PDA

View Full Version : Republican charges that Clinton staff trashed the White House were fraudulent


keg in kc
05-19-2001, 05:41 PM
No truth in White House vandal scandal, GSA reports

By DAVID GOLDSTEIN The Kansas City Star
Date: 05/17/01 22:15

WASHINGTON -- The General Services Administration has found that the White House vandalism flap earlier this year was a flop.

The agency concluded that departing members of the Clinton administration had not trashed the place during the presidential transition, as unidentified aides to President Bush and other critics had insisted.

Responding to a request from Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, who asked for an investigation, the GSA found that nothing out of the ordinary had occurred.

"The condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy," according to a GSA statement.

No wholesale slashing of cords to computers, copiers and telephones, no evidence of lewd graffiti or pornographic images. GSA didn't bother to nail down reports of pranks, which were more puckish than destructive.

Among those pranks was the apparent removal, by aides to former President Bill Clinton, of the "w" key from some computer keyboards and the placing of official-looking signs on doors, saying things like "Office of Strategery," after a popular "Saturday Night Live" spoof on Bush.

But the vandal scandal, tales of torn up offices and items stolen from the presidential jet, was the hottest story in town during the early days of the Bush administration until White House furniture and last-minute pardons pushed it off the front page.

"I think it was this calculated effort to plant a damaging story," said Alex S. Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. "There was a sort of fertile ground for believing anything bad."

Typical was Tony Snow, a syndicated columnist and former presidential speech writer for President Bush's father, who wrote that the White House "was a wreck." He also said that Air Force One, after taking Clinton and some aides to New York following the inauguration, "looked as if it had been stripped by a skilled band of thieves -- or perhaps wrecked by a trailer park twister."

He went on to list all manner of missing items, including silverware, porcelain dishes with the presidential seal and even candy.

"It makes one feel grateful that the seats and carpets are bolted down," Snow fumed.

Except none of it happened. An official at Andrews Air Force Base, which maintains the presidential jets, told The Kansas City Star at the height of the controversy that nothing was missing. Bush himself acknowledged the same a few days later.

And now GSA has made it official.

"They told me that there were papers that were not organized lying on the floor and on desks; there were some scratches here and there, but the bottom line was they didn't see anything really in their view that was significant and that would appear to some as real extensive damage," said Bernard Unger, director for physical infrastructure for the General Accounting Office, which asked GSA to look into the allegations.

Mark Lindsay, who oversaw the transition as Clinton's assistant for management and administration, said he was pleased that the record has been set straight.

"Because of President Clinton, this was one of the smoothest transitions in the history of the presidency," he said. "This was nothing more than just lies."

As for the critics, Barr's office didn't return calls about the GSA findings. Snow was somewhat contrite. "I'm perfectly willing to admit my error on the aircraft," he said, but added that he still believed his sources who told him about damage at the White House.

"What often happens in Washington is gossip becomes news. That's not a good thing."

I can't provide a straight link, but if you want to see the actual story go to the Star website "local" section and do a search for author "David Goldstein".

oleman47
05-19-2001, 08:24 PM
Tony Snow is an anchor for Foxnews, or as it is becoming to be known, Fauxnews.

DaWolf
05-19-2001, 09:29 PM
Tony Snow is also a frequent guest host for Rush, so his motiviations aren't exactly to report unbiased news...

TeenagerFromMars
05-20-2001, 09:10 PM
Interesting update. I wondered what happened to this "scandal." Thanks for the update, keg!

Damn liberal media... they can't get anything right! :rolleyes:

47mack
05-21-2001, 03:58 AM
If this is true, someone should be charged with slander. This type of $hit will only escalate if there isn't a precedence set.

Lightning Rod
05-21-2001, 03:16 PM
OK, People

We broke a lot of wind on this story when it first came out, any response?

NaptownChief
05-21-2001, 03:43 PM
Here is another side to the story:

Monday May 21, 2001; 11:31 a.m. EDT
White House Trashing Report No Fabrication

Cyberjournalist Matt Drudge said Sunday night that he had no apologies to make for reporting in January that Clinton aides trashed the White House when they left, despite a widely touted review by the General Services Administration suggesting the story was baseless.

Citing some of the information shared by his sources that set off the explosive story, Drudge told his weekly WABC radio audience, "I heard the obscene phone messages (Clinton's people) left behind myself."

The internet star confirmed that White House insiders had told him personally about some of the damage, such as walls that had been defaced by spray paint as the Clinton crew departed.

Indeed, that much has already been confirmed by no less an authority than President Bush himself.

"There might have been a prank or two," Bush told reporters on Jan. 26. "Maybe somebody put a cartoon on the wall."

In fact, despite loud crowing over the weekend by the media's Democratic spinmeisters, who complained that the trashing report was a complete fabrication and demanded apologies, essential elements of the story still seem solid.

For example, Bernie Ungar, director of physical infrastructure issues at the GSA, declined to deny reports that Clinton aides cut phone and computer lines, damage which is said to have run into thousands of dollars.

"My sense is there probably was some phones pulled, or whatever. I don't have a way to determine that," Ungar told the New York Times on Friday.

Another allegation, that White House computer keyboards had been vandalized, has already been admitted to by Clinton aides, the Times said.

Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga), who first requested the GSA investigation, suggested that the final review missed much of the damage because the agency's responsibilites have nothing to do with office equipment, but with the condition of the office space instead.

The GSA's investigation into damage by Clinton aides was no doubt made more problematic by the directive issued by the Bush White House at the outset, which ordered that no formal investigation be undetaken and that no written records be kept.

"Our repair records do not contain information that would allow someone to determine the cause of damage being repaired," explained Phillip Larsen, director of the Bush White House Office of Administration.

Rep. Barr complained Friday that the decision not to document the damage caused by Clinton aides did not exonerate the former president's staff.

He called the GSA report "a disservice to the American taxpayers who deserve a full accounting of taxpayer property."

The flap over the GSA investigation mirrors denials over the story that scores of valuables went missing from Air Force One after the former first family's final flight home.

That story was broken by Washington Times reporter John McCaslin, who, like Drudge, continues to stand behind what his sources told him.

Mi_chief_fan
05-21-2001, 03:55 PM
In other words, Drudge heard obscene phone messages, then reported a case of full fledged vandalism. Sounds to me like Matt Drudge is just being himself. He's using his 'sources' instead of actually investigating the matter himself.

Good journalistic approach.

oleman47
05-21-2001, 04:31 PM
Ahem,
Standing by your sources is newspeak for saying I did not make it up, but view my source as reliable. But I have no knowledge other than my faith in their reliablility. Then when asked who the sources are, they refuse to divulge. Therefore you do not even know if they had sources or not. Very Olson like.

keg in kc
05-21-2001, 05:03 PM
I guess I must be thrown into the "liberal" category for posting anything that shows the Republicans in anything that can be even remotely construed as a negative context, whether it's intended as such or not...

Typical. As always, more "if you're not with us you're against us" b.s. :mad:

The GSA report says what it says and Drudge can bash the previous administration with fabricated "evidence" until he's blue in the face but it won't change that fact.

BIG_DADDY
05-21-2001, 05:08 PM
BIG WOW, Who cares. Clinton is a total scumbag who has been getting by with murder forever. Sorry, I just have a hard time feeling for that guy.

BIG DADDY

Throwing a party when someone knocks off that freak.

keg in kc
05-21-2001, 05:17 PM
That much I can agree with, Big D, but IMHO he's (or his wife...) done enough in reality so that there's little need for people to fabricate stories about how his staff trashed everything when he left. So much for "journalistic integrity..."

There's no excuse for this type of slander, and I'd say the same if the situation were reversed (since, of course, I'm neither a Democrat nor a liberal...).

NaptownChief
05-21-2001, 06:35 PM
So if the GSA shows up several weeks after the fact and writes a report that they see nothing, then that makes it absolute fact?

So if someone is murdered and the GSA shows up a couple weeks later and is unable to find any evidence that the murder occured then it can be concluded that nobody was actually murdered? Whatever.....

keg in kc
05-21-2001, 06:58 PM
Where exactly does it say the GSA showed up weeks after the fact?

Beyond that, why exactly should reports from an internet rumor-monger be held in higher esteem than the official results of the GSA's official investigation? We should believe that the previous administration's departure was not normal because Matt Drudge says so?

Talk about selective hearing...

NaptownChief
05-21-2001, 07:06 PM
The GSA report was meaningless...Due to procedure the had to file a report, but the were instructed from the outset by Dubya that the issue was to be dropped and not to pursue anything...

So after being ordered by the President to drop the isssue do you actually think they were going to put anything substantial in their report?

keg in kc
05-21-2001, 07:20 PM
If "duhbya" didn't think it was enough to warrent an investigation, then why are you so convinced that there was vandalism by the outgoing staffers? Seems to me that with the current head-hunting that's prevalent in Washington (by both parties) that there isn't much reason for the President to just drop something of any magnitude that could be uses as fodder in the ongoing jihad against the commie demorats (to quote other posters on the board ;))...

NaptownChief
05-21-2001, 07:32 PM
The Repubs in general were still wanting to drive a nail in Slick Willie but Dubya wanted anything and everything that had to do with Clinton dropped including the Pay for Pardon scandal...Dubya wanted the focus to be on him and his agenda not caught up on that dirtbag Clinton...

The Senate judiciary committee or one of those committees called for the GSA investigation when it was first learned of the alleged vandalism...Once the GSA was appointed by the committee they have to file a report, so the report was a formality...After they were appointed but before the investigation Dubya said he wanted the issue dropped and not pursued. So they had to file a report but obviously they weren't going to go against his wishes and create a incident by reporting anything of substance...

keg in kc
05-21-2001, 07:46 PM
That still doesn't answer the question of why you believe there was anything of substance.

The first story, as I recall from a week or so ago, was that the Bush administration did not keep adequate records so there was no real evidence. Now there's the GSA report that states that nothing happened beyond the removal of some 'w's from keyboards and a few mischevious signs, neither of which they felt was worth investigation. That tells me the story was fabricated by Bush's staff...

I understand the corruption that people see in Clinton and his legacy, but please, to believe Republicans are infallable or not corruptable is simply ludicrous.

NaptownChief
05-21-2001, 07:55 PM
I have a hunch that Sen Bob Barr and his committee didn't call for an investigation just because of rumors...My guess is that they had information from credible sources...Otherwise we would see five new investigations launched every time the National Enquirer hits the news stands...:D

As for the Bush administration not keeping records, that only makes sense...Why would they be keeping records if Dubya doesn't want it to become an issue? They wouldn't...

DanT
05-21-2001, 08:17 PM
I'm sure that if even some of the serious allegations were true, there would have been some kind of documentation in the form of purchase orders and receipts for replacement parts. I just don't see this report as disputable. The folks who sign the GSA's paychecks have nothing to gain by being told that they have a bunch of liars in their midst: this much, at least, should be obvious.

keg in kc
05-21-2001, 08:50 PM
I have a hunch that Sen Bob Barr and his committee didn't call for an investigation just because of rumors...

Why, exactly?

That's the double standard that irritates me so much. Every good church-going, god-fearing, genius-level intellect Republican is above question, yet every statement by a "Demorat" (or someone non-republican, more times than not...) is instantly disregarded as fallacy, lies or double-talk by commie morons.

If there was anything to this story, it would not be simply swept under the rug because the President says "make it so". An cover-up like that would be both unethical and at least skirting on downright illegality. To say 'duhbya' called of the proverbial dogs is nothing more than spin control because there was nothing real to substantiate the rumors.

The most ironic thing is that were situation reversed there'd be a hundred posts on here talking about how the Democrats viciously lied about the Republicans and it would cited as yet another example of the "liberal media" and their policy of slander.

Gaz
05-22-2001, 06:30 AM
The most ironic thing is that were situation reversed there'd be a hundred posts on here talking about how the Democrats viciously lied about the Republicans and it would cited as yet another example of the "liberal media" and their policy of slander.

I find it interesting that a post bemoaning the partisan nature of some folks is so blatantly partisan.

Yes, some folks would no doubt rake the Democrats over the coals, just as some folks take any excuse to rake the Republicans over the coals.

The rest of us are quite comfortable here in the middle, thanks.

xoxo~
Gaz
Bashing both sides when the opportunity presents.

keg in kc
05-22-2001, 07:18 AM
I find it interesting that a post bemoaning the partisan nature of some folks is so blatantly partisan.

How so, Gaz?

Facts, in the form of the GSA report, are simply being presented that demonstrate there were fraudulent claims made and then those facts are summarily ignored as some ludicrous good-will cover-up on behalf of the President. As I stated, in the quote you chose to use I might add, were the situation reversed (as has been the case often in the last 8 years) there would be crusade, if not a complete and total witch-hunt, and, as many events of the past months would demonstrate, certain members of this board would be on a crusade against the opposition, in terms likely more offensive and/or aggressive than those I used, all of which were "borrowed" from recent postings by those same folks I refer to.

There is no partisanship there that I am aware of, just simple statements of fact. I'm in the middle as much as you are, Gaz, as you should well know, and simply pointing out the flaws of the flawless right does not mean I'm acting for the benefit of the left. I did not expect this issue to be addressed here because of the political "tilt" on this board, so I felt I would bring it to people's attention to spark some conversation.

Gaz
05-22-2001, 07:24 AM
Every good church-going, god-fearing, genius-level intellect Republican is above question, yet every statement by a "Demorat" (or someone non-republican, more times than not...) is instantly disregarded as fallacy, lies or double-talk by commie morons.

Non-partisan?

xoxo~
Gaz
Genius-level intellect Libertarian.

keg in kc
05-22-2001, 07:45 AM
Ironic and humorous anti-conservative hyperbole does not make me a Democrat, Gaz. Your mind must be seeing partisan phantoms.

NaptownChief
05-22-2001, 07:47 AM
Keg,

It is fact that the GSA made a report stating minimal substance...But you are making the claims that anything in their report has to be absolute truth....You know better than that. It could be absolute truth or it could be completely fabricated cover-up...Neither one of us know. I am willing to give the report the benefit of the doubt but to claim it as absolute fact is naive...There is a lot of government reports historically and currently that are released that are complete fabrication that are put together for whatever political motivation the originator is looking to achieve.

NaptownChief
05-22-2001, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by keg in kc
Ironic and humorous anti-conservative hyperbole does not make me a Democrat, Gaz. Your mind must be seeing partisan phantoms.


You and Oleman47 spend the vast majority of your political conversations attacking Republicans and defending DemoRats but try to constantly sell this "Non-Bias" plea...I'm not saying a person can't be non-partisan, but if they were truly "non-biased" the political ripping would be fairly close to 50-50, not 90-10 or 100-0 like you guys are....You guys are very biased yet try to make your arguments against Republicans seem more credible by labeling it as unbiased attacks...I don't care about the label, just what's in the package...

keg in kc
05-22-2001, 07:56 AM
But you are making the claims that anything in their report has to be absolute truth....You know better than that. It could be absolute truth or it could be completely fabricated cover-up...Neither one of us know. I am willing to give the report the benefit of the doubt but to claim it as absolute fact is naive...

Naive?

No more (or less) naive than treating any other source, say an internet rumor monger or a popular conservative radio host as "absolute truth". The GSA report is the be-all end-all of the situation, and barring further reports, which are apparently not coming, it is the absolute truth, at least the only truth we have to rely on. Anything else is paranoid speculation, rumor or conspiracy theory (three things I'm, of course, often party to since I'm a nut). You have to draw the line somewhere, at it seems clear to me the report is it...

On that note, I'm off to bed.

Can you say "completely f*cked circadian rhythm"?

KCTitus
05-22-2001, 07:56 AM
jl: in defense of oleman, he's very up front about his 'bias'. He's claimed on several occasions that he is liberal and leaning toward socialist.

NaptownChief
05-22-2001, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by keg in kc


Naive?

No more (or less) naive than treating any other source, say an internet rumor monger or a popular conservative radio host as "absolute truth


Go back and look at my post...No where in there will you find me claiming anything to being absolute truth or fact....I've seen enough in the political arena over the past 8 years to know that very little of what you see has much credibility let alone being a simple black and white matter...I just merely threw out an idea that could very easily and logically happen.

keg in kc
05-22-2001, 08:09 AM
You and Oleman47 spend the vast majority of your political conversations attacking Republicans and defending DemoRats

That's not true at all. I can't recall any time I've defended the Democrats for anything, thats including Clinton and most(if not all) policy that's been discussed. You must have me confused with someone else.

but try to constantly sell this "Non-Bias" plea...

I've never said I'm non-biased, I've said I'm non partisan, which is completely true. I absolutely distrust both political parties, boardering on completely despising them. However, since 99% of the folks on this bb lean to the right, I don't have much chance to address democratic statements. There just aren't any...

I'm not saying a person can't be non-partisan, but if they were truly "non-biased" the political ripping would be fairly close to 50-50, not 90-10 or 100-0 like you guys are....You guys are very biased yet try to make your arguments against Republicans seem more credible by labeling it as unbiased attacks.

Once again, if there were more of a 50-50 split on the board, I wouldn't spend so much time arguing against Republicans. Give me some Democratic fodder.

As it stands, I just don't agree with many of the statements made on the subjects discussed on the board, and nearly every one is originated by Republican posters. If the subject matter were different (i.e. different topics) than I'd tend to agree more.

And, generally after reading the 1000th statement of Demorat, or commie, or anti-liberal statement, I tend to tear into the Republicans just for fun and to even the playing field a bit. Part of my personality is to be a fan of the underdog, and the Democrats are far and away the underdog on this board, so I defend them verbally from time-to-time while not really agreeing with them about anything.

Ask me some serious political questions, however, and it will become fairly obvious fairly quickly where my political interests lie: I tend to be conservative fiscally, but I'm completely against the conservatives when it comes to morality and religion.

Anyway, gotta get some sleep.

NaptownChief
05-22-2001, 08:09 AM
Titus,

I could be wrong but if my memory serves me, Oleman introduced himself as this former stock broker conservative that changed his ways and "seen the light" middle of the road guy type of guy...Then after millions of political post he finally showed his true liberal nazi colors...

Like I said, I might be wrong and he claimed to be liberal right out of the gates but I don't remember it that way...

NaptownChief
05-22-2001, 08:12 AM
Kegger,

I guess I can buy that explanation...

Catch you later

oleman47
05-22-2001, 08:34 AM
Defining myself. I am a liberal on this BBS, by the definitions expressed by most members of what a liberal is. Depending of course whether "is" is declarative of existence or merely showing equivalence or a transition to descriptive or modifying expressions.

My point on Socialism is twofold. We, right here in America, USA, have socialism in many areas. A company to be efficient has to maximize profits or even go monopolistic if it can. We over the decades have learned to cope with this natural tendency and requirement when it conflicts with the public good. A company may make a lot of money selling a poisonous product but we limit such behaviour. Likewise, if you own a water hole and won't let others drink then you get shot or some other remedy so the rest can live. The free market is amoral. This means it doesn't want to care, or does care about you except when it needs you. With artificial insemination who needs males to drive the point home.
The other point on Socialism, we use it to supply ourselves with services and products that the free markets cannot nor will not because it is inefficient. Like the mail, electricity, roads, etc to rural areas populated by people who want nothing to do with socialism. They really like price supports.

My partisanship at the moment is the complete horror of going back to deficit financing. Equally abhorrent is the imposition of law after law based on some warped interpretation of what some have deemed the only road to go and that the majority have nothing to say about it. But, most importantly the loss of individual rights such a policy making to the corporations. The absolute elevation of a legal constructions into false gods. etc.

KCTitus
05-22-2001, 08:39 AM
Defining myself. I am a liberal on this BBS, by the definitions expressed by most members of what a liberal is.

my definition of liberal - one who believes that every problem can be solved by govt control.

Oleman: you fit that to a 'T'

oleman47
05-22-2001, 09:02 AM
I do believe that it is up to guvment to solve problems, probably the reason we have guvment. If there were no problems, would we need any guvment? Can guvment solve all problems, of course not, and to label someone as believing such an absurdity is just intellectual frustration. But not as bad as being called a liberal nazi, which a complete lack of knowledge about both liberalism and nazism.

KCTitus
05-22-2001, 09:40 AM
I do believe that it is up to guvment to solve problems, probably the reason we have guvment. If there were no problems, would we need any guvment?

This is where we disagree. Government IS the problem in most cases. Second, I have NEVER EVER seen you write a single post that didnt have as it's solution a government program or higher taxes. That is not 'intellectual frustration', it's known as a FACT.

If you care to try, I would urge you to point me in the direction of a post of yours where you talked about solving a problem using a market economy and competition (aka capitalism).

Lastly, I know you are not referring to me in your last sentence. If you are, I will ask you to retract the false statement.

oleman47
05-22-2001, 10:11 AM
Titus
I have never advocated high taxes, particularly as something a priori. Ji80 was the nazi labeller. I have a multitude of posts dealing with issues. In fact, I try to stick to the issues but some want to make me the issue.
For instance, this thread is about media lying. So the messenger was attacked.
It is my view that those that shout socialist, socialist haven't a clue about what it is.

Why no outcry about the litany of tax breaks to contributors to a campaign. Read the new energy "policy" . It is thesis on socialist support of the energy industry without restriction on the collateral damage to your income tax rate. Do not see the blind spot that can't see that it is you that pays at the pump and on April 15th.

KCTitus
05-22-2001, 10:32 AM
Im still trying to figure this out.

I was defending you by calling you socialist since you are up front about your acceptance the principles of socialism/liberalism as solutions to America's problems. It's not like I called you a conservative or anything.

Please explain this 'tax breaks for contributions' thing...I would hazard a guess that both sides 'reward' their contributors therefore why decry it? It's business as usual. Also, I dont understand how 'tax breaks' are a thesis on socialist support of the energy industry.

As far as your advocacy of 'high taxes' is concernced, well let's call that deductive reasoning. 1. Govt solution to every problem=Govt spending Money. 2. Against 'deficit spending' which will ruin all of the stock markets, US dollar etc. 3. Decry Tax breaks for the 'rich'. Therefore you must be for higher taxes to support ongoing govt control and new 'solution' programs.

KCTitus
05-22-2001, 10:36 AM
btw, oleman, here's your appraisal of higher gas taxes to 'promote' the useage of public transit in 'most states' except the west.

The difference in Europe and US gasoline prices is taxes. High taxes are used to encourage use of public transportation which is very good in these countries and the gas tax goes to keep it good. This would work in parts of the US but not in others such as the West.

oleman47
05-22-2001, 12:19 PM
Titus
I was explaining to another poster why Europe had higher gas prices than the US and stated that it would not work, or be legislated in the US because of the difference in geography. Hardly and endorsement of unlimited taxation.

The rest you state is garbage. If you do not need to infer to reach any of my opinions for I will state what I think. It is up to you to understand it, but not to multilate it.

KCTitus
05-22-2001, 12:56 PM
Maybe it's your 'multilation' of the english language that is throwing me off. You stated:

This would work in parts of the US but not in others Did you mean to state this would NOT work in the US?

Previous to that sentence was this sentence:
. High taxes are used to encourage use of public transportation which is very good in these countries and the gas tax goes to keep it good. natually I assumed that 'This' as referenced in the subsequent sentence was referring to the 'High Taxes' used to encourage the use of public transportation.

What 'rest I state' is garbage? If I dont infer what your opinions are you will state what? Im trying to understand, maybe you could try to be more clear and I wont 'multilate' it anymore.

Clint in Wichita
05-22-2001, 12:59 PM
There's no need to worry about high gas prices. Bush has already stated that your upcoming tax cut will offset what you're now paying for gas.

What he SHOULD do is forget the tax cut & send our money directly to Mobil/Exxon in exchange for lower gas prices.

oleman47
05-22-2001, 01:40 PM
Titus
How selective of you. I went on to state that since each state has two senators and in the western states this policy would not be good, it would not come to pass here.

But you do illustrate my point, it is not about the issues it is about the messenger.

KCTitus
05-22-2001, 01:54 PM
Not exactly, oleman, you stated this:

Each state has two senators so in the senate population is very underrepresented.

To be honest, I had no earthly idea what in the hell that had to do with the first two sentences. Now that you explain it, however, makes a little more sense even though I still dont really follow your thought pattern.

The Senate was designed that way for a purpose...that was to make ALL states equal. It's quite a novel concept and one that has nothing to do with how a law would necessarily get passed.

You would need 218 in the house, 51 in the senate and 1 in the White House to pass a law. 'higher taxes' wont get past any of the three let alone the senate.

NaptownChief
05-22-2001, 02:02 PM
Following Oleman's commentary is a lot like trying to make sense of GreenSpeak (Greenspan's commentary)

KCTitus
05-22-2001, 02:15 PM
But you do illustrate my point, it is not about the issues it is about the messenger.

How's that? You have yet to make any point...I have asked you to explain your earlier posts, yet you just keep going on and on about how I've multilated your opinions.

As I originally stated, you have offered NO post that in any way states that a solution to any of America's problems would best be solved by market economies and competition. THIS is my point--what's yours?

Lightning Rod
05-22-2001, 02:39 PM
I think we have gotten a bit off point here. The original topic pertained to what appears to be the kind of twisted, exaggerated take a grain of truth and build a mountain of excrement out of it stuff, that we all claim to despise. We all have our political biases and tend to believe stories that follow our train of thought. To blindly accept as "Truth" things like this, and the supposed trail of bodies left in the Clintons wake is unwise. There is more than enough dirt on both sides of the fence to need to make things up.
The GOP has attempted to carry the torch of 'Family values" and morality. If this is to be the case they must walk the walk. The kind of squiggling and spin-doctoring so common on both sides cannot be tolerated much less encouraged. There are many people "like me" that are conservative on far more issues than they are liberal. Even thoughh this is the case, since I do not really consider myself a Republican or a Democrat I tend to view statements from each side with similar skepticism. I do not like what I see. While I must admit I see more mud-slinging from the Dems than I do the Reps I see it somewhat like a woman trying to convince me to go out with her because the other gal is an even bigger B$TCH . My suggestion is to hold those who share your political beliefs to "at least" the same standards as those of the opposition.

keg in kc
05-22-2001, 06:33 PM
Very, very well said RCGChief.

DanT
05-22-2001, 06:47 PM
It's always good to hear from RCGChief when the partisans start spinning.
Libertarians and moderates often have the best BS detectors! :)

oleman47
05-22-2001, 08:36 PM
Titus
I think the topic was the media lying as I said before and it is not about me solving the world's problems. However, I would be more than happy. You supply the thread of your desire and I will contribute. I am obviously not devoid of opinions.

KCTitus
05-23-2001, 06:33 AM
Oleman, forgive me for ever trying to defend you by stating that you are up front about your liberal bias. The reason we got off point was a result of your incoherent retorts to my defense of you. A quick re-reading of our exchange might help you understand.

I do apologize to the rest of the posters on the topic for having to stray so far in attempting an exchange with this person.

In any event, although this topic is about one media story, this topic is also about bias. News outlets are biased most in one direction some in the other. I guess since 'conservative' bias is so rare in major media outlets, this particular story was noteable as to have someone point it out with a topic on the BB.

I'll be anxiously awaiting Keg's next contribution that points out the next 'lie' or biased report of a major media outlet when it's biased from a left sided source.

As RCGChief pointed out, "My suggestion is to hold those who share your political beliefs to "at least" the same standards as those of the opposition."

Lightning Rod
05-23-2001, 08:49 AM
Thanks for all the kudos. Rod the great Moderate topic killer strikes again!
Now I think I'll go stir up some trouble this mamby pamby down the middle stuff gets dull.

Baby Lee
05-23-2001, 09:17 AM
This 'trashing the white house' story has really shed light on the 'who's zooming who' aspect of the partisan public image wars. It gets almost impossible to tell whether the Dems are secretly pumping up the 'distortions' knowing they'll come home to roost on the Repubs heads, or if the Repub heads are giving a wink and a nod to the 'underlings' to disseminate the story.

The reason this story got so much credence, is that it fit the mold so well. Over the past eight years, wing tips had been replaced by Birkenstocks, and nose rings had replaced tie clips for many white house staff [not that there's anything wrong with that]. The presidential race was contentious and brought out the worst in both the leadership and the citizen on the street . the allegations, while distressing, were credible.

The difficulty is in separating who alleged what, and to what extent. Unnamed sources make accusations both mild and wild that Bush and his administration consistently downplay. Is it because he is above the fray and wants to get on with the 'people's work?' Is it because he wants to appear above the fray, while his minions trash the predessessors? Is it because he's scared he can't forge his own identity with any shred of Clinton still around? Is it because unnamed [I]democrat sources are putting some of the allegations out there to feed the image of the rabid radical right that has kept them in business so well.

Now this report comes out saying 'some things didn't happen, some things may have happened (we can't tell), and some things we would have no way of knowing whether they happened or not.'

the confounding factor here is that the Democrats now know that an overzealous attack on them actually girds up their supporters. Thus, like with the subliminable debacle and with Bush's lost debate practice tapes, it is nearly impossible to tell where the attacks are coming from. IS it another overzealous right wing nutjob? IS it the truth. Or is it a dem feedning the conspiracy machine?

cjderby
05-23-2001, 01:04 PM
While we're revisiting some of the old election "dramas", I just read this a couple days ago, hard to believe!

In the March mayoral primary in St. Louis, three deceased city aldermen and a dog were among those registered to vote, but the election was nonetheless an improvement over the November 2000 contest. That Election Day featured, among other things, a successful lawsuit by a man petitioning a judge to have the polls stay open late because crowding and poor record-keeping were preventing him from voting, even though it was subsequently discovered that he (the lead plaintiff on the petition) had been deceased for a year himself. [Los Angeles Times, 2-28-01; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 4-17-01]