Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The story the media wouldn't research...

By pb in MLP
Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 06:57:50 AM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

There's a rumor out there that calls into question the integrity of George W. Bush. It's just a rumor now, but I wish the media could have looked into it for me before election day.

This story was censored once already, and that act of censorship itself was apparently worthy of a story.

Next time, O major media outlets, could you research this for me before the election?

Researching the scandals never seemed to be a problem with Clinton; what's different now?


Many thanks to the original offtopic anonymous poster who brought this to my attention.

P.S. If anyone wants to write a full-blown story about this or other media suppression or political maneuvering, feel free to do so; I just found this information frightening all by itself.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Is the US Media Bought and Paid For?
o Yes. 53%
o No. 4%
o Maybe. 6%
o Give me a $20, and we'll talk. 35%

Votes: 108
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o censored once already
o was apparently worthy of a story
o anonymous poster
o Also by pb


Display: Sort:
The story the media wouldn't research... | 44 comments (44 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
I've known enough... (3.08 / 12) (#1)
by Wah on Wed Nov 08, 2000 at 07:44:16 PM EST

...rich Texas frat boys to know that this type of activity is not uncommon (I know 2 personally who have made such a choice). But I already thought Bush was a sleazebag. I think the unwillingness to touch the subject is the story here. There is still the question on how much we need to know as a voting populace, where should we draw the line. CNN has drawn it for us here, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
--
Fail to Obey?
Drawn lines. (4.00 / 8) (#4)
by claudius on Wed Nov 08, 2000 at 08:16:20 PM EST

I find it curious how the spin machine for Bush is so apt to write off his past indiscretions as being merely "youthful trivialities" unworthy of coverage by the press, yet I hear time and again from the candidate--soon to be President-Elect--rhetoric to the effect of "We need to teach people that actions have consequences, that if you commit a crime you will have to pay for it." I question the integrity of one who can proudly oversee so many executions, many of which are of young adults, yet shrug off any responsibility for his own actions during his youth.

Granted, Gore is little better. At least we can look forward to widespread cynicism persisting for four more years. -Claudius (Running next year on the Silly Party Ticket)

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry (2.50 / 4) (#15)
by Devil Ducky on Wed Nov 08, 2000 at 11:47:00 PM EST

I am sorry to all of the people already tired of political discussion, me included. But this is not a matter of "Dubya" did this, or "Dubya" forgot his middle name. This is a matter of Media Cynism.

I am used to the media being biased, but usually in the other direction. The media has classically defeneded the Democrats while taking every attempt to destroy the Replublicans - unless the story is too juicy like in Clinton's case. But here and during this entire election they have backed away from everything that made "Dubya" look bad. I don't why they chose to do this, I don't know why they have always defended the Democrats; all I know is that it's different and I don't like it.

Devil Ducky

Immune to the Forces of Duct Tape
Day trading at it's Funnest
[ Parent ]
He's a hypocrite. (3.75 / 4) (#21)
by erotus on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 09:29:23 AM EST

Al Gore may be one also, but for a candidate who is running on the moral platform and enjoys the endorsement of the Christian right, Bush leaves a lot to be desired. Cocaine, drunk driving, and now an illegal abortion in the pre roe vs. wade era. How is he supposed to, in his own words, "maintain the dignity of the office." It's amazing that people made such a fuss over the Clinton-Lewinsky affair but they overlook Bush's faults.

The reason I say he's a hypocrite: For a man who is tough on drugs and preaches responsibility, having this criminal record is ridiculous. He wants to lock drug users away and won't tolerate "youthful indisdrections" despite his own indiscrections as a young man. What if Bush had been made to bear the responsibility of his youthful indiscretions? Do you really believe that ten years in the slammer for possession of cocaine would have made him a better person? Do you think he'd be the same Bush if he'd been some big jailbird's bitch? I don't think so.

Now we hear that Bush got a girl pregnant and helped her obtain an abortion. Fine indeed for a man who preaches the wrongs of abortion. Maybe the media should indeed ask him why abortion is OK for him and not for the rest of the nation. The posterboy for the moral majority is getting into all kinds of trouble and he hasn't officially even been elected yet. How can we listen to his pro-life rhetoric and take it seriously.

"I've known enough rich Texas frat boys to know that this type of activity is not uncommon."
well, I am from TX and I can tell you that I agree with your sentiments exactly. I know the rich TX frat boy type because I've attended college with some.

For the record, I'm not anti-republican. I just don't like Bush. There could have been a better republican contender than Bush. McCain was a hell of a lot better. So between, abortion, AWOL, DUI, Cocaine, and sheer hypocrisy, I can safely say that Bush does not meet the requirements of a presidential candidate. But in reality, is there an honest John left in any of the political parties?



[ Parent ]
Some issues (2.00 / 4) (#23)
by titivillus on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 10:34:26 AM EST

Al Gore may be one also, but for a candidate who is running on the moral platform and enjoys the endorsement of the Christian right, Bush leaves a lot to be desired. Cocaine, drunk driving, and now an illegal abortion in the pre roe vs. wade era. How is he supposed to, in his own words, "maintain the dignity of the office." It's amazing that people made such a fuss over the Clinton-Lewinsky affair but they overlook Bush's faults.

From Romans 3:23, ".. all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We know drunk driving. Nothing has been proved about cocaine or abortion. He has since changed. These things were past and he has repented. Clinton never repented. He did these things in office, not 25 years ago. These are the differences.

For the record, I'm not anti-republican. I just don't like Bush. There could have been a better republican contender than Bush. McCain was a hell of a lot better. So between, abortion, AWOL, DUI, Cocaine, and sheer hypocrisy, I can safely say that Bush does not meet the requirements of a presidential candidate. But in reality, is there an honest John left in any of the political parties?

McCain was perhaps better. There were better candidates on both sides.



[ Parent ]
More issues... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Danse on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 07:00:31 PM EST

These things were past and he has repented.

Bush presided over an execution recently of a person who had become a christian while in prison. People wanted the death sentence to be changed to life in prison. Bush said he thought that would be wrong. He said that people should be held accountable for their actions, even if they later come to realize they were wrong and regret them. So, I guess my question is why does Bush think he's better than anyone else and above his own rhetoric? That is the definition of a hypocrite.




An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
There's a phrase for this. (2.60 / 5) (#2)
by spaceghoti on Wed Nov 08, 2000 at 07:49:53 PM EST

It's called closing the barn door after the horses have left. Of course, that comment applies on so many levels for this submission, but that doesn't negate its validity. Curious to see how this was suppressed. I'm rather curious to know if the station he made the remark on was slanted toward Bush and if that was why they were trying to do damage control.

Considering the scandals other candidates have gone through (Gary Hart comes immediately to mind), I'm surprised this got thrown into a black hole by the press. It sounds like a lot of organization has gone into this campaign, and a lot of people were "talked to." Could also just be my paranoia, but how else do you explain this?



"Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical." -Saavik, ST: Wrath of Khan

Wild accusations on live TV (3.33 / 3) (#6)
by interiot on Wed Nov 08, 2000 at 08:25:06 PM EST

From the eXaminer article:

    Flynt, more cautious than you might expect of a man like him, said he is reluctant to provide specific information because the woman who allegedly had the abortion refuses to talk about it.

    "The young lady does not want to go public, and, without her willingness, we don't feel that we're on solid enough legal ground to go with the story, because, should she say it never happened, then we've got a potential libel suit."

Maybe news organizations don't like to have to retract stories (eg. "Bush Wins!"), so they prefer to have stories researched before they're released, especially if the news agency could be held liable.

[ Parent ]

Retraction? (4.33 / 3) (#7)
by spaceghoti on Wed Nov 08, 2000 at 08:34:23 PM EST

Perhaps, but according to Flynt in the interview, they're not even trying to investigate the story. It isn't so much a matter of printing something they might have to retract, they aren't putting together anything they can print. No one is tryiing to deny the story exists, they're just trying not to talk about it. That's mighty suspicious behavior for a "free press."



"Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical." -Saavik, ST: Wrath of Khan

[ Parent ]
Already Investigated (3.33 / 3) (#11)
by interiot on Wed Nov 08, 2000 at 09:23:19 PM EST

The story has already been completely investigated by Flynt.
    "When I said that we had the proof, I am referring to knowing who the girl was, knowing who the doctor was that performed the abortion, evidence from girlfriends of hers at the time who knew about the romance and the subsequent abortion."

    "The only thing we could not have which we needed to break the story was the girl to come out, and she would not come out."

If Flynt doesn't want to take the risk of running the story in his magazine, then it makes sense that CNN wants to leave it alone too.

[ Parent ]
Not asking (2.33 / 3) (#19)
by ZanThrax on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 07:32:02 AM EST

them to run the story, just trying to convince someone to ask Bush about it. Hustler can't do it, I seriously doubt that they're welcome in the press corp.

Before flying off the handle over the suggestion that your a cocksucker, be sure that you do not, in fact, have a cock in your mouth.
[ Parent ]

Larry Flynt's proof? (4.50 / 2) (#26)
by spaceghoti on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 12:21:01 PM EST

When the LA Times announces they have a story, other media sources rush to confirm or deny the data, and to give their own opinions of it. They don't just print it without doing their own research.

Flynt was demonstrating journalistic integrity by not running the story without the consent of the woman who had the abortion. He then invited the rest of the media to confirm his facts, and they did their best to bury it. He invited the media to ask Bush about it, to call him on what appears on the surface to be blatant hypocrisy: Bush stands against abortion, but used an abortion to his advantage (illegally, which is what Flynt was most interested in) when push came to shove. Again, the media hushes it.

This isn't about the media deciding the story isn't worth running. This is about the media deciding (from the top down) to bury the thing. There's a distinct difference.



"Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical." -Saavik, ST: Wrath of Khan

[ Parent ]
Bush is unfit for office (3.53 / 13) (#3)
by maynard on Wed Nov 08, 2000 at 08:15:24 PM EST

I had heard about this as well, though I didn't have a source and didn't know it came from Flynt through a Crossfire interview. Frankly, I think the DUI issue is far more relevant. I've had a friend killed and another paralyzed from two separate drunk driving accidents, so I have NO tolerance for driving under the influence. This is a personal issue for me, so I guess given that the majority of Americans feel the 24 year old DUI is irrelevant, I'm probably letting a personal bias color my perception of the issue. Still, I can't respect a man who gets behind the wheel drunk and risks the lives of everyone else on the road. He can drink all he wants at a party, have fun. BUT DON'T DRIVE AFTERWARDS! Once that story came out I personally came to the conclusion that GWB should have been convicted of a felony and be prohibited from voting, never mind holding office.

All that said, this goes straight to the heart of his hypocrisy. He runs on a mandate of morality and ethics, yet we find out he has committed at least three crimes, while stories of others are leaked. It's just fishy.

Now, I still don't think that Gore is fit for office either. I think he has a real character flaw; not the kind that's been portrayed in the media, but the kind of personality warping that comes from being bullied in grammar school and never quite getting over the psychological trauma. I base this on his mannerisms, his inability to give eye contact, his stammering at times... Gore isn't a liar on the important stuff, he just can't handle someone else disliking him. This is my assessment anyway... and let's face it, a psychological issue like that should exclude someone from the presidency.

We were all given two horrible choices. I don't feel the slightest regret at having voted Nader, and neither should you. If I couldn't have voted Nader I would have chosen Browne. There's just no way I'll vote for either of these flawed men.



Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.

Gore mental trauma (3.20 / 5) (#9)
by interiot on Wed Nov 08, 2000 at 09:15:50 PM EST

This is an audio recording of NPR's profile on Gore. If you're pro-Gore, it's interesting and enlightening. Here are some quotes:

    He succesfully took up the populist mantle of his father. ... [but] Gore was determined to not be out of touch. It was a charge that had undone his father, costing Gore Sr. his Senate seat and his political career.

      To understand Al Gore politically, it's important to understand his father's political career. During the 50's, he took some fairly courageous stance on civil rights at a time that it wasn't the most necessarily the most politically easy thing to do. And then in the 60's, his views started to get out in front of his constituents.

    Al Gore Jr. realized he would have to be a different type of democrat, a "new" Democrat. ... When it came to choosing between an ideal, say his environmental views, or his constituents, Gore would invariably be the pragmatist.

    ...

      "It was the experience of going out on the campaign trail and speaking about environmental issues day after day but not getting reported in the daily coverage of the campaign. I began to think that I'd do better if I'd talk about things that WOULD get reported."

    But in his book, Gore criticizes himself for doing just that.

      "I have become very impatient with my tendancy to put a finger to the political winds and procede cautiously. The time has come to take more political risks."
I dunno, they just seemed relevant to what you said. Maybe they support your arguments, maybe they don't. Gore doesn't stay static or go into a tizzy when someone disagrees with him. Maybe he's a bit schitzo and tries to do everything possible to please the voters. But that's a good thing, IMHO.

[ Parent ]
Timing is everything.... (4.00 / 11) (#5)
by evilquaker on Wed Nov 08, 2000 at 08:19:56 PM EST

The problem with reporting the allegation two days before the election is that it is so inflammatory that it would have cost him the election -- whether it was true or not. The mere allegation would probably have been enough to cause at least a handful of Bush supporters to stay home or vote for Buchanan or Phillips.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is this: Larry Flint supposedly knew about this for months. Why did he choose to bring it up just before the election? He knew that it would be impossible to verify all the facts before the election. I think the news media saw this as an attempt to play them, and (for once) decided to hold back until they had some facts to back the story up. If it had been still in the primaries, I think they would've reported the rumor and followed up on it. But Flint's timing makes it look very suspect.

However, I would be very surprised if there aren't reporters working on the story behind the scenes. Breaking this story would make a reporter's career, so I'm sure there are people working on it. If it's true, it'll come out in good time, and if it's not (verifiable), it'll be dropped. In any case, the real election hasn't happened yet. If it turns out to be true, I would expect several electors to switch from Bush to Gore, and for Gore to win.

The main differences between this case and those of Clinton and Hart are timing and evidence: here we have no evidence (all we have is Larry Flint's word, and you have to believe that he has good reason to not want Bush in the White House), and only two days to attempt to verify the story before the election. In the case of Clinton, there was no election pending, and we had Linda Tripp's tapes. In the case of Hart, we had eyewitness testimony and it was still the primaries.

A final point you're missing is that the media is bought and paid for all right, but it's bought and paid for by both parties. Nothing would've been different if someone had made allegations of child molestation against Gore two days before the election.


"Die, spork user! And burn in fiery torment!" -- Handy, the Handpuppet of Doom

Evidence and timing (4.50 / 2) (#27)
by spaceghoti on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 12:52:09 PM EST

The main differences between this case and those of Clinton and Hart are timing and evidence: here we have no evidence...

In the article, Flynt is quoted with two very telling points that give the answers to your questions. Here's the first one:

FLYNT: No, I’m not surprised because I’ve talked to the leading mainstream media people all over the country about this story, just wanting to get it out. If I had to sum up a consensus, it is that they don’t want to be accused of sabotaging the election going into the homestretch which is the most wimpiest excuse I ever heard a journalist ever make.

Flynt is acknowledging the timing on this, but pointing out that timing is irrelevant. The timing on the DUI was complained about, but the media still ran with it.

...We’ve been able to locate the doctor who preformed the procedure (unintelligible) hospital in Houston. Not only that but we have the affidavits from four of her friends stating that they knew about the affair, the pregnancy and the subsequent abortion. The only thing we could not have which we needed to break the story was the girl to come out, and she would not come out....

Why not break the story earlier? Flynt couldn't. Without a statement from the girl in question the story couldn't be finished, and Flynt demonstrated remarkable ethical restraint by not running the story anyway. He had the time, the place, the doctor who performed the procedure and affadavits from witnesses. Flynt had all the evidence he needed to break the story except for the last part. So he invited the media to pick up where he left off. Verify his facts and question Bush on a very serious issue that flies in the face of his political platform. Break the story, or not, based on their own ethical standards. And they buried it. They didn't research it, they didn't look it over, they buried it. Rather questionable, in my opinion.



"Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical." -Saavik, ST: Wrath of Khan

[ Parent ]
on timing (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous 242 on Fri Nov 10, 2000 at 11:12:35 AM EST

More than one reporter has asked G.W. Bush about the DWI incident months before the election. He simply lied about it. One could possibly say that the media released details just before the election in order to cause the GWB campaign injury, but I think that's a stretch. At least with the DWI incident it took that long for the press to find conclusive evidence to refute GWB's denials of being arrested.

So in both cases, it looks less like a consipiracy and more like the clock just ran down.

[ Parent ]

i don't get it.. (3.28 / 7) (#8)
by enterfornone on Wed Nov 08, 2000 at 09:14:43 PM EST

Flynt owns magazines. Hustler even prints an article or two between the porn so you would assume he hires at least a few journalists. If he can't find enough evidence to put it to print why is he blaming the rest of the media for not reporting on it.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
and.. (2.60 / 5) (#10)
by enterfornone on Wed Nov 08, 2000 at 09:18:35 PM EST

He's worried about libel if he puts it to print but he's happy to say it on live TV.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Politician != Perfection (4.25 / 8) (#12)
by retinaburn on Wed Nov 08, 2000 at 09:29:18 PM EST

I can see making a deal out of multiple news agencies squelching a story when they so often tout the banner of "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of the Press". But the problem I have is with the media, and the public.

Politicians are not perfect. They have made mistakes and they will continue to do so because they are human (despite what people say). So what if George Bush drank for 20 years, so what if he helped his girlfriend get an abortion, smoked 2 kilos of pot in one sitting. Why is this even news. His platform says he is tough on drugs now and promotes abstinence education, perhaps he learned from his mistakes…perhaps not. What percentage of the population of the U.S.A. has had/participated in an abortion, how many drink too much, how many are drunk right this instant.

If the American public (and Canadians as well) continue to believe the slop we are fed by the parties, the longer we have to live with it. If suddenly people stopped believing that every politician was conceived immaculately and lived as a saint in Eden for the last 50 years the parties would have to start developing real platforms. The media would be forced to talk about current issues instead of what some kid did 30 years ago, and what he happens to be doing now. The parties would be unable to fill the airwaves with commercials that rips into the "character" of "our" potential leaders because people would assume that politicians were just like them. Instead during elections parties would air commercials that (hopefully) focused on the issues.

But none of this will happen…why ?

The majority of the people (and not the ones here) will swallow anything that is fed down the trough. They are content to be consumers, to be told what to think/say/do/want.

A little off topic, but I am regularly disgusted by the media and politicians...seemed like as good as time as any.

I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho


Human or hypocrite? (3.71 / 7) (#17)
by ZanThrax on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 07:28:33 AM EST

Having a checkered past and condemning others for their imperfections or supporting harsh legal penalties for things that you yourself have done isn't being human, its being hypocritical. Maybe the average American _is_ a beer-swilling, crack-snorting, womanising frat boy, but if so, I wouldn't want the average American running the local Denny's. So why in the hell shouldn't I be allowed to hold the leader of my country to a slightly higher standard than "average"? Someone wants to be the most powerful man in the world, he damned well better be a lot better than average.

Before flying off the handle over the suggestion that your a cocksucker, be sure that you do not, in fact, have a cock in your mouth.
[ Parent ]

Really... (3.25 / 4) (#20)
by retinaburn on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 09:07:58 AM EST

Having a checkered past and condemning others for their imperfections or supporting harsh legal penalties for things that you yourself have done isn't being human, its being hypocritical.

hypocrite n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold

Just a definition to make sure we are on the same page.

People change. How many people did drugs during the 60's, and how many of them as parents told their kids not to do drugs. Is that being hypocritical, no thats changing your beliefs. If an alcoholic drinks one day and then goes to A.A. preaching the rewards sobriety offers thats hypocritical. But while that is hypocritical I don't have a problem with it, just because someone lives by the sword doesn't mean they can't acknowledge and tell others how the sword is wrong.

If George Bush got really drunk one night, got a girl pregnant (ewww) and the next day preached family values and moderation of liquor AND denied that he had ever done wrong ..then I would have a problem....and not with the fact that he has sex.


I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho


[ Parent ]
George W. Bush as a hyocrite (4.20 / 5) (#24)
by Anonymous 242 on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 11:42:05 AM EST

Mr. Bush states that allegations of his party animal past are irrelevant to the election because they happened before his conversion to Christianity. Mr. Bush also refused to commute the execution to life imprisonment after her conversion to Christianity because she need to suffer the consequences of her actions. My stance: either individuals need to accept responsibility for their actions or they don't.

Mr. Bush wants to stop social spending because it's not fair to force people to pay for such. Mr. Bush is also the recipient of millions of dollars of corporate welfare through sweetheart deals in his corporate holdings in professional sports teams and oil. My take: either government handouts are a good thing or they aren't.

To be honest, I don't think that Albert Gore, Jr. is any less of a hypocrite. But I also think that it is a pretty objective and straightforward claim that George W. Bush is a hypocrite.

[ Parent ]

Agreed (2.50 / 4) (#25)
by retinaburn on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 12:03:28 PM EST

If somebody's current stand on an issue and their actions are in conflict (such as most politicians). I don't believe converting to any religion is a reason for past experiences to be made irrelevant...but the fact that they occured in the past does make them irrelevant WRT the election and his qualifications to be POTUS.

lee_malatesta, mild mannered Unix programmer by day, wild-eyed mystic by night

A rose by any other name is just as sweet. [Translation: Are they not the same :) ]


I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho


[ Parent ]
not surprising (3.37 / 8) (#13)
by joeyo on Wed Nov 08, 2000 at 10:13:09 PM EST

This is not surprising. The rich never have to worry about abortions, the morals, the availability, the paying for it or the cover-up. It's only the poor for which it becomes a problem.

And he's the "family values" candidate too. I hope the one-issue-abortion voters hear this and it makes them think.

--
"Give me enough variables to work with, and I can probably do away with the notion of human free will." -- demi

Significynt Flynt (3.33 / 6) (#14)
by Potatoswatter on Wed Nov 08, 2000 at 11:00:38 PM EST

The Republicans have plenty of people who'll get down and scrape up the unsavory dirt on their opponents (e.g. Ken Starr). The Democrats don't [seem to] have such a machine going, and I think it's cool that Larry Flynt has already taken it upon himself to start digging up scandals like this about Bush. The political playing field won't be even again until we embarrass our new president just as badly as Clinton.

I'm sorry, that's pretty partisan. I do think, tho, that the Republican method of disgracing and disrupting the Democratic Party via Lewinsky is the main reason Gore wasn't elected by a landslide. It caused everybody to become worried about the next president's ability to be a saint, and only Republican candidates even try to present themselves as higher moral [in the biblical sense] material. This is a real, material shift in public values, and it won't be undone until the Republicans' "Good Boy" is shown to be the sinner he is. Go Flynt!

myQuotient = myDividend/*myDivisorPtr; For multiple languages in the same function, see Upper/Mute in my diary! */;

Flynt and Steel -> Sparks Fly (4.00 / 2) (#22)
by titivillus on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 10:18:39 AM EST

The Republicans have plenty of people who'll get down and scrape up the unsavory dirt on their opponents (e.g. Ken Starr). The Democrats don't [seem to] have such a machine going, and I think it's cool that Larry Flynt has already taken it upon himself to start digging up scandals like this about Bush.

You are a fool if you don't think the Democrats don't have Opposition Research. I'm convinced that this is why we learned about a 1976 DWI a week before the election. As Bush or one of his people said to Flynt, if you have evidence, bring it out, but if you don't, be quiet. I agree.

I'm sorry, that's pretty partisan. I do think, tho, that the Republican method of disgracing and disrupting the Democratic Party via Lewinsky is the main reason Gore wasn't elected by a landslide.

No, the Democratic party wasn't disgraced. Clinton wasn't disgraced. You might be right about the election. I don't particularly care. My reasons for not voting Gore are partially on issues and partially because I wouldn't trust him to tell me what the weather was like, much less what he's doing with the nation.



[ Parent ]
why trust Bush? (none / 0) (#39)
by Danse on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 06:44:01 PM EST

For some reason I can't think of a single reason to trust Bush one bit more than Gore. Can you? (I live in Texas, btw. Had to put up with Bush for a while now).




An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
not necessarily (none / 0) (#43)
by Potatoswatter on Tue Nov 14, 2000 at 01:26:14 AM EST

I think he meant he voted for Nader (or someone else, ya never know).

myQuotient = myDividend/*myDivisorPtr; For multiple languages in the same function, see Upper/Mute in my diary! */;
[ Parent ]
Can't a man change? (3.25 / 4) (#16)
by PresJPolk on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 07:14:18 AM EST

1978, 1970... the dates of Bush's major transgressions.

The man didn't stop drinking until 1986. Being under the influence of such a substance will alter your behavior. Is there nobody who will acknowledge that?

The difference between Bush's mistakes and Clinton's mistakes, is that Clinton's big error happened while he was president and governor, while Bush's happened long before.

Past? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by dabadab on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 02:16:25 PM EST

But, you know, Clinton did not say things like "thou shalt not get a BJ", he just went along the lines of prosperity.
And he delivered.
Now take Bush: he speaks about ethical superiority as his top selling point, and about taking responsibility for your actions.
Well, as far as I can see, he already failed.
In general don't care about politicians' private life and morals, I just ask them to deliver what they promised. And if they promise high morals, than I have the right (almost the OBLIGATION) to check theirs.
--
Real life is overrated.
[ Parent ]
Re: Past? (none / 0) (#36)
by PresJPolk on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 06:20:10 PM EST

Well, as far as I can see, he already failed.

How is that? He didn't promise to go back in time and change his actions back when he was a drunk frat boy, did he? He promised he would act as President as he would as Governor, and restore dignity to the office of President.

Besides, Bush hasn't been President yet. How can he have failed to deliver on what he promised to do as President, when he hasn't been President yet?

I'd list Clinton's broken campaign promises, but it's really off-topic here. I suggest you reconsider your statement that Clinton delivered on his promises, though.

In general don't care about politicians' private life and morals, I just ask them to deliver what they promised. And if they promise high morals, than I have the right (almost the OBLIGATION) to check theirs.

Bush has admitted, again and again, that he wasn't the guy in the past, that he is now. He mentioned over and over, that he was the kind of guy who engaged in drinking games, of all things, when such behavior is being linked to deaths these days. And yes, if he paid for an abortion when he was 20 years old or so, that's a surprising thing.

However, we don't know if he did. Larry Flynt's say-so is not defining. For all we know, CNN pulled it because CNN checked it, and found no evidence.

Getting back to the issue of someone changing: If it did happen, consider that perhaps this abortion shapes Bush's views on abortion, in part. Perhaps he thinks of that aborted baby, often, and regards that abortion as a mistake.

I don't claim to know. I didn't vote for Bush. I just find it amazing that we expect people to have been the same person in his 20s that he is in his 40s, even with proof of major life changes (marriage, children, stopping drinking).



[ Parent ]
Re: Past? (none / 0) (#41)
by dabadab on Fri Nov 10, 2000 at 03:36:17 AM EST

Well, I would be fine with him changing his mind, and forgetting everything, if he preached forgivness, what he doesn't do.
Or, I would be fine with him, going to jail, spending there some time for his deeds, and then going for the presidental chair, but no, he did not take this option neither.
But no, he just said, "oops, sorry, I won't do that again, I promise". I think that if Average Joe would try to pull that trick in front of a judge in a court, he would not succeed too much.
--
Real life is overrated.
[ Parent ]
Who cares? (3.14 / 7) (#18)
by greydmiyu on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 07:30:43 AM EST

Newsflash!

EVERYONE HAS DONE SOMETHING IN THEIR PAST THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAS NOT APPROVED OF! EVERYONE HAS CHANGED THEIR OPINION ON AT LEAST ONE OR TWO THINGS IN THEIR LIFE. EVERYONE, IN THIS CASE, INCLUDES POLITICIANS. DEAL WITH IT!
-- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
Wow. (4.00 / 1) (#30)
by pb on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 02:29:11 PM EST

That was totally inflammatory, uninformative, and offtopic.

First, I know you can write in lower case; I've seen it happen. Therefore, you must be trying to make a point. However, your statement is so obvious it deserves no emphasis; therefore, I must be missing something.

Second, your post has nothing to do with my post. Read it again. I could care less about Dubya; I don't like him, and I don't want to see him elected, but that's not the point.

The point is, I expect fair coverage from the media on Politics. Actually, I demand it, as should everyone. Fair coverage means that if an interesting story pops up, it should be investigated. Not *censored*.

Got it?

Also, not "EVERYONE" takes the moral high road. And those that do deserve what they get. You can't have it both ways; you can't be sincere and still lie to people. You can't expect people to forgive you for your past, and then try to hide it (what are they forgiving?).
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
Actually it was none of the above. (2.66 / 3) (#31)
by greydmiyu on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 02:48:25 PM EST

That was totally inflammatory, uninformative, and offtopic.

Actually it wasn't inflammatory compared to the story, wasn't uninformative and most certainly wasn't off topic.

You gave an assertion that the media is doing something dastardly. I beg to differ given all the times I sat in my car in utter frustration as they have dug up something else about Dubya. Point is they shouldn't be digging for crap so far in the past in the first place. Everyone has skeletons in their closet, EVERYONE.

Hell, my newsgroup postings alone should give the national media years of free fodder if I ever went for public office. Let's not mention what some of us are posting here.

Just because some story pops up doesn't mean it should be investigated. That is very true when it is dirt that is several decades old on someone and esp. of this nature. As I said, people's opinions change over time.

If you want censorship then why not ask some true questions and not pussy-footing around with some decades old dirt on a guy you admit on not liking?

For example, why did the media constantly shut-out any mention of Harry Browne even though he oft-times polled higher than Buchanan did and was on more ballors than Buchanan was?

If Buchanan was worth mentioning, why not someone polling higher?

Why was the Libertarian party never mentioned as a third party compared to the Green and Reform Party even though it has been around longer and has more candidates running for local, state and national office than all other third parties combined?

Why, from the onset of the race, all we heard about was two of 6-7 mathematically viable candidates?

Why they could devote hundreds of hours to those two candidates and virtually none to the rest?

Why the only mention of Nader in the late days of the race when polls were showing people have interest in him, the same polls the media used as an excuse to not report on those candidates, did they only mention his effect on the race in key states and not what his platform and party were for?

Why was the last major mention of Buchanan centered around the self-destruction of the Reform Party?

All of those are more relevant than "Ooooh, Dubya might've freaked when he was a kid and got his GF an abortion!" because all of that is happening RIGHT NOW and shows a lot more inconsistancy. No, your story was about Dubya and his past and not the media treatment thereof. He's constantly been on the grill from his supposed drug use to the DUI. All decades old.

And no, I don't like the guy, don't want him in office and didn't vote for him, but enough is enough!


-- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
[ Parent ]
digging up dirt... (4.00 / 1) (#33)
by pb on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 03:16:51 PM EST

I don't like how the media operates at all, but I've gotten used to it. If they're going to dig up dirt about everyone, so be it. But if they've got some irrational blind spots, then I want to know why.

If you think they're actively trying to dig up dirt on Dubya, then you ain't seen nothin' yet. As I've said, Clinton got *far* worse, from the beginning. I'm not saying I *like* to see the media dig up dirt; I'm saying that I *expect* it. If the American people had a right to know about the Starr report, then I think the media can research this story too. Do you remember "I didn't inhale"? That was *pot*, for crissake, not cocaine!

If Clinton was simply accused of doing Coke, the Republican outcry would have been tremendous; and if it were true, I doubt he ever would have been elected. Meanwhile, Dubya says "So what? I've changed this time. REALLY", and everyone smiles and nods, and says "He's right", and buries the story. Does that strike you as a bit odd? Well, I've seen it happen at least three times, and this one is the most blatant.

For the record, I don't want censorship, and I would have liked it if, say, Nader had been able to enter the debates, I would have liked more coverage of other candidates, and I think the entire election system needs a lot of work.

But again, that wasn't what my post was about. It was MLP. I offered two links, and invited anyone who wanted to post a full story on media corruption to do so. Would you like to? You can!

And my post *definitely* wasn't about "Dubya and his past". For crissake, even the *links* weren't about that! If it has anything to do with Dubya, it's about the media not researching his past. It's about fair and accurate reporting. And if you don't believe that, then please don't reply, because I doubt we have enough common ground to continue having a discussion.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
Actually it was none of the above. (2.00 / 3) (#32)
by greydmiyu on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 03:08:09 PM EST

That was totally inflammatory, uninformative, and offtopic.

Actually it wasn't inflammatory compared to the story, wasn't uninformative and most certainly wasn't off topic.

You gave an assertion that the media is doing something dastardly. I beg to differ given all the times I sat in my car in utter frustration as they have dug up something else about Dubya. Point is they shouldn't be digging for crap so far in the past in the first place. Everyone has skeletons in their closet, EVERYONE.

Hell, my newsgroup postings alone should give the national media years of free fodder if I ever went for public office. Let's not mention what some of us are posting here.

Just because some story pops up doesn't mean it should be investigated. That is very true when it is dirt that is several decades old on someone and esp. of this nature. As I said, people's opinions change over time.

If you want censorship then why not ask some true questions and not pussy-footing around with some decades old dirt on a guy you admit on not liking?

For example, why did the media constantly shut-out any mention of Harry Browne even though he oft-times polled higher than Buchanan did and was on more ballors than Buchanan was?

If Buchanan was worth mentioning, why not someone polling higher?

Why was the Libertarian party never mentioned as a third party compared to the Green and Reform Party even though it has been around longer and has more candidates running for local, state and national office than all other third parties combined?

Why, from the onset of the race, all we heard about was two of 6-7 mathematically viable candidates?

Why they could devote hundreds of hours to those two candidates and virtually none to the rest?

Why the only mention of Nader in the late days of the race when polls were showing people have interest in him, the same polls the media used as an excuse to not report on those candidates, did they only mention his effect on the race in key states and not what his platform and party were for?

Why was the last major mention of Buchanan centered around the self-destruction of the Reform Party?

All of those are more relevant than "Ooooh, Dubya might've freaked when he was a kid and got his GF an abortion!" because all of that is happening RIGHT NOW and shows a lot more inconsistancy. No, your story was about Dubya and his past and not the media treatment thereof. He's constantly been on the grill from his supposed drug use to the DUI. All decades old.

And no, I don't like the guy, don't want him in office and didn't vote for him, but enough is enough!


-- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
[ Parent ]
give me a break... (none / 0) (#38)
by Danse on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 06:37:24 PM EST

No, your story was about Dubya and his past and not the media treatment thereof. He's constantly been on the grill from his supposed drug use to the DUI. All decades old.

He's been asked the same questions that they asked Gore. Gore admitted to smoking pot. Why wouldn't Bush fess up? Given that Bush will have a great amount of influence over the future of abortion in this country, full disclosure seems like a good thing. People should know that he apparently didn't have a problem with abortion when it was his ass on the line. Maybe he was just a stupid kid when he broke the law. That still certainly seems relevant to me. Does he believe that he should have gone to prison for his crime? I don't care if it was a long time ago. If he's changed his mind, then he should explain that. Don't try to hide the past. This man is likely to end up leading this country. We damn well have a right to know about his past.




An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
Comments... (4.00 / 3) (#28)
by pb on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 02:02:46 PM EST

I've seen a lot of comments that this event was a long time ago, and we should all just forgive and forget. Well that's just great, guys, but it wasn't my point at all! :)

I don't really care whether or not this happened; I think it would be somewhat amusing and pathetic if it had, though. However, what really frightened me was the fact that the media didn't want to research this at all; they wanted to censor it! Is that what we meant by "Freedom of the Press"? Are they free, or are they free up to and until they run into George W. Bush?

So whether or not *you* think this matters, I guarantee you that if this is true, and it comes to light later, a lot of voters will be pissed that they didn't know about this before, and that their media let them down.

Also, there has been some argument about whether or not Bush is being hypocritical if this is true. Well, either way, he's being hypocritical. He's doing so by not confronting the issue head-on in the first place. He's the one claiming to be so honest and sincere. Well, Mr. Bush, if you're *really* such a straight shooter, then you won't mind answering some questions for us...

I also think it's pathetic that the media blindly takes his word for things instead of doing research. Alcohol? Cocaine? Drug problem? Well, I'm over that now, you can stop checking into it, thanks. The same thing happened with the Iran-Contra affair years ago, and with the allegations that we were getting false information back about the success of Desert Storm. (that got buried *fast*, too!) Do we just not check our facts when it comes to Republicans?

Well, that didn't work for Clinton. I'm not just talking about Monica, I'm talking about Whitewater, I'm talking about every single stupid little scandal where the media hounded him since before he was president, while he was trying to get his job done. They never gave up, even if they found nothing! Well, eventually they found something. Woo hoo. Aren't you proud of yourself, you only had to dig and dig for EIGHT years, and destroy a man's life in the process.

My feeling is, it'd be a lot easier to do this with George W. Bush, but now they aren't even trying. Why the double standard, guys? Are you only out to destroy the Democrats? I don't think Clinton was about to shut down Time-Warner, was he?
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
Wow... (4.00 / 1) (#34)
by rusty on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 05:03:11 PM EST

I think that's the first time I've heard someone claim the mass media in America is a bunch of Republican suck-ups. Usually they get cast as bleeding heart liberals...

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
You're right (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by theR on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 01:03:23 PM EST

It is usually claimed that the media is full of left-wing liberals. Every time I look at the record, though, I see a lot of evidence to the contrary. Why is this so? In my opinion, it's a couple things. One is that the people who usually start these cries of liberal media are often members of the media trying to advance an agenda or closely tied to the media.

Two, most people in power, such as politicians, who cry foul at the media are simply trying to advance an agenda. It happens with politicians representing all views, of course. But in this case of characterizing the media as a liberal entity it has been very effective. It is a perfect example of the strategy that if you say something enough, people will end up believing something that is not necessarily true without considering the evidence.



[ Parent ]
Freedom of the Press (4.00 / 1) (#35)
by retinaburn on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 05:41:03 PM EST

However, what really frightened me was the fact that the media didn't want to research this at all; they wanted to censor it! Is that what we meant by "Freedom of the Press"? Are they free, or are they free up to and until they run into George W. Bush?

Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. --A J Liebling

The Press may cast themselves as /holy crusaders/ but someone owns them. Someone pays their salary, and that person determines what their organization will publish. "Freedom of the owner to choose what goes to press" is more apt.

I see the Internet changing this in a big way. Now we have millions of people scouring different news sites/radio stations/tea leaves and reporting on it in places like here, and perhaps their own webpages.

Well, either way, he's being hypocritical. He's doing so by not confronting the issue head-on in the first place. He's the one claiming to be so honest and sincere.

First how many times have politicians faced any issue head-on. Second I don't think he ever claimed he was honest and sincere, sure he may have said he turned a new leaf, switched to christianity, talked to the lord, but that does not imply he is honest or sincere...and he's a politician..so its like Kryponite to them.


I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho


[ Parent ]
trust... (none / 0) (#37)
by Danse on Thu Nov 09, 2000 at 06:25:36 PM EST

Actually he did say things like that. He would go on and on about how America needs a leader it can trust and how he would be that leader and how Gore can't be trusted, etc.




An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
The story the media wouldn't research... | 44 comments (44 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!