Join 3,552 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Bush campaign source of debate tape smear attempt.
June 15, 2001 1:27 PM   Subscribe

Bush campaign source of debate tape smear attempt. In this campaign follow-up sure to delight all you anti-Bushies--in case Rove's possible insider trading or Bush's disingenuous charm offensive in Europe hasn't sufficed--an ex-Bush campaign aide pleads guilty.
posted by Joe Hutch (13 comments total)

 
Free Clues...

1) Your headline, to put it kindly, is incorrect. The source was not "the campaign," it was from a media consultant hired by the Bush campaign.

2) Specifically, it was the consultant's employee, Juanita Lozano, who was the source. Lozano is a Democrat, with a history of working for elected Democratic representatives. She's a Bush Hater, and wanted to goad the Gore campaign into cheating in order to defeat Bush.

In summary: It was a Democrat's attempt to fix the debate. Nice try shifting blame, but you have failed.
posted by aaron at 1:34 PM on June 15, 2001


Juanita Yvette Lozano... pleaded guilty on Thursday to charges of leaking secret debate materials to an aide to Democratic rival Al Gore... to mail fraud and perjury before a federal grand jury

First of all, how does sending "debate material" to your opponent (without their knowledge) become an illegal activity? Is there a specific law anywhere, either Texas or Federal, which prohibits this? Or was it simply the fact that the tape and other material were property of Bush campaign, which, when sent to Al Gore, were considered stolen? If it was considered stolen, why the mail fraud charge?

And second, Gore (supposedly a super-debtor) shouldn't have needed any such help, although it's hard to tell who won the debates. I guess with such low expectations, all Bush needed to do was not fall down to be declared the "winner" at best, or "tied" at worst.
posted by Rastafari at 1:45 PM on June 15, 2001


2) Specifically, it was the consultant's employee, Juanita Lozano, who was the source. Lozano is a Democrat,
with a history of working for elected Democratic representatives. She's a Bush Hater, and wanted to goad the
Gore campaign into cheating in order to defeat Bush.



source on her being a Bush Hater?

How do we know its a Bush Hater. McKinnon also worked for Democrats and is a self-identified Democrat.
There's an equal possiblity it was sent to eliminate Tom Downey, who was an excellent debate sparring partner and coach for Gore, from debate prep. No small issue since many people cite the debates as decisive in this election.
posted by brucec at 1:52 PM on June 15, 2001


The source was not "the campaign," it was from a media
consultant hired by the Bush campaign.


once hired by the Bush campaign, this consultant is in effect an agent of the Bush campaign.
posted by brucec at 1:53 PM on June 15, 2001


You can't describe the situation as definitively as that. 1) is a debatable word game, and the key part of 2) is just one (somewhat elaborate) interpretation.

But, as I started to say in the link, this is more interesting for the facts that a) follow-ups don't get reported nearly enough, much less in busy news weeks, and b) it will be interesting to see how readers here interpret it.

I knew I could get you to come out and play somehow. :)
posted by Joe Hutch at 1:54 PM on June 15, 2001


In summary: It was a Democrat's attempt to fix the debate. Nice try shifting blame, but you have failed.

It was also a Democrat who turned over the material to the FBI and then removed himself from Gore debate team.

In retrospect, do debates mean anything anyway? I mean the moderator, Jim Leahrer, asked lame questions, and Gore changed his demeanor because focus groups said he sighed too much! Both the campaigns place too may restrictions on debate questions (no abortion questions, etc.) to have the debates any effect, IMHO.
posted by Rastafari at 1:57 PM on June 15, 2001


these debates need to be scored! neither guy really answered questions, they'd sidestep, or try to make a different point, or waffle.

I'd like it at the end if a panel said "out of a possible 100 points, mr gore scored 40 and mr bush 38". at least the public would have confirmed for them that nothing, really had just been said. possibly it would shame the candidates into answering the questions that *did* make it through all the filters. - rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 2:02 PM on June 15, 2001


As much as it sickens me, I think the debates were very important to the outcome of the election. Instead of keeping up his great offense from the first debate, Gore listened to too many people and wussed up in the second - handing it to Shrub. By the time the third debate came around Gore was back, but the damage had been done. Most of the voters out there use them to make their choice, but based on flash - not substance.

(and yes, she was a Democrat - but, yes she was working for Shrub. I think this is more a case of a lone nut than any conspiracy from either side)
posted by owillis at 2:06 PM on June 15, 2001


I agree with owillis. I think presidential candidates would do well to dispose of their fear of the media and fire their handlers altogether.
In recent years I've seen Gore, McCain and Dole (just to name three) totally misrepresent themselves in fey attempts to appeal to the masses. The debates seem to be just the most poignant example.
posted by dong_resin at 4:01 PM on June 15, 2001


you guys are debating the debates.
posted by alfredogarcia at 4:46 PM on June 15, 2001


And you are commenting on our comments. :)
posted by hincandenza at 6:12 PM on June 15, 2001


*head explodes*
posted by allaboutgeorge at 11:54 AM on June 16, 2001


Nader Nader Nader?
posted by sudama at 10:52 AM on June 17, 2001


« Older Catholic Church offered solution to AIDS crisis?...  |  Russia-China alliance emerges ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments