapist because he didn’t admit to the affair (I assume that this is inre Lewinsky, nu?) until his ass was in a crack, then he may very well be in magical qcomdrjland, but we’re here in the real world. So, have you got anything that might pass even the least test of verifiable evidence? No? Thought not.

And since you have so recently attempted to bring the focus back to Kerry>Ryan: Since you feel that the Trib screwed the pooch in suing for Ryan’s records, I’ll be damned if I understand why you think that someone else ought to sue for Kerry’s. Except, I suppose that you seem a skosh upset that your ox got gored. And I’m with ya there. I think that what the Tribune did was pretty despicable. But there’s not a whole hell of a lot that we can do about it now.

And this:

Is just sour grapes that does nothing to advance whatever position it is that you think you are advancing.

80

GL, read much?

Go back to post 15 of this thread. Think it through.
As for what I am advancing, I am trying to say that the media, in all their muck-racking glory, can still decide what to print and what not to print (or go after vs not go after). Look at the media coverage of AG. Then compare it to Nick Berg. Different stories, yes, same time, roughly. One got easily 4 times the coverage of the other. Ergo, if one media outlet decided to cull old divorce records “for the common good” or whatever reason, then why not do it across the board?