Eliot Spitzer, antismoking leader, self-destructs

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 08:12:37 -0500, Michael Mattias wrote:

> When LBJ was Senate majority leader, a member of his party was in a tough
> re-election campaign and came to Johnson for advice. After reviewing the
> campaign and the numbers, Johnson said, "What you have to do is leak to th
e
> newpapers that your opponent is cheating on his wife."
>
> The candidate quickly protested: "But sir, we have no evidence he's doing
> that; we could never prove it."
>
> Johnson replied, "Hell, you don't have to prove it;  you just have to get
> him denying it on the record!"
>
> MCM

It's a dirty business. I've been following the US campaign so far but
revulsion has almost overtaken curiosity as a motivating factor so it's
likely I'll be turning off soon.

A close relative was a campaign manager in a political campaign many years
ago. He came across some very damaging information about a high-level
figure on the other side. He contacted party HQ and gave them the
information but heard nothing more about it, which surprised him greatly.

After the campaign, he went to HQ for a debrief. He asked them about the
information he had provided. They said, thank you very much, it was very
valuable, wonderful. But we never heard anything about it - so how was it
useful? Well, it was very useful - we "traded" it. That is, someone on the
other side had something on one of "our people" so we traded the
information, and neither story got out there. As a result two crooked
politicians stayed in the game.

Tim

"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote: 

Just imagine what Hillary or Obama would do, if elected. Shudder.
 
> Sin and misuse of prosecutorial power are both bi-partisan and
> bi-ideological.

The Republican electorate is far less tolerant of many character flaws
than the Democratic electorate. Every Democratic president since FDR,
with the single exception of Carter, was a serious womanizer. AFAIK,
the only Republican president in that timeframe who had *ever* had an
affair was Eisenhower with his jeep driver when he was in England during
WWII, before his presidency. A Republican president who did what Clinton
did would have zero chance at re-election.
--
Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Clark F Morris wrote: 
> Sin and misuse of prosecutorial power are both bi-partisan and
> bi-ideological.

You're right. I misspoke.

Let me rephrase:

Republicans, as a general rule, don't do that sort of thing. Democrats, as a
general rule, don't follow the rules.

Republicans and conservatives generally believe that no good can come from
an immoral or illegal act. The process determines the result, the rule of
law is all.

Democrats and liberals generally believe that the end justifies the means,
that there are no moral, ethical, or legal contraints if the result is
desirable. The result determines the legality of the process.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:42:39 -0500, "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com>
 wrote:

>"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: 
>
>Just imagine what Hillary or Obama would do, if elected. Shudder.
> 
>
>The Republican electorate is far less tolerant of many character flaws
>than the Democratic electorate. Every Democratic president since FDR,
>with the single exception of Carter, was a serious womanizer. AFAIK,
>the only Republican president in that timeframe who had *ever* had an
>affair was Eisenhower with his jeep driver when he was in England during
>WWII, before his presidency. A Republican president who did what Clinton
>did would have zero chance at re-election.

You are saying Republicans have no sex drive. Is that good or bad? Why is it
 good to have
frigid people in charge?

"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote: 
>
> You are saying Republicans have no sex drive. Is that good or bad?
> Why is it good to have frigid people in charge?

Do you have a sex drive? Do you therefore rape every woman in sight?
It's not about having or not having natural desires; it's about restraint.
--
Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

gOn Mar 10, 7:42=A0pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> Zero tolerance, no compromise, no mercy.
>
> Bye bye, hypocrite.

One thing I've noticed that often happens in these situations where
Politician X gets into trouble, we usually hear their party
affiliation, assuming they are a Republican. It will be REPUBLICAN
Governor X is accused of molesting 6 nuns and kicking a puppy. Whereas
if the politican is a Democrat, the mention of their party affilation
is not always as regularly, if ever, mentioned.

In this case, Gov. Spitzer, I was not sure of his party affilation
until I just now did a Google search. It's been big news and I haven't
yet heard which party he is affiliated with. I haven't been obsessed
with the story, but since I had never heard the word 'Republican'
mentioned, I was assuming he was a Democrat. And in this case, that
was true.

Now I'm not saying this is always the case because it isn't, but it
does seem that when party affilation is NOT mentioned in these sorts
of scandals, the person involved is more than likely, more often than
not, a Democrat.

Is this bias?

I don't think that this sort of selective behavior (if it is such)
really benefits all of our interests in the long run. But I don't
expect it to change either. This sort of thing makes the 'press' look
biased at least, I would say. It doesn't seem I have to Google a
Republican who gets into trouble to check their party affilation, so
that alone gives me an uncomfortable feeling in my stomach, but I've
gotten used to it over the years. Maybe some Kool Aid would settle my
stomach?

My 2 cents anyway. And very off topic.

RG

"Cobol_Blues" <ranking.groin@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...

Anyone who doubts, or is unsure, about media bias should read the book
"Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, long time CBS newsman, who claims never to
have voted for a republican president in his life. Himself a liberal,
Goldberg insists that liberal bias runs deep in the media, which is
obvious to anyone not already leaning seriously to the left. Note that
Goldbers tends to agree with the media's political opinion, he just
objects to their extremely biased reporting, and clearly documents it.

http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-...t/dp/0895261901

The surveys I've seen show the media is about 98% liberal, whereas the
population as a whole is somewhat more conservative than than liberal,
and has been growing more so for decades.
--
Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:38:10 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>Clark F Morris wrote: 
>
>You're right. I misspoke.
>
>Let me rephrase:
>
>Republicans, as a general rule, don't do that sort of thing. Democrats, as 
a
>general rule, don't follow the rules.
>
>Republicans and conservatives generally believe that no good can come from
>an immoral or illegal act. The process determines the result, the rule of
>law is all.
>
>Democrats and liberals generally believe that the end justifies the means,
>that there are no moral, ethical, or legal contraints if the result is
>desirable. The result determines the legality of the process.
>

Once again another blasphemous and totally incorrect usage of the word
"liberal" or "liberals" or "liberalism".  The meaning of liberalism is
a political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the
autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,
government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection
from arbitrary authority.  The meaning of Republican is just the exact
opposite.  I'll take liberalism any day over the tyrannical,
unamerican, unconstitutional leadership we've had for nearly 8 years.

Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"With global warming, somebody's baby is going to have to burst into
flames to make people do the right thing."
--  Chris Rock
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:kW_Cj.19501$dT.19166@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> The Republican electorate is far less tolerant of many character flaws
> than the Democratic electorate. Every Democratic president since FDR,
> with the single exception of Carter, was a serious womanizer. AFAIK,
> the only Republican president in that timeframe who had *ever* had an
> affair was Eisenhower with his jeep driver when he was in England during
> WWII, before his presidency. A Republican president who did what Clinton
> did would have zero chance at re-election.
> --

While your take on presidential history may well be accurate, I'd be very
wary about generalizations concerning Republicans.  I have never found a
need to revise my opinion about ANY group of human beings: said group has no
more saints and no fewer villains than any other group.  Therefore if the
need is urgent enough even Republicans will overlook unacceptable behaviour.

PL

Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:8HbDj.19258$Er2.16586@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> The surveys I've seen show the media is about 98% liberal, whereas the>
population as a whole is somewhat more conservative than than liberal,
> and has been growing more so for decades.

That is a very peculiar combination.  I would have to conclude from what you
say that less than half of the population of the US consumes 98% of the
media output.  That is, unless the US isn't a free market where people can
buy what they want to.

PL