I would remind freind Ascenray that the techniques involved in the Lewinsky-Clinton imbroglio were of French origin. For any right-thinking American, this would be quite enough.
IOW, Kaus did not say he had seen evidence that the nanny problem existed.
He did not say his source had seen evidence that the nanny problem existed.
He did not say his source’s source had seen evidence that the nanny problem existed.
He said his source’s source found the whole thing suspicious. Not exactly the same thing, y’know? :rolleyes:
**Apos ** started blaming Clinton and **Loopydude ** started about sex scandal as just another diversion, so I thought I was on a safe ground, but apparently not; apparently, one has to have the proper credentials to talk candidly about St Bill.
You got me there. Everybody knows that Clinton was selling national secrets to ChiComs, running drugs through airfield in Arkansas and murdered Vince Foster, but that’s exactly the point: everybody knows that. So what he was really trying to hide?
Are you reading me backwards?
Would probably make more sense than forwards.
My point was, so far we have only Kerik’s word as the basis for the existence of a ‘nanny problem’. You have not contradicted this: that is, you have not put forward any evidence that anyone else besides Kerik has ascertained that Kerry employed a nanny that he didn’t properly handle the taxes on.
Like Josh Marshall, I don’t need to know the name or SSN of the nanny; I don’t need to see copies of her W-2s. But before I believe this story, I’d like to know that some reasonably credible witness has independently verified what Kerik claims.
But to the best of my knowledge, not even Alberto Gonzales, who was in charge of the vetting, has claimed to have seen those sorts of things with his own eyes. IOW, AFAWCT, all he has is Kerik’s word on this.
For that matter, let me ask this: have we seen any evidence, other than Kerik’s word (or the word of other people who have no evidence themselves besides Kerik’s word), that Kerik even had employed a nanny, that that nanny has left the country, or that the nanny was from Mexico? My point isn’t that I care about these particulars; my point is that Kerik still appears to be the sole source of all nanny-related information. And Kerik is still not credible.
Geez people: whoosh. I wasn’t seriously blaming Clinton (though obviously Regan has grounds to do so: after all, she DID apparently feel that his behavior sent a corrupting message that, apparently, affected her), just reliving the nostalgia and hypocrisy.
On that note, this just in…
http://www.nypost.com/commentary/32781.htm
OK, this is the New York Post, after all, and its all just an unseemly scandal, but its not about the sex!
Thanks Apos. I had no idea who this Regan person was. Pretty whacked.
Why do you assume that I was trying to contradict anything? I agree with everything that was said here re. Mr. Kerik and his nanny by you and others. I’m just joking around a little. And before you castigate me for not being serious, we are looking at the bottomless pit of national politics, lined up with distorted mirrors, where nothing is what it seems and only few people have some clues that open some of the doors some of the time. So joking around may be the only way to remain sane.
In the spirit of leaving no stones unturned, how much of sex is really about the Sex? Huge part of it is about power and social prestige, as demonstrated by common expression, “Who do I have to sleep with (to get ahead socially or professionally)?”
What a mess.
His anger at right-wing morons who keep spreading such unsubstantiated nonsense, I’d wager.
I haven’t visited this thread for a few days, but it sure does look now like this is a major FUBAR by Bush et al. No excuse that they couldn’t have vetted him better than they did. Very sloppy… very, very sloppy indeed.
It’s not sloppy: he proved himself the most loyal and partisan man they knew, and that HAD to mean he was good for the job.
Funny though how they are able to dig up the most obscure dirt on any number of their adversaries… A quick google alone on Kerick would have been enough to give pause. Most of this was common knowledge in NYC. Public record fills in the blanks…
Perhaps it’s less frightening to think of it as simply sloppy vetting. To err is human, after all…
True. But to really screw things up bad, you gotta be a dumbfuck.
Conservatives wet their pants over the tough, no-nonsense, hard-headed guys. They just swoon over iron-ass pricks, perhaps because they’re secretly effeminate. Yeah, that’s probably it.
But, these touch, no-nonsense, hard-headed guys are, themselves, conservative. Are they, too, “effeminate”? I’m trying to udnerstand this theory in more detail…
Well, the search to prove a negative goes poorly, I’m sad to report:
On a side note, the search to prove a nanny is going just as poorly.
However, it seems that Kerik seems to have scrambled out of a lot of odd things as soon as it became clear that his life would be getting some scrutiny.
http://www.nypost.com/business/32731.htm
One word: Overcompensation. 
Just so. But I think its worth while to make a subtle distinction, between authoritarian and conservative. The authoritarian is more of a personality type than a political viewpoint, he gravitates to organizations that reflect that personality, the military, the police, etc. The Chinese Communists, for instance, are authoritarian, not conservative, being Marxists.
The authoritarian is more likely to fall victim to such overcompensation as friend rjung points out. Persons secure in thier rock-solid masculinity, for instance, will select screen names that reflect intellectual prowess and capacity, those with more tenuous grounding might opt for screen names that reflect medievel weapons, or hammers, things of that sort.
Not implying anything, you understand. Just saying.
Or they might pick names that make them look like an idiot in general, such as myself. Can we take it easy on the sissy jokes?