Ted Re...Oh, this non event scandal. Your point was?
Founded, or unfounded, Clark shouldn't have started the rumor. He should have fed it to the Rep. and let them disseminate it, if he knew it was a rumor. Time will tell. You can only hope she doesn't have stained dress in her closet.
<font color=blue>Given her public statement, she sent the dress to the cleaners long ago.
Hey, where there's smoke, there's usually fire. However, I think its an issue between Kerry and his wife, and not the American public. I agree with this guy's assessment:<font color=black>
Guard, sex talk are sideshows -- issues should be center ring
February 16, 2004
BY RICHARD ROEPER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement
You'd think the political media as well as operatives for the Democratic and Republican parties would have learned two valuable lessons from Bill Clinton's election victories:
1. Sexual high jinks, real or alleged, do not necessarily doom a candidate. In 1992 and in 1996, tens of millions of Americans probably agreed with the GOP assessment of Clinton as a horny, rutting pig -- and yet they voted for him anyway, because they didn't think his sexual habits had that much relevance to his strengths as a world leader.
2. Military history (or the lack thereof) probably won't be the determining factor, either. In World War II, George H. W. Bush won the Distinguished Flying Cross and other medals for his heroics, and Bob Dole was seriously injured in combat in Italy. They risked everything in the name of freedom.
Yet Clinton, who legally avoided the draft, whupped both of them -- not because Clinton voters didn't appreciate the sacrifices made by Bush and Dole in the 1940s, but because they believed Clinton would make a better president in the 1990s.
That was then and this is now, and we've evolved, right? We understand the 2004 election should be about the economy, the war in Iraq, education, providing medical care to the poor and the elderly, etc., etc.? You know, the issues.
Yeah, right.
Internal affairs
Two stories are dominating coverage of the 2004 election: President Bush's mysterious tenure with the National Guard, and Internet-fueled rumors about John Kerry's alleged dalliances.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, here we go again.
When George W. Bush ran against Al Gore in 2000, there was only fleeting interest in his mysterious stint with the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973. Maybe that's because the Democrats were fresh off Clinton's back-to-back triumphs over war heroes, and they didn't feel that pounding Dubya on his military record would create a path to victory.
As for the general public: I think most of us believed Bush took advantage of his status to legally avoid combat duty in Vietnam, and that he probably shirked some of his National Guard duties -- and that a lot of other young men did the same thing. When we cast our votes, Bush's military history was not the deciding factor.
Four years later, WE DON'T CARE. Of all the reasons to vote Bush from office, his weaseling out of some of his National Guard duties and his weaseling out of admitting he weaseled out should be about No. 136 on the list.
Still, some Democrat strategists and many in the political press have returned to this story with freshly venomous fangs -- presumably because Kerry is a Vietnam War hero, and the contrast between the two is irresistible. But GOPers are returning the volley by questioning the nature of Kerry's post-service, anti-war activities. Did you see that picture of Kerry with Jane Fonda? OK, so it's a fake, but did you see it? That's borderline treason!
And now they're (Matt) Drudge-ing up rumors about alleged extramarital indiscretions. Within 24 hours of the Drudge Report "exclusive," Kerry was on "Imus in the Morning," claiming, "There is nothing to report," and, "I'm not worried about it. No."
While most mainstream media outlets tiptoed around the rumor and were careful to mention Drudge's right-wing bias, one of the most powerful mainstream media voices of all was virtually clicking his heels with glee.
El Rushbo was in prime form.
Hypocrisy on loan from God
Soon after Drudge posted his supposed scoop, Rush Limbaugh was on the air, gleefully reading the story as if it had been vetted and reported by Time magazine.
Of course, Limbaugh also added his own flavorful asides and innuendos. He repeated some old rumors about Bill Clinton, speculated that the Clintons were behind the allegations about Kerry because they want a clear path for Hillary to the White House in 2008 and told his listeners that the networks didn't want to report the stories about Kerry because he's "their guy."
Limbaugh also said that if Kerry denied the rumor, "that's not going to be good enough. We're going to demand pay stubs, and we're going to demand dental records from Kerry and the alleged woman to prove that the affair never happened, and we're not going to stop there. . . . I'll tell you what, it does not give new meaning to the name John F-ing Kerry, it validates it."
Hilarious. But what happened to the Rush Limbaugh who whined and whimpered about the coverage of his own recent drug scandal? Why is it all right for Limbaugh to run wild with stories about Kerry's personal life, but a mortal sin for the press to dig into Limbaugh's foibles?
Oh, I know. It's because Kerry is running for office, and Limbaugh is just an entertainer. Sure, that justifies it.
Today is the day when we honor our presidents. It's also a good day to ponder the manner in which we elect these individuals.
suntimes.com |
