Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DSCC Press Release: ALLEN ARREST RECORDS CONTROVERSY

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 07:57 PM
Original message
DSCC Press Release: ALLEN ARREST RECORDS CONTROVERSY
Edited on Sat Oct-28-06 08:04 PM by jefferson_dem
:nuke: sen. macaca! :nuke:

ALLEN ARREST RECORDS CONTROVERSY: ALLEN REFUSES TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS DETAILING HIS ARREST RECORD
Allens Multiple Arrest Warrants Could Have Been for Anything From Assault to Disorderly Conduct to Battery
October 28, 2006
By: Phil Singer, DSCC

Democrats are demanding that George Allen stop stonewalling and immediately release records addressing why multiple warrants were issued for his arrest in 1974 while he was a student at the University of Virginia. The court records of his arrests are missing but one of the few official documents detailing the circumstances surrounding his arrests is Allens application to the Virginia Bar Association. Allen has so far refused to release that information.

Allens adamant refusal to release documents about his arrest record suggests that theres more to this story and that hes hiding something. Allens got a character problem and this stonewalling isnt helping him any, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Phil Singer said.

When news of the arrest warrants resurfaced this month, one of Allens aides said that one was issued for unpaid parking tickets and another for fishing without a license. The warrants are posted on an index (click here for a photo of the ledger), but Allen has failed to produce any written documentation verifying his explanation for why the warrants were issued and has not personally addressed the matter.

Shortly after the warrants were issued, Allen applied for membership in the Virginia Bar Association and had to detail his arrest record. Allen could clear up the controversy over his arrest records by simply making the Bar Association documents public. Considering all the concerns that have been raised about Allens character, one would think hed rush to make official documents detailing his arrest public so that people believe his explanations for why he was arrested, Singer said.

Over the past year, Allen has repeatedly refused to provide answers to questions on his character and incidents. Most recently, Allen refused to be interviewed in person for a newspaper profile this week and even refused to provide written answers to questions about his past.

Throughout the campaign, questions have been raised about Allens character stemming from an incident where he bullied a Webb campaign volunteer. Several people have come forward with accounts of Allen habitually using racial slurs and bullying people. More recently, media outlets have reported that he ignored ethics rules requiring him to disclose his stock holdings and that he tried to steer federal dollars to companies in which he has investments.



http://www.dscc.org/news/roundup/20061028_allen/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Greeby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. Holy Macacawitz, Batman!
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brer cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. lol I think after these elections are over, we will need to use
some of our leisure time to compile a new dictionary so that our grandchildren, who will study how we saved America in 2006, will understand our language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #12
24. "How we saved America in 2006"
I like the ring to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveAmerica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #24
52. It would be my dream come true
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zonkers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
33. Watching language being born is fun, especially now that it spreads via the internets nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
35. Flaming Crosses, Batman!
Edited on Sun Oct-29-06 01:44 PM by krispos42
No, it's not a burning cross, it's a lower-case "t" for "tolerence"! We just set it on fire so we can see it at night! I swear!



Man, this guy's own sister told stories about him. He broke one brother's collarbone, dragged his sister up a flight of stairs by her hair, beat her boyfriend with a pool cue, and dangled her over Niagra Falls, and shoved another brother through the glass in a patio door.

The 'Controversies' section of his Wikipedia article is HUGE!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Allen_%28U.S._polit...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #35
48. After all that display of behavior his family then encouraged Allen to go
...into politics? My Gawd!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. I understand the idea of family support, but...
the voters should have been like :wtf:

And kept his sorry ass out of politics.

Amazing how little character matters if all you are just looking pass an agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
47. bwahahahaah
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
93. This still has me laughing days later!! Thanks!! -eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. Gotta admit, he sounds like perfect republican material.
Wonder why the party hasn't been defending him like they usually do their favorites? Why is it that it seems like they don't care if he wins or not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
25. GOP SOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
3. Sounds like W x 10. No wonder they want to run him for president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ethelk2044 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. Webb Ad
Webb needs to use this in his next Ad.  Do you really want
someone to be your Senator who had warrants issued for him. 
There has to be Dem who knows why he was arrested.  They need
to dig further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
84. "The only people in Virginia who want Allen are the police!"
Webb needs to use this in his next Ad.

I think you're on to something...!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. i reeally, really hope theres a there there, know what i mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rox63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. This needs to be plastered in ads all across Virginia
Time for the Dems to spend some major cash, so that every person in Virginia knows about this. All in the name of making an informed decision in the voting booth, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Sen Macaca is slated for FauxNewsSunday tomorrow am. Gee...
you think they'll ask him about it? :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
8. Allen's criminal past - post from DailyKos
"On a tip from several here at Daily Kos, I trudged down to the Albemarle Co. Courthouse the other day to do a little digging. What I found there, buried in the shelves of the historical record room, presented a lot more questions about Allen's past; namely, why was there a warrant for George Allen's arrest in 1974? And was that warrant related to the criminal hearing he attended on February 15th, 1973? These are serious questions that need to be answered, Senator Allen. I'll be awaiting your response."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/13/10202/206





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheMadMonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
43. What's with that fresh looking WhiteOut?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. the white out
The white out was done on the line above, so it doesn't
strike me as suspicious. It looks fresh, but I don't know
if white out yellows over time.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
9. This race is a friggin' fight to the death cage match
that would make the WWF envious!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. Two go in, one comes out.
Somethin' like that. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
10. I hate to throw a damper on all this excitement, but
is there any evidence he was convicted of anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. people of priviledge...
often walk on crimes that are not "serious". I want to know what he was CHARGED with and what was the evidence... not if he was convicted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I disagree. We have to have the same standards for
everybody, or we're just as bad as the Rethugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. I want TRUTH and TRANSPARENCY, whether about repubs or democrats.
Edited on Sat Oct-28-06 09:51 PM by troubleinwinter
Demanding truth, honesty and transparency is NOT "being as bad as repugs".

ANYBODY who asks for my vote OWES me the TRUTH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I agree. And I also believe in
innocent until proven guilty. So my question remains. . . is there evidence that he was convicted of anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little Star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #19
26. OJ?
just asking.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #19
29. So, if there's no proof of a conviction, yet there is proof of an
Edited on Sun Oct-29-06 08:28 AM by 1932
arrest warrant coupled with some illogical explanation for why people shouldn't care that Allen isn't even willing to back up with proof, then you're happy?

Really?

Note to self: cover-ups are easy-- it's a two step process: only give answer that pass the smell test, even if they aren't true & don't provide evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #19
32. That's why we're ASKING FOR THE INFORMATION!!!!
If he's "innocent" then there would be no reason NOT to release the info, right?!?!

What is the REPUKE HIDING?!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
36. We are not jurors, we are constituents
Well, I'm not, but you get the idea.

We are not required to vote based on evidence and facts. I think if we had to, the world would be a much different place.

We can vote for any reason, or no reason. Flip a coin, or do a month of research. Knowing he was accused of <fill in the blank> is something that we should know. We should also know the circumstances of the case, and if he won't provide them, it is because Allen judges the fallout from him keeping mum is WORSE than the allegations in the police records. Since that always looks pretty bad, we are forced to conclude that it must have been pretty embarrasing and/or very illegal. And I would not put it past him to do some witness "intimidation", perhaps with a pool cue.

Was he busted for picking up a hooker? Being a hooker? Planting a burning cross? Bribery? Assault? Battery?

This happened in Connecticut a few years ago. Just before former governor Roland was re-elected, information surfaced that his wife had called 911 to report she was being abused. Roland's lawyers, with the help of a judge that Roland appointed, sealed the files and tapes until after the election. I think this was in 1998. And he won againt Bill Curry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #36
53. Exactly. We don't "convict" based on the same standard because our
judgment doesn't send people to jail...they simply don't get a job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #53
89. A job that they are volunteering to take!
And from which it is very very very hard to fire somebody once they get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #13
45. well we do...
White Privilege is just as prominent among Democrats as Rethugs. I am referring to the fact that asa young adult Allen was a Football player who obviously got away with a lot of shit that would've gotten other people imprisoned. It doesn't surprise me that there is "no arrest record". That to me doesn't mean he was never arrested. And even if he was never arrested DOES NOT mean that he shouldn't have been.

There ought to be the same standards for EVERYBODY. But the fact of the matter is there aren't. As I said, people who are born with "privilege" tend to walk. What about Dick shooting someone in the face? Or Laura running someone over? Did they ever do time or go to court?

I'm just dealing with reality here...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
44. people seldom recognize their priviledge (such as White priviledge)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Schumer's pretty foxy. I suspect the dscc knows, or has good reason to
believe that something's cookin'. Either that or they determined that Allen's ridiculous slams on Webb required some distracting noise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #10
56. I remember republican congresspeople spending MILLIONS
to "investigate" the Clintons..hmmmm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slowry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
14. He was probably arrested for...
... being racist, but not racist enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
15. A Dem would be laughed out of the race if they had unreleased warrants
I hope the timing of bringing this up was well planned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
17. Well, if he wants to hide it, I have to assume the worst.
Maybe it had something to do with that racist act of stuffing the head of a deer in the mail box of some black family?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KayLaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #17
42. It must be bad
If he tries to hide his past, he knows whatever he did was worse than what the public must be speculating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #42
143. If it is as he said, parking tickets and fishing without a license
then what's the big deal of releasing them?

I smell bigger fish
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
20. I have a sneaking suspicion that if I ran for office,
somebody could turn up a warrant for my arrest. Much more recent than Allen's. From '80 or thereabouts.

Got a traffic ticket. Never showed up in court. Didn't pay the ticket. There's a 26-year-old warrant with my name on it.

Whether repub or dem, expecting this sort of perfection from people is ludicrous.

"Macaca" is a huge affair compared to this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. No offense intended but if sen. macaca skipped out on a court appearance
Edited on Sat Oct-28-06 10:36 PM by jefferson_dem
at any time in his adult life, and there was a warrant served but never answered, that is information voters should factor when considering his fitness for office. Of course, much will depend on the nature of the charges, etc. A traffic violation is obviously different than spousal abuse, or some kind of criminal act of aggression.

Fact is, Sen. macaca forced the hand... So let's do it...

EDIT: spousal abuse would likely be impossible as this "incident" occurred in 1974 when he was not married (i assume). I was confusing this with questions about macaca's sealed divorce records which are another matter of suspicion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
williesgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
23. Fellow Virginians & I will give this slimebag the boot on 11/7 - recommended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
27. Why Can't FOIA Open The Records?
..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #27
38. FOIA applies to the federal government's documents
Some states have similar laws that apply to the records of state and local governments. Even if Virginia has such a law, though, it might have an exception for arrest records that don't result in a conviction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Ah Well
Can someone plant themselves at his rallies, with a bullhorn, asking, "Mr. Allen, is it true you used to beat the crap out of your little sister and phyically abuse your other siblings?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #38
57. Virginia has a Freedom of Information Act.
A. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, all public records shall be open to
inspection and copying by any citizens of the Commonwealth during the regular office
hours of the custodian of such records. Access to such records shall not be denied to
citizens of the Commonwealth, representatives of newspapers and magazines with
circulation in the Commonwealth, and representatives of radio and television stations
broadcasting in or into the Commonwealth. The custodian may require the requester to
provide his name and legal address. The custodian of such records shall take all necessary
precautions for their preservation and safekeeping.
B. A request for public records shall identify the requested records with reasonable
specificity. The request need not make reference to this chapter in order to invoke the
provisions of this chapter or to impose the time limits for response by a public body. Any
public body that is subject to this chapter and that is the custodian of the requested
records shall promptly, but in all cases within five working days of receiving a request,
make one of the following responses:
1. The requested records will be provided to the requester.

Criminal records are not listed under the exceptions section of VA FOIA.

http://dls.state.va.us/groups/foiacouncil/06Law.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
28. The Macaca caller is a total looser who shouldn't hold any elected office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. Please, please, please...
It's "loser". Sorry, pet peeve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #34
61. Thanks spelling police.
LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #61
71. giggle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
30. If it was something minor, why not just come
out and say so with a brief explanation? By 1973, George was in his 20's, so whatever it was, he can't claim "teenage rebellion" like he did when he spraypainted racist graffiti in high school.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
31. THUG CRIMINALS, all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tewl Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
37. I wonder what's in them??
Inquiring minds want to know :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maraya1969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
40. Someone should be able to get their hands on this. We are a resourceful
lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. it's pretty old information. he may have had it removed from the records
years ago. expungement can be done if you have the right connections, by a judge, especially if you can prove it is interfering with your ability to do business and it doesn't involve conviction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #41
58. Even convictions can be expunged,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zambero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
49. Allen's FACTS are much stranger than Webb's FICTION
Especially when the facts are deliberately suppressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lena inRI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #49
64. Great zinger Zambero. . .

Nothing stings like the truth



:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
civildisoBDence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
50. Failure to release the records leaves us free to speculate...
Maybe George "Hillbilly Bear" Allen cut the head off a small child, spat on it, and put it in the mailbox of his communist African-American lover/coke dealer.

Now he's making a movie with Pat Buchanan and Mel Gibson, called "Macacalypto."

Newsprism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #50
54. your insanity
is rather comical. scary to think it might not be a joke since Mr. Macaca himself won't tell us what he was warranted for?


www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
55. Surely SOMEONE in VA has spilled the beans. November surpise?
Maybe Webb's campaign has the goods and is waiting til midweek to release them.

I can fantasize, can't I?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
59. fess up, george. the truth will set us free
and hopefully the truth will boot you out on your ass!

(or is that the reason he won't spill his own beans?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 06:12 AM
Response to Original message
60. Since the Allen campaign wants to take trips down memory lane
when it uses Webb's fiction as a campaign issue, it's time to open the PUBLIC records of Allen's criminal history. Fair is fair. Our dumpster is as deep as yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #60
67. While Webb was serving in Vietnam experiencing
the hell that he recounts in his fiction, George Allen was spraypainting racist graffiti on the walls of his Southern California High School. Now that comparison would make a great campaign commercial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
62. The guess here is
drunken public masturbation with malice toward all. At least that's what he's doing now-----------figuratively speaking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ethelk2044 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
63. DNC AD
This would make a good DNC AD
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
65. Multiple Arrest Warrants?
Oh my. :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPZenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
66. UVA's Honor System and Judiciary System
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 10:35 AM by JPZenger
UVa for over a century has had an honor system that can result in the expulsion of any student from any school of the university for "lying, cheating or stealing." The charges are brought by a fellow student and a trial is held by a student honor committee. The system was limited to within Albemarle County (where UVa is located) or "in other locations where a student used their status as a UVa student to instill trust."

As of the late 1970s, UVa also had a Judiciary Committee system. That system was designed to hand out suitable punishments for offenses other than lying, cheating or stealing. The goal was to try to keep students out of the criminal justice system when they did something stupid while drunk. The police and courts were happy to have less paperwork, so they turned over many matters to the Judiciary Committee. The Committee ususally required community service.

I mention these items simply to offer some leads for anyone who wants to investigate further.

It is possible that criminal charges were quashed because the Judiciary Commitee was taking care of it. Then again, if the incidents happened in the Charlottesville area and the police DID NOT turn it over to the Judiciary Committee, then that tells us something also. In that case, I would assume that the police/prosecutor determined the offenses were too serious to be handled by students.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
68. Unfortuneately this is GETTING NO PLAY IN VA.
I had heard about this before but I haven't heard anyone mention it on the news here. No mention what so ever.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
69. More missing (AWOL) official records--another one of them there coincidences
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
70. Realistically, it WAS 1974 people
do we believe in statute or not?

If we don't then he's fair game, but this is absurd. Really absurd.

I despise the guy and I certainly hope he loses but dredging up arrest records that are 32 years old is beneath us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllexxisF1 Donating Member (559 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #70
72. Bullshit, it's not beneath anyone.
The citizens of Virginia have every right to know if their Senator has a criminal record and or was picked up and booked. Asking for the truth to come out is NEVER beneath anyone.

If he has nothing to hide that let him come forth with the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. bullshit right back atcha
"the truth" is that who you were 32 years ago is probably so remarkably different from who you are today that using that 32 year old standard to judge you by is ludicrous.

It is beneath us, and I speak for us.

We have better methods of determining who is and is not a worthy candidate than this puerile bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. True- but lets wait and let Mr. Macacca say all of those excuses.
After we find out exactly what he is hiding, that is.

It is not beneath me to hold Republicans to the same standard as all other politicians are held- and you do not speak for all of us.

I for one would like to know what men who grew up to be the "upright" and "moral" Republicans acted like when they were young adults- and whether they still have some of those old habits- whatever they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. of course I don't speak for all of us
but for most of us with some iota of common sense.

I agree that if he's hiding the reason, he's hiding something he considers too shameful for anyone to forgive, but on the other hand I sure as hell hope we have something better to run on than "we're not as bad as the other guy", because that's just not going to work.

And I will add that there is a limited number of days and hours to get our message across. If we spend that time dredging up muck from 32 years ago, it will probably backfire.

As a voter if my candidate spent any time focusing on that kind of muck, I'd be wondering what his other poorly chosen priorities are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. What past DEM victory do you model your analysis on?
Sorry, but perhaps-just perhaps- you are the one lacking "common sense" this time around.

I seem to recall this same "lets not attack them over this" thing being trotted out many times over the last 3 election cycles we lost.

I'm sure the GOP (AKA the victors) are glad THEY did not take that meek approach. (See SBV, Gore invented the internet, Clinton is a lying sociopath, etc,etc, etc)

My common sense shows me that time after time and more often than not, voters always go with the candidate who fights hardest and attacks his opponent over every little thing. (See the last 3 election cycles we lost)

Again, what particular DEM victory or victories are you basing/modeling your analysis on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. just a second
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 01:01 PM by sui generis
I'm a principled individual. I don't give a SHIT if we have to fuck dead baby ducks to win, then I'm not a democrat.

A party is more than just a name. If we REALLY want to win, let's dump the gays and start praying and swaying. Why stop with a little irrelevant mudslinging?

The real fact is that if our candidates can't pull their heads out of everyone else's asses long enough to tell us what they stand for I'm going to assume they're no different from the people they're slinging mud at.

Sorry, I won't stoop that far. If we want to win that way because we don't have anything else to run on, then do it without my vote.

I'm not voting for who throws the best mud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. On what past DEM victory do you model your analysis?
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 01:06 PM by Dr Fate
??????????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. I've got your number
I've brought up several points that you didn't address, because you clearly can't.

I will restate since you seem to be having trouble comprehending.

I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED 32 YEARS AGO.

And I won't vote for someone who does. And I am not alone.

If they did something that materially impacts their suitability as a qualified political candidate, go for it; mudslinging is MORE than called for.

Running an ad gloating that someone was a bed wetter past the age of seven or whatever other INSIPID SHIT you think is worthy of the democratic party IS NOT OKAY. It is beneath us. Are you not able to distinguish between the two?

I'm hoping you're still reading and haven't gone off to post another dumbfuck DEM victory post (to which I've already clearly responded; I'm not a DEM if we do "WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN" and it compromises our principles).

I know how to fight. Make no mistake there is a time and place for pointing out someone's faults. But dredging up crap that is 32 years old is beneath us and furthermore irrelevant, and you know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. Do you even have a single, solitary example of your approach ever working?
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 01:34 PM by Dr Fate
No one ever said we run an ad that gloats about bed-wetting. I would rather run a factual ad demanding that he open his past criminal records- unless he comes clean first, that is.

It does not have to materially impact their suitability as a qualified political candidate- voters just have to percieve that it does.

I have examples- in a GA state House race in 2002- Charles Walker Jr. (D)lost based almost soley on ads where the GOP (AKA the winners) brought up an old shoplifting charge from when he was 18 years old. Over half of the DEMs in my phone bank promised to vote against him based on this. He lost in a landslide too and probably hurt Max Cleland by being on the DEM ticket.

Not to mention everything the GOP (AKA the victors) throws at us in every other race - except I'm saying we stick to facts- we dont have to be like them at all- we can do it with facts.

What are your examples of your "let this one slide" approach working?
I can adress your specifc points once you remove them from the realm of the hypothetical and apply them to a real life election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #85
90. we're speaking two different versions of English
clearly.

My opinion is that it was wrong and unprincipled of us to not vote for middle aged candidate because he shoplifted as a teenager.

I am not impressed with the logic.

I will restate. If we're willing to do anything to win, or anything at all to appeal to stupid voters who can't differentiate between reality and some artifial world where everyone is perfect and has led a charmed life, then you can keep the democratic party.

Pretty soon it will occur to you that in order to win, you won't just have to sling mud at criminals with 32 year old crimes in the other party. We'll start eating our own.

That's the point of having principles. You keep asking why we haven't won by sticking to our principles. We clearly don't speak the same moral or political language. Disturbingly for some, I am a democrat with principles. Do I care what unprincipled people think about that? With my vote.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #90
96. I'm more worried about how swing-voters will react than how you will.
I did not say we need to "do anything to win"- my position is that we attack them with factual assertions and honest questions.

Principles? I never said we lie, cheat or steal- I said we attack with the facts. My principles are intact, thank you.

Can you show me where your "nice guy-let's not be mean to our opponent" approach has won over swing-voters in a past election?

You have set up a lot of strawmen dealing with your personal principles- but you have yet to show me how your approach has ever won us a single, solitary election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. I clearly see you are saying "Let's ask him about this", & I agree.
We are in the home stretch of a very tight race and no valid questions are off the table.

Jeez, it's not like we are making shit up like the repubs do.

I'm ready to flay them open for every jaywalking ticket they've had since kindergarten, and if I were a candidate, I would expect the very same treatment.

Sorry, I think our democracy and it's performance in the US Senate is way more important than embarrassing some bigoted wannabe power monger, and those are MY principles.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. Exactly- we are not lying or making up anything like they do- BIG difference.
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 02:18 PM by Dr Fate
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #97
102. of course you are
heck I'm guessing capital punishment for jaywalking is more your style if I recall that deleted conversation correctly.

Yeah, of course I'm one on one with the righteous bunch here. Change my mind. Please. Because there are people like me who aren't obsessed with how big a brown streak somebody left in their underwear 32 years ago, who AREN'T swing voters.

The republicans didn't win because they were better mudslingers. They won because we didn't have the tiniest bit of party discipline, because we allowed every god damn wedge issue they put up to split us into a herd of rabid cats.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #102
106. I have no idea what you are talking about. So anyway....
You must have me confused with someone else you've pissed off on this board. :shrug:

So, we shouldn't even ASK this cretin about his arrest records?

If that is your point, I disagree mightily.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #106
110. possibly
you may be right about that. their number are legion. Glad this ain't no popularity contest or I might care.

Seriously though, I think it's fine to bring it up, in the sense of "what are you hiding"? But speculation and focusing on it are not a good way to spend campaign dollars, and it won't do anything at all to swing any swing voters.

That's my point. Sorry if I'm getting a little combative at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #110
115. "I think it's fine to bring it up, in the sense of "what are you hiding"- I agree.
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 02:44 PM by Dr Fate
But I disagree about "and it won't do anything at all to swing any swing voters."

I've seen it work. (See above post on Charles Walker Jr. shop lifting arrest in 2002)

Where are your examples of old controversial criminal arrest records not working?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #115
119. okay, for the last time
he explained patiently.

That's your straw man. I never said such a thing. I said I disagreed with using it as a means of winning. It's not about how often you beat your wife Dr. Fate, it's about whether it's right and proper to do so.

Don't ask a question of me in those terms or you can ask how often I beat my wife until the cows come home and start playing poker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #119
123. Are we arguing semantics or how to win elections?- I forgot.
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 03:12 PM by Dr Fate
Because in my posts, I bring up examples of elections that were won and lost based on old, controversial records, while you have yet to provide ANY examples of actual, successful elections using one approach or the other.

I'm not asking you "when did you stop beating your wife"- I'm simply asking you to show me an example of an election that was lost when using my approach or won when using yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #123
127. I'm not disagreeing
that's where you are being retarded.

I'm saying I disagree with the method on principle. Were those words too long for you? I can make them even shorter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #127
133. Fair enough. But elections are not always won based on your personal principles.
I knew that you were arguing your own personal principles rather than what wins elections- that was my whole point in asking you for examples.

Fact is, your priciple of not going after past crimes, as lofty and correct as it may arguably be, may not be what wins elections.

We agree to disagree.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #102
109. brown streak somebody left in their underwear 32 years ago=STRAWMAN
Hiding an arrest record and having a racist history is something that swing-voters and moderates will pay attention to.

No one is saying we make stuff up about his hygeine.

Also, no one is worried about changing your mind- we are worried about the minds of fence-sitters, swingvoters & moderates who may find Maccaca's checkered, racist past very interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. = hyperbole
jeesus fucking christ. I reiterate, when you stoop to argue with . . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #111
114. Why use hyperbole at all- how about an example of a election we won?
I've asked you , like 6 times to show me an election where your approach won the day.

You seem to have trouble finding one, semantics over hyperbole vs. strawmen aside.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #96
100. what swing voters?
Now there's a whole nother mythology.

Let's address that. Swing voters are not undecided or uninformed, they're single issue voters. If you want to win over people who give a crap about stuff that happened thirty years ago YOU SHOW ME ONE TIME THAT HAS WORKED TO OUR BENEFIT.

Just one.

Plus, I don't give a crap about those kinds of people because they aren't living in reality and they're underinformed and their opinions are worthless, just as the opinions of any fairweather friend.

I'm clearly not being a nice guy here. Don't worry about me being too nice to be involved in politics - that would be your last mistake, politically speaking.

I also understand that "swing voters" who hate gays, or even progressive swing voters who are FOR non discrimination but AGAINST gay marriage are out there in even larger numbers. Why don't we appeal to them? If "do anything to win" makes any sense, then clearly the number of outraged gays not voting in a particular state would be far less than the number of socially justified and righteous shitheads who decide to come in off their swings.

Yes, and on the topic of "facts". Please list my strawmen. Use bullets or numbers and explain why you think they are "straw men" instead of just making an absurd claim.

Until you do, your appraisal of what a fact is remains subject to my skepticism. There is a difference between making a true statement and telling the truth. I'm not sure all of us get that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #100
104. The ones who decide every big election. AKA moderates & fence-sitters.
I dont think they are a myth at all- I've met too many of them.

I've even met people who calim they still dont know who they are voting for when their undecided hand was on the lever.

Swing-voters a myth? You take that position at your own risk.

Your strawmen include the charge that I am "willing to do anything to win" including "accusing them of bed wetting"

I never suggested we "do anything to win"- I suggested we atack them with facts.

Do you have a single, solitary example of your particular strategic approach ever working?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #104
108. there is a difference between straw men and hyperbole
attacking hyperbole as a factual statement is indeed a strawman response.

You really need to try harder to convince me.

Believe it or not a CURRENT affiliation with Klan and Kountry is worthy of inspection. And certainly within the limits of publicly available and legal data a historical affiliation with Klan is worthy of discussion.

But focusing on "arrest records" will do nothing to swing any voter anywhere. Really won't. It's a waste of money, strategy, and energy. If we want to win there are better strategies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #108
113. Do you even have a single, solitary example of your approach ever working?
Fine- saying things were said that were never said is not a strawman- what ever.

Anyway,you said:

"But focusing on "arrest records" will do nothing to swing any voter anywhere. Really won't. It's a waste of money, strategy, and energy. If we want to win there are better strategies."

I gave you a real life, actual example where bringing up arrest records DID work- not just with swingvoters-but with members of his own party) (See my Charles Walker Jr. example above)

You have yet to provide me with any examples of your "help them keep a lid on it" approach working- I respect your personal objection to my approach, but I need more than just your gut feelings- how about some real life election examples?

You say I have yet to convince- you- fine- I'm not trying to convince you- I am trying to sway anyone who may read our debate.

At least I have provided examples that back up my POV- where are yours?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #82
88. And I've got Macacca's number- (new info & link)
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 01:37 PM by Dr Fate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

And you are saying this does not matter? I beg to differ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. it does not matter
he has enough CURRENT character flaws to hang him with.

If the saying goes "You lower yourself to the level of idiots to argue with idiots"; the same could be said of politicians.

I did not disagree that hiding it was a character flaw, by the way. But focusing on it to the exclusion of real meat in the campaign is a waste of campaign dollars.

People like me and my partner give generously to the democratic party. I don't want my dollars going to strategies that focus on mud rather than on substance.

I DO want the democrats to win, but not by compromising ourselves.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #92
98. We dont compromise ourselves if we use facts. We compromise the enemy.
I for one would like Macacca to explain to black folks, moderates and swing-voters about his bizzare interests in Confederate & Klan nostalgia.

I have an example- Brad Owens ran as a Republican for state assembly in GA in 1998. It turned out there was on old photo of him at a Klan rally from when he was 16 years old. This was capitalized on by the DEMS and he LOST in a landslide- in a Republican district no less.

Once again- do YOU have any examples for your take on this or do all your arguments exist in a vaccum?

You can give racist behavior & possible crimes a free pass if you want- I think moderates & swing-voters would find it interesting and revealing- and they may even vote accordingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #98
103. did you just say "thuh enumy"??????
You're not listing my strawmen. You're full of shit.

ciao bruto.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #103
107. I listed your strawmen in post #104 where that particular response belongs.
Your assertion that i am "willing to do anything to win" and your suggestion that i would want to accuse Maccaca of "bed-wetting" were strawmen- considering I never suggested either of those things.

So I am not full of it at all- in fact, I've listed actual, real life elections that back up my assertions-something you have yet to do.

Surely you have at least one, single, solitary example of your approach actually WORKING in a real life election- which one is it?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #107
112. that sir, is your straw man
Your hidden assertion that the only thing that has ever kept us from winning is our unwillingness to sling mud.

Now THAT is a real straw man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #112
116. I never said we sling mud- I said we make pointed, factual assertions.
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 02:54 PM by Dr Fate

You have yet to show me an election (or even a legislative battle) where we chose to give the GOP a free pass on factual assertions involving lies, crimes, etc and then won.

I've given you examples where factual, pointed assertions were made, and the party making them won.

I never said that failing to make factual, pointed accusations about the enemy is the "only thing" that keeps us from losing elections. (But it IS a factor)

What I said is that people who DO make pointed accusations about the enemy (whether factual or not) usually do win.

I think our constant "lets not go after them on this" approach has been a factor in our repeated losses- not just in elections but also in everyday legislative & media battles.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #116
118. well you've also put words in my mouth
I've never said "let's not go after them". I just said I thought where someone's head was 32 years ago is far less relevant than where it is today. And I stand by that, even if I despise the guy.

I've halfways agreed with you up to a point, but I stop with the realm of an average lifetime - plus I am not the solitary dissenter here.

I want to know where people stand today. I want to know if you can realistically and unimpeachably call someone a bigot with recent evidence. The Macaca comment was perfect. Current ties to Klan would be great. Other current evidence is absolutely called for. But if we're talking about 32 years ago, we're not talking about today.

I know we're on the same side, had to walk away for a few, and that we disagree on methods, so I'll leave it at that. I may still blow up after I read your next response, but hey, that's what keeps it interesting here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #118
121. Fair enough. We agree to disagree. I think old stuff is fair game.
I've seen it kill elections-Ted Kennedy in '76 being a very famous example.

I've been using real life election examples on this whole thread- something you have not used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #121
125. always the last snipe
well then, you've continued to assert that the only reason we haven't won in the past is because we've failed to use "pointed facts", now, instead of mudslinging.

That's a rather narrow view of politics that makes me VERY happy you aren't a professional political strategist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #125
129. Wrong- I stated that it is huge factor, which is true.
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 03:21 PM by Dr Fate
And hey, if you think the meek strategists who lost the last 3 election cycles were doing just fine, then you are entitled to that opinion- to each his own.

In any event, it looks like at least some of the professionals we have on board in the DSCC disagree with you on bringing this up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. "at least some"
speaks volumes about our cohesiveness.

Now you're just arguing because it's fun, like me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #130
136. That is one point were we would agree, actually.
On cohesiveness, that is.

I lean towards being "cohesive" with DEMS who have a more pointed, aggressive strategy in attacking Republicans. The meek, "let them fall on their sword" and "keep your powder dry" wing has failed us time & time again.

At least enough seem to agree with attacking Macacca's past to have this press release/trial balloon floating out there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #77
87. so...
if what you say is true, then everything about the chimp, even stuff 30+ years ago, is pointless as well.

ok.... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #87
91. it is. we have a limited number of heartbeats
and a limited attention span to reach people.

His crimes in the last six years are MUCH more important. Everything else is just political masturbation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #91
120. But I have posted examples where bringing up old records did in fact work.
Here is another one- Ted Kennedy in '76. That WORKED.

And you have yet to post one, single, solitary example where your method of ignoring controversial transgressions did work- so it seems like you are the one masturbating here.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #120
124. and how often do you beat your wife?
did you recently have eye surgery? Are the words in my reply too long? I can use simpler words and shorter sentences if you like. I'm sorry, I've told you why your question is ridiculous.


Read everything, then reply. You're getting disjointed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #124
131. In other words-I have examples of real life elections and you dont.
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 03:22 PM by Dr Fate
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #131
134. again, he repeated, I don't disagree
if I disagreed about WHETHER OR NOT IT WORKED, which I never said, but which you dear strawman champion seem to want me to back up with an example, i.e., how often do you beat your wife, then you would be right. Read My Lips. I Don't Disagree That It Works. I Just Don't Want To Be That Kind Of Fuckwad Dimwitted Democrat.

Fortunately, it's not a race in my district or representative venue so I won't have to agonize over whether to vote for the bully or the playground tattle tale. They're both annoying and for class president I want the guy who's actually talking about what he or she is going to do for us.

Claro?

This DSCC thread is clearly your party - and at this point at a party with someone like you I'd probably go find somebody a little more interesting, fast on their feet, and urbane to talk to, so that's the plan, Stan.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #134
137. Insulting me does not mean you win the debate-except maybe in your mind.
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 04:29 PM by Dr Fate
I think the fact that you have to insult me as non-urbane and slow on my feet as a parting shot speaks volumes.

I provided numerous, real life examples of how my suggested approach wins elections.

Your approach, which I already conceded is based on your personal principles rather than real-life examples, wins us nothing- as your inability to provide examples indicates.

Sorry- if you were as fast on your feet and urbane as you think you are, you would come to a debate prepared to back up your assertions with actual, real-life examples to back up your points- you failed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #137
141. well as long as I'm here
your debate style of picking one thing and repeating it incessantly no matter how relevant or irrelevant it is and then giving up with a whimper and saying gosh you never responded to my attack therefore you lose, is pretty highschool.

Sorry. Not an ad hominem, just a pointed fact

I can already tell we're going to be great friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #141
144. Focusing on one thing is right: "does it win elections or doesnt it?"
As opposed to me focusing on your whether it is offensive to your own personal principles or not.

My focus on "Does it win elections or not" may be irrelevant when we discuss your personal principles, but it is the bottom line when it comes to politics.

Bottom line may seem high-school to you, but not for me. I think it is odd that past comparable election results is something to run away from...

So now I'm "wimpering" about you not being able to provide examples? Not hardly-I never expected you to- the examples dont exist. My plan is to point out that fact to anyone reading this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #144
149. oh man, are you sure you didn't wander in
from that other party? So far after about a thousand posts from you the only thing I can determine you stand for is mudslinging.

And you're even using republican double speak to recharacterize that as "pointed factual assertions".

Are there any other democratic principles you support?

Anyway, we are now full circle back to "do whatever it takes to win", and you bore me. Run along now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #70
74. Dont worry-if it was an innocent, youthful mistake, voters will forgive him.
If it was something more creepy than that, then he needs to explain himself to the voters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. Agreed, nobody's gonna care about parking tickets and fishing licenses.
Which makes you wonder why his campaign hasn't released proof that that's all there is to it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. Until he comes clean- we are free to speculate. I think it is sex or drugs.
At the least, a fist fight, domestic violence w/ a girlfriend, or a DUI- something embarassing and hypocritical.

Of course, he can come clean if he wants to avoid such valid speculation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happydreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #70
95. Sue generously I always say.
:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #70
132. never stopped the GOP from raising the question in 2004
John Kerry's military records were at least that old in 2004, but the wingnuts raised quite the stench when he didn't fill out the full-release paperwork before the election. Of course, when he did make a full records release, there was nothing in them to confirm all the suspicious crap the wingers cooked up to slander him, and the complicit press didn't mention it either, but it became an issue nonetheless.

IMHO, it was partly Sen. Kerry's own fault for not lining this up well beforehand. He should have seen this coming.

Now Sen. Allen has a similar problem, and once again it's his own damn fault for not handling it sooner. Let him answer for the uncertainty.

If we're going to win this game, we're going to have to start playing by their rules -- or lack thereof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #132
135. I agree up to a point, but
The reason the Kerry debacle had the impact it did was because he wasn't a strong enough candidate on his own merits to overcome the broadside or its after effects.

Also, as you said, the media was complicit, outrageously so.

I'm not saying to be nice, at all. I'm just saying if we're going to try to stake these vampires, realistically we'd better be using something a little thicker than an eyebrow pencil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #135
139. It also had the impact it did for 2 other reasons:
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 03:54 PM by Dr Fate
1) He failed to attack back in a pointed, aggressive manner. Or attack back at all, for that matter.

2) He failed to be the FIRST to attack on past Military records- with FACTS- before Dan Rather botched the whole thing. Had he attacked first, it would have done more to neutralize the SBV and more voters would have seen the SBVs as an outrageous, desparate response to W's own lack of service.

In other words, he used your failed "principle" of ingoring old, past controversies of the enemy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #139
140. sorry, I am not meek or a wimp
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 04:45 PM by sui generis
and I certainly didn't say I don't condone attacking someone on their record and on a character flaw that might challenge their ability to administer, but I want it to be a relevant attack and not a diversion or a waste of money. How is that meek or weak? How is that a failed principle? You're dancing on some thin donna summer records there bud.

I wouldn't hesitate to personally hang my opponent by his balls, even if he was a she. However, dredging back that far I'd have to leave to volunteers.

The Enemy.

my goodness, that's republican speak. It's also what 12 and 13 year olds say when they're playing cowboys and injuns. I know you're none of those things, but "the enemy" is pitchfork/torch rabble rousing crap; I don't tolerate it.

I have no failed principles. You insist on putting words in my mouth, or assuming you know more about my political fighting skills than I do. That's a hoot, especially considering my notoriety in other forums.

Let me tell you what I think we SHOULD do, sometime. It would make Karl Rove look like the amateur he is, but it would also color us as basically evil. Blameless in the events that unfold, but evil. That's where principle steps in, but also a bit of wisdom.

If you want to mischaracterize me at all, go on down that meek and weak thing you've got going. But warm up your alert button because you're going to need it. ;)









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #140
146. Good. I dont know where I said you were.
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 05:30 PM by Dr Fate
I have said, on many occasions that the "strategists" who lost the last elections do come across as weak or meek though.

I do believe there is a "meek" wing of our party that wrings it's hands and fails to attack everytime we are handed a GOP scandal on silver platter.

And yes- internally, I do refer to Republicans who lie about me and steal from me as "the enemy" and "the opponent"- big deal.

Anyway, since you did not adress them, I'll assume you are unable to refute my points in #139.

If you need to hit the alert button, go ahead. I dont believe I've called you a single name or personaly insulted you even once like you have to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #146
148. oh you poor victim
sigh. I guess that makes me the bad guy. Why don't you wait 32 years and film a documentary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gatlingforme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
83. You can be arrested for a hangnail, convictions are what I am interested
in . I don't care about arrests as much as convicitons
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. Let him exaplain that distinction to swing-voters....
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 01:28 PM by Dr Fate
Your take on this does not account for the fact that he could have used family connex to get out of a charge or conviction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #86
94. well that's speculation for sure
god damn it I hate sounding like I'm defending the guy.

And nobody's changing anyone else's mind here, but bickering about whether or not magical family connections saved him from something we don't see or not is even further from reality.

Back to basics. Have a clear message. Make your opponent look politically incompetent, with facts.

How hard is that? Do we really believe that pointing out his character flaws from 32 years ago will change the minds of anyone?????

Honestly. The party of bigots is still the party of bigots. So if we're doing this for our sake, it's masturbation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllexxisF1 Donating Member (559 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #94
101. Character Flaws?
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 02:22 PM by AllexxisF1
What on Earth are you blathering about. If he was booked and or has existing warrants for his arrest it's a matter of breaking the law not "Character Flaws". This man is running to create and vote on laws. If he has broken them in the past the voting public deserves to know about it.

Whether it's shop lifting, or a triple homicide the voter will make their own informed decision. However to say that it should be kept out of the public domain because somehow it's wrong to look at a person's life 30 years ago, is absolutely retarded. We are not talking about rumors of some what a fellow football player said, we are talking about cops dragging his butt in and booking him for apparently breaking the law. That is a big damn difference.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #101
105. the only people blathering here
are this more self-righteous than thou crowd.

I am your enemy if you want to spend my money on crap like this. Live with it. I'm also a democrat. And a Progressive. And a secular humanist. And utterly certain in my convictions, with good reason.

This is childish and unbecoming of adults and of the democratic party on principle; at the very least I've already wasted too many heartbeats on it here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #105
117. Self-righteous? Like calling us childish and saying we have no common sense?
You would think that with all this passion & name calling that you would have single, solitary example of an election that was won using your approach.

Do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #117
122. oh so
if I have this correct, it's okay to call me names but not okay for me to respond?

At the same time you advocate "using facts" to sling mud because the other guy is doing it?

Well, I guess I'm just a lone opinionated crackpot, at least on this thread. Strangely sure of myself though. I wish I could have you guys fill out a survey at the end of each of these to see if there is a demographic involved.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #122
126. I never called you names that I know of.
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 03:17 PM by Dr Fate
And I never said we sling mud- I said we make factual claims & assertions.

And I dont need a survey- the ultimate "survey" I need is past election results- of which I have provided and you have not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #126
128. reading is fundamental.
so is reading comprehension.

clearly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #128
138. Real life examples to back up your assertions should be fundamental too.
And you have yet to provide a single, solitary one.

I have provided several and have several more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #138
142. ha ha ha ha ha
I laugh in your face. I've told you why I'm not providing an example. What more can I say? Over and over and over again?

What a hoot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #142
145. We have established that you cant provide any examples b/c they dont exist.
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 05:19 PM by Dr Fate
You are right-There is nothing more for you to say- I'm just making sure that it is clear to anyone who happens to read this.

Your idea that giving a free pass to GOP past crimes somehow helps us win is based strictly on your gut feelings as opposed to any real life examples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #145
147. well we all have a role to play
clearly the petty pissant flinging mud from the sidelines is yours.

I intend to support candidates who are talking about the war, the economy, worker's rights, healthcare, and the environment. If you want to sit there and execute your role, please, don't let me stand in your way. You are the undisputed Prince of Petty and welcome to the title.

Now I know better than to judge the performer when the performance is so rich in material to critique; but at some point a stupid performance has to be attributed to the performer, exclusively.

To anybody who hasn't vomited reading this tripe already, the level of discourse is quite evident. Clearly, your cavalry did not show up to defend you.

Flinging mud is obviously a hobby with you. It's below me - and although I have shown abundantly that I can defend myself from petty minibrained miscreants here and elsewhere, the real issues are not stupid shit from 32 years ago.

Your reality check has clearly bounced. The issues are not nicey nice. Attack the crap out of them on their failure to support armed services families in Virginia. Beat them up with their poor decision making skills and the financial results. Nail them on their inability to represent, but focus on the fucking present or get the fuck out of politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
confludemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
150. If DSCC promises to run spots on this til election day, I'll contribute for the
first time since 2004, when I gave $500-600 to Dems. Are you listening, DSCC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
151. Macaca-witz spits on his wife? -- here's a stand up guy for you..!
any drug busts on arrest warrantas? simple poessesion of weed??!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC