Radical new anti-Bush tactic

[Guest MikeSC]

Activist rocker Moby raised Republican hackles last week when he advised President Bush's enemies to engage in political mischief.

Moby told my fellow gossips Rush & Molloy: "For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you're an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion."

 

Now the incorrigible Larry Flynt says he plans to market a Bush abortion story as genuine - in a book to be published this summer by Kensington Press.

 

"This story has got to come out," the wheelchair-bound Hustler magazine honcho told the Daily News' Corky Siemaszko. "There's a lot of hypocrisy in the White House about this whole abortion issue."

 

Flynt claimed that Bush arranged for the procedure in the early '70s.

 

"I've talked to the woman's friends," Flynt said. "I've tracked down the doctor who did the abortion, I tracked down the Bush people who arranged for the abortion," Flynt said. "I got the story nailed."

 

Flynt wouldn't disclose whether he plans to name the woman.

 

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie - who in a speech last week accused "Kerry campaign supporters," not just Moby, of hatching the Internet chat room scheme - was unavailable for comment on Flynt's charges.

 

But RNC spokesman Yier Shi told me: "The Democrats will do anything in this election, judging by their campaign tactics, to smear without any evidence or background. This is just another one of those cases."

 

 

Writer can't put story to bed

 

 

Liberal pundit Joe Conason worked himself into quite a lather Friday over the rampant rumors concerning Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry.

 

"Is American politics suddenly returning to the bad old days, when Washington journalism became frenzied with sheet sniffing and keyhole peeping?" the Bill Clinton loyalist demanded indignantly on Salon.com.

 

Unfortunately for Conason, Internet commentator Mickey Kaus promptly discovered that, in 1992, Conason had engaged in just such "sheet sniffing and keyhole peeping" - a long, rumor-filled piece about Clinton's campaign opponent, the first President Bush, in Spy magazine.

 

"He Cheats on His Wife," blared the headline over the article, in which Conason enumerated various unsubstantiated personal scandals involving George H.W. Bush, including extramarital affairs and (as the Spy headline announced) "unpleasant details of Bush's all-around bachelor-party piggishness!"

 

But unlike cybergossip Matt Drudge - who, Conason charged in Salon, had "hyped to the maximum" the "vague and unsourced" Kerry rumors - Conason sometimes dropped the word "alleged" and published dirt as fact.

 

In a tone of supreme authority, he wrote about "Bush's adultery" and "the President's extramarital dalliances."

 

Yesterday, Conason explained: "That's the Spy style - it's a very assertive style. They just don't use a lot of 'alleged' ... But I stand by every word."

 

Conason also explained why, in his scorching of Drudge, he failed to mention his Spy piece: "I wasn't even thinking about it. It was 12 years ago."

 

In an E-mail, Conason argued that the subject of his Spy story was less Bush's supposed affairs than the media's reluctance to investigate them - in contrast to "nonstop press coverage of Clinton's alleged, rumored and gossiped infidelities ... Was the the President protected by a political double standard?"

 

Conason blamed Spy editors Kurt Andersen and Susan Morrison for the assertive headline.

 

"If you read the story, you'll see that the text isn't nearly as conclusive as

 

the cover line. I argued with Kurt and Susan that saying "He cheats on his wife' on the cover went too far, because I didn't agree that we had proved it. That decision was theirs."

 

Kaus retorted: "He blames his editors. But should he now be lecturing people on 'journalistic standards'? ... The lesson of 1992 wasn't that sex shouldn't be dredged up. It's that voters need to know everything. Democrats ignored Clinton's 'alleged, rumored and gossiped infidelities' and wound up electing a President who wasted most of his second term on a sex scandal."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/sto...1p-144622c.html

 

1) Conason got OWNED!

2) Nice to see the insane left ADMITTING to planning on peddling lies.

-=Mike

[Guest Ghettoman]

Hahaha! Those dumb hippie scum, like they didn't think we would catch on! I'm gonna go shoot one of 'em with my shotgun right now....

[BUTT 0]

If your big plan to bring Bush down involves spreading lies about him over the internet, it's probably not a good idea to admit it in the press. As for Flynt, I don't know. Sure, he's a really sleazy guy, but he was right the last time he tried something like this (Republican sex scandals during the impeachment hearings).

 

As for Conason, is that the guy who worte "Big Lies"? Because that had to be the most boring politically-themed book I ever attempted to read (even worse than "Shut Up and Sing").

[NoCalMike 0]

When presented with allegations of arranging to have a girlfriend get an abortion, President Bush released his Dental records, and let out a collective sigh

[NoCalMike 0]

Well Bob Barr is probably the best example of the conservative hypocrisy on the stance of abortion, but who cares really. I mean if the democrats are going to try and push this story, they better have a REAL story on their hands, and not just some cock-a-mamey scheme to try and discredit Bush. I really don't understand the big deal about the abortion debate when it comes to the left and the right anymore, unless a bill is being introduced. It is industry standard, left pro-choice, middle is still mostly pro-choice with some provisions, and right is pro-life.

[Firestarter 0]

Hahaha! Those dumb hippie scum, like they didn't think we would catch on! I'm gonna go shoot one of 'em with my shotgun right now....

OK, if every damn one of your posts is going to be the same silly sarcasm over and over again, you're going too far. The first time it could be defended. The second time is just trolling.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Prez' signature is a BEAUTIFUL thing

[Skywarp! 0]

We can't say the same of yours, Agent. ::shudders::

[Guest Ghettoman]

Alright then since I was called on it I'll get to my point...

 

Isn't the whole side thing a bit silly? This whole 'right-wing' this, 'left wing' that seems like it's bordering on sport for some of you. Both sides constantly trying to make the other one look bad until there's no truth out there, anywhere.

 

I mean the one lesson we always learn in life is about the middle ground, and yet when it comes to issues of the highest importance there's the biggest divide between peoples in America.

 

I mean I figured if that's how it is, I might as well pick a side and run with it, so I went way right. I guess I just assumed it was the norm.....

[Anorak 0]

Go way left with the sarcasm next time and I don't think you'll have anybody bitching about it, you'll be able to troll to your heart's content with inane & identical posts.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

It's Larry Flynt, who honestly gives a shit?

[Guest JMA]

It's Larry Flynt, who honestly gives a shit?

Point.

[Guest hunger4unger]

I really don't like the insane lefties that create stories. There's enough ammo for Bush as there is without having to create stories.

 

It's kinda funny that Mr "I Love Bush" MikeSC posted this - Connason = the DrudgeReport of the left?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Man, I'm gone for a day and two threads get closed.

 

Oh, and can't someone cut the brakes on Flynt's wheelchair already?...

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Activist rocker Moby raised Republican hackles last week when he advised President Bush's enemies to engage in political mischief.

Moby told my fellow gossips Rush & Molloy: "For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you're an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion."

 

Now the incorrigible Larry Flynt says he plans to market a Bush abortion story as genuine - in a book to be published this summer by Kensington Press.

 

"This story has got to come out," the wheelchair-bound Hustler magazine honcho told the Daily News' Corky Siemaszko. "There's a lot of hypocrisy in the White House about this whole abortion issue."

 

Flynt claimed that Bush arranged for the procedure in the early '70s.

 

"I've talked to the woman's friends," Flynt said. "I've tracked down the doctor who did the abortion, I tracked down the Bush people who arranged for the abortion," Flynt said. "I got the story nailed."

 

Flynt wouldn't disclose whether he plans to name the woman.

 

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie - who in a speech last week accused "Kerry campaign supporters," not just Moby, of hatching the Internet chat room scheme - was unavailable for comment on Flynt's charges.

 

But RNC spokesman Yier Shi told me: "The Democrats will do anything in this election, judging by their campaign tactics, to smear without any evidence or background. This is just another one of those cases."

 

 

Writer can't put story to bed

 

 

Liberal pundit Joe Conason worked himself into quite a lather Friday over the rampant rumors concerning Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry.

 

"Is American politics suddenly returning to the bad old days, when Washington journalism became frenzied with sheet sniffing and keyhole peeping?" the Bill Clinton loyalist demanded indignantly on Salon.com.

 

Unfortunately for Conason, Internet commentator Mickey Kaus promptly discovered that, in 1992, Conason had engaged in just such "sheet sniffing and keyhole peeping" - a long, rumor-filled piece about Clinton's campaign opponent, the first President Bush, in Spy magazine.

 

"He Cheats on His Wife," blared the headline over the article, in which Conason enumerated various unsubstantiated personal scandals involving George H.W. Bush, including extramarital affairs and (as the Spy headline announced) "unpleasant details of Bush's all-around bachelor-party piggishness!"

 

But unlike cybergossip Matt Drudge - who, Conason charged in Salon, had "hyped to the maximum" the "vague and unsourced" Kerry rumors - Conason sometimes dropped the word "alleged" and published dirt as fact.

 

In a tone of supreme authority, he wrote about "Bush's adultery" and "the President's extramarital dalliances."

 

Yesterday, Conason explained: "That's the Spy style - it's a very assertive style. They just don't use a lot of 'alleged' ... But I stand by every word."

 

Conason also explained why, in his scorching of Drudge, he failed to mention his Spy piece: "I wasn't even thinking about it. It was 12 years ago."

 

In an E-mail, Conason argued that the subject of his Spy story was less Bush's supposed affairs than the media's reluctance to investigate them - in contrast to "nonstop press coverage of Clinton's alleged, rumored and gossiped infidelities ... Was the the President protected by a political double standard?"

 

Conason blamed Spy editors Kurt Andersen and Susan Morrison for the assertive headline.

 

"If you read the story, you'll see that the text isn't nearly as conclusive as

 

the cover line. I argued with Kurt and Susan that saying "He cheats on his wife' on the cover went too far, because I didn't agree that we had proved it. That decision was theirs."

 

Kaus retorted: "He blames his editors. But should he now be lecturing people on 'journalistic standards'? ... The lesson of 1992 wasn't that sex shouldn't be dredged up. It's that voters need to know everything. Democrats ignored Clinton's 'alleged, rumored and gossiped infidelities' and wound up electing a President who wasted most of his second term on a sex scandal."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/sto...1p-144622c.html

 

1) Conason got OWNED!

2) Nice to see the insane left ADMITTING to planning on peddling lies.

-=Mike

It's funny that someone who claims to be the most moderate poster on the board CONSTANTLY comes up with irrelevant stories that no one gives a shit about and/or takes seriously about extremist liberals, all the while gleefully pointing out the "Hypocrisy of the left". I mean really, generalizing the ENTIRE left for slandering GWB because a couple of dipshits made up a rumour in a few chat rooms? Thinking that this sort of crap carries weight or has credibility is like saying that the fucking Drudge Report is more reliable than the NY F'n Times.

 

Larry Flynt might, just MIGHT be lacking in moral character? GET THE FUCK OUT~!

[BX 0]

It's funny because it's true.

[Guest thebigjig]

Using these tactics disgusts me... but come on, this is NOTHING compared to the push polling system that Bush and Rove used during the carolina primary against McCain in 2000... so lets be fair

[Anorak 0]

Activist rocker Moby raised Republican hackles last week when he advised President Bush's enemies to engage in political mischief.

Moby told my fellow gossips Rush & Molloy: "For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you're an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion."

 

Now the incorrigible Larry Flynt says he plans to market a Bush abortion story as genuine - in a book to be published this summer by Kensington Press.

 

"This story has got to come out," the wheelchair-bound Hustler magazine honcho told the Daily News' Corky Siemaszko. "There's a lot of hypocrisy in the White House about this whole abortion issue."

 

Flynt claimed that Bush arranged for the procedure in the early '70s.

 

"I've talked to the woman's friends," Flynt said. "I've tracked down the doctor who did the abortion, I tracked down the Bush people who arranged for the abortion," Flynt said. "I got the story nailed."

 

Flynt wouldn't disclose whether he plans to name the woman.

 

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie - who in a speech last week accused "Kerry campaign supporters," not just Moby, of hatching the Internet chat room scheme - was unavailable for comment on Flynt's charges.

 

But RNC spokesman Yier Shi told me: "The Democrats will do anything in this election, judging by their campaign tactics, to smear without any evidence or background. This is just another one of those cases."

 

 

Writer can't put story to bed

 

 

Liberal pundit Joe Conason worked himself into quite a lather Friday over the rampant rumors concerning Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry.

 

"Is American politics suddenly returning to the bad old days, when Washington journalism became frenzied with sheet sniffing and keyhole peeping?" the Bill Clinton loyalist demanded indignantly on Salon.com.

 

Unfortunately for Conason, Internet commentator Mickey Kaus promptly discovered that, in 1992, Conason had engaged in just such "sheet sniffing and keyhole peeping" - a long, rumor-filled piece about Clinton's campaign opponent, the first President Bush, in Spy magazine.

 

"He Cheats on His Wife," blared the headline over the article, in which Conason enumerated various unsubstantiated personal scandals involving George H.W. Bush, including extramarital affairs and (as the Spy headline announced) "unpleasant details of Bush's all-around bachelor-party piggishness!"

 

But unlike cybergossip Matt Drudge - who, Conason charged in Salon, had "hyped to the maximum" the "vague and unsourced" Kerry rumors - Conason sometimes dropped the word "alleged" and published dirt as fact.

 

In a tone of supreme authority, he wrote about "Bush's adultery" and "the President's extramarital dalliances."

 

Yesterday, Conason explained: "That's the Spy style - it's a very assertive style. They just don't use a lot of 'alleged' ... But I stand by every word."

 

Conason also explained why, in his scorching of Drudge, he failed to mention his Spy piece: "I wasn't even thinking about it. It was 12 years ago."

 

In an E-mail, Conason argued that the subject of his Spy story was less Bush's supposed affairs than the media's reluctance to investigate them - in contrast to "nonstop press coverage of Clinton's alleged, rumored and gossiped infidelities ... Was the the President protected by a political double standard?"

 

Conason blamed Spy editors Kurt Andersen and Susan Morrison for the assertive headline.

 

"If you read the story, you'll see that the text isn't nearly as conclusive as

 

the cover line. I argued with Kurt and Susan that saying "He cheats on his wife' on the cover went too far, because I didn't agree that we had proved it. That decision was theirs."

 

Kaus retorted: "He blames his editors. But should he now be lecturing people on 'journalistic standards'? ... The lesson of 1992 wasn't that sex shouldn't be dredged up. It's that voters need to know everything. Democrats ignored Clinton's 'alleged, rumored and gossiped infidelities' and wound up electing a President who wasted most of his second term on a sex scandal."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/sto...1p-144622c.html

 

1) Conason got OWNED!

2) Nice to see the insane left ADMITTING to planning on peddling lies.

-=Mike

It's funny that someone who claims to be the most moderate poster on the board CONSTANTLY comes up with irrelevant stories that no one gives a shit about and/or takes seriously about extremist liberals, all the while gleefully pointing out the "Hypocrisy of the left". I mean really, generalizing the ENTIRE left for slandering GWB because a couple of dipshits made up a rumour in a few chat rooms? Thinking that this sort of crap carries weight or has credibility is like saying that the fucking Drudge Report is more reliable than the NY F'n Times.

 

Larry Flynt might, just MIGHT be lacking in moral character? GET THE FUCK OUT~!

I think that was all that needed saying here, he nailed it. Love the common sense.

 

*Closes Thread*

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Using these tactics disgusts me... but come on, this is NOTHING compared to the push polling system that Bush and Rove used during the carolina primary against McCain in 2000... so lets be fair

For me it was that NAACP ad in 2000 saying Bush not supporting hate crime legislation = Mr. Byrd getting dragged to his death...

[Guest thebigjig]

Using these tactics disgusts me... but come on, this is NOTHING compared to the push polling system that Bush and Rove used during the carolina primary against McCain in 2000... so lets be fair

For me it was that NAACP ad in 2000 saying Bush not supporting hate crime legislation = Mr. Byrd getting dragged to his death...

Well it's technically true... but exploiting Byrd's death was disgusting and wrong... and there is no excuse for that

[Justice 0]

Using these tactics disgusts me... but come on, this is NOTHING compared to the push polling system that Bush and Rove used during the carolina primary against McCain in 2000... so lets be fair

For me it was that NAACP ad in 2000 saying Bush not supporting hate crime legislation = Mr. Byrd getting dragged to his death...

Well it's technically true... but exploiting Byrd's death was disgusting and wrong... and there is no excuse for that

Not... really. Actually, no. You think that adding a few years onto a murder that already holds the possibility of Capital Punishment would deter these freaks? In all honesty, if you are willing to kill someone because of their race there is little you can do through laws that can deter them.

[Guest MikeSC]

Using these tactics disgusts me... but come on, this is NOTHING compared to the push polling system that Bush and Rove used during the carolina primary against McCain in 2000... so lets be fair

For me it was that NAACP ad in 2000 saying Bush not supporting hate crime legislation = Mr. Byrd getting dragged to his death...

Well it's technically true... but exploiting Byrd's death was disgusting and wrong... and there is no excuse for that

No, it's not in the same ballpark as true.

 

Making a crime WORSE based on what you're thinking is Orwellian.

-=Mike

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

geez talk about using your own weapon against you...

[Guest thebigjig]

ummm actually, what I said was that it's technically true... meaning Bush was against hate crime legislation... I didn't present an opinion on it

[Guest MikeSC]

ummm actually, what I said was that it's technically true... meaning Bush was against hate crime legislation... I didn't present an opinion on it

No, it isn't technically true. The analogy was flawed and any use of it is flawed.

 

If I were to say "Mr. Kerry supporting public schools = support of teachers raping children", it'd be quite wrong, even if he supports public schools.

-=Mike

[Guest thebigjig]

ummm actually, what I said was that it's technically true... meaning Bush was against hate crime legislation... I didn't present an opinion on it

No, it isn't technically true. The analogy was flawed and any use of it is flawed.

 

If I were to say "Mr. Kerry supporting public schools = support of teachers raping children", it'd be quite wrong, even if he supports public schools.

-=Mike

perhaps you should read what I said more carefully... I said that it was wrong to exploit Byrd's death, and I agreed obviously that the analogy was wrong. What I was saying is that it was technically true that Bush did not support hate crime legislation, which is true... that has nothing to do with Byrd's death... all I was saying is that Bush did not support hate crime legislation, and it was wrong to exploit that in the way that they did... end of story

[Guest thebigjig]

ummm actually, what I said was that it's technically true... meaning Bush was against hate crime legislation... I didn't present an opinion on it

No, it isn't technically true. The analogy was flawed and any use of it is flawed.

 

If I were to say "Mr. Kerry supporting public schools = support of teachers raping children", it'd be quite wrong, even if he supports public schools.

-=Mike

and surely you can do better than that analogy... especially considering your analogy has nothing to do with your point... James Byrd was killed because he was black, not because the guys that killed him just wanted to kill someone for the hell of it. A hate crime is by definition, a crime that is committed based on someones race, religion, sexual orientation etc. I think their are flaws with the idea, but my point is that your analogy is waaaay off when comparing it to the case of the Bush/NAACP incident

[Guest MikeSC]

ummm actually, what I said was that it's technically true... meaning Bush was against hate crime legislation... I didn't present an opinion on it

No, it isn't technically true. The analogy was flawed and any use of it is flawed.

 

If I were to say "Mr. Kerry supporting public schools = support of teachers raping children", it'd be quite wrong, even if he supports public schools.

-=Mike

and surely you can do better than that analogy...

I probably could, but it's not really worth the effort, to be honest.

especially considering your analogy has nothing to do with your point... James Byrd was killed because he was black, not because the guys that killed him just wanted to kill someone for the hell of it.

He was killed period. Heck, the guys could have been quite racially open-minded --- just evil little turds. The killers MURDERED a person. That is the end of the story. Their motivation is immaterial.

A hate crime is by definition, a crime that is committed based on someones race, religion, sexual orientation etc. I think their are flaws with the idea, but my point is that your analogy is waaaay off when comparing it to the case of the Bush/NAACP incident

No, it's not.

 

Saying that Bush's hate crime opposition (a correct move on his part) had ANYTHING to do with Byrd's death (or the burning of churches, which was ALSO mentioned) is insulting. It'd be like me saying that anybody who is Catholic supports molesting boys (wow, I thought of a better analogy and it was much easier than expected. Go me!). An asinine thought, no?

 

Hate crime is thought crime. If you're killed, is the deed WORSE if the killer is a racist? Are you LESS DEAD if you were just killed randomly?

perhaps you should read what I said more carefully... I said that it was wrong to exploit Byrd's death, and I agreed obviously that the analogy was wrong. What I was saying is that it was technically true that Bush did not support hate crime legislation, which is true...

And the analogy was SO flawed that any truth available in it is null and void. See my Catholicism analogy.

 

Hate crime is horrible legislation that has no purpose.

One, you can't PROVE anybody is racist unless they say they are.

Two, it never seems to be brought up in black-on-white crimes, which means it's REAL inconsistent in its application.

Three, the crime is committed. Why should a guy assaulting me because I looked at his girlfriend be punished less than a guy attacking me because he hates "my kind"? I would still have been beaten. What you think when you're committing a crime is a pointless consideration.

 

All hate crime is is a useless little toy given to the civil rights community so they'll continue believing that, darn it, the Democrats care about them while the Republicans don't.

that has nothing to do with Byrd's death... all I was saying is that Bush did not support hate crime legislation, and it was wrong to exploit that in the way that they did... end of story

Their exploitation of it makes the analogy null and void.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

ummm actually, what I said was that it's technically true... meaning Bush was against hate crime legislation... I didn't present an opinion on it

No, it isn't technically true. The analogy was flawed and any use of it is flawed.

 

If I were to say "Mr. Kerry supporting public schools = support of teachers raping children", it'd be quite wrong, even if he supports public schools.

-=Mike

and surely you can do better than that analogy... especially considering your analogy has nothing to do with your point... James Byrd was killed because he was black, not because the guys that killed him just wanted to kill someone for the hell of it. A hate crime is by definition, a crime that is committed based on someones race, religion, sexual orientation etc. I think their are flaws with the idea, but my point is that your analogy is waaaay off when comparing it to the case of the Bush/NAACP incident

What makes that any greater crime than killing a guy because he slept with my girlfriend or he owed me money? You are putting greater value on one person's life simply because of motive, which is wrong. What matters is someone is dead and someone has been convicted. It's all about fairness, which is precisely what Hate Crime laws tend to neglect.

[Guest thebigjig]

I said that I believe there are flaws with the idea of "hate crimes" however, this kind of effects me personally because I knew someone that was the target of a so called hate crime based on his race... so I'm kind of confused by everything because I really dont know what I believe... however, I agree as I said, that the NAACP used a disgusting smear tactic to try and label Bush