Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : MOLEGATE! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (538)	9/30/2000 11:19:54 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1719

>>>The obvious reason that she is not working for Gore with his knowledge, is that they would try to make use of any espionage if they went to the trouble of planting a spy.<<< Case for the Gore Mole: Yes, indeed. If the Gore campaign had planted a mole in the Bush campaign, the last thing it would do is make sure any information it learned from that mole got turned over to the FBI. It's a clear contradiction. So, contrarily, it must be asked: Could the Gore campaign gain anything by turning over information it learned from the mole? Makes no sense, of course not. I'd think this would exonerate any culpability on the part of the Gore campaign. Case for the Bush Dirty Trick: So then to the Bush camp. What would it have gained if Gore's loyalists accepted the tapes and used them not only for stronger debate preparation, but also for slants in press releases, talking points amongst spinmeisters and perhaps for use even in Gore speeches? Indeed, if Gore's group accepted the secret debate materials were valid, it could have unwittingly used them for tactical advantage. In the midst of this, and at precisely the 11th hour before the debates, the Bush forces could then put a charge on the Gore camp by claiming it had an unfair advantage because it had Bush's debate tapes and access to other materials. In effect, Bush would then loudly cry foul and Gore's staffers would instantaneously be put on the spot and forced to answer honestly whether or not they had access to the tapes. Under the above scenario, it'd be very difficult--especially on short time, given the pressure of the debate--to orchestrate any kind of a prepared or tactical response, perhaps causing contradictory statements within the Gore campaign, thus enabling the Republicans to make the charge: You see, more evidence of Gore waffling. And, of course, the table could have been set stage the possibility that a public lie could have been committed--thus, enabling Republicans to say: See, just like Clinton! Given the two scenarios above, my conclusion: Well, I'd say the likelihood, much like Watergate, much like the secretive arms for hostages deal and much like the use of the Willie Horton ad against the presidential campaign of Mike Dukakis, is that the Republican side is again playing dirty. And Bush's campaign manager, Karl Gove, has been party to this type of action before during a 1980's Texas campaign for governor. And George W, of course, used to camp across the hall from Lee Atwater during his dad's campaign. Atwater, of course, was renown for dirty campaign tricks. And at the time all this was happening, Bush was lagging and falling further behind in the polls. I think the both the history and the incentive for a dirty trick rests on the Republican side. And you know what the real bottom line is? The last thing Gore needed against Bush was a mole in the Bush campaign. Only other possibilities: * Disgruntlement by a member(s) of the Bush staff. * Someone seeking media attention, i.e., their 15 minutes of fame. * The Bush campaign, showing wisdom similar to its tax plan, erroneously mailed the debate materials to Downey when they were intended for The Gap. Anyone check the size of the Gap pants--do they fit Downey? (LOL) [NOTE: a little humor!]