Third Party & Independents: Archives

The AP quotes sound like a campaign manager’s dream. Dang, The parents are gonna vote for the “sleezeball”. LOL.

How much money did they pay the parents?Last week Kerry was a sleezeball and this week he has their vote for President?The wording of their statement sure was prepared by someone other than them.I was going to vote for Kerry but after this fiasco I am not.And no Hillary I wont vote for you either,because this has you stench on it.

This is starting to sound more staged than anything. Why did her dad call him a sleezeball then come out and endorse him. I highly doubt that the Sun interview is less than genuine since he didn’t come out and say “I never said that/I never did that interview”. My guess is the Sun reporter recorded their conversation and coming out to say “I never said that” would be really really bad.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the parents will never do an interview with anybody regarding this and hope their daughter’s name fades into obscurity unlike Monica Lewinsky.

Consider the connections: Sun Newspaper, owned by Rupert Murdoch says that a TV network is sitting on an interview waiting for confirmation.

Could it be that somebody out there has a vested interest in creating a scandal to smear Kerry?

The “sleazeball” quote came from a frigging tabloid! There’s a reason people in the United States generally don’t give credence to tabloids. Why are we giving credence to this one? Because it’s British?

So the Sun (yes, owned by Rupert Murdoch) fabricated an scandal along with an interview with the parents, and printed it? I think at this point some high priced lawyers would be wondering how long it would take to rename “News Corp”. to “Dewey Cheetam and Howe Corp”.

What’s behind Polier’s parents’ change of heart?

1) It’s not hard to imagine that the entire Sun peice was based on an anonymous ‘leak’, complete with a pre-packaged phony interview with Polier’s parents. Murdoch’s news team has based stories on much less than that. It’s not even hard for me to imagine that Murdoch’s news team made up the whole thing out of thin air. In the British tabloid press, this is not abnormal either.

2) But okay, let’s look at more reasonable explanations. Perhaps the Sun article was a bit of an exaggeration, taking Mr. Polier’s quotes out of context. Viewing all the quotes together, including Mr. Polier’s sober assessment of the facts of the story, it’s the “sleazeball” part that strikes me as the abnormal part. Mr. Polier said that Kerry tried to hire his daughter. She said no. Mr. Polier expressed some opinions about Kerry. That’s all the article said.

If you asked *me* what I thought of Kerry, I’d probably say he was a sleazeball just like I’d probably say that pretty much all Presidential contenders are sleazeballs compared to the more down-to-earth people I know and love. If I was asked what I thought about the idea of John Kerry dating my daughter, of course I would disapprove. In short, Mr. Polier may not have had a change of heart at all - it may simply be that he’s chosen to speak to a reporter who wasn’t inclined to pick and choose quotes out of context to paint a picture of an angry father. Maybe now he realizes that if the affair really didn’t happen and if he really doesn’t want Bush to win the election, then he should clam up and only say sentences that can only be construed by even a hostile reporter to mean one thing: Kerry’s okay, there was no affair.

3) Let’s look at another possible explanation, that maybe Rove’s dream come true: that the affair was, in fact, real. Partisan slimeball that I am, I am GLAD that Kerry’s team managed to not only hustle the lady out of the country, but that he managed to get her parents to toe the line as well. Kudos to Kerry for expert scandal control! Seriously, the last thing this country needs is another stupid sex scandal. Let’s hope this dies today. Or at least, if it must linger on, let the stench befoul those who are perpetuating it.

-Cf

I can’t believe that someone wouldn’t vote for Kerry based on an internet rumor, only reported by Tabloids overseas, one owned by Murdoch, whom does have an agenda, just ask anyone who has ever been let go, or has left fox news.

The dad, if actually interviewed, could’ve, and probably was led into saying something like, “Well, if any 60 yr old guy dated my daughter he would be a sleazeball.” A

or “Any guy who prostested the Vietnam war is a sleazeball.”

And then quoted out of context, that is what tabloids do,as well as some respectable papers.

And perhaps after being doggedly pursued, or talking to their daughter, “the republican parents” became democrats.

But this is a story that has been pieced together by speculation from the beginning, and yes, it is disturbing that she didn’t come forward sooner, but, we are talking about 3 different time zones, if you consider the Sun in London which has the most dirt.

Funny how anything from a Rupert Murdoch owned entity must be some right wing hit piece… then everything from ultra lib Ted Turner’s CNN must be… you can see the fool’s argument here.

I would imagine Alex’s delay in coming out was to allow enough time to see what evidence there might be of a relationship; the “blue dress”. Without any concrete proof, and as long as Kerry and her can stick to the same story, it remains just an allegation.

I’d like to see Kerry held to the same standard as Bush. Bush is being asked to prove that he served in the National Guard. Kerry should prove that the affair didn’t happen.

Shawn, you can’t prove a negative, which is what you’re asking Kerry to do. It is impossible. You can prove a positive, however, which is what Bush is being asked to do. Kerry would have to prove where he was every moment of his life (or at least his second marriage), and do the same for Polier. All Bush has to do is release records showing that he was where he was supposed to be. If there are no such records (which seems to be the case), it can be inferred that Bush was not where he should have been.

Robert,

I would like you to prove that you attended every single day of school, grammer through college. For the days that you were absent, please provide detailed information on why you were absent and if ill, a certified copy of a doctors note.

Shawn, please note that Murdoch freely admits to using his media channels as a platform to advocate and influence a right-wing agenda. This may well be because Murdoch is an honest, ethical, upfront right-wing bloke while that scurrilous Ted Turner works his liberal black magic behind closed doors… who knows?

Also, if you’re going to argue that Rupert Murdoch’s British tabloids and Ted Turner’s CNN have equal journalistic standards and ethics, then I really don’t know what to say.

-Cf

I have been watching this rumor closely for the past several days, as well as the many theories and opionions it has generated. I have also been watching the mainstream media for any indication that they were going to report on it. With the exception of a brief mention by a couple of Sunday morning political pundits, the mainstream press appears to be very wary of this “story”, at least in this country (and while I am not a resident of Britain, my understanding of the professional reputation of “The Sun” is that it is somewhere around that of “The National Enquirer”.) Some folks, especially conservative talk radio personalities, are quick to blame the “liberal media” for ignoring a valid story, but while a liberal bias may or may not actually exist, my opinion of the news world is that they will run with anything they can reasonably substantiate. Investigative journalism, like Hollywood, has it’s own set of awards (can anyone say Pulitzer), and I don’t think most reporters would let thier political leanings stand between themselves and an acceptance speech. That doesn’t mean I think this ever had the chance of being that kind of story, but I suspect that in the beginning, very few stories look like “Pulitzer” material. In addition, even outlets considered more conservative seem to be avoiding it.

All of this, as well as Kerry’s statements on Imus that he would not mind a thorough investigation into these accusations if necessary (If quoated accurately, it sounded almost like a dare. One would hope that dem’s have learned not to do that, ala Hart/Clinton, if it can come back to bite them.), and the recent publication of denials by the young lady in question, make it look more and more likely that there is no “story” after all.

All of that said, who would benifit from this? If the rumor is true I would agree with the many people who have said that if Rove had something like this he wouldn’t waste it by bringing it out now, it would be much more valuable late in the race. That would make it appear most likely to have come from someone supporting one of the other democratic canidates. This fits well the stories that link Clark to the earliest statements, as well as SoL’s claim that his source was a dem.

If, however, the rumor is not true, it seems likely that the original source would be aware of that. Who would most benefit from starting a rumor that they knew to be untrue at this time, when there is greater deniability? Especially if they knew that it could ultimatly be defended against? (It appears possible that the problems with the time-line may provide some of the defense. Polier was apparently still a student until 2003, and at least one report has her in Africa from October of last year.)

I’m not making accusations. At this point I’m just asking questions. I will continue to watch along with the rest of you to see what develops.

Incidently, I think it is possible that this may turn out to have legs after all; just maybe not the ones the originator intended.

Brian,

I can’t do that, because, well…I have unexcused absences, and I skipped a few times.

See how easy that was? Now if Dubya would only admit that he didn’t make the best of decisions in his day, this would pretty much go away. Instead, he continues to distort and stonewall.

No offense Robert, but that’s a load of steer droppings. GWB would be raked over the coals by vets, non-vets, Dems, Nazis, Pansies, Ruffians, Voters, Non-Voters, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and almost every other media outlet other than possibly Fox and most of talk radio.

Partisan? Yes. But isn’t that what most of the complaints are about? Helen Thomas, who only writes Op-Eds now and has several times voiced her negative opinion of this president, is most likely not going to write a fair and balanced article about the president.

Helen Thomas has good reason not to write a fair and balanced article about the president. She was black-balled by the administration for not playing along.

The press would let up on the president if he would just play it straight, instead of dancing around everything. The Democratic candidates don’t even give a rat’s backside about this issue. Just take a look at the last debate. Kerry completely ducked when he was asked about Bush’s National Guard history.

Just play it straight, and President Bush can move on to more pertinent issues.

I can’t recall an American presidential news story which made big headlines across the newspapers of the world without mention here. It’s as if the media is trying to protect Kerry’s reputation here during the election. Where is the hard evidence that Bush went AWOL or that the elder Bush had an affair? They were willing to throw the Bush National Guard story out there and let the public decide, so why are they sitting on this one?

Why did this young lady deserve to have her reputation ruined? It’s a suspect piece of trash. But of course we love to believe the worse. We all would be better off paying attention to the things that are taking our country down.

One thing some of you are forgetting is that the elder Bush “affair” story never made it onto the mainstream news, either. The leading press outlets asked him about it back then in press conferences, but never printed anything (this was back when the White House press corps wasn’t afraid to ask tough questions and get blackballed by the administration).

If anything, Kerry has already gotten *way* more press about this alleged affair than the elder Bush ever got about his alleged affair.

The AWOL story has taken nearly four years to bubble to the surface across the press. Four years after the Boston Globe looked into it, suddenly other news outlets are starting to think that, hmmm, maybe they should look into it, too. If the press were truly anti-Bush, you’d think someone else would have looked into it during the 2000 election or sometime in the last four years. But no, they all basically knuckled under and let Bush have a pass, just like they did when he said he’d not been arrested (nobody sent a guy to the Kennebunkport police station to check!).

-Cf

Ann Richards used Bush’s Military Records a few times against him in their race for Texas Governor. Its an old story actually that both Republican and Democratic opponents have used against Bush.

Who benefits? Was it Rove, Clark?

Honestly, this story has so little evidence behind it (so far) that it could have very well have been simply a fax sent by Polier’s ex boyfriend to the Sun, it could have been a clever low-level staff member at any number of Kerry rivals with a Stephen Glass-like flair for creative journalism, it could have been anyone. The bottom line is that the “evidence” so far consists only of some claptrap in a British tabloid. Really, the only person I can think of who benefits from this is Murdoch!

-Cf

Rupert Murdoch alias “the new Randolph Hearst” engages in yellow journalism. Stop the presses!!!
This is news? I wonder sometimes if people are really that naive or just posing. As for Matt Drudge….gotcha!!!!

The “you can’t prove a negative” concept is one of the most thread-bare, ill-conceived “truisms” in the English language.

As an example, there is the legal concept of an alibi: a witness or witnesses testifying that a suspect was in Los Angeles at the precise moment a man was shot in New York proves that the suspect was NOT at the crime scene.

Similarly, data mined from a black box can prove that an airplane was NOT descending or banking when it impacted a mountain.

A pathologist can rule out certain causes of death (i.e. “the massive wound to the victim’s head and bullet fragments recovered in the parietal area rule out that a heart attack was the cause of death.”)

DNA testing can prove with an extraordinary high-degree of confidence that a man was not the father of a child.

It most certainly CAN be proved that a man never had an affair with a woman. It might take herculean efforts but it could be proved, not with mathematical certainly, but proven nonetheless to the sufficient and appropriate legal standard.

Proving many negatives is a fairly simple task, often no more difficult than proving a “positive”.
It’s simply a matter of semantics.

Logic dictates one cannot prove a negative. If God shows up on TV and everyone perceives her as God, then you have proof that God exists. In the absence of God’s presence, how does one prove there is no God?

How does one prove that Iraq did not have WMD. You can look from now until doomsday and if you don’t find them, seekers will continue to say “You just haven’t looked where they are, yet”.

The best one can do with a negative is offer evidence of the negative, but, proof of the negative can never be established.

One last example. How does one prove there is empty space between particles in Space? You can’t. Skeptics will continue in the face of all evidence to say that matter/energy does exist in the apparent space, we just haven’t the sensory equipment to detect it.

There is a difference between evidence, and proof. In criminal courts we seek evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, for good reason. Evidence beyond any doubt whatsoever, is not possible for all people at all times for a given set of circumstances and evidence.

Therefore, eye witness testimony may provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but, an eye witness can never prove what they saw was not mistaken or a lie. (Goes back to Plato and Aristotle as to what is real and what is Ideal - depends on too many variables to ever know for sure). Hence, credibility is so important in such cases.

Drudge is nothing but a lier. See the full story on www.witnessreport.com(the title of the article is “Drudge Blows Another One”). Drudge has been sued before for making up stuff.

checkout Powerline today:
“a striking similarity between Alex Polier and a young woman in a photograph
of interns from John Kerry’s web site.
Here they are, with Polier on the left”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005933.php

Alex Polier in Kerry Intern Photo
http://kerry.senate.gov/production/high/i/kerry-interns02a.jpg

The Alex Polier story is officially dead. Can we all get back to talking about the AWOL story now?

;)

-Cf

Christopher, now that it’s dead, the media get to flog it for a weekor so. I’m already seeing self-congratulation all over the place and I find it terribly predictable.

I don’t think this story is dead though, it’s now on everyone’s radar so that means someone somewhere will be investigating it if they weren’t already. I also think Drudge has shot his credibility by flipping his story.

It’s not dead. That is the same young lady.
http://kerry.senate.gov/production/high/i/kerry-interns02a.jpg

And she is in more than 1 photo at http://kerry.senate.gov

she claims she never worked for Kerry!
someone isn’t telling the truth

WHY?

Mo Rocko: Interesting picture, but I’m not taking anything for granted until I see it on Drudge… er…

SoL, I agree that the self-congratulations are going to be annoying I can already hear network news bigshots saying “See, we were right not to run that trash!”.

At the same time, I’d love to hear those who *did* run with the story explain themselves once (and if) the rumor turns out to be totally false.

Actually, now that (again, perhaps) the rumor is dead, part of me wants to see a rigorous post mortem analysis by media watchers like NPR’s On The Media or Jim Romanesko, to try to trace the whole route of this. It’d be a great case study in the phenomenon of truly shoddy journalism. On the other hand, I don’t want to hear another word about it either.

-Cf

CCE Corp, we reserve the right to post or not post under our real names. As I can observe, there’s little room for you to complain, posting anonymously.

I think your charges are false. I think this place has a more mature perspective on politics. Instead of the echo chamber of Democrat versus Republican, we have a variety of viewpoints, running across the spectrum. Maybe it’s just that you’ve only read the posts regarding the alleged Kerry affair, but the perspective of this site is so much greater that that one issue.

If this operation does open wider to the rest of the world, it is my hope that the range and freedom of expression on this site be maintained with that transition, that this place not merely become another example of the fossilized trench warfare of positions that has come to represent the vast majority of political dialogue in this country today.

Your attempt to burn one of our editors like this does not fit within the guidelines of our site, as so plainly presented in the title bars of our column. We are not here to practice character assassination. Should one of our contributors turn out to be Atilla the Hun in terms of character on their own, that will surely be regrettable, but in the meantime, we’d rather discuss the things that do matter: the politics that shape our lives.

THe girl in the picture is smaller boned, and darker skinned than Polier, and looks like she is 18-and dare I say prettier, the picture is being compared to Polier’s High School photo as well, not as she looks older.

I question, how someone could be in school full time, and date someone who she’s now engaged to, and also have what would have to be a Jet Set affair.

If she could do it, kudos to the uber multi tasker.

But damn, I really care about getting health insirance, and my parents being able to get a job. . I do not care about people’s sex lives.

First of all, thank you for your well thought out and reasoned response, which my teasing of one of your editors hardly merited. Besides, those comments disappear rapidly…, thereby potentially leaving at least part of your readers utterly confused as to what the ruckus was all about. :)

>> “CCE Corp, we reserve the right to post or not post under our real names. As I can observe, there’s little room for you to complain, posting anonymously.”

With all due respect for your remarkable observation, I do hope that lack of any said complaints didn’t escape your attention, too.

>> “I think your charges are false. I think this place has a more mature perspective on politics. Instead of the echo chamber of Democrat versus Republican, we have a variety of viewpoints, running across the spectrum. Maybe it’s just that you’ve only read the posts regarding the alleged Kerry affair, but the perspective of this site is so much greater that that one issue.”

While I see how it could have been understood as referring to the whole site, a retort clearly made in jest, in response to “this is not the place”, scarcely warrants being called a charge. And, if the charge still needs to be expressly identified, the following would be a fairly comprehensive summary, provided, of course, that “your” is substituted for “your editor’s”, and “one of our editors” is substituted for “Sen. Kerry”:

>> “Your [Your editor’s] attempt to burn one of our editors [Sen. Kerry] like this does not fit within the guidelines of our site, as so plainly presented in the title bars of our column. We are not here to practice character assassination.”

The readily apparent discrepancy between the title bar of the columns in question, and their contents—gossipy allusions to something that has little if anything to do with the message of Sen. Kerry, and everything to do with character assassination—was what prompted my jest. That, and comical phrases like “crucial piece of information” (while referring to gossip), as well as poorly veiled longing for credit for having “publish[ed] truth” before Drudge.

Or, to put it in one pompous phrase: physician, heal thyself…

That said, the right of the owners and contributors of this site, in their sole and excusive discretion, to determine that characters of some public figures—Sen. Kerry, for instance—are not subject to the plainly stated guidelines, is hereby duly acknowledged.

>> “Should one of our contributors turn out to be Atilla the Hun in terms of character on their own, that will surely be regrettable, but in the meantime, we’d rather discuss the things that do matter: the politics that shape our lives.”

The things, of which conjecture and insinuations about “characters” were a part—before the “things” aroused my curiosity, and which will, I suspect, remain as they were—after I depart… :p (let that be my last retort).

I wish you and your contributors the very best in your undertaking, and promise that I’ll take elsewhere the cheap thrills that fill up the idle time I sometimes have. :)

[Comment delete by WatchBlog Manager]

Again, the maxim “you can’t prove a negative” is little more than a linguistic convenience when what is meant is “you can’t prove some negatives”.

Another example: A woman is accused of having had a man’s child. The woman is proven to have an intact hymen. She has never had intercourse with any man.

Thus is a negative proven.

The English language is remakably athletic and agile and is so structured to allow for versimilitude.

Negatives can be proven to the same degree as “postives”. How would we prove a man did have sex with this woman beyond ANY doubt? Film or video? It could be doctored or the man an imposter. DNA testing of a child? O.J.’s trial showed you what a slippery slope such testing represents.

Another version of the “can’t prove a negative problem”…..

The hunt for WMD seems like trying to prove a negative, but corrolary of this is we were looking for RECORDS that show the weapons WE KNEW they HAD were destroyed.
Thus, the “negative” becomes a “postive”.
We KNOW they said the WMD was destroyed.
We KNOW Bush said he went to the National Guard.

See, thats simple!

nick

I say, “Who cares!” A personal life of someone in their own business, that’s why it’s “personal” and just because they are a presidential candidate doesn’t mean we should all get into their personal lives. So many people have cheated, should they be fired from their jobs? I believe John Kerry did not do this, even if he did I don’t really care because I think he will do a great job when he is president. Bush didn’t even win the preidencey, he’s just as much of a “cheater” as the tabloids say Kerry is!