Are American opinions easliy molded by the Media?

[Fury]

So, how big of a story will Bush's DUI arrest become in the next few days, and will the story influence any voters out there?

Is the timing of the story relevant, or is it just that Americans are entitled to know the whole truth about a political candidate?

I'm not going to pretend that I can guess why this story was released so close to the election.  It may very well be a simple release of a story, or it may be deliberate mudslinging in an effort to sway voters away from Bush.

I wonder how big of an issue the media will make of this story, and if Gore or any of his supporters or spin doctors will try to capitalize on it.  And I wonder how many Americans will see that Bush was arrested for DUI, and let that sway their opinion towards the other side.

I wonder if revelation of a DUI arrest that happened 24 years ago is relevant in this campaign.  One side of me says yes, it's always good to know who you are dealing with.  The other side of me says no, this happened 24 years ago and has little bearing on today.

A few years ago, this might have had a greater impact on me.  I'm not talking Repulican or Democrat, I'm talking any story about any candidate.  I wonder how many people have the same feelings as I used to have -- that this story has an impact on the election.

Here's why I believe this story is irrelevant to the election.  The DUI arrest happened 24 years ago.  Mr. Bush says he has been clean and sober for 14 years.  I beleive that people do have the capability to change; I believe that he did make a terrible mistake by DUI, it is human nature to make mistakes.  Insanity is defined as making the same mistake a second (or more) time, expecting different results each time.  Mr. Bush has apparently changed his ways, this mistake happened 24 years ago, and I have no reason to believe he is the same man he was 24 years ago -- thus I do not believe this is relevant.  I can only base my feelings of irrelevance on my own personal experience.  I have been clean and sober for two years now, and I can tell you that I am not the same person I was two years ago (or for the last 15 years, for that matter).  Of course, you'll just have to accept my word on that -- you guys don't know me any better than you know any political candidate.

We all have skeletons in our closet (except maybe for the saints out there).  Don't get me wrong, I believe Mr. Bush made a stupid mistake 24 years ago.  I will not hold him accountable for it today, because I know personally the extent that people have the ability to change.

I am curious to know how many people do think it is relevant; I am confident that this will play out in the next few days.  I am curious to see how long the media holds onto this one.

Fury
>> hmmm, I am seriously considering not posting this, I really don't see any point to it, but since this is an OT board and I do wonder out loud if this will have any impact, I'm going to do it.  Apologies for including a personal spin; I suppose it's another form of purging.

<<edit: let me be clear, if this had happened recently, I believe it should have an impact>>

As of this post, a cnn.com poll looks like this:

Will the news of George W. Bush's 1976 DUI arrest in Maine influence your vote?
 
Yes, it makes me question his judgment.     16%  5151 votes  

No, what happened 24 years ago isn't relevant to the election.
63%  19586 votes  

I wasn't voting for Bush anyway.
21%  6521 votes  

[This message has been edited by Fury (edited 11-03-2000).]

[Ripsnort]

Interesting that Clinton or Gore would have denied the story if it had happened to them.  In Clinton's case, he would have tried to re-define "Drunken Driving" as he tried in in "Sexual Relations" or would have said "But I didn't exhale into the breath-a-lizer....and Gore would have said "I was urinating since I drank too much tea while the Buddists discussed campaign finance when the officer arrested me"....

Interesting enough, the Gore campaign said they had no comment and nothing to do with the story, yet the Lawyer that dug up the story was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Everyone that's a republican voter was waiting for this, I was surprized that it came so late in the election.  Shows you how desparate the Gore camp is.

It will have no bearing what so ever on the election, since everyone knows someone close to them, or someone they love that went thru the same mistake, or ourselves may have been in the same situation but didn't get 'caught'.   Bush was pulled over because he was going to slow.  I think it makes him a stronger candidate to come out and NOT deny the story, said he made some mistakes along time ago, and carry on.

[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 11-03-2000).]

[Eagler]

Doesn't mean squat to me. Nor does his VP's run in's in the 60's. I don't think any of us didn't do something in the past that we would not want published in your local paper today. It's just another attempt to swing the "undecided"  voters over to gore. Typical democrat technique of confusion of the issues and priorities in an attempt gain votes. Same reason Gore has to have Jimmy Buffet at rallies and Ed Asner scaring seniors, they are desperate as they see themselves losing this election. I think this DUI release will back fire on them. Most of the public are smart enough to see through this latest lame smear attempt.

Eagler

[Gunthr]

<SALUTE> Fury  

I have the utmost admiration for 12 Steppers everywhere, whether AA, ACOA, NA, OA, GA, or any of the other programs. It is a wonderful and rewarding way to live a life. I know this from my own experience with friends who are 12 Steppers; they are some of the most thoughtful and genuine people I've had the pleasure of knowing.

Here is my take:

First of all, I believe that American voters have the right to know all about the candidates for President, or any other public office. It matters little how the information of Bush's DUI came out.

Secondly, Sophisticated voters will not believe that 26 year old DUI conviction has much relevence to the Bush of today. It may hurt Bush with other voters.

Personally, I believe in Bush, I believe in the conservative platform, and I will vote that way.

Gunthr
 

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Interesting that Clinton or Gore would have denied the story if it had happened to them.  In Clinton's case, he would have tried to re-define "Drunken Driving" as he tried in in "Sexual Relations" or would have said "But I didn't exhale into the breath-a-lizer....and Gore would have said "I was urinating since I drank too much tea while the Buddists discussed campaign finance when the officer arrested me"....

Come on, Rip...any excuse is right to save Bush's face for you?...


I dont mind who will get the White House, Gore or Bush, as both seem equally bad from my (far,far) point of view.

But Bush has been caught, and instead of the reaction you'd have had if Gore was the one involved, we see a: "well at least he didn't deny it"...

Come on, Rip...this is a thing much more easy to proof than Lewinsky thing. You only need access to the police records and you have the info. It is impossible to deny such a thing, without being a stupid.

I am just being objective here: If was Gore, not Bush, who was the one caught we'd have another "say the truth" thread.   , or, at the very very least, another ironic thread from you...

Instead you exculpate him   Dont get me wrong, its clear you support Bush and you believe in him, but one thing is to believe in a candidate and another is to support him blindly against all odds, and this is a good example of it  

(BTW I am the first to think that the Bush's story with driving drunk 26 years ago its quite irrelevant now...but well, he was the "honest" and "morale keeping" candidate, isnt it?...after all he has based a lot of his campaign on attacking Gore&Clinton on the grounds of their inmorality...so he has been caught in his own trap)

Oh, Well   I do think that this can shift some votes from Bush to Gore. Dunno what will be the result anyway  



[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 11-03-2000).]

[Eagler]

Ram
Rip is just pointing out the fact that Clinton / Gore have never admitted to any infractions brought against them no matter how strong the evidence. Bush immediately acknowledged this mistake he made twenty something years ago, while Clinton / Gore are busy lawyer double talking their way out every current accusation regardless the strength of the evidence. The democrats are great at finding loop holes or creating new ones or just flat out lying. If I ever need a lawyer I will be sure to look up a democrat.

Eagler

[RAM]

And I point out that it was the only clever exit for the situation ,eagler  

The problem is, that if Bush denies it, you only need access to Police archives to proof that he has lied. There is NO point in saying "no I didnt do it" when its easy to proof that you DID it  

And there is no "legal" loop possible. you know why?:

1-When you drive drunk, you drive drunk. There is no medium point  

2-after "shooting" thousands of accusations of "liers" to Gore&Clinton, if Bush tries to do a "legal loop" or to discharge him with some excuse, he will be gilty of the very same things he has been condemning in Democratic party...and of course Gore will immediatly take advantage of it in his next speech...

Result? Bush's political death. Unnafordable.

He has done the ONLY thing he could to to keep his options for the White House more or less intact. He has clever advisors, for sure, and he follows their advices.

But I dont think that,  had Bush been able to escape from this story by any means that wont involve his political death, he would have acted the same way.

To say "yes I did it" will cost him a lot of votes. To say "no I didnt" would cost him the race for the White House...

You REALLY think that if a "no I didnt" would've costed him less votes than a "yes" he would've admitted it?...I dont think so  

Come on, he is a politician. His business is to lie in a convincing way...  

[edit] lawyers are all the same, democrat or republican  ...a lawyer is -ALWAYS- a lawyer. That means that his business is to lie -STILL MORE THAN A POLITICIAN-  [/edit]

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 11-03-2000).]

[Ripsnort]

Ram, there's also enough evidence that both Clinton and Gore have lied about their past too, but they continue to deny it.  Its nice to see a candidate stand up and say "yes, I made a mistake"...something ego-maniacs cannot do.  Eagler hit spot on of my post, just pointing out the fact that one candidate can admit to mistakes, rather than to make up poor excuses such as "I did'nt inhale"...

[F4UDOA]

Ripsnort, Eagler,

Your right Clinton and Gore don't readily admit to any ifractions they have had.

The first Differance is they(Clinton and Gore) didn't build their entire campain on "Integrity" and "Character". The entire Bush campain has been based around what an honest guy he's supposed to be. The reality about him though is that he was a cokehead drunk until the age of 40 and has never been forthcoming with any of his faults.

Remember Clinton was elected for a second term after the Paula Jones sex story and the other girl. Most Americans don't care about that kind of thing and don't want to elect officials based on it. But the same Republican party who has run this squeaky clean campain image for George W. is the same group that chased Monica Lewinski around for four years. So when some dirt comes out on Georgy boy just think of it as what's good for the Goose, not how could they do that.

Later
F4UDOA

[RAM]

I understand perfectly your point, Rip...but you still didnt answer me  

You REALLY think that if a "no I didnt" would've costed Bush less votes than a "yes" he would've admitted it?...

I agree that Gore&Clinton have a lot lot to explain about their "half truths"...but their lies were the best way to preserve their votes. And so, they lied.

I am sure that if Bush had to lie to preserve his votes, he would promptly do it. But the best way, given his attitude in the race for the White House, for him to preserve the most votes possible would be admitting it with no problems, he promptly did it.

But that doesnt make me thing that Bush is more or less lier than Gore or Clinton  . Again, he is a politician...And politics are all about being the best lier possible  

[mrfish]

i think it will matter how the story is presented to the sheeple...err i mean people.
right now the press is kinda trying to stir up drama by asking "did they release this so close to the election to ruin bush?"

as long as they keep on that story line bush is ok and it will backfire on gore - if they (the press) decide to start turning this into a righteous moralizing session then he might be in trouble - it all depends on what the more emotional and dramatic story is in the long run -

thats what the people want and thats what the press will feed their sorry prettythanges - there are two possible angles - interesting to see which they pick to dish out.

go bush!

[StSanta]

He couldda killed someone.

Dead people don't come back 24 years later.

At that time, he would be old enough to know better.

I don't know the man, I don't know if he has changed. But what he did was pretty damned horrible.

But, if the yanks decide on this thing, 24 years back, then they're more stupid than I think.

Read cnn that Gore officials didn't comment on it. Would be dumb of them to do so, since the election ain't about what happened 24 years ago, unless you elect for personality.

Which Bush has said he doesn't want people to do.

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Gunthr]

Sorry, but the issue of Bush's 1976 DUI does not reflect on Bush's integrity at all. Many of you voters were not even born at that time. Bush immediately confirmed the recent report of the DUI. Bush also asserted that he has not taken a drink for years and years. I believe him. The man confronted his drinking problem and took direct action to address it. Nor has he made any excuses for his behavior. This shows Bush's character.

Undoubtably, Bush knew way back when he first decided to run for president that he might at some point be discussing the DUI in public. Can you blame him for not bringing up the topic himself?

The issue did come up. Bush has faced it in public. Now, it is behind him.

<S> Gunthr

.
.
.
.




[This message has been edited by Gunthr (edited 11-03-2000).]

[Shamus]

I dont really think that a DUI reflects on someones morality, judjment sure, but morality no.
As for Clintons double speak, the first time I heard his "I didnt inhale" comment, my first impression was, how can I vote for someone who is so stupid that he cant even figure out how to smoke dope properly.

Shamus

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Gunthr:
Undoubtably, Bush knew way back when he first decided to run for president that he might at some point be discussing the DUI in public. Can you blame him for not bringing up the topic himself?

in fact, if he had done that, I'd be sure that his claims about moral integrity are truth, Gunthr.

As it is I only think that he is another politician,not better ,not worse than others. He chose to launch his campaign from the "moral keeping" side as he couldn't afford to critize seriously Clinton's administration economic results, international policy, or internal matters. He could launch an attack on the reduction of militar bugdet, and about the moral thing.

Lewinsky scandal was too good a chance to lose it as a platform to discredite Gore&Clinton and the Democratic party as a whole. So he chose to play the "morale master" the "man with deep moral convictions", etc.

A man with deep moral convictions that risked other's lifes driving drunk?...if he had started the campaign saying "look what I did, I did it wrong and now I am a different man",he would have some big credit from my point of view. And IMO it would've been a VERY good political move in his "moral crusade" against CLinton&Co.

Instead he let the thing go as secret as possible hoping that it wouldnt explode, and now that he has NO OTHER CHANCE than to admit the story and to say he has changed, now he expects people to believe him?...

Come on, he is as lier as Clinton...happens that he chose another way of action, nothing more, nothing less...the only way for him to go out more or less untouched was to say "yes I did it but I am now a new man" and hope that people believe him...

otherwise would be a political suicide. And bush may be a lot of things...but he WANTS to be the President of the USA, and the only way for him to sit in the White house is just the way he has taken now.

But that says nothing about his integrity. In fact says a lot...about his not-so-true integrity.

But well I'm spanish and I dont vote in USA's elections