DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on August 22, 2008, 01:25:37 PM
-
.
-
well remember
the qualifications for most positions in office is quite minimul.
due to the fact these guys are elected and getting elected is no easy task it self.
good to see ya back
it looked like you got wiped out there.
tried to respond earlier but had the hardest time posting lately
-
I think that McCain requiring an aide to get back with a reporter on how many properties he owns is a fairly good sign that politicians are WAY out of touch with the people.
-
I know a Physical Therapy Assistant, who makes less than me at the hospital, but has invested in multiple homes, for investment income. He occasionally forgets how many homes he's currently working with. And he doesn't even have an aide........I mean, what's up with that? I'll have to remind him how "out of touch" he is, with the people ::)
-
I think that McCain requiring an aide to get back with a reporter on how many properties he owns is a fairly good sign that politicians are WAY out of touch with the people.
How so? My understanding is John McCain personally owns none of the properties.
-
<<How so? My understanding is John McCain personally owns none of the properties. >>
Maybe he's just out of touch with his wife, the "cunt" and "trollop" (his words, not mine,) Cindy.
But then again if he personally pays out of his own pocket over a quarter million dollars a year for domestic workers, I'd expect him to have some idea how many homes there are for all those domestic workers to work in.
-
Maybe he's just out of touch with his wife, the "cunt" and "trollop" (his words, not mine,) Cindy.
I have asked for a source for that allegation once today.
I wait patiently for your answer.
-
<<I have asked for a source for that allegation once today.
<<I wait patiently for your answer.>>
Sorry for the delay, BT. Always a pleasure to oblige.
http://www.drudge.com/archive/106692/author-mccain-called-wife- (http://www.drudge.com/archive/106692/author-mccain-called-wife-)****-trollop
http://wonkette.com/376849/mccain-called-his-wife-c+word (http://wonkette.com/376849/mccain-called-his-wife-c+word)
-
Cliff Schecter
And who is he?
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cliff-schecter/ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cliff-schecter/)
Author
Partizen
-
Sheds a little light on the accusation now, don't it
-
Author
Partizen
Oh but there is far more than that.
Let's just assume for giggles that Schechter had a book deal that would get a big boost by the early release of the trollop allegation.
Let's also assume that he has no real corroboration, he has hearsay at best by our now famous sources who prefer to remain anonymous. How convenient.
The number of hits on google all come from friendly blogs repeating his allegations. As far as i can tell there is no second source.
Let's also see who published his book.
Polipoint Press (http://p3books.com/catalog/) i think. Let's see who (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sperling) is behind that.
Let's see what BuyBlue org thinks about Polipoint Press and why they and kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/10/114153/477) lost heart in them and hit them with an email flood urging them to repent.
They say Schecter worked for Clinton in the 96 campaign.
I wonder if he was in charge of the dirty tricks team.
Let's summarize. We have an operative slurring McCain with paltry documentation, with a book about ready to be released and the slur is the teaser. Is profit the motive, who knows.
Apparently a book deal was enough to discount Linda Tripp.
-
Following the money:
PoliPoint Getting 'Real McCain' Message Out Via Bloggers
by Jim Milliot -- Publishers Weekly, 4/8/2008 6:36:00 AM
PoliPoint Press has been using the liberal blogosphere to promote its just-shipped title exposing some of Sen. John McCain's less appealing traits that are chronicled in The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't. The campaign was devised by industry consultant Beau Friedlander who is betting that by leaking newsy items about the book to sympathetic bloggers he can create enough interest to move sales, and interest the traditional media to take a look at the book, written by Cliff Schecter.
So far, his strategy appears to be working. After posts appeared yesterday on several progressive blogs, including The Raw Story and Wonkette, about the nasty word McCain called his wife (on page 49 of the book), sales on Amazon began steadily climbing, jumping from 150,000 to 238 this morning. More selective leaks from the book are due out today on other blogs. As for the second stage of Friedlander's approach, he said Schecter made several radio appearances last night and more traditional media interviews are in the works for later today. And the Daily News' Rush & Malloy picked up The Raw Story bit in their column this morning.
PoliPoint publisher Scott Jordan said The Real McCain is a bit of an instant book. The press had been thinking of doing a book on the senator last year, and when it became clear he would be Republican nominee went ahead with the project in January. Although official release date for McCain is May 1, books are available through Amazon and have also started landing in stores. A 40,000 copy first printing has been set, and distribution is through Ingram Publisher Services.
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6548796.html (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6548796.html)
-
Beau Friedlander (http://www.observer.com/node/41108)
-
LOL.....fabulous follow-ups Bt 8)
-
Gee, so we can't trust the eye-witness to McCain's comment because he's a Democrat with a book to sell. All Democrats with books to sell must be liars. Case closed. NEXT!
There were other eye-witnesses but Schecter wouldn't name them. Funny nobody sued Schechter for libel. With three eye-witnesses present, Schechter could be compelled to name them and they could be compelled to verify the story, yea or nay. But for some reason, McCain, a man who can afford to pay over a quarter of a million a year for domestic help in his wife's eight homes, can't afford a lawyer. Not even one who'd be happy to take the case on a contingency basis, no money down, payment only out of the winnings. Not even one who'd be happy to take the case for the publicity value alone. Simple libel, three eyewitnesses to the alleged event. Schechter a sitting duck, you'd think. UNLESS THE STORY'S TRUE. And McCain sure as hell knows if it's true or not.
And of course, the other consideration: surely Schechter must have lied before. Been successfully sued for libel before. So the accusation comes publicly from a man with a clean reputation and alleging three eye-witnesses also present.
Well, ya know what? Until someone PROVES that Schecter is a liar, I believe him. In the circumstances, so would most people. This is another side of McCain that Obama should let the folks know about. Let Cindy McCain deny this, effectively calling Schecter a liar - - that'd be great. He could sue HER for slander. The eye-witnesses would be dragged into the court. We'd get to the bottom of this soon enough.
But: McCain doesn't sue Schecter. Cindy doesn't call Schecter a liar. Schecter has never been sued successfully for slander or libel before. His reputation is clean. He alleges that McCain called Cindy a "cunt" and a "trollop" in front of witnesses he can name. Pretty clear to me who's telling the truth here.
-
Gee, so we can't trust the eye-witness to McCain's comment because he's a Democrat with a book to sell. All Democrats with books to sell must be liars. Case closed.
Aren't all Republicans?, with or without book deals? Or so it's frequently inferred
-
Gee, so we can't trust the eye-witness to McCain's comment because he's a Democrat with a book to sell. All Democrats with books to sell must be liars. Case closed. NEXT!
Schecter never claimed to be an eyewitness. He got the story as hearsay.
Liar.
-
D'OH
-
<<So, if , oh, Rush Limbaugh is an "eye witness" to some egregiously demeaning slur made by Oblather, at oh....his pastor let's say, that's to be taken as gospel truth? Ok, good to know>>
Rush is a known liar. It's even in the title of a book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar." By Al Franken. He's also a junkie. You wanna take Rush's word for anything, go ahead. Few others would take the word of a liar and a junkie, but Republicans are a special breed.
(P.S. - hint for sirs: the "proof" in the form of a book title that Rush was a liar was meant to be a JOKE, sirs. Before you head off sputtering into one of your usual rants and raves about the "stupidity" of "the Left," I thought you should be duly warned.)
It is typical though that a real case of real allegations made against McCain by a Democrat is balanced in sirs' mind by a hypothetical case of a hypothetical slur hypothetically witnessed by a Republican. Just one more sad illustration of the Democrats dealing with and living in the real world, and Republican ideologues like sirs here dealing with and living in a fantasy world all of their own making.
-
Already got caught in your latest lie, Tee. Looking forward to your flailing on this one
-
<<Schecter never claimed to be an eyewitness. He got the story as hearsay.>>
Ooops, sorry! Must be my mistake. Of little import, though. The central event (McCain's boorish and misogynous treatment of his own wife in public) and the credibility of Schecter, who tells the tale, must be dealt with. Every point that I raised in the defence of Schecter's story remains unchallenged (as usual) while the little war criminal's crypto-fascist defenders concentrate on the minutiae and the details to distract attention from the strong prima facie case that McCain said exactly what Schecter alleges he said.
<<Liar. >>
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? WHATever.
-
Every point that I raised in the defence of Schecter's story remains unchallenged (as usual) while the little war criminal's crypto-fascist defenders concentrate on the minutiae and the details to distract attention from the strong prima facie case that McCain said exactly what Schecter alleges he said.
Nonsense. What we have in the way of prima facie evidence is the word of one man. And that man is an embittered partisan, with much to gain if his slur gets traction. That was the marketing plan for his quickly thrown together book after all.
All Schecter has to do is get one of the credible witnesses he "claims to have" to come forward and back up the story. He can't or won't do that.
At least Tripp had tapes.
Your guy just has motive and opportunity.
BTW if you google michael tee trollop you come up number three. Perhaps McCain should sue you for libel as you are just repeating a slur you got second hand, just like Schecter.
-
<<Nonsense. What we have in the way of prima facie evidence is the word of one man. >>
LOL. That's what prima facie evidence STARTS with. And so far, we have UNCONTRADICTED prima facie evidence. Though the means to contradict it are readily at hand.
<<And that man is an embittered partisan . . . >>
You can prove he's a partisan, you can't prove he's embittered.
<< . . . with much to gain if his slur gets traction. >>
You can't prove that either. He has much to lose if his slur is proven to be a fraud.
<<That was the marketing plan for his quickly thrown together book after all.>>
As if he or (more likely, the publisher) would confide the book's marketing plan to you!
<<All Schecter has to do is get one of the credible witnesses he "claims to have" to come forward and back up the story. He can't or won't do that.>>
He doesn't "need" to do anything. He's already reported what he heard and you can take it or leave it. I take McCain's and Cindy's silence on the issue to be very, very telling. McCain in particular - - he's the one whose "honour" is impugned here.
<<At least Tripp had tapes.>>
So what? At least Ken Starr had the blue dress. Some cases come with more hard evidence than others. Still doesn't affect Case A that Case B had more hard evidence. That's just real slopppy thinking.
<<Your guy just has motive and opportunity.>>
Had the same motive as any other guy who likes Candidate 1 and dislikes Candidate 2. It's motive alright, but a very weak motive. No indication that the motive is strong enough for him to destroy his own reputation over. And no evidence of a criminal or dishonourable predisposition to go along with the motive and opportunity. Pretty weak case on your side, BT.
<<BTW if you google michael tee trollop you come up number three. Perhaps McCain should sue you for libel as you are just repeating a slur you got second hand, just like Schecter.>>
Thanks for the head's up, BT. From now on, it's trunt and collop for me.
-
<<That was the marketing plan for his quickly thrown together book after all.>>
As if he or (more likely, the publisher) would confide the book's marketing plan to you!
Try to keep up (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=7090.msg72489#msg72489)
-
You can prove he's a partisan, you can't prove he's embittered.
Sure i can, i can also prove he is a hired gun.
A Conversation with "Real McCain" Author Cliff Schecter
Jon Perr
Back in 2000, Democratic strategist and political writer Cliff Schecter contributed $20 to the presidential campaign of Arizona Republican Senator John McCain. An admirer of McCain's independent streak then in opposing Republican orthodoxy on supply-side tax cuts and overturning Roe v Wade, Schecter admitted, "I trusted him." Eight years and seemingly endless McCain flip-flops later, Cliff Schecter wants his money back.
That in a nutshell is the genesis of Schecter's new book, The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't. Betrayed by McCain across almost every issue foreign and domestic, Schecter now says "I realized I'd been snookered." The result in The Real McCain is an essential handbook for the 2008 election, a chronicle of John McCain's devolution from mythical maverick to craven opportunist.
I recently had the chance to catch up with Schecter to talk about his book and his take on the political landscape in the run-up to the election in November. Our conversation, like his book, was fast-moving and frequently funny.
At the outset, it's worth noting that Schecter is in some ways an unlikely messenger against McCain. To be sure, the progressive firebrand and Democratic strategist (his resume features work on Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign and a stint with uber-polling firm Penn Schoen) proudly advances the liberal line on cable news shows, in newspaper columns as well as at blogs including FireDogLake and Huffington Post. But in the past, the New Yorker crossed the partisan no-man's land to pull the lever for Republican Governor George Pataki. And, as he put it, "I'm embarrassed to admit that I once voted for Rudy Giuliani."
But Schecter's dalliance with the dark side reached its apogee with then straight-talking moderate John McCain. "There's a reason I liked him in 2000," Schecter said. Bucking the party line on women's reproductive rights, McCain in 1999 announced "certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." McCain similarly opposed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, claiming in 2001, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." And Schecter remembered John McCain's August 1990 words on the eve of the Gulf War:
"If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We even cannot contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood."
Fast forward to the 2008 election, as Schecter details, and John McCain the maverick, the reformer and the moderate is a distant memory. "That McCain," he writes, "is no longer with us, if he ever truly was."
So when publisher PoliPointPress began looking to the liberal commentariat last year for a campaign '08 profile of John McCain, Cliff Schecter was a natural selection. As he described it, "I was looking for redemption."
http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/07/a-conversation.html (http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/07/a-conversation.html)
-
He doesn't "need" to do anything. He's already reported what he heard and you can take it or leave it. I take McCain's and Cindy's silence on the issue to be very, very telling. McCain in particular - - he's the one whose "honour" is impugned here.
Actually, it is Schecter's credibility that is now in question, and by extension yours. He'll have to respond sooner or later, just as you felt the need to protect your honor.
-
Interesting articles on both Beau Friedlander and his marketing plans, for which I thank you. I enjoyed both very much. Unfortunately for you, neither link moves you one millimicron closer to your goal of discrediting Schecter, his allegations or his book. Too bad.
-
Interesting articles on both Beau Friedlander and his marketing plans, for which I thank you. I enjoyed both very much. Unfortunately for you, neither link moves you one millimicron closer to your goal of discrediting Schecter, his allegations or his book. Too bad.
We'll let the readers decide.
I don't think your judgment is impartial.
You have as much to lose as Schecter.
-
<<Back in 2000, Democratic strategist and political writer Cliff Schecter contributed $20 to the presidential campaign of Arizona Republican Senator John McCain. . . . and seemingly endless McCain flip-flops later, Cliff Schecter wants his money back.>>
ROTFLMFAO. So the guy spent $20 on McCain eight years ago and lost his faith in him. THAT'S the "embittering experience" that turned him into a liar ready to risk his journalistic reputation by lying about McCain, merely to accuse him of some harsh words spoken to Cindy in public? Hilarious. Sorry, BT, you'll have to try a little harder, come up with some new reasons. Losing $20 bucks eight years ago isn't usually enough to turn an otherwise honest journalist into a crook and a lying hack.
You really ARE a lot more naive than I thought you were.
-
That was Schecters self described justification for turning on McCain.
Now apparently we have found the lie by Schecter that you were looking for.
-
Loving the flailing ;D
-
<<That was Schecters self described justification for turning on McCain.>>
Which you so unsuccessfully tried to twist into proof that it was so embittering that Schecter would lie and risk his journalistic reputation over. Try again, BT.
<<Now apparently we have found the lie by Schecter that you were looking for. >>
The problem of course being that it's so much more likely to be true than false.
-
The problem of course being that it's so much more likely to be true than false.
Are you saying Schecter was telling the truth when he said he was seeking redemption for contributing and supporting McCain. Why would he be seeking redemption if he didn't feel like he was hoodwinked, another term he used, certainly an embittering experience.
...Schecter would lie and risk his journalistic reputation over.
I don't believe he is a journalist. Journalists report. This guy smears.
He is a political operative who guest blogs.
He does have a degree from the Wharton School of Business though which might explain the opportunistic timing and marketing strategy for his book.
Lets review:
He was recruited to write the book.
The publisher publishes progressive titles and is linked to Soros and Lewis.
His book was marketed with the big noise strategy of blanketing the left blogosphere with prerelease tidbits from his book including the undocumented anonymously sourced slur about trollops and Cindy. Three reporters allegedly sat on the story for 16 years? Please.
He certainly stood to profit from sensationalizing his book.
-
And of course, the other consideration: surely Schechter must have lied before. Been successfully sued for libel before. So the accusation comes publicly from a man with a clean reputation and alleging three eye-witnesses also present.
Well, ya know what? Until someone PROVES that Schecter is a liar, I believe him. In the circumstances, so would most people. This is another side of McCain that Obama should let the folks know about. Let Cindy McCain deny this, effectively calling Schecter a liar - - that'd be great. He could sue HER for slander. The eye-witnesses would be dragged into the court. We'd get to the bottom of this soon enough.
Is Schecter an experienced Journalist ?
What journalism has he written otherwise?
Demanding Proof that lies are lies if you like them is a diffrent standard than that set for things you like to think are lies , if you like to think something true ,you skew, the picture for yourself by demanding proof it is otherwise .
Where is the "proof " that George Bush as president has been a liar? Even in the question of the size of a fish , the "proof" has gone "poof".