Comments on: Comments on 8349

Post number 8349

Joe Hutch — Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:27:49 -0800

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.

By: aaron

aaron — Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:34:50 -0800

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.

By: Rastafari

Rastafari — Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:45:00 -0800

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.

By: brucec

brucec — Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:52:25 -0800

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.

By: brucec

brucec — Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:53:57 -0800

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.

By: Joe Hutch

Joe Hutch — Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:54:05 -0800

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. :)

By: Rastafari

Rastafari — Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:57:33 -0800

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.

By: rebeccablood

rebeccablood — Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:02:37 -0800

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

By: owillis

owillis — Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:06:43 -0800

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)

By: dong_resin

dong_resin — Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:01:28 -0800

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.

By: alfredogarcia

alfredogarcia — Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:46:39 -0800

you guys are debating the debates.

By: hincandenza

hincandenza — Fri, 15 Jun 2001 18:12:21 -0800

And you are commenting on our comments. :)

By: allaboutgeorge

allaboutgeorge — Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:54:58 -0800

*head explodes*

By: sudama

sudama — Sun, 17 Jun 2001 10:52:18 -0800

Nader Nader Nader?