Asshole of the year?

November 1, 2000 6:26 PM

Asshole of the year? G.W. Bush, who is expected to use opposition to Roe v Wade as a litmus test for new Supremes... got a 15 year old girl preggers in the 70s and paid for the abortion? Ethel seems convinced... make up your own mind.
posted by baylink (15 comments total)

Been there, done that.
posted by gluechunk at 6:34 PM on November 1, 2000

Since politicians don't have ethics anymore, despite what self-righteous people may say, what the real problem is with Clinton, with Gore, is not a matter of pure ethics but one of their legal obligations. According to what was reported in the media Clinton lied under oath, and Gore had questionable campaigning either unintentionally, or not I have no idea. You can't dictate ethics or morality but you can enforce law. As I recall the US Constitution states that you can't be deprived of life without due process of the law. And what I don't understand is where people get off taking the right of an incedental 3rd party so that they can experience some convenience or greater liberty.
 
When it comes to deciding who I vote for, I'd say it boils down to: how consistently the individual has represented his constituency within the bounds of the law, their consistency and reinforcement of our legal (Constitutional) and national (military and sovereign) identity, and the balance between/value placed upon personal responsibility versus personal rights.
 
Based on my observations neither candidate is an individual I hold in high regard, but Bush seems to be more consistent with my 3 criteria (generally disregarding the hearsay a/b the abortion).
 
Weird how you guys get all excited about finger pointing and accusations that have no evidence. Or did I miss that part of the big picture? Doesn't Tort law make it virtually impossible to sue when publishing unless it's proven that it was intended to mislead by the periodical?
posted by greyscale at 8:36 PM on November 1, 2000

But if I read this correctly, according to Larry Flynt, there's tons of evidence. And at the time (in 1970), abortion was very illegal.

A lot more illegal than Clinton lying about a quickie in a hundred million dollar shitstorm, and one that directly reflects back upon a quote family-directed unquote candidate like Bush.

I ain't saying Clinton and Gore aren't corrupt and weasely (I wouldn't vote for them neither), but if Flynt has the evidence he claims to (and his history with Hyde, Livingston and Gingrich gives him credibility on this one), then it would seem Bush has some 'splaining to do.
posted by chicobangs at 9:01 PM on November 1, 2000

There is very strong possibility that the only person Gore has ever had sex with is Tipper. I do not think Gore ever paid for any abortion either. (If he did not have those four kids, I would have strong doubts of him ever having sex.)

Here's another comparison on past crimes (proven or alleged):

Gore's Crimes:
1. Vouched for Clinton
2. Took money from Buddhist Monks and lied
3. Made phone calls using government phone to raise money.
4. (There might be some speeding / parking ticket incidents some time in his life.)

Bush's Crimes:
1. Might have taken drugs
2. Might have sold drugs
3. Might have committed statutory rape (I do not know what the "age of consent" was in Texas in 1970.)
4. Might have paid for an abortion in 1970
5. (There might be some speeding / parking ticket incidents some time in his life.)
6. Definitely strayed in his marriage (which is not a "crime" in civil law, but a crime in God's law none the less.)
7. Also, in God's eyes, have cast stones when he himself was a sinner.

Contrary to popular belief, being owned by Big (Oil + insert your own) Industry is not a crime. Being somewhat not as bright as someone might expect the "leader of the free world" to be, is also not a crime.

Vote with pride.
(Anyone with a job opening in Canada, please let me know. I am serious.)
posted by tamim at 10:29 PM on November 1, 2000

Do Gore's "Provens" equal Bush's "Mights?" Let me add a few, then:

8. Might have slathered himself with goat intestines and danced naked around a fire in praise of Baal

9. Might have held a gun to a DJ's head and forced him to play "Seasons in the Sun" six times in a row

10. Might have discussed troop deployments with a Congressman while getting lap nookie from an employee, then finished himself off in the sink

Sorry, stole that last one from the most beloved leader since FDR. My bad.
posted by lileks at 11:28 PM on November 1, 2000

Gore's "Provens" do not equal Bush's "Mights." I added the "might" to the "crimes" which are rumored to be true, but not yet corraborated by others who have better first hand knowledge of the facts.

posted by tamim at 12:03 AM on November 2, 2000

I'm slightly freaked to find myself living in a world where Larry Flynt has significant credibility. The older I get, the more complex the world gets.
posted by kindall at 1:24 AM on November 2, 2000

Are we agreeing to ignore Shrub's insider trading run-in with the SEC now? Seems like that's as much as a "crime" as Gore's Buddhist monk brewhaha, if not more.

Frankly, neither one is living up to the standards he should be. Especially for born-again Christians.
posted by snarkout at 6:44 AM on November 2, 2000

Actually, Flynt has proven to have quite a bit of credibility. Face it: no one can effectively blackmail him, can they now?

Nice repost of your reply, Grayscale, and thanks to Gluechunk for making it possible to see that it *was* a repost...

Note that there's a difference between "we have no evidence" and "we haven't released our evidence". Ask any prosecutor.

Flynt has a pretty good track record for getting shit on pols, precisely because he's known to use it, and has a big enough stature to get heard. I'm quite pleased to see that he's sitting on it, pending the woman's permission, myself.

And the pro-life v pro-choice argument simply isn't ever going to get solved; neither side will admit that the other side's take on *what's being argued* is correct, and they don't match.

I don't know *anyone* who is "pro-abortion", or "anti-life".

I certainly know a lot of people who are "anti-choice", though.

See what I mean?

In any event, apologies for the rerun, but I do think it's justified; lots of people probably missed the specific topic buried in the other post, and *I* certainly think it's important.

BTW: is you don't respect either of them, Greyscale, why aren't you voting for Browne, or Nader, or someone? Florida has *10* candidates for President on it's ballot this year, how many does your state have?
posted by baylink at 6:55 AM on November 2, 2000

What is Flynt's proven track record? I'm sure if you look into all the accusations he's made through the years, you'll find equal parts lies (which he usually later admits, to his credit) and truth.
posted by s10pen at 10:15 AM on November 2, 2000

What is Flynt's proven track record?

After running a newspaper ad promising up to $1 million to dig up dirt on politicians, Flynt had two widely publicized outings of Clinton critics:

• Rep. Bob Livingston was in line to be Speaker of the House for the GOP. When Flynt reported that Livingston had an extra-marital affair, Livingston announced he would not seek the speaker's position and left Congress shortly afterward.
• Flynt reported that U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, who opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest and was an ardent critic of Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal, paid for an abortion for his second wife in 1983, had an affair while married to his third wife and refused to answer a question under oath about that affair in subsequent divorce proceedings. Flynt produced a signed affadavit from Barr's second wife in regard to his role in the abortion, and he has not denied that he paid for it. "These are the most private of matters," he responded when CNN asked him about the abortion.

Flynt promised more, but when he finally published the Flynt Report, it was mostly a rehash of the Livingston story, Barr story, and some stuff that the press already had reported -- Dan Burton's illegitimate child, J.C. Watts' illegitimate child, another congressman's arrest with a hooker, and the like.

He has never been sued for anything he reported during impeachment. Barr sued the White House, believing that it leaked information to assist Flynt, but he did not sue Flynt.

Flynt says that he has signed affadavits about Bush's role in the abortion, and knows the identity of the woman and the doctor who performed the procedure. The woman herself will not come forward, he says, so he does not feel confident in reporting the story in one of his publications.

Personally, I don't think Flynt deserves to be taken at his word on this subject, even if he was right about Livingston and Barr. Unless a credible source collects and reports on affadavits, or Flynt runs the story himself and risks a libel suit, this is a total non-story to me.
posted by rcade at 11:20 AM on November 2, 2000

I doubt he'd publish the story himself, risking libel, if the woman isn't willing to come forward.

He seems quite happy to refuse to publish her identity without her approval - an admirable stance - and without her testimony, he wouldn't be able to disprove any accusations of libel.
posted by cCranium at 11:41 AM on November 2, 2000

There's an article by Walter Robinson of the Boston Globe that's been republished a couple of places this week examining the documentation of Bush's dubious military service.
posted by dhartung at 12:27 PM on November 2, 2000

In relation to the story Dan points to about Bush's military service, I got an email from a Republican friend which claimed to be a statement written by Bush's sergeant-or-whatever talking about how great he was or whatever. I only skimmed it enough to get that gist. I don't have it handy or I'd point you to it. If anyone cares, let me know, and I'll dig it up at home tonight.
posted by daveadams at 12:53 PM on November 2, 2000

It's worth noting in this context, too, that he could run it anyway, and if he was sued for libel, he could subpoena her testimony, but he *still* isn't.

I'd say admirable is a good word.

Have *you* taken fire for your right to free speech lately?

"Defending palatable speech isn't noteworthy" I know, so it's not that impressive for *me*. I *like* Hustler. :-)
posted by baylink at 6:52 AM on November 3, 2000