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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (58483)	11/3/2000 6:36:13 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

It looks like the media has been asleep at the wheel if they couldn't find this earlier. It shouldn't have been that much of a secret in the first place. LoF

To: PartyTime who wrote (58483)	11/3/2000 7:29:42 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

aren't the media forced to go fishing Yes..is Tom Connelly's campaign from 1998 finally paid for....wasn't as of Feb 2000....Would be interesting to see if it was, and when it was, and just how much was owed in the first place? Then we could see just when the papers were retrieved from what files...And how they surfaced now...just a few days before election.

To: PartyTime who wrote (58483)	11/4/2000 12:44:31 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I do not presume that they are forced to go fishing, no. There is a reasonable degree of scrutiny that every candidate must expect, and if something is thrown in reporters' laps, they may have to react. I suppose once it came up, the DUI thing had to be run. But it was not worth going out of one's way to look for. At a certain point, it is just morbid curiosity, and degrading to pursue to such lengths. It means precisely nothing. There is no pattern of offenses, it was too long ago, it is in itself to trivial (DUI, not DWI), and too ambiguous (he was at the legal limit, and would almost certainly have been acquitted had he mounted a defense). The most one can get out of it is that he is a gentleman whose first instinct is to take responsibility. That may be worth knowing, but one would have to cut through the noise to focus on it. Similarly with the military thing: all one needs to know is that he was not subject to court martial, and that he was honorably discharged. If the National Guard was satisfied, I am satisfied. It is not as if anyone has found evidence that the Guard was subject to political manipulation. At a certain point, you stop beating a dead horse, and leave the man alone. If he does not want to dignify insinuations with an interview on the matter, well, there is nothing really he need answer for........