That’s nice Munch — that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Tiger, the point is that there are multiple plausible scenarios to explain why she didn’t talk to the press immediately, but there are no plausible scenarios that involve her having boinked Kerry. We might be putting forth different speculations that contradict one another; that’s okay, because we’re just showing that there’s no reason to regard her behavior as suspicious.
As for her telling her parents first – what on earth makes you think that every kid on earth does that?
If you got a theory, let’s hear it; otherwise, you’re just blowing hot air.
Daniel
Because there is nothing to this story. You’re picking nits to make up for the fact that there is zero reason to think that anything actually happened. It’s not that hard to get exactly the impression Munch says because there has never been any substance here. I see no pressing questions to be answered, just people praying that a goofy story will stick around. I think one reason this story didn’t get that much play is that nobody ever backed up any of their claims… even when the woman’s family allegedly called Kerry a scumbag, they didn’t say there was an affair. They implied he came on to her improperly. WEAK.
It’s time for the people smearing Kerry to put up or shut up - either prove something happened and demonstrate why we should care (since nothing illegal is even alleged), or move on. I’m not expecting anyone to put up.
I’ve lived in Africa. Not in Kenya, but I spent two years in Liberia. There were newspapers, certainly, but they tended to carry news about Liberia. They did not go into great detail about US presidential elections except to announce who the winners were and maybe some basic background on candidates. Thy didn’t cover anything this early on and even what they did cover was not on the front page.
What seems like giant news in the States often doesn’t get a blip overseas and the daily minutae of a US presidential campaign is of little or no significance in a lot of third world countries.
I seldom ever bought the Liberian paper, it simply didn’t have enough American news to warrant it. Liberian television was not much better. It was only on for a few hours a day and very little of that was news. Virtually none of it was American news.
Americans got their news from Voice of America on the radio (there was no internet yet). If you didn’t listen to the radio you’d never have any idea what was going on over there.
Now I’m just talking about Liberia, not Kenya, but I suspect that Kenya is not much different. I think that Tiger is under some illusion that everyone on the continent of Africa is as riveted by every nuance of American presidential elections as we are.
Only the really big stories from the US get any play in the various media outlets of the various African countries. The Kerry story didn’t even get covered by the mainstream American news media. Why would Kenya give a crap?
As a non-American, I have no dog in this fight - but I must say, this seems remarkably like a libelous slur to me, “libel” being defined as “an untruthful allegation made specifically to damage someone’s reputation”.
The definition over here is considerably stricter: it’s very difficult to prove libel in the United States, and moreso when the target of the libel is a public figure. Drudge almost certainly included the necessary weasel-words in his reports so that such a charge couldn’t stick.
And even if what he said meets the definition of libel (which I really doubt), Kerry would have a lot more to lose from pursuing the charge than he would have to gain. Right now, the story is getting no coverage in the mainstream press; a candidate suing a reporter for libel would gain huge coverage, and would make Kerry look like a whiny baby who couldn’t deal with the rough-and-tumble world of a presidential election. What’s more, the media would HATE to see a reporter prosecuted for putting forth a story, and Kerry would find himself with very few media friends.
Kerry’s gonna let this die. I see it as the opening salvo in the conservative attck on him, and he’s parried it with barely a flick of a finger. His interest is best served in saying no more about it, so that the few people watching see him as the complete victor in the situation.
Daniel
I didn’t mean it in the legal sense, but in the factual.
I have no idea what a court of law would make of it, and I fully understand why the persons involved would not want the hassle of a court case.
But, purely from the factual perspective, it seems to me, on reading it over, that the story was made purely to harm his reputation, indifferent to whether it was actually true or not. Which meets my definition of “libelous slur”.
I dunno…the media’s treatment of these rumors (edging ever-so-slowly towards it) is a strange contrast with their treatment of Bush’s military record rumors. In the second, the slightest gap sends scores of reporters shouting “But you didn’t give us your dental records!” wheras they’re pretty much silent about Kerry.
Last night on NBC nightly news, they had this tiny segment in which they said that “You may have heard rumors about Kerry and an intern. Well, the intern denied it”. <commercial break>
It was hilarious and sad at the same time…it had the air of a certain teacher who, when rumors (later determined to be true) about a student teacher being dismissed because of sexual misdemeanors, assembled the class and intoned “You may have heard rumors about Mr. L—. They are not true. Back to class…”
There is a definite gap in Bush’s military records, and there are officers who have gone on record as saying “I never saw him” (in fact, I’m not aware of anybody testifying “yeah, I served with him between X and X dates”). There is, in other words, at least something to go on. Not so for this Kerry thing.
Diogenes:
As I hope you remember, right at the beginning of this garbage I said that I thought there was nothing to it, and that Kerry should simply refuse to answer any questions about this nonsense. I mention this again now because the following comment might be interpreted, somehow, as my supporting the continuing investigation into the Kerry “scandal” – nothing could be farther from the truth. There is no scandal, there is no substance, and there should be no story here.
But I have noticed that in your frequent commentary on this non-story, not once have I read you to say that we’re dealing with the court of public opinion here, not a court of law, and that therefore different, lax standards apply. I’m surprised (OK, not really) at this omission. When the subject was Bush’s ANG attendance, your standards of evidence seemed to be quite forgiving. I’d like to point out this inconsistency, and suggest that if the two stories were reversed, I believe you’d be trumpting Bush’s rumored involvement with an intern and pointing out flaws in the evidence that Kerry never attended his required drills.
Or am I wrong?
- Rick
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46369-2004Feb16.html
But why should we believe her? She’s obviously full of shit when it comes to stating her own motivations for waiting four days.
:rolleyes:
The father had this to say regarding the “derogatory comments”…
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1077018934225600.xml
A tabloid playing fast and loose with quotes? That has never happened before has it?
I don’t know much about the Drudge Report, so I found this rather informative:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4073.shtml
I really tried to think about your question and be honest with myself. My honest answer is that I think I would reach the same conclusions but probably with a different tone. If a sex accusation were lodged aginst Bush I might not rush to the ramparts to defend him but I would wait for some substantial support for the story before I went on the attack. I’m not sure taht i would even attack that hard except to point out hypocrisy. Actually, I’d be more likely to jab social conservatives over their support for a philanderer than I would to attack Bush himself or care that much about it. I really don’t care about personal sex lives and I’m not selective about it.
If the story turned out to be as bogus as the Kerry story did, I would excoriorate whoever leaked it and would not spare any Dems. Dropping slander onto the internet does not help the party that engages in it.
Actually, in this same vein, it seems that Larry Flynt intends to publish a book alleging that GWB paid for an abortion in the early 70s. Now I don’t care if Bush paid for an abortion. If anything, it would speak well for him if he took responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy and did not abandon the girl he knocked up. Depending on the year and place, it might have been illegal but I don’t even care about that. If true (if, if, if) it would raise questions about his pro-life stance and perhaps make him guilty of hypocrisy. Even so, I think it would be a minor story at best, and would constitute an action that I don’t regard as immoral or particularly significant now. I will say now that if Flynt’s allegations hold any water (and he claims to have spoken to the doctor) I will not make a big deal out of it on this board except perhaps to ask pro-lifers if it affects their opinion of Bush.
If the story turns out to be false, I will rip the shit out of Larry Flynt for publishing garbage.
I will also assume that the story is bullshit for the time being until I see some actual evidence.
As to the AWOL stuff…there really is some smoke there. Once again. If it were a Dem, I’d probably still say he was AWOL but my moral judgement of the act would depend on his position on the war at the time. It’s different if a guy supports a war for others but avoids it himself than if a guy avoids a war but also tries to stop other guys from getting sent over there.
Diogenes - I really appreciate your answer. Thanks for taking the time and the introspection necessary to give it.
You and I obviously differ greatly on many political issues, but it seems to me you’re approaching this with a very consistent internal measuring stick, and that’s a valuable and laudable stance.
- Rick
I know nothing about Bushs’ military record.
I readily agree that whether people are silent about a story, hotly deny it and seek to poke holes in it, or eagerly believe it, all stem at least in part from political bias - one is more eager to believe bad things about an enemy in the political sense, than about a friend.
That is why I posted here - since, in essence, I have no stake in this fight, I can say with better objectivity that this intern story seemed from the first to me to be a smear job. I believe I can say that I would have said the same thing if Bush was the victim.
That is the problem with defamation - it is hard to refute, and by refuting, you give it more credence. How does one respond to a question like “when did you stop beating your wife”?
“Your question is based on incorrect assumptions and cannot be answered” is the one I’ve rehearsed for years. 
(Or, to cite the Japanese Zen koan I originally took that from, “mu.”)
I can’t believe some people think four days is a long time to issue an official public statement about a complete non-issue, especially when the said individual is in a non-industrialized country on another friggin’ continent God only knows how many time zones away.
I live in NEW YORK CITY, less than 30 seconds from GRAND CENTRAL STATION, for cryin’ out loud - and I didn’t catch a whiff of this story until Monday morning, and I wasn’t spending the weekend with the love of my life.
I suspect someone visiting their fiance would be a bit too preoccupied to be checking out the local tabloids.
But, my standard rule has been: Never, ever underestimate the depth of human stupidity, especially in the US when it relates (no matter how remotely) to sex. :smack:
Da Dude is pretty close to the mark. I lived in Uganda and Mali and can tell you that once you leave the city limits of the capital of most African countries, communication of any sort takes a nosedive. South Africa is an exception to this.
If this woman was in a game park (or almost anywhere not in Nairobi, for that matter), access to a telephone, TV or radio was limited or unavailable. Even in the major cities, phone service is spotty, particularly when calling overseas. I once spent three days trying to call Washington, DC from Kampala. Internet service was equally unreliable.
I would also like to point out that she had the added distraction of being with her fiance. I don’t know about you all, but if I were having a conjugal visit with my SO, talking to the friggin’ media would be last on my to-do list.
I like “mu”. 
I know what it stands for, but I’m willing to bet most tabloid reporters don’t. It would be interesting to see what they would say to an answer of “mu”. 