Republican Party Dirty Tricks

[WalterM140]

Oh, yes. There is a Republican party dirty tricks apparatus:

"Donald H. Segretti (born September 17, 1941) was a political operative for the
Nixon White House during the 1970s. Segretti ran a campaign of dirty tricks
against the Democrats. His actions were part of the larger Watergate Scandal.

He went to prison in 1974 after pleading guilty to three misdemeanor counts of
distributing illegal campaign literature. A major part of this was a faked
letter on Edmund Muskie's letterhead falsely alleging that senator Henry
"Scoop" Jackson had had an illegitimate child with a 17-year-old.

Segretti was a lawyer — initially a prosecutor for the military and later as
a civilian. However, his license was suspended for two years following his
conviction. In 1995, he briefly ran for a local judgeship in Orange County,
California. He withdrew from the race shortly after his campign received
publicity, which awakened lingering anger over his involvement in the scandal."


--wikipdeia

"It's no accident that Karl Rove was one of Richard Nixon's moles. Using
techniques developed by his first mentor, dirty-tricks strategist Donald
Segretti, Rove infiltrated Democratic organizations on behalf of Nixon's
infamous 1972 campaign. Rove's formidable talents came to the attention of
George Bush Senior, then incoming Republican National Committee chairman, and
the rest is history. Seven presidential campaigns later, Rove masterminded a
deluge of disinformation against John McCain, whose upset victory in New
Hampshire had given him a shot at the Republican nomination. Word was spread
among South Carolina voters that McCain had fathered a black daughter out of
wedlock (McCain had, in fact, adopted a Bangladeshi girl), that McCain was a
homosexual, that McCain's wife had a drug problem and so on.

Now Rove is masterminding the Bush administration's press strategy, but it's
far more than a press strategy. It's the central strategy for how the public
understands what George W. Bush is doing to and for America. In an important
sense, it is the Bush presidency. Rove's methodology largely explains why
Bush's popularity remains strong despite the unremittingly awful economy
(mounting job losses, weak profits and a three-year stock-market slide) and
despite the shambles of the administration's foreign policy (Osama bin Laden
still at large, al-Qaeda as dangerous as ever, North Korea more menacing than
ever, Israelis and Palestinians as far away from the bargaining table as ever,
anti-Americanism rising across the globe and a pending war in Iraq lacking
clear justification)."

http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/2/reich-r.html


Walt

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 6/10/2004 3:19 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Oh, yes. There is a Republican party dirty tricks apparatus:
>
>"Donald H. Segretti (born September 17, 1941) was a political operative for
>the
>Nixon White House during the 1970s. Segretti ran a campaign of dirty tricks
>against the Democrats. His actions were part of the larger Watergate Scandal.
>
>He went to prison in 1974 after pleading guilty to three misdemeanor counts
>of
>distributing illegal campaign literature. A major part of this was a faked
>letter on Edmund Muskie's letterhead falsely alleging that senator Henry
>"Scoop" Jackson had had an illegitimate child with a 17-year-old.
>
>Segretti was a lawyer — initially a prosecutor for the military and later as
>a civilian. However, his license was suspended for two years following his
>conviction. In 1995, he briefly ran for a local judgeship in Orange County,
>California. He withdrew from the race shortly after his campign received
>publicity, which awakened lingering anger over his involvement in the
>scandal."
>
>
>--wikipdeia
>
>"It's no accident that Karl Rove was one of Richard Nixon's moles. Using
>techniques developed by his first mentor, dirty-tricks strategist Donald
>Segretti, Rove infiltrated Democratic organizations on behalf of Nixon's
>infamous 1972 campaign. Rove's formidable talents came to the attention of
>George Bush Senior, then incoming Republican National Committee chairman, and
>the rest is history. Seven presidential campaigns later, Rove masterminded a
>deluge of disinformation against John McCain, whose upset victory in New
>Hampshire had given him a shot at the Republican nomination. Word was spread
>among South Carolina voters that McCain had fathered a black daughter out of
>wedlock (McCain had, in fact, adopted a Bangladeshi girl), that McCain was a
>homosexual, that McCain's wife had a drug problem and so on.
>
>Now Rove is masterminding the Bush administration's press strategy, but it's
>far more than a press strategy. It's the central strategy for how the public
>understands what George W. Bush is doing to and for America. In an important
>sense, it is the Bush presidency. Rove's methodology largely explains why
>Bush's popularity remains strong despite the unremittingly awful economy
>(mounting job losses, weak profits and a three-year stock-market slide) and
>despite the shambles of the administration's foreign policy (Osama bin Laden
>still at large, al-Qaeda as dangerous as ever, North Korea more menacing than
>ever, Israelis and Palestinians as far away from the bargaining table as
>ever,
>anti-Americanism rising across the globe and a pending war in Iraq lacking
>clear justification)."
>
>http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/2/reich-r.html
>
>
>Walt

I have a hypothetical for you, Walt. Would you be saying the same things if a
Democrat were in office and was doing exactly the same things? Based on your
posts I seriously doubt you would.

I am willing to bet you and George Z would find fault with Bush if he jumped in
a river to save a drowning child. Again, I only base this on the posts you have
made.

You have made your political feelings well known, now how about sticking to the
topic of this newsgroup.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Vaughn]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> Oh, yes. There is a Republican party dirty tricks apparatus:

Imagine if a bunch of people from some other country (say France) hijacked
rcm to talk about their domestic politics. Do you suppose that would **** you
off? It is incredibly arrogant to think that the whole world is so interested
in USA politics that it is OK to smear it across any newsgroup that takes your
fancy.

Vaughn

[George Z. Bush]

Vaughn wrote:
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Oh, yes. There is a Republican party dirty tricks apparatus:
>
> Imagine if a bunch of people from some other country (say France)
> hijacked rcm to talk about their domestic politics. Do you suppose that
> would **** you off? It is incredibly arrogant to think that the whole world
> is so interested in USA politics that it is OK to smear it across any
> newsgroup that takes your fancy.
>
> Vaughn

Is that First Amendment something, or what!! I hate to dissillusion you, but
that selfsame FA says it is OK to run one's chops on whatever one wants and
whereever one wants.

But what's your point? You embarrassed that a handful of English-reading
furriners might learn that some of us are a bit less than perfect, or maybe even
a little less than honest?

It must be hell to have our mistaken belief that we're all squeaky clean exposed
to the glare of enlightenment. Take heart, though....we've survived that kind
of exposure in the past, and I'm sure we'll do so again.

George Z.

[JStONGE123]

KICK THEIR ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TAKE THEIR GAS!!!!!!!




The Durango 95 purred away real horrorshow. A nice warm vibratey feeling all
through your guttiwuts.

[Brett]

"WalterM140" > wrote:
> Oh, yes. There is a Republican party dirty tricks apparatus:
>
> "Donald H. Segretti (born September 17, 1941) was a political operative
for the
> Nixon White House during the 1970s. Segretti ran a campaign of dirty
tricks
> against the Democrats. His actions were part of the larger Watergate
Scandal.
>
> He went to prison in 1974 after pleading guilty to three misdemeanor
counts of
> distributing illegal campaign literature. A major part of this was a faked
> letter on Edmund Muskie's letterhead falsely alleging that senator Henry
> "Scoop" Jackson had had an illegitimate child with a 17-year-old.

The New Hampshire primary that year occurred in March 1972 and the
distribution of the "Muskie" letter occurred prior to that event.
The law Segretti pled guilty to didn't actually go into effect until April
1972 (the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971). So while it might be
classified as "dirty tricks" the distribution of the Muskie letter before
the New Hampshire primary would not have been illegal at that time - so any
of the politicians in the Presidential race that year could have legally
distributed the "Muskie" letter prior to the law going into effect in April
1972.

[John Keeney]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Oh, yes. There is a Republican party dirty tricks apparatus:
>
> Imagine if a bunch of people from some other country (say France)
hijacked
> rcm to talk about their domestic politics. Do you suppose that would ****
you
> off? It is incredibly arrogant to think that the whole world is so
interested
> in USA politics that it is OK to smear it across any newsgroup that takes
your
> fancy.

Just block him and be done with it.

[George Z. Bush]

John Keeney wrote:
> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Oh, yes. There is a Republican party dirty tricks apparatus:
>>
>> Imagine if a bunch of people from some other country (say France)
>> hijacked rcm to talk about their domestic politics. Do you suppose that
>> would **** you off? It is incredibly arrogant to think that the whole world
>> is so interested in USA politics that it is OK to smear it across any
>> newsgroup that takes your fancy.
>
> Just block him and be done with it.

Actually, it's incredibly arrogant to think that the US owns ram and that only
Americans are entitled to use it. If you haven't noticed, furriners often do
have something to say here, sometimes about our politics, as do we about theirs.
As far as posting on an Internet NG is concerned, it's not just a free country,
it's a free world. Everybody can and does use it, so the argument is really
moot.

George Z.

[Vaughn]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> John Keeney wrote:
> > "Vaughn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> Oh, yes. There is a Republican party dirty tricks apparatus:
> >>
> >> Imagine if a bunch of people from some other country (say France)
> >> hijacked rcm to talk about their domestic politics. Do you suppose that
> >> would **** you off? It is incredibly arrogant to think that the whole
world
> >> is so interested in USA politics that it is OK to smear it across any
> >> newsgroup that takes your fancy.
> >
> > Just block him and be done with it.
>
> Actually, it's incredibly arrogant to think that the US owns ram and that only
> Americans are entitled to use it.

Who the hell thinks that? If you take the time to read what I said (you
quoted it above) you will find exactly the opposite idea. This is, and always
has been, an international group. We should not be junking it up with OT
discussions about domestic US politics like the one that started this thread.

Vaughn

[George Z. Bush]

Vaughn wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John Keeney wrote:
>>> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Oh, yes. There is a Republican party dirty tricks apparatus:
>>>>
>>>> Imagine if a bunch of people from some other country (say France)
>>>> hijacked rcm to talk about their domestic politics. Do you suppose that
>>>> would **** you off? It is incredibly arrogant to think that the whole
>>>> world is so interested in USA politics that it is OK to smear it across any
>>>> newsgroup that takes your fancy.
>>>
>>> Just block him and be done with it.
>>
>> Actually, it's incredibly arrogant to think that the US owns ram and that
>> only Americans are entitled to use it.
>
> Who the hell thinks that? If you take the time to read what I said (you
> quoted it above) you will find exactly the opposite idea. This is, and always
> has been, an international group. We should not be junking it up with OT
> discussions about domestic US politics like the one that started this thread.

On re-reading what you said, I must confess to a bit of confusion about what you
were trying to say. Actually, though, I don't think that the world is so
uninterested in US politics that it'd be inappropriate to discuss it in NGs like
this. We all need to keep in mind when our country roars, other less powerful
or influential nations perforce quake or at least shake a little. They might
very well think that it'd behoove them to pay attention to what's going on over
here in our domestic political lives.

Of course, it'd only be courteous to identify such OT subjects for the benefit
of foreign readers who might choose to skip such discussions. However, to
suggest that we ought to keep such discussions out altogether shows no respect
for the rights of Americans to exercise the free speech guaranteed to all of us
by our Constitution's First Amendment.

George Z.

[Vaughn]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Who the hell thinks that? If you take the time to read what I said
(you
> > quoted it above) you will find exactly the opposite idea. This is, and
always
> > has been, an international group. We should not be junking it up with OT
> > discussions about domestic US politics like the one that started this
thread.
>
> On re-reading what you said, I must confess to a bit of confusion about what
you
> were trying to say.

Thanks

> Actually, though, I don't think that the world is so
> uninterested in US politics that it'd be inappropriate to discuss it in NGs
like
> this.

Only that part that is related to the charter of the group.

>We all need to keep in mind when our country roars, other less powerful
> or influential nations perforce quake or at least shake a little. They might
> very well think that it'd behoove them to pay attention to what's going on
over
> here in our domestic political lives.

As it would also behoove us to pay attention to what is going on over there.
Remember the "Asian Contagain" when a drop in the Asian stock markets spread to
ours a few years back? But we have many newsgroups that are appropriate for
discussing that sort of thing and where your input would be very welcome and
appreciated.

>
> Of course, it'd only be courteous to identify such OT subjects for the benefit
> of foreign
*And Domestic!*
> readers who might choose to skip such discussions. However, to
> suggest that we ought to keep such discussions out altogether shows no respect
> for the rights of Americans to exercise the free speech guaranteed to all of
us
> by our Constitution's First Amendment.

You have a very warped idea of the First Amendment. Perhaps you need to go
read up on the Constitution. The government has no authority to limit your
right to express yourself, but you are not guaranteed access to any forum of
your choice. For example; you are not allowed to sit in the middle of the
public library and write your own thoughts in the library's books, also the
librarians have the right to enforce that "Silence" sign. You also do not have
the right to insist on speaking without restriction at virtually any public
meeting. Just try it and you will see. Also, you do not have the right to
continue OT chatter that is against the charter of any newsgroup, even though
there my be little that anyone can do about it if you have the lack of social
conscience to persist.

Regards
Vaughn



>
> George Z.
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

Vaughn wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> Who the hell thinks that? If you take the time to read what I said
>>> (you quoted it above) you will find exactly the opposite idea. This is,
>>> and always has been, an international group. We should not be junking it
>>> up with OT discussions about domestic US politics like the one that started
>>> this thread.
>>
>> On re-reading what you said, I must confess to a bit of confusion about what
>> you were trying to say.
>
> Thanks
>
>> Actually, though, I don't think that the world is so
>> uninterested in US politics that it'd be inappropriate to discuss it in NGs
>> like this.
>
> Only that part that is related to the charter of the group.
>
>> We all need to keep in mind when our country roars, other less powerful
>> or influential nations perforce quake or at least shake a little. They might
>> very well think that it'd behoove them to pay attention to what's going on
>> over here in our domestic political lives.
>
> As it would also behoove us to pay attention to what is going on over
> there. Remember the "Asian Contagain" when a drop in the Asian stock markets
> spread to ours a few years back? But we have many newsgroups that are
> appropriate for discussing that sort of thing and where your input would be
> very welcome and appreciated.
>
>>
>> Of course, it'd only be courteous to identify such OT subjects for the
>> benefit of foreign
> *And Domestic!*
>> readers who might choose to skip such discussions. However, to
>> suggest that we ought to keep such discussions out altogether shows no
>> respect for the rights of Americans to exercise the free speech guaranteed
>> to all of us by our Constitution's First Amendment.
>
> You have a very warped idea of the First Amendment. Perhaps you need to
> go read up on the Constitution. The government has no authority to limit your
> right to express yourself, but you are not guaranteed access to any forum of
> your choice. For example; you are not allowed to sit in the middle of the
> public library and write your own thoughts in the library's books, also the
> librarians have the right to enforce that "Silence" sign. You also do not
> have the right to insist on speaking without restriction at virtually any
> public meeting. Just try it and you will see. Also, you do not have the
> right to continue OT chatter that is against the charter of any newsgroup,
> even though there my be little that anyone can do about it if you have the
> lack of social conscience to persist.

Your problem is that you don't have the right to enforce that charter unless it
was set up for a moderated newsgroup. You might as well get used to the idea
that people will say whatever they feel like in NGs like this completely without
restriction. You're criticizing others who do that while, at this precise
moment, you are doing the very same thing. There isn't a word you've posted in
this exchange that has anything to do with aviation or military other than you'd
like everybody to shut up and stick to those limited areas. That's a bit of a
dichotomy for someone up to his eyeballs in a discussion of the meaning of our
Constitution and/or its First Amendment. Are you suggesting that it's OK for
you to stray from aviation and military to discuss those matters, but nobody
else should? If we all went along with that idea, you'd end up talking to
yourself.

George Z.

[Vaughn]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> You're criticizing others who do that while, at this precise
> moment, you are doing the very same thing. There isn't a word you've posted
in
> this exchange that has anything to do with aviation or military ...

Wrong again... We have been talking ABOUT this newsgroup which is
precisely on topic. But since this conversation suddenly seems to offend
you...bye!

Vaughn