Theres'a profile of the writer David Brock in today's _Washington Post_.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2002Feb25.html

>>
....
Clasping a mug of coffee in his fabulously furnished living room, Brock looks away. "I guess I ultimately decided the betrayal that's involved here is the betrayal of politics, as opposed to the betrayal of personal friendships or loyalties," he says slowly. "I was pretty restrained, given what one could have done."

What will he do now? Brock finally seems comfortable in his personal life, sharing the home with his partner, James Alefantis, and a large gray poodle. But his career prospects are unclear.
....
<<

Some probably say that it is really sad. I don't. I think he's getting what he justly deserves. What he should have received years ago.

Let me say that I too am a conservative. (horrors!! )

Yes. I am a republican. But this post is not about that. It's about Brock. He is somebody who is neither conservative nor is he now a liberal. He is someone who has no moral fiber whatsoever. Brock merely does whatever is expedient and opportunistic for David Brock.
Whether conservative or liberal, the publication of items that the writer knows and believes to be false never should be tolerated. (the conservative media do put out a lot of items that are ridiculous, but the difference between them and Brock is that they believe truly what they're writing. Brock never did)

Make $1,000,000 dollars for doing muckraking for ultra right wingers? Sure? Try to get some more money and notoriety by "spilling the tea" of that same conservative movement? Hell! why not!

He is what I consider to be a ne plus ultra example of the vocious, gossipy, bitchy queen who tries to propel himself forward by dragging others down through gossip.

Congratulations David! At least you're good at a couple of things. You're good at being a bitchy queen and you're good at being a failure.

Poor messed up guy! He did indeed sell his soul for whatever most seemed likely to ease his inner fears and ended up in a "fabulously furnished" flat of emptiness. It's obvious he craved attention (the adoption lie) and some measure of understanding, but didn't appreciate it when it came. He just wanted more and more. That was his fatal flaw. There's no need for any of us to look backward upon him now; let him find his own way out of the wilderness he carved out of civilization.

another conservative chiming in here ... what goes around comes around, and there's even more on the way for Brock. I'd be tempted to say that he sold his soul, except for the minor detail that he never seemed to have one to begin with. To couch this in terms of Right and Left is to miss the point. The story is about Brock's desires for attention, approval, and money. Brock will find another way to whore himself to get what he wants ... whether it's the Right or Left, it doesn't really matter.

This guy is just plain sleazy. Anything he ever writes in the future better be labeled "fiction," because there's no reason to ever believe he can be truthful.

Wow, I shudder to think what kind of drama would break out at the book signing.

Kidding aside, this guy's got some serious soul-searching to do. Unfortunately, sounds like a lost cause.

Here's another from The New York Times Magazine:

Frank Rich (Dumb) and David Brock (Dumber)

"When Brock revealed his homosexuality, he expected to be hit with bigotry from his publicly antigay allies, but to his surprise was at first more often hit on instead. At a party at his Georgetown home, ''the house that Anita Hill built,'' he had to eject a conservative columnist ''after he pushed me onto a bed, into a pile of coats, and tried to stick his tongue down my throat.'' There is also, among others, ''the closeted pro-impeachment Republican congressman, who had pursued me drunkenly through a black-tie Washington dinner offering a flower he had plucked from a bud vase, condemning Clinton for demeaning his office.''"

I love that last one. Was the flower condemning Clinton? The bud vase? Was the the Republican condemning Clinton for demeaning the Republican's office? I can't believe conservatives don't care for Brock's clear, concise writing.

By all means let's slag David Brock the Apostate!!

The best stuff in Brock's kiss and tell is about the rightwing gay coterie that buzzed and still buzzes around Washington's power honey-bucket. Like J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn before them, these hardshell pansies provide the avid midnight oil burning and hard slogging staff work for family-loving officially homophobic front men. At night they flee to another, private reality at considerable variance with the public posture that they so vigorously support. Twas always thus!

[quote]... conservative columnist ... pushed me onto a bed ... and tried to stick his tongue down my throat ... the closeted pro-impeachment Republican congressman, who had pursued me drunkenly ... [/QB]

---

I have my doubts about these titillating "kiss-and-tell" tales ... next we'll hear that Brock also claims to "having an affair with a closeted pro baseball player from a major-league East Coast franchise!"

From AP Reports
Hades - Officials in Hell today announced what many had long suspected; a portion of the 8th circle has been annexed to the 9th circle.
Citing a growing concern over space in the area reserved for maximum torment, authorities stated, "there've just been so many treacherous slags stamping their ticket for this realm in the last 50 years. We're running out of space!
We'll call it 9A, though some of the residents have asked that it be designated as the J.Edgar Hoover Wing."
Officials denied that the wing would be used mainly for homosexuals bent upon destroying their own ilk.

Well, I printed out the story and took it to work with me to read more leisurely, and I have to say, I found the story to be really sad, but constructive in the laws of karma. Brock only has to deal with the fallout from his actions with dignity and honesty. That's all any of can expect from one another.

While I have no sympathy for David Brock. I have less sympathy for the right wingers who fell under his spell. Scores of reputable journalists decried Brock's sloppy and inaccurate reporting for years. But there was a significant population within the right who were more interested in believing Brock was right, than making sure he was telling the truth. Now they're sore because they relied on his information and looked bad when that information rotted in the light of day.
Ann Coulter pouting about his betrayal and hypocrisy is a definite pot and kettle discussing shades of charcol kind of thing.

Having resisted the gratuitous urgings to "bash Ashcroft," and determined not to stretch that warped thread any further, I offer the following thoughts on David Brock by Rich Tafel, Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans. The article is taken from the most recent LCR e-letter, Inclusion Wins! Anyone interested in receiving it on a regular basis can subscribe by logging onto LCR's site and signing up. That's about the only place you'll be able to read Rich's stuff; it's definitely obstat on PlanetOut and will never receive HRC's imprimatur. +Happy Easter!+

CAPITOL BRIEFING by Rich Tafel: Blinded, Alright

David Brock is on every possible media outlet discussing his new book "Blinded by the Right." The story of the closeted self-hating gay Republican switching parties to open-and-self-loving gay Democrat happens all the time in this town. They reinforce the cartoon that gay Republicans are self-hating and enlightened, open gays are Democrats. What's driving these individuals is, as Oprah says, "the disease to please" or in more common parlance, they want to be liked. And who doesn't have that basic impulse to belong? Anti-gay circles tolerate and even like gays who "don't make an issue of it" or stay deeply hidden in the closet. This town is full of gay conservatives too frightened to be themselves, often espousing anti-gay positions to stay in their jobs. This town is also full of 'converts'. The "I used to vote Republican but I saw the light" crowd.

I've seen this play itself out dozens of times. When I first arrived in Washington, a closeted Hill staffer working for a homophobic Senator advised me that the cause was lost. The best thing for gay Republicans was to do as he did, hide in the closet and hope the anti-gay rhetoric doesn't get too loud. He would not lift a finger for LCR. A few years later, I was surprised to see that he penned his name to a letter to the editor attacking me for supporting Mitt Romney in the race against Ted Kennedy. He was now a prominent liberal Democrat gay activist who every so often takes a whack at me. He had 'converted' and denounced the GOP and was warm in the embrace of the powerful gay social circles that work hard to demonize those who veer off the Democrat Party reservation.

I knew a leading Republican who showed next to no interest in helping on gay issues or challenging the rise of social conservatives who even boasted about his chummy friendship with Ralph Reed. Then he was outed. After the outing, he trashed the GOP, trashed his closest former allies, and joined liberal gay organizations, proving that he too had "seen the light."

I watched another leader of the conservative movement who helped launch many of the most vile of anti-gay elements in the GOP, come out and announce he could no longer stay in the "evil party" that he had indeed helped create. Again, the denunciation was enough to get the warm embrace of a gay community the bullies ideological dissenters and celebrates converts-- all of which reinforces their own world-view.

When David Brock worked for the far right it was an open secret he was gay. He never helped us in the least bit and referred to us as being too liberal. Now that he's renounced the GOP he's been embraced by Democrats and even Michaelangelo Signorile is patting him on the back.

The gay Left has mastered the ability to enforce ideological purity so well that many gays are afraid not to be out as gay, but out as Republican. The intimidation pays off in the short run with prominent gay conservatives who come out and demonize all that they were.

Frank Rich (New York Times) , Bruce Bawer (Washington Post) and Tim Noah (Slate) have all done a great job reviewing Brock's book from different angles. Immediately after Bawer's piece was written in the Post, the smear machine who thought they'd silenced Bawer after his masterful book, "A Place at the Table," went on the attack again, questioning his objectivity. Journalists like Andrew Sullivan and Bawer have learned that the Left-smear squad will exact its price for anyone who deviates from their party line.

Another way to describe this desire to be liked is opportunism. Remaining silent in a conservative movement that hates you leads to self-loathing and dishonesty. But there's something equally sad about the sin of omission, refusing to make a difference from within because you crave the praise and applause of your new audience. Imagine what advances could have been made if David and others like him came out and changed conservative opinions. But that would mean they would have to be guided by some moral principle in the first place. From what I've read it appears that David left the far right smear machine and joined the far left smear machine--if that's the case it is sad story.

to beat a dead horse... let me re-iterate.

I am a gay man who is totally out and proud. I marched in gay rights marches in Washington, Columbus, Chicago and right here in Louisville, kentucky.

I am also a republican. In my own experience and my life, most of the harassment I receive is not about my being gay. It's from fellow gays harassing me about being republican.

No I am not a self hating, closeted queer. I am an openly gay republican. If that upsets some people's view of the world, so be it.

[quote]Originally posted by ung:
to beat a dead horse... let me re-iterate.

I am a gay man who is totally out and proud. I marched in gay rights marches in Washington, Columbus, Chicago and right here in Louisville, kentucky.

I am also a republican. In my own experience and my life, most of the harassment I receive is not about my being gay. It's from fellow gays harassing me about being republican.

No I am not a self hating, closeted queer. I am an openly gay republican. If that upsets some people's view of the world, so be it.

---

Funny, I thought this thread was about some guy named Brock.

Right????? I was thinking the same thing.

You know what, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to just say one (or ten) thing on this topic. You have to thoroughly believe in yourself; be true to yourself. Like UNG, I am also a conservative and pretty much always vote republican, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I BELIEVE IN, and I feel good doing so; I have no regrets! No matter how gay people may disagee, no one else is living my life, and if I choose to vote republican, so be it. Everyone that disagrees with me can go to hell; you are not in my shoes.

It is clear that Brock did not believe in himself or his sexuality while on his Democratic witch-hunt, but as soon as he was able to recognize he WAS gay, he changed his tune. It's a shame that his political affiliation determined his sexual identity. But just the opposite can be said; your sexual identity should not determine your political affiliation! It's all a judgement call.

I agree, Yanksin5. I'm a political and social progressive, so I often clash with the Democratic Party, which is steadily listing to the right--and basically was a moderate Republican Party under Bill Clinton!

If the Democrats really gave a d*mn about their real base, I'd probably be more enthusiastic. As is, I tolerate their candidates and vote for more progressive candidates when they come along. In general, the "southernized" Republican Party is too far to the right for me and too hypocritical--one minute they are saying stay out of our private business, the next minute they're pushing the most extreme laws that violate privacy this country has ever seen. One minute they're screaming against Clinton for nation-building, the next they're doing the same thing. One minute they're pro-market, the next they're supporting steel tariffs, forcing us all to pay higher prices. It's just utter hypocrisy. Gingrich, Hyde, Livingston and others were slobbering over Clinton's marital infidelities, yet they were all whoring around themselves!!! Talk about amoral idiots!

Michael Bloomberg and William Weld are two Republicans I would vote for. Both are more open-minded and socially progressive than many Democrats.

David Brock is a malevolent liar, and no matter what politics he espouses now, I revile him, because he:

1) helped to foster, through his "The Real Anita Hill," troopergate stories, and other work for the "American Spectator," the very "right wing conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton decried to so much disdain, which included a $73 million investigation that we as taxpayers have had to pay for--to find out what--THAT THERE WERE NO GROUNDS ON WHICH TO FIND THE CLINTONS CULPABLE FOR A STUPID $200,000 land deal in Arkansas, of all places!!!

When is anyone going to look into Bush's financial shenanigans before and during his tenure as governor of Texas? That Rangers deal, like his other business transactions, stinks as much as anything Senator Hillary was up to. (I admit that one of my state's current senators, Robert Torricelli, takes the cake for slimiest politician currently serving in the upper chamber--that is, slimiest that we know of. New Jersey does have a reputation to uphold, you know.)

2) helped to put Clarence Thomas, the worst, most dishonest, most intellectually bankrupt Supreme Court judge in recent history, on the court.

No amount of cuddling up with Democrats or anyone else is going to make up for that.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I've only read reviews of the book and don't intend to read it, but the exposure of Hard Right hypocrisy sounds very convincing to me. (Laura Ingraham didn't own a book? I could tell...)

For whatever reason, David Brock has been making the quasi-talkshow circuit. I've seen him on Comedy Central's "Daily Show with John Stewart" and on "Politically Incorrect".

What I noticed is..... (among the other things already mentioned on this board) is.... despite his looking attractive in the magazine pics... he's a dork!! I mean.... he's got oversized ears. He hunches over (the body language says,"I don't have much confidence") and he's not that attractive. To be very highschool... but also in a way everyone will get, to sum it up, he's a dweeb!
No wonder he went to Tracks and Badlands and was unnoticed in the corners. There is nothing physically remarkable about him. I mean... I certainly wouldn't have noticed him. Just another "Gollum" from "The Hobbit"

With that in mind, I thinkI understand a bit more the psychology of David Brock. His becoming a lapdog to the right was "his own private Littleton" as payback for not being attractive and popular.

I'm fairly conservative on some issues and I think he's a stinker. He strikes me as someone with no real sense of conscience and a very messed up sense of who he is as a person. It's a sad and tawdry tale, hopefully he will fade away and go about his business.

[quote]Originally posted by ung:
For whatever reason, David Brock has been making the quasi-talkshow circuit. I've seen him on Comedy Central's "Daily Show with John Stewart" and on "Politically Incorrect".

[snipped]

With that in mind, I thinkI understand a bit more the psychology of David Brock. His becoming a lapdog to the right was "his own private Littleton" as payback for not being attractive and popular.

---

So I guess this explains Pete Williams, Dinesh D'Souza, David Horrorowitz, and all the other unattractive right-wingers? Naaahhh. Not everyone can be as attractive as Ram Emanuel or George Stephanopoulos. What is Ann Coulter's problem? She's a babe....

David Brock is trying to sell books. He realized that destroying peoples' lives, with the backing of a Mellon heir, among others, no less, would be a quick way to get ahead. And he did, spectacularly. It's worked before, it'll work again. Then, he realized that one of the best ways to sell a book is to create drama around it, and the drama of apostasy, especially from a cause as frequently discussed and media friendly as the Far Right, would sell those books. And that's what he's been doing, quite successfully, I might add. I won't be buying a copy, even when they reach the remainder tables. But I might take one out of the local or university library when I get one becomes available again!

Coulter is a douchebag. I'm a conservative and I couldn't stand her lame column blaming the pedophiles in the catholic church on gays. It was nauseating.

When I was in Barnes & Noble last night I surreptitiously moved all the copies (about a dozen) of 'Blinded by the Right' that were displayed on a table near the front of the store to.....the Humor section.

How about the O'Reillys and Buchanans to Horror?

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
What is Ann Coulter's problem? She's a babe....

David Brock is trying to sell books. I won't be buying a copy, even when they reach the remainder tables. But I might take one out of the local or university library when I get one becomes available again!

---

Don't worry; the books will be at thrift stores and yard sales soon enough. You'll be able to buy a copy for twenty-five cents, none of which will go to Brock as royalties.

As for Ann Coulter, she went to Michigan Law School, so she can't be a dummy. She certainly acts like one on "Politically Correct" though. She's getting worse, too, as she is now a regular on Kevin Nealon's "Conspiracy Zone."

http://www.thenewtnn.com/shows/conspiracy/

>>
Secret Societies
Has the New World Order taken over? Are we controlled by evil, all-powerful secret societies such as the Freemasons, Skull & Bones, or the Church of the Sub Genius?
Guests Include: Ann Coulter, Marc Maron, Jon Rappoport, Hal Robins

Hollow Earth
Is the earth hollow? If so, is it inhabited by Nazi mole people or perhaps a race of reptoids?
Guests Include: Jeff Garlin, David H. Childress, John Rhodes, Bonnie Crystal

....

Sirhan
Sirhan Sirhan was convicted as the lone gunman who killed Robert F. Kennedy, but allegations he was a mind-controlled CIA assassin raise the spectre of conspiracy.
Guests Include: Ann Coulter, Paul Krassner, Dr. Bruce Goldberg, Michael Ruppert
<<

[quote]Originally posted by Jerzoid:
When I was in Barnes & Noble last night I surreptitiously moved all the copies (about a dozen) of 'Blinded by the Right' that were displayed on a table near the front of the store to.....the Humor section.

---

Bravo, Jerzoid. Very clever.

Speaking of Coulter, didn't she write concerning the Muslims that we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity"? The Crusades and Inquisition--hello!!!????

And I may be wrong, but didn't she also say that Walker Lindh--the American "Talib" (since TalibAN is plural)--that he should be killed to scare liberals?

She's attractive, so what's her problem....

She's an idiot. Well educated, but an idiot.

Solid article in Salon today about how the Democrats need to take lessons from the Brock book -- and the 2000 election -- to battle \"extra-chromosome Republicanism\" (a Lee Atwater coinage).

Mark my words - if Gore is the nominee the democrats will go down in flames. At this point, I'm not even comfortable considering voting for him. If I were to vote for a Democrat, it would have to be someone who could run the war against bin laden and company.

We cannot afford to have another do-nothing-everytime-they-hit-us president like Clinton in office. The next time it won't be planes, it'll be a suitcase nuke or some other horrible weapon. The democrats don't understand this yet, they think they can run on the 2000 election issues but they won't be able to.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
Solid article in Salon today about how the Democrats need to take lessons from the Brock book -- and the 2000 election -- to battle \"extra-chromosome Republicanism\" (a Lee Atwater coinage).

---

Bottom line: The ends justify the means. The left wanted to keep Thomas off the Supreme Court. They tried to discredit his character and integrity. Perfectly fair game. The right wanted to get him on the court. So they discredited the character and integrity of Thomas's attacker. Just as fair. As far as everyone was concerned, the future of the nation and western civilization was riding on this appointment. Why in the world wouldn't anyone do anything and everything to make it go their way? It's politics - all's fair. The left is just mad (to paraphrase Clinton) because Thomas won, just as the right was just mad that Clinton won. Politics is about winning, just as much (if not more so, since the people involved believe there are life and death issues at stake) than baseball or football. And you do whatever it takes to win. It's not that complicated.

Just like now - Brock wants to discredit the right. So he calls them a bunch of liars and hypocrites, etc., and dresses the accusations up in this woe-is-me confession-type charade. Well and good, he's got that ammo - the words he wrote in the past are his, he can retract them or do anything he wants with then - he should use it.

Everyone should read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, he gives like ten guidelines for ends/means justification. Very interesting stuff that I wish more Republicans would read. (Isn't it funny how conservatives always think the left is ruthless and that the right doesn't do jack, while lefties think the right is brutal and leftists too nice and timid? No matter the political stripe, one always fancies oneself the victim.)

Maybe, Wm, the difference in Thomas-Hill was that the scurrilous info about him was TRUE?

Treebeard, i really don't know how a Mad Bomber like Clinton can be painted as "do-nothing" in the sense you mean. And since the first senator to lie prostrate before the Israeli war machine these days is Chuck Schumer, I can't imagine what kind of caveman would meet your litmus -- a resurrected Scoop Jackson?

Right-wing extremity is always countenanced far more than its leftish equivalent, esp in the mass media. If there was a Left version of O'Reilly or Limbaugh, they'd be assassinated.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
Maybe, Wm, the difference in Thomas-Hill was that the scurrilous info about him was TRUE?

---

Were you there? Were you an eyewitness to any of their transactions, or to any aspect of Justice Thomas's personal life? If not, you can't say with any degree of certainty what was true and what was not. Of course you are going to think of Hill as a saint and Thomas as a sinner because you have an ideological stake in the outcome of that debate.

What matters more than accuracy is plausibility. The left staked its case on the people's fears of a black man as a sexual predator. The right staked its case on the idea of women as fickle, unreliable and attracted to powerful men. The right won that debate, which is all that matters.

The key is to attack your enemy's character in a plausible way. That's why the idea of the Vince Foster murder didn't stick - the Clintons didn't really seem like murderers - but the Juanita Broaddrick (sp?) rape charges essentially did, because people could see Clinton as a rapist, or at least a very agressive sexual predator. The point of the Juanita story was not to have Clinton tried on rape, necessarily, but to tarnish Clinton's reputation and make him more ineffective as President and thus (in his enemy's minds) to prevent him from f%$*ing everything up, just as Donna Brazile's efforts to paint George Bush I as an adulterer were not about adultery but about making Bush a less likable candidate. Who cares if its true, the charges were plausible. There's no right or wrong, just strategy.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
... If there was a Left version of O'Reilly or Limbaugh, they'd be assassinated.

---

There is a left version -- Jim Hightower -- and he's alive and kicking ... the problem is that no one is listening!

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
... The right won that debate, which is all that matters.

The key is to attack your enemy's character in a plausible way.
....
There's no right or wrong, just strategy.

---

Quote without comment.

A great example of all this: In 1998, Ellen Sauerbrey is running for governor of Maryland. Parris Glendening, her Dem opponent, runs an ad targeted at black and women voters saying Sauerbrey voted against a civil rights act, against allowing abortions for poor women who are victims of rape and incest and against hate crimes protections. However, as the Washington Post reports,

In citing Sauerbrey's vote against the 1992 Civil Rights Act in the House of Delegates, the ad fails to note that the Democratic-controlled state Senate later killed the measure. (The bill called for serious punishments for sexual harassment in the workplace, which many legislators felt was vaguely defined.) And the ad misstates Sauerbrey's abortion vote. Rather than bar abortions for any poor woman victimized by rape or incest, as the ad says, the measure she supported would have barred public funding for such an abortion if the woman failed to report the crime promptly.

The ad seems especially designed to appeal to black voters, even though some of the bills it cites had little to do with race. For example, an urban mural of Africa flashes by as the narrator talks about the "hate crimes" bill. But that bill dealt only with sexual orientation, not race.

Absolutely brilliant - better than anything David Brock ever came up with. I hate she lost, because I liked her, but this is how you win - you exploit the truth and scare the hell out of people. I can only hope that the next day Parris Glendening spoke out against negative campaigning.

>There is a left version -- Jim Hightower -- and he's alive and kicking ... the problem is that no one is listening!>

You are so right, DC Bucky. Jim Hightower does have a radio talk show. But it's not widely known. The right seems to have a stanglehold on talk radio...Limbaugh, Ollie North, Armstrong Williams, G. Gordon Liddy. And let's not even talk about that harridan "Dr. Laura" (though the physiology doctor deals in moral issues, she's decidedly right wing). I do get rather tired of hearing about "the liberal media". Where the hell is it in this country? Jim Hightower. Molly Ivins. And of course, the great Michael Moore. But that's about it. I know, the conservatives always mention the New York Times and the Washington Post. But, come on....those papers only reach a fraction of the numbers of people who tune into Fox News daily. And as for newspapers...the Wall Street Journal? The Washington Times? Conservatives have papers that reflect their viewpoint as well.

This is turned into a sort of rant. But I do have to laugh at this idea that the American news media is this giant liberal behemoth that's somehow brainwashing the American people. The idea is absurd. The American media in this country is almost wholly corporate owned. Corporate interests are not liberal interests.

William and Bill W, the issue with C Thomas in not whether or not the personal issues were true, the issue is whether or not he would (is) make (making) a good Supreme Court Justice. I believe the recent mess of the national elections showed how poor he is at being a Justice.... not a word came from his mouth... and being in Florida, I followed the entire hearing... each one. He has no ability to make the tough decisions... he goes with the crowd, and our Mr. Brock helped put him there.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
A great example of all this:
....
However, as the Washington Post reports,...

---

There's that darn liberal media again!

[quote]Originally posted by twin58:


There's that darn liberal media again!

---

I prefer to call it the damn liberal media, if you don't mind. But your logic is interesting. I suppose in your mind one example of the media calling a Dem on campaign lies disproves completely and utterly, forever and ever, the idea that the media might possibly have some sort of slight bias towards left-wing (not Democrat, but left-wing) ideas? By your standards one instance of child molestation by a homosexual would be enough to silence all claims that gays are not in fact pedophiles. But I can pretty much guarantee you that for every instance of the media being unfair (i.e. criticizing) the left, I can find examples of the media deliberatly undermining conservatism.

But again, an interesting example. The idea of the media liberal bias (as well as the idea that the media is some sort of corporate bitch) does not depend on actual proof or facts but on a perception. You just have to create the perception that conservatives or leftists aren't getting their way because of a media establishment determined to undermine every policy. It's easy to "prove" and it helps rally the base and raise money (we have to fight the liberal/conservative bias in the media).

There's no truth in polical strategy (unlike in life or ideology), it's all perception, as is the case with David Brock. He perceived the left to be bad, and helped build that perception, just as he now perceives the right to be bad, and can twist any fact to bolster that claim.

[quote]Originally posted by Treebeard:
Mark my words - if Gore is the nominee the democrats will go down in flames. At this point, I'm not even comfortable considering voting for him. If I were to vote for a Democrat, it would have to be someone who could run the war against bin laden and company.

We cannot afford to have another do-nothing-everytime-they-hit-us president like Clinton in office. The next time it won't be planes, it'll be a suitcase nuke or some other horrible weapon. The democrats don't understand this yet, they think they can run on the 2000 election issues but they won't be able to.

---

Of all the Democratic nominees, I least want Joe Lieberman to get it. He is pa-the-tic! He literally curled up like a kitten and lapped at Cheney's knee in their debate, and then after the Florida debacle he crumpled whenever the cameras were rolling. He's too whiny, too conservative, and just not presidential material. John Kerry is wooden, and Gore...well, I hope he just finds a nice position at a university. If Lawrence Summers keeps driving professors to Columbia and Princeton, Harvard might do well to bring Gore aboard.

I like John Edwards of North Carolina. He's smart, he's scrappy, he's photogenic. He's also politically liberal-progressive, and not a pocket Republican. Pair him with a moderate Midwestern Democrat, and they could win. They'd win the northeast, the upper midwest, California-Oregon-Washington-Hawaii, and at least one other state that would have pushed Gore over the margin, like West Virginia, New Hampshire, or...Florida! OR pair him with Florida's junior senator, not Graham.

I do wish the Democrats would again be daring and nominate a woman or a person of color at the very least in the VP role, but they're probably going to play it safe to go up against Bush and Powell...er, Bush and Cheney.

<I do wish the Democrats would again be daring and nominate a woman or a person of color at the very least in the VP role, but they're probably going to
play it safe to go up against Bush and Powell...er, Bush and Cheney>

A friend of mine brought up a scenario for Bush in 2004. He said that he thought Cheney would drop out of the race for health reasons...the ol' ticker, of course. Bush would then name Rudolph Guiliani as his running mate. And then if Gore WAS the Dems nominee, Bush/Guiliani would win in a landslide. Bush/Guiliani would CRUSH Al Gore. Hearing that, that sounded all too plausible. It would be a political masterstroke.

[quote]Originally posted by Terry A:
A friend of mine brought up a scenario for Bush in 2004. He said that he thought Cheney would drop out of the race for health reasons...the ol' ticker, of course. Bush would then name Rudolph Guiliani as his running mate. And then if Gore WAS the Dems nominee, Bush/Guiliani would win in a landslide. Bush/Guiliani would CRUSH Al Gore. Hearing that, that sounded all too plausible. It would be a political masterstroke.

---

While it's quite likely that Cheney will drop off the 2004 ticket due to health reasons, I can't imagine that W would select Giuliani as his running mate. While the duo would make for a killer 1-2 punch in the voting booths (how many electoral votes does New York have???), one deal-breaking prerequisite that W demands of those around him is loyalty. If there's one thing Giuliani has shown in his political career, it's that he has his own mind and isn't one to defer to anyone. Also, didn't Giuliani support Pataki's Democratic opponent for governor? That's the kind of thing that W just won't abide.

Gore is definitely laying the groundwork for another run in 2004, but if the Dems are foolish enough to give him the nomination, I gotta think he'll get slaughtered this go-around. W's approval ratings are still quite high, the economy is slowly but surely coming out of the downturn (was it officially ever a "recession"?), and many voters regardless of political ideology or affiliation will be anxious about switching presidents while the nation's still at war. Besides having to fight all that, Gore won't be riding the Clinton coattails like he did in 2000 (8 years of unprecedented prosperity can convince plenty of voters).

Primaries and nominations are quirky because the demographics and powers-that-be involved in the primaries can be so different from those in the general election. Even if a candidate has no chance of winning the election, and even if everybody in the party seems to know it, some people accumulate too much political capital such that their doomed nomination is inevitable (e.g., Mondale, Dole). I really hope that someone cries out that the emporer has no clothes and that the party picks someone other than Al Gore as the nominee.

BoSoxRudy, New York will have 31 electoral votes for the 2004 election, two less than in the 2000 election. But I don't see Bush/Giuliani necessarily winning New York, but perhaps some other states that Bush wouldn't win otherwise. Nov. 2004 is a long ways yet, however.

Also, when Pataki first ran for governor in 1994, he ran against Mario Cuomo. Giuliani did in fact support Cuomo. So for a while, Pataki and Cuomo were not best buds. But in his 1998 reelection, Pataki was supported by Giuliani.

As for David Brock, I thought I saw him on some Sunday morning news program shortly after The Real Anita Hill came out, and that he said he was gay, when asked.

---> Edited to add something on topic.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: pat125 ]

Cheney drops out, Condoleeza Rice takes over as VP.

Condoleezza. Two z's. Nitpicking, but I love the name.

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]

[quote]Originally posted by twin58:
Condoleezza. Two z's. Nitpicking, but I love the name.

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]

---

Sory about that.

Transript from Crossfire last night (April 25):

CARVILLE: How many talk shows have you been on let's just say the Fox network?
BROCK: I have not been on Fox at all.
CARVILLE: But no one invited you on?
BROCK: No.

Here's an account of Brock's March appearance (along with a photograph, for those who believe the right-wingers are making it all up) on Fox.

Brock Caught in Lie

David Brock caught in a lie? Well, since there are two sides to every story, here's one that says Brock did not lie.