John Kerry/Intern Scandal

[Paavo]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (joegvb,)

I told you to shut up
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Hahahahah... Who the hell are you to tell anyone to shut up on a public forum?

[joegvb]

In all sincerity, would someone please explain to me why democrats seem to fall for the candidates with the most questionable morals? Just look back over the last decade; Bill and the Intern, Gary and the Intern, John (Kerry) and the Intern. It sounds like a host of "B" movies.

I&#39;d like someone to give me an answer and not just bash a republican to present a smoke screan. Any takers??

[Major Billy]

Certainly. Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis.

[joegvb]

So you are telling me that Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Mike Dukakis are the reasons that democrats tend to vote for candidates with questionable morals? I&#39;m not sure I understand this as an answer to my question unless your assertion is that they were such poor leaders that the party had to do something drastic.

Any body else have any ideas? Certainly this can&#39;t be correct.

[m5lange1]

I am not a democrat Joe,

Therefore I hope you will take a moment and think about what I am about to ask you. I do not care if you respond to it but I do think it might do you some good if you answered it honestly to yourself.

I saw on another of your posts how angry you were with the questioning of President Bush&#39;s National Guard records yet you are jumping on a potential scandal against Kerry like it was something you saw yourself.

Answer honestly,,, if only to yourself,,,,,

If it were Kerry who had rumors about being AWOL for a week circulating and GW who just had... oh say the LA times.... breaking a story about having some tawdry affair how would your posts differ?

As I have posted elsewhere. Things are right or wrong according to whether they were done or not, not who did them.

[Paavo]

It&#39;s funny how you go on about morals, joegvb.
You stick up for a guy who has obviously been lying in order to get a war going. A guy who&#39;s regime is filled with millionaires, who send young people into war, and at the same time cut the earlier war veterans&#39; benefits.
And at the same time attack the morals of people who have taken a blowjob by someone who isn&#39;t their wife. I couldn&#39;t find anything on this "scandal" on BBC or CNN, maybe it&#39;ll pop up there in a while.

[joegvb]

As I suspected, these two folks have to bash a Republican to respond. Is there not anyonw who can answer my original question candidly? For anyone who may have lost track, let me re-post my original question.

"In all sincerity, would someone please explain to me why democrats seem to fall for the candidates with the most questionable morals? Just look back over the last decade; Bill and the Intern, Gary and the Intern, John (Kerry) and the Intern. It sounds like a host of "B" movies.

I&#39;d like someone to give me an answer and not just bash a republican to present a smoke screan. Any takers??"

[m5lange1]

WOW am I one of the two folks who just bashed a Republican? I just re read my post and do not see any bashing. I just asked a question.

OK Joe here is your candid answer. Democrats do NOT fall for candidates with more questionable morals.
It seems pretty obvious that you read and hear exactly what you want to and ignore everything else. EVERY candidate who goes for, let alone is elected to, that high an office in a two party system is going to have every bit of mud the other side can dig up thrown at them.
You choose to revel in the trash about democrats and if anyone DARES to say anything about a republican candidate you totally ignore it as bashing.

Its all bashing Joe. And it sickens me but it sickens me even more when people ONLY see it on the other side.


So the answer is: Almost everyone has some skellitons in the closet, particularly among the powerful and successful as presidential candidates are. It is not just democrats. But you choose to only believe what is said about democrats and call any stories about republicans bashing so you will never have your question answered.

[castille]

Well if Drudge Report is meant to be biased....

Then why are liberals on this board getting news from revolutionary, anti-American sites?

I mean some site with the title NEWS ABUT EVIL CORPORATIONS AND WHY AMRICANS ARE EVIL doesn&#39;t do anyone justice.

[hudson]

My take on this:

(1) Much of the public is going to roll their eyes when they hear "Drudge" and "sex scandal" and "Democrat" yet again.

(2) This may actually help Kerry. Consider that Clinton was never more popular than when Monicagate was being investigated by the Republicans. It may humanize him, and earn him sympathy -- paradoxically.

(3) Though I&#39;m a Dean supporter, I suspect that if it *does* somehow get serious for Kerry, Edwards would get more of a bounce than Dean -- given who is supporting Kerry, and why.

(4) I suspect that Kerry&#39;s people will succeed at mostly containing this story (a) among the right-wing media, where he wasn&#39;t getting support anyway, (b) by getting the mainstream press to focus on process and the fact that an "irresponsible" website made the allegations.

So far tonight, the story is only being picked up on blogs, on foreign news sites, and on far-right newswires. We&#39;ll see what tomorrow brings.

I have a roundup of early reactions at my site:
http://hudson.typepad.com/line/2004/02/ker...s_been_dru.html

I&#39;m personally more interested in a more serious topic -- the 9/11 widows&#39; attempts to force a true investigation of what happened that day:
http://hudson.typepad.com/line/2004/02/911...vidence_hi.html

[joegvb]

as the New Member said, "If it were Kerry who had rumors about being AWOL for a week circulating and GW who just had... oh say the LA times.... breaking a story about having some tawdry affair how would your posts differ?"

Sounds like a bash to me.

[RebelWithanAK]

1) It was being AWOL for a year, not a week, after getting moved to the top of the list of the National Guard for being the son of a Congressman; compared to a decorated veteran. And the major part was, it meant somebody who didn&#39;t even put his time to complete his military duty started a war that meant the deaths of actual US servicemen.

2) Jimmy Carter and Michael Dukakis were buried under a torrent of Republican mudslinging, and as principled as they were in not fighting back in such a dirty way, it destroyed their political careers. Now, we know that if we want to combat the Republicans, we need people willing to be just as vile, disgusting, and reprehensible as O&#39;Reilly, Pat, Rush, the Post and even your precious Drudge report.

3) If you EVER tell anyone to shut up again, Joegvb, I will boot you out of here so fast your head will spin.