Dirty Politics - 24 year old Drunk Driving "Breaking News" on Bush

[milkman]

I'm surprised none of our resident political types have started this, but its a slow night, so what the hell.

On the eve of the election, a Portland, Maine reporter broke the story that GW was arrested for drunk driving in 1976. This is, of course, the political equivalent of a brand new Ferrari for the liberal press, and they've got it red-lined already.

Thoughts on this:

1. Funny how this broke four days before the election. I'm sure the Gore camp had nothing to do with it... [img]http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img]

2. IT WAS 24 YEARS AGO! It's not like the guy got crocked and plowed into a school bus last week.

3. The libs are painting this as a character issue, labeling GW a hypocrit for not disclosing this incident, yet railing on the moral indiscretions of Gore and Clinton. GW says he kept it quiet because he didn't want his kids to know about it. Hmm... it seems to me that the President of the United States lying under oath is a bit more damning that not disclosing that GW once got a DUI decades ago. Perhaps that's just me.

4. GW says he quit drinking 14 years ago.

5. Like the guy drives himself anywhere, anyway!

I hope the American public can see this for what it so obviously is - a timebomb Gore has known about, probably for months, that is dropped at the 11th hour in an attempt to salvage his mercifully-failing campaign. This is dirty politics at its worst. As a result of this, I support GW more strongly than ever now.

[ansonsdad]

Donkey,
No it is not proof of his innocence you freak. How many of us, if we had to answer the same allegations would be able to select our own Attorney General to pursue the evidence?. Hello

[chiefsnathan]

Titus:

Again, you're missing my point. I am not championing the release of this DUI stuff. I'm not changing my opinion on Bush. If Bush wasn't such an idiot, I'd think about voting for him because his politics aren't all that offensive.

I'm just enjoying all the whining about this DUI disclosure. In 1988, Republican candidate George Bush Sr. found himself 18 points down after the conventions. He had an adviser named Lee Atwater that convinced him to distract the people from the issues at hand and try to destroy his opponents character and image. I'll remind you that Micheal Dukakis had none of the stigma attached to Clinton. His only crime was being from the other party. Atwater's strategy, which included attacking Dukakis' wife and brother, won Bush Sr. the Whitehouse.

Republican strategists, so enamored with these tactics, carried them over to the next presidential election. They weren't nearly as successful, but nobody cared. For eight years, they conducted a witchhunt of gargantuin proportions. Now, the Democrats leak one little thing, and all the poor GOPers are crying about dirty tactics. That is HYPOCRISY.

Thats my point.

[Raiderhater]

Drew: Im NOT missing your point. You decry politics of destruction and then when the part you favor does it, you enjoy it.

THAT's hypocrisy.

As far as 'one little thing', the media has dogged Bush with all sorts of stuff.

Might I remind you it wasnt Bush, Sr. that beat Dukakis, rather it was that dumba$$ tank ride with Dukakis wearing that helmet that was so funny, no one could take that man seriously anymore.

A huge difference, DD, which you refuse to dwell upon... Bush was a private citizen at the time of the offense... Clinton was not...

But I'm sure reveling in releasing info on a private citizen is more important to you than condemning the corruption of a public official...

[CarolinaChief]

Thank you, fly. It really is that simple.

------------------
GO PITT!

[chiefsnathan]

Titus:

I think you're misreading my glee. I actually think its pretty pathetic that Bush even has to answer questions about a mistake he made when he was thirty. I don't condone these tactics in the least bit. What I'm enjoying is watching all the rationalization and backtracking on this board and on the DPO board. It disgusts me, for example, that both Clinton and Bush avoided Vietnam via the National Guard, but that republicans, with a straight face, call Clinton a draft dodger. It disgusts me that Bush made a $1,000,000 on a questionable stock transaction and all the same people that went after Hillary about her commodities trades aren't raising a ruckus. It disgusts me that Clinton gets abused for not being forthright on his Marijuana use but Bush gets a free ride for his Cocaine use.

I'm just wallowing in the hypocrisy like a pig in a mud flat.

[TCB]

[img]http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif[/img] [img]http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif[/img] [img]http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif[/img] [img]http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif[/img]
This thread is a perfect example of why politics can get so ugly. People tend to focus on PERSONAL problems and rumors conjured up in the press (newspapers & magazines)and talk show topics while the issues get ignored.

When you look at the core stances on the issues of the Democratic and Republican parties there's really no comparing the two. Therefore its futile to waste keystrokes on "I, the Democrat" or "I, the Republican, am right because . . ."

The only people we should call an idiot or a misinformed person is one who doesn't back their opinion with a trip to the ballot box.

damn Chief Red Pants . . . blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah . . . don't you ever say something worth while?

((really wants this election past us))

------------------
C.R. Pants
(The Resident Liberal)

[Raiderhater]

Drew: you're right, you are wallowing in hypocrisy. Sorry to say, it's making you look silly.

I dont see anyone one here with the possible exception of the title post bemoaning this. I think it's quite funny that the moral, upright and 'above the fray' dems have resorted to 'nasty' campaigning and the politics of destruction to try to win this race.--something you abhor, but seem to revel in.

It's hard to argue with someone who obviously can't admit the obvious. I choose to get my news from sources that are a little more genuine than Dan Rather.

For that reason, I can no longer continue this debate. It's impossible to teach insects the same tricks that dogs can learn. In the same spirit, it's hard to impress the ability of human reason on a sheep.

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

[chiefsnathan]

Actually, what I revel in is definitive proof that most of the members of one of our major political parties have two sets of standards: the ones they live by and the ones the enemy should live by. I think any American with an IQ above 80 now understand that most republican pundits have the same credibility O.J. Simpson has.

Thats what I revel in.

DD, you are right. There are two sets of standards. One for Dems where no wrong is bad because you are so right on the issues; and one for Repubs where they are always wrong on the issues and any other wrong is just further proof of how 'bad' they are...

If Clinton had been a Republican with a Democratic Congress would he have survived impeachment? Not on your life!

Drew,

You're starting to sound like a raving lunatic. You'd better stop now, lest you get dragged away by the "white coats".

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

[chiefsnathan]

Fly:

Your attempts to drag me into the slime pool with the Republicans would be relevant except for one minor detail: I don't claim to make voting decisions based on character. Most Republicans do unless said flaws are pinned to one of their guys. When that happens, they just go the 'yeah, but..' route and pretend that its different.

Newsflash: It ain't.

I'm too lazy to drag you into the "slime pool" since that would mean we'd have to drag you out of that 14' hole you've dug for yourself. [img]http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

[chiefsnathan]

I take it you don't agree that Bush is getting a free ride on all sorts of stuff that Clinton got hammered for?