Why the GOP media whores are holding off on the Polier story

[0rganism]

Here's my take on their strategy for this particular smear.

Let's posit, for a moment, that Kerry actually did have a fling, or strongly attempted to have a fling, with Polier, and she dumped this story to someone in the press in a taped interview (see LBN). Think for a moment. Imagine you are Karl Rove (yeah I know, it hurts), on the phone with your close friends who own the press. What do you do?

You can encourage the press to cover the story in its entirety right away, and demolish Kerry's reputation during the primaries. Result: Kerry loses support, maybe goes down in flames at the convention.

OR

You tell your media mogul friends to bury the story in the mainstream press, but prep the fanatics with some rumors in the tabloids. This sets Kerry up for a victory in the primaries, after which you conduct an adultery media blitz. Result: an endless personal attack on Kerry for the duration of the GE campaign.

This is why, IMHO, we're not going to see major coverage of this story until June, if John Kerry wins the nomination. Sure, the freepers are onto it like flies on shit, but this is healthy preparation and good blog fodder to fight off the AWOL story. Meantime, the RNC has time to line up whatever corroboration there is, and create filler for any potential gaps (cf the Gennifer Flowers smear campaign).

A media blitz costs money; why waste it on a candidate who could lose the nomination as a result? No, you keep the powder dry and wait for June before unleashing the big guns on this one. Spend the pre-nomination ad funds on pumping the bush campaign promises and getting W's approval ratings back in the 60s.

[mot78]

1. They want Kerry to get nominated, then they'll release it

I think the only reason why they're releasing it now is because * is so mired in AWOL that he can't go on the offensive with anything legitimate issue.

[KittyWampus]

4. Wrong, The GOP Is Still Hoping For Either Dean Or Edwards

They are now trying to derail Kerry with a baseless smear.

[arewethereyet]

13. if they wanted to derail him they would let the story break fully

and they havent

[KittyWampus]

23. There IS No Story To Break. That's What A Smear Is. Damn, Does The Obvious

need to smack DU'ers in the forehead with a 2 by 4?

[Anwen]

37. Just like there was no story behind the scream

that the media played 700+ times? If they wanted to take down Kerry, there would be a major effort to make a story out of the Kerry affair allegations.

[0rganism]

38. That's exactly why they're waiting

Breaking the story now only damages Kerry's reputation.

Breaking the story after he's the Democratic nominee damages the Democratic party.

[Anwen]

41. Exactly.

It's so obvious that I want to scream.

[w13rd0]

39. Haha, yeah right, like they can't just make shit up...

...and get a marketing team to sell it, lie or not. Or are you going to tell us that Kerry has the media "in check"?

[0rganism]

36. Dean was busted weeks ago

Through months of painting him as "too angry", and then slamming him with "the scream" smear, Dean has been bumped out of the lead. I doubt he'll carry a single state.

Now Kerry's up to the plate. So far we've had "too liberal" by voting record, "associated with Hanoi Jane" by photograph, and the insinuation of infidelity floated as a trial balloon in the tabloids. The first two are not threats to his candidacy at this point. However, the adultery charge is a ticking time bomb.

[Rowsdower]

5. you're right

according to what I've read, she told her story to a news network in december. isn't that right around the time that Kerry started to come back in the polls? I know I'm not the only one that believes this surge by Kerry is a product of the media. something is real fishy here.

[Tinoire]

9. I don't think the GOP released this. This is pre-mature for them

I think it's an angry Dem who doesn't want to see the party heading towards a train-wreck.

Rove would have waited until after the Primaries were over and there was nothing we could do about it.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

12. Then perhaps it is within the interest of this angry democrat to.......

....disclose this whole story before it's too late. Unless he or she is some brain dead extremist who thinks four more years of Bush is no big deal.

[Tinoire]

31. Some people say it was Clark. Others Gore. Who the hell knows

Either way, there seems to be a tape of the girl's story- an interview she did before fleeing the country.

Also there are stories about 2 girls I think. Not paying close attention but if you go to Freeperland, you can find more details. If it's going to explode, it will do so soon. According to Clark, Kerry could implode over this. Apparently the quote floating around is a mis-quote but he did say there was a possibility Kerry could implode about this. His wife clarified it... It was in a DU post by a Clark supporter.

I want to see this closed one way or the other as SOON as possible. Like you.

[rumguy]

2. I've thought that too

That's why the whole truth needs to come out now....

[Merlin]

3. You're right. And they've had this in the can since December.

That was well before Kerry was a comer. They were covering their bases.

What you say applies to the Murdock media--the media they can control. The rest of the media is holding back because they can't get at the facts.

[The Magistrate]

6. There Is No Reason Yet, My Friend, To Credit Any Of This

Tabloid statements about what others are doing are hardly evidence they are doing it.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[0rganism]

34. The question is, will it stick without further evidence?

Evidence has always taken second place to headlines for political purposes. You're a smart guy, you know this.

People largely think the Clintons were corrupt, even though 8 years of open-ended investigations have shown them to be remarkably scrupulous people. The same principle is at work now on John Kerry.

[The Magistrate]

42. This Will Not Stick Without Evidence, Sir

Certain claims have been made, and they must be backed up by the persons who have made them. Whether they can be backed up is unknown to me, but it does not seem the most likely case that they can be backed up. A bit of tabloid blather and web hysteria is not very much, when all is said and done. The reaction of some people to this is instructive, but not indicative of any great development.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[0rganism]

47. Would you care to wager on this?

I propose we bet a $50 donation to the Kerry campaign on the following proposition:

If Sen. Kerry becomes the nominee in June, the alleged affair with Ms. Polier will enter in the mainstream press after March 2 but before October 25.

* Obviously, if Sen. Kerry doesn't win the nomination, the bet is off.
* If the mainstream press hasn't jumped on this by October 25 or does so before March 2 and not after the convention (i.e., the story dies during the primaries), I donate $50.
* If the mainstream press runs with these allegations between March 2 and October 25, you donate $50.

We can work on an acceptible definition of mainstream, if you like; generally, anything that makes it into Washington Post candidate coverage would qualify.

Either way, a Kerry G.E. campaign gets $50 on October 26. What say you?

[Samantha]

7. We are looking at this in pretty much the same light

except I thought the media would hold its fire until Dean was eliminated and Kerry had the nomination. The tape of the interview would be used as Bush*s October surprise.

Why shoot now when the strategic shot should be released at a time when it would do the most damage -- when there would be virtually no time for CPR (campaign pulse resuscitation). And if Edwards is on the ticket with Kerry, he goes down with him. Dean eliminated, Kerry shot down, Edwards burns with him.

[King of New Orleans]

8. Here's what a right-wing blogger

Who used to write for the Boston Globe has written:

-------------------
Job one: Change the name (always change the name on a negative story to the name of someone you admire and see if you still think it's fair). Job two: recount the known facts. Job three, arrive at a preliminary conclusion based on the known facts. So let's do that:

Let's say this is a story about Colin Powell. Let's say that there is a woman who has approached numerous media organizations and every Republican political opponent of Mr. Powell's with a story. The story is that her "best friend" or her "close friend" (who used to be a reporter with the AP and at some point worked for Mr. Powell) had an affair with Mr. Powell and was shipped off to Africa when Mr. Powell decided to run for President. What is known about the source of this information is that she has a major axe to grind; she hates Powell. She really, really hates him. She is grinding the Mother of All Axes.

Publish her story or not?

The answer from "mainstream media" so far: "No."

Good decision: "yes."

------------------
http://johnellis.blogspot.com/

How plugged in to everything this fellow still is, I don't know.

[spooky3]

11. with all due respect

and with NO respect to unsubstantiated rumors, none of us knows anything about anyone's motivations ("axes to grind"). While I don't mean to imply ANY belief in what's been reported so far--I'll await a story by a credible organization--I think we should remember that if there had been no blue dress, and no recordings, a lot of people would have thought Monica Lewinsky was a liar. The point is we just don't know and a second point is that purely private affairs if they DO occur are none of our business.

[BringEmOn]

20. Bush cousin John Ellis?

Is this the same John Ellis who called Florida for Bush for Fox?

http://mediastudy.com/articles/jellis.html

[King of New Orleans]

21. Yep that's him

And his advice to the media and Repugs is to stay away from this one.

[wellstone_democrat]

25. John Ellis? VERY "plugged in"

He's Bush*'s cousin---close cousin. He called the election in 2000 on Fox for Bush*. He "left" his columnist job on the Globe because he was running (or trying to begin running) a 24/7 cheerleading column for the Chimp. He whined all the way to the door.

Plugged in to things? Yes. Someone who has a history of worrying about "fairness"? No. Perhaps he's changed but my guess is that this is part of something else that is going on with this story-0---perhaps she is too unreliable for the reasons stated (and then some). This way they look *credible* for a bigger more dangerous smear campaign. This is bullshit and this is the sort of guy to put out in front on a dirty trick. He LOVES them and LOVES the Chimp.
He's giving you (the general public) exactly what they want in place for something else.

(full disclosure: I worked with the guy in a previous job. He's a BFEE man all the way)

[Dookus]

10. So the media do what Karl Rove tells them to do?

I wonder why Rove is so keen to get his AWOL story plastered everywhere. And the lies about Iraq. And the Plame Grand Jury case.... hrmm..

[0rganism]

26. You better believe they do

The mainstream press BURIED the AWOL story in 2000. They only cover it now because bush is at a low point long before the election, and Jennings forced it into the open. By the time November rolls around, AWOL and Plame will be yesterday's news. This may be tough, but try to think ahead to the big stories this fall:

* Osama Captured!
* Orange Alert!
* GNP Growth Forecast To Hit All Time High!
* Kerry Has Nasty Affair With Young Woman! (if nominated)

The press, now owned primarily by a few corporations with strong GOP connections (e.g. Murdoch, GE), has two goals: selling audience share to advertisers, and protecting the interests of its owners. Scandals nearly always get you points on the first goal. Suffocating a story can get you points on the second. Delaying a scandal until it does the most damage scores on both.

[spooky3]

14. is it possible that they've tried to get evidence and

have found nothing convincing?

[MurikanDemocrat]

15. Here's my take. They don't have shit because they made it up.

Give it a rest already!

[0rganism]

27. Did that ever stop them before?

Your favorite candidate better get his shit together. If he didn't have an affair with Alex Polier, he'd better come right out and say, "NO I DIDN'T HAVE AN AFFAIR WITH ALEX POLIER," and not dance around it with crap like, "There's no story, nothing to report."

[MurikanDemocrat]

35. He categorically denied it. Nothing would satisfy those who wish to

believe it anyway. The only place the story is getting any attention at all is from right wing shit sources and in GD Primary from people who want it to be true so it will prop up their candidate's failing campaign's.

[0rganism]

43. I'll tell you what would satisfy the hard cases:

a libel suit by Ms. Polier.

Unlike Sen. Kerry, she is not a public figure. She can claim defamation of character, and sue Drudge and the Murdoch operation for millions -- IF it's a false allegation, which she has consistently denied.

THAT would put the story to rest.

[MurikanDemocrat]

45. I don't know the legal aspects of a libel case

Seems like internet news can get away with just about anything, and that's why Drudge is able to get by with so much shit. And Murdoch is subject to British law, is he not?

I don't know if it would be that easy.

i don't know what I would do if in the same position. A high profile lawsuit would be totally life consuming. Not sure if I would want to allow these rumor monger panty peekers that much control over my life.

[0rganism]

50. Drudge gets away with shit against *public figures*

Currently, defamation of public figures is held as protected speech under the first ammendment, unless the public figure can prove that the allegation is false and was published maliciously -- ie, the author knew of the falsehood beforehand. That's why Sen. Kerry would have no case, he's a public figure.

However, Ms. Polier is NOT a public figure.

Drudge is liable under various state laws not to publish allegations that defame the reputations of private citizens. For instance, if Ms. Polier took up her case in Illinois, the relevant statute would be

(740 ILCS 145/1) (from Ch. 126, par. 1) 
    Sec. 1. That if any person shall falsely use, utter or publish
words, which in their common acceptance, shall amount to charge any 
person with having been guilty of fornication or adultery, such words 
so spoken shall be deemed actionable, and he shall be deemed guilty 
of slander. (Source: R.S. 1874, p. 992.)  

Not too high a standard, eh? And the burden of proof would be on Drudge to show that his allegations of adultery had merit.

It's even nastier in the UK. UK doesn't have a "free press" right, per se, so public figures can bring libel suits, even if an allegation has merit. If this is a false accusation, Ms. Polier is sitting on a goldmine.

[tobius]

16. wouldn't be able to stop the press.

If Rove has damaging evidence,I could see them holding back for the right time.

[jpgray]

17. This SEEMS like a likely scenario at this time

But if you remember, there was a floated story about Clinton having sex with an AP intern that went nowhere, if I recall.

[0rganism]

32. Bill Clinton has been the subject of 12+ years of media smears

Float a random allegation about Bill or Hillary Clinton in the press, and you can bet there's about half the population who will believe it out of the box, regardless of evidence or lack thereof. It doesn't matter that the Clintons are also the most investigatively exonerated politicians in the world, what sticks are the accusations.

[KissMyAsscroft]

18. I think they are waiting until Kerry locks it up...

No point in releasing the dogs until there is no other viable candidate that can replace Kerry...

When Kerry locks the nomination they will let the bullshit fly, true or not...

[Forkboy]

19. or it just isn't true

:shrug:

[0rganism]

29. Truth is irrelevant in this arena, perception is everything

The GOP has been attacking the Clintons for 12 years now, continuously, nonstop. Aside from the Lewinsky affair, NOTHING has held up to scrutiny. Repeat: NADA, NIX, NIL, NOTHING.

But that doesn't matter, for the same reason the Truth about bush's AWOL thing doesn't really matter. All you have to do is get the words circulating in the public discourse, and the damage is done.

Do you remember the Whitewater scandal? It was total bullshit, but just ask five people at your nearest pub if they think the Clintons were criminally liable for the Whitewater scam.

[Skwmom]

22. They want to wait until Dean is out.

Then it will be Kerry vs Edwards and they will try their hardest to get rid of Kerry and make Edwards the nominee.

[Adelante]

44. Funny

I've been noticing recently Edwards is getting a lot of love from people like Buchanan and Noonan.

[vision]

46. that would scare me

My Eyes!!!! My Eyes!!!

Thanks for that picture, now I will not be able to sleep for a week. Buchanan and Noonan giving Edwards love ;) joke

[HoosierClarkie]

49. I also remember...

"watch out for an Edwards surge" meme going on during the Media take down of Clark as well. :)

[maxanne]

24. they'll wait

till Kerry is ordained at the convention. Then the guano will hit the fan. They've got all the time in the world to play cat and mouse. Kerry's a weak candidate - and you bet your bottom dollar they want him to be the nominee. Whether or not he has pants problems is irrelevant. He has plenty of issues they can stick on him - starting with his inability to pass much legislation, or provide party leadership - his voting record, and all the special interest money he's been handed. A pants problem might actually look good compared to all that.

[seventhson]

30. This is why I am SHOUTING for us to get this story

and for Polier to speak out NOW and tell us is the Democratic frontrunner LYING to us all???

[0rganism]

33. That's right. Polier is the one who can kill this for good.

If she seems equivocal about it, then Kerry's denial will always be suspect. The only way for Kerry to turn this around and kill it dead is to have Alex Polier say directly that the accusations are false. SHE needs to be the one pressing a libel suit against Drudge and Murdoch's UK Sun tabloid. She can claim defamation and get them to pay her big bucks, if she's been consistent in her denial of the affair.

Blam! Story dies.

Otherwise, she's killing our chances in the general election.

[vision]

28. That's what I think also

it doesn't matter if it is true or not. If Rove thinks this will fly, and that is probably why Drudge and others have been on this so thick. It is a trial balloon.

Did anybody see Saturday Night Live this week? There was a couple jabs at this story (Gore skit and on the news, iirc). At the same time they pushed the meme that Kerry is stiff and not somebody you would drink a beer with, unlike Bush and Clinton who are partiers. It is being set up to be a focus of the Republican campaign IMO plus the debate tonight also focused on Kerry waffling.

Right or wrong it doesn't matter. Rove and others are putting out feelers to see what will stick to Kerry. If we are lucky nothing will but it will not because the Right wing will not try.

IMO I think that Rove thinks that Kerry is the most traditional candidate and therefore the one that will be easiest to attack on they traditional things Repubs attack Dems on. If he can get a hint of scandal to be accepted it only decreases his work load in his mind.

Disclosure, my family and I have been Democrats for as long as I can remember. But for most of those years I have lived around Republicans and born-agains (Kansas) so a almost daily exposure to Repubs helps me to consider how they think. Of course I could be wrong.

[sleipnir]

40. It's as True...and they want to nail him on it in the Summer

after he's the coronated nominee. Thank you Mr. Kerry.

[genius]

48. Kerry needs to be prepared for this. Unless he's never done

anything that could even be misconstrued, his best bet is to demand that they discuss real issues and point out that this detracts from real issues.