DSCC Press Release: ALLEN ARREST RECORDS CONTROVERSY

[jefferson_dem]

:nuke: sen. macaca! :nuke:

ALLEN ARREST RECORDS CONTROVERSY: ALLEN REFUSES TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS DETAILING HIS ARREST RECORD
Allen’s 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 Allen’s application to the Virginia Bar Association. Allen has so far refused to release that information.

“Allen’s adamant refusal to release documents about his arrest record suggests that there’s more to this story and that he’s hiding something. Allen’s got a character problem and this stonewalling isn’t helping him any,” Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Phil Singer said.

When news of the arrest warrants resurfaced this month, one of Allen’s 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 Allen’s character, one would think he’d 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 Allen’s 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/

[Greeby]

1. Holy Macacawitz, Batman!

:wow:

[brer cat]

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.

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. "How we saved America in 2006"

I like the ring to that.

[SaveAmerica]

52. It would be my dream come true

[zonkers]

33. Watching language being born is fun, especially now that it spreads via the internets nt.

[krispos42]

35. Flaming Crosses, Batman!

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._politician%29#Controversies

[whistle]

48. After all that display of behavior his family then encouraged Allen to go

...into politics? My Gawd!

[krispos42]

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.

[wordpix]

47. bwahahahaah

[Justitia]

93. This still has me laughing days later!! Thanks!! -eom

[acmavm]

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?

[tanyev]

25. GOP SOP.

[kestrel91316]

3. Sounds like W x 10. No wonder they want to run him for president.

[Ethelk2044]

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.

[KansDem]

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...!

[AlCzervik]

5. i reeally, really hope theres a there there, know what i mean?

[rox63]

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.

[jefferson_dem]

7. Sen Macaca is slated for FauxNewsSunday tomorrow am. Gee...

you think they'll ask him about it? :crazy:

[mcg]

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

[TheMadMonk]

43. What's with that fresh looking WhiteOut?

nt

[mcg]

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.

[Gman]

9. This race is a friggin' fight to the death cage match

that would make the WWF envious!

[JNelson6563]

21. Two go in, one comes out.

Somethin' like that. ;-)

[pnwmom]

10. I hate to throw a damper on all this excitement, but

is there any evidence he was convicted of anything?

[druidity33]

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.

[pnwmom]

13. I disagree. We have to have the same standards for

everybody, or we're just as bad as the Rethugs.

[troubleinwinter]

18. I want TRUTH and TRANSPARENCY, whether about repubs or democrats.

Demanding truth, honesty and transparency is NOT "being as bad as repugs".

ANYBODY who asks for my vote OWES me the TRUTH.

[pnwmom]

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?

[Little Star]

26. OJ?

just asking.......

[1932]

29. So, if there's no proof of a conviction, yet there is proof of an

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.

[TankLV]

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?!?!

[krispos42]

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.

[Hosnon]

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.

[krispos42]

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.

[druidity33]

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...

[rodeodance]

44. people seldom recognize their priviledge (such as White priviledge)

[Rose Siding]

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.

[SoCalDem]

56. I remember republican congresspeople spending MILLIONS

to "investigate" the Clintons..hmmmm

[slowry]

14. He was probably arrested for...

... being racist, but not racist enough.

[Rose Siding]

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.

[Old and In the Way]

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?

[KayLaw]

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.

[mtnester]

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

[Igel]

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.

[jefferson_dem]

22. No offense intended but if sen. macaca skipped out on a court appearance

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.

[williesgirl]

23. Fellow Virginians & I will give this slimebag the boot on 11/7 - recommended

[NashVegas]

27. Why Can't FOIA Open The Records?

..

[Jim Lane]

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.

[NashVegas]

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?"

[Maddy McCall]

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

[lonestarnot]

28. The Macaca caller is a total looser who shouldn't hold any elected office.

[louis-t]

34. Please, please, please...

It's "loser". Sorry, pet peeve.

[lonestarnot]

61. Thanks spelling police.

LOL

[louis-t]

71. giggle.

[LibDemAlways]

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.

[elehhhhna]

31. THUG CRIMINALS, all.

[tewl]

37. I wonder what's in them??

Inquiring minds want to know :think:

[Maraya1969]

40. Someone should be able to get their hands on this. We are a resourceful

lot.

[truthisfreedom]

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.

[Maddy McCall]

58. Even convictions can be expunged,

[Zambero]

49. Allen's FACTS are much stranger than Webb's FICTION

Especially when the facts are deliberately suppressed.

[Lena inRI]

64. Great zinger Zambero. . .

Nothing stings like the truth

:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

[civildisoBDence]

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

[Divine Discontent]

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

[Maddy McCall]

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?

[orleans]

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?)

[Vinca]

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.

[LibDemAlways]

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.

[The Wizard]

62. The guess here is

drunken public masturbation with malice toward all. At least that's what he's doing now-----------figuratively speaking.

[Ethelk2044]

63. DNC AD

This would make a good DNC AD

[Marie26]

65. Multiple Arrest Warrants?

Oh my. :bounce:

[JPZenger]

66. UVA's Honor System and Judiciary System

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.

[underpants]

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.

[Supersedeas]

69. More missing (AWOL) official records--another one of them there coincidences

[sui generis]

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.

[AllexxisF1]

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

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?

[sui generis]

80. just a second

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.

[Dr Fate]

81. On what past DEM victory do you model your analysis?

??????????????

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

85. Do you even have a single, solitary example of your approach ever working?

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

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.

[Justitia]

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.

[Dr Fate]

99. Exactly- we are not lying or making up anything like they do- BIG difference.

n/t

[sui generis]

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.

[Justitia]

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

115. "I think it's fine to bring it up, in the sense of "what are you hiding"- I agree.

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?

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

123. Are we arguing semantics or how to win elections?- I forgot.

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

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.

[Dr Fate]

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.

[sui generis]

111. = hyperbole

jeesus fucking christ. I reiterate, when you stoop to argue with . . . .

[Dr Fate]

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

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?

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

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?

[Dr Fate]

88. And I've got Macacca's number- (new info & link)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2511125&mesg_id=2511125

And you are saying this does not matter? I beg to differ.

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

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.

[sui generis]

103. did you just say "thuh enumy"??????

You're not listing my strawmen. You're full of shit.

ciao bruto.

[Dr Fate]

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?????

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

116. I never said we sling mud- I said we make pointed, factual assertions.

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

129. Wrong- I stated that it is huge factor, which is true.

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.

[sui generis]

130. "at least some"

speaks volumes about our cohesiveness.

Now you're just arguing because it's fun, like me.

[Dr Fate]

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.

[shanti]

87. so...

if what you say is true, then everything about the chimp, even stuff 30+ years ago, is pointless as well.

ok....:eyes:

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

131. In other words-I have examples of real life elections and you dont.

n/t

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

137. Insulting me does not mean you win the debate-except maybe in your mind.

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

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.

[gkhouston]

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...

[Dr Fate]

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.

[happydreams]

95. Sue generously I always say.

:bounce:

[0rganism]

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

139. It also had the impact it did for 2 other reasons:

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.

[sui generis]

140. sorry, I am not meek or a wimp

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. ;)

[Dr Fate]

146. Good. I dont know where I said you were.

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[gatlingforme]

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

[Dr Fate]

86. Let him exaplain that distinction to swing-voters....

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[AllexxisF1]

101. Character Flaws?

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

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?

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

126. I never called you names that I know of.

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.

[sui generis]

128. reading is fundamental.

so is reading comprehension.

clearly.

[Dr Fate]

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[Dr Fate]

145. We have established that you cant provide any examples b/c they dont exist.

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.

[sui generis]

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.

[confludemocrat]

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?

[Imagevision]

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??!