BoCo

<hr>
LA Times Caught Lying Again: Davis Hack Is Behind Attack


The insanely pro-Democrat Los Angeles Times has been exposed once again. LA Weekly has found plenty of holes in the rag's story Saturday about three more women accusing Arnold Schwarzenegger of sexual misconduct.

The Times, which also specializes in leftward-biased polls, claims that none of Schwarzenegger’s opponents prompted the accusations. However, LA Weekly columnist Bill Bradley notes:

One of the three women in the story says she came forward at the urging of Jodie Evans, described by the Times as a peace activist and "co-founder of the women’s peace group Code Pink." At best, this is an incomplete, misleading description.
Here’s what the newspaper should have said about Evans. She is actually a former close colleague of Gov. Gray Davis, a longtime Democratic operative and a friend of noted Democratic hit man Bob Mulholland. Evans is also the ex-wife of Westside financier Max Palevsky, the man who gave Gray Davis his first job in politics as the fund-raiser in Tom Bradley’s 1973 mayoral campaign.

Oops! Someone should have told John Carroll, the Times editor and anti-bias crusader.

Evans worked closely with Davis in the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown. While Davis served as Brown’s chief of staff, Evans was Brown’s chief fund-raiser and director of administration in the governor’s office.

Why didn’t the Times give an accurate description of Evans, who has pushed at least one woman to come forward with last-minute charges? On the campaign bus outside Fresno just now, I asked veteran Times columnist George Skelton, who acknowledges the reality of Evans’ deep ties to Davis and the Democrats, why the Times described her so disingenuously.

"Maybe the reporters and editors just didn’t know," he says.

The Times is presenting itself authoritatively on these matters. If the Times doesn’t know where the stories are coming from, what else does it not know? If the Times is not ignorant about these connections, that is a whole different kettle of fish.

As most Californians know by now, Davis is the champion of negative campaigning and has nearly perfected the strategy of last-minute allegations breaking in the final days of the campaign. It should not be surprising to Times Mirror Square that his fingerprints appear on at least the latest story.

Bradley, by the way, tried to arrange a debate between Schwarzenegger and Davis, which could only have helped the increasingly desperate Davis.


Times Pays for Its Bias


Hooray: A thousand readers disgusted with the rag's extreme bias have canceled their subscriptions, and hundreds of others have flooded it with angry letters, phone calls and e-mails, according to Reuters.

Schwarzenegger has noted the Times is working with its beloved corrupt incumbent, Gray Davis, in an orchestrated campaign of "puke politics" intended to destroy him.

One reader, Bill Agee, said the rag's stories were dropped "like stink bombs at the last moment to ruin the momentum [Schwarzenegger has] got."

The hacks at the Times still fail to give satisfactory explanations about why they attack Schwarzenegger so prominently for claims of mere groping but buried news of alleged rape by Bill Clinton.

<hr>
Link

__________________
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

123dsa

The accusations from the Times are a joke. I especially liked how they were referred to as "charges" rather than accusations from unnamed women. I'm glad I don't live in Cali.

LSD

lurkette

Um, this may be a little beside the point, but NewsMax is not exactly the paragon of objective journalism, either. Pot, kettle.....

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

BoCo

I never said it was objective. In fact, that's why I read it and support it.

__________________
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

sixate

I'll second that.
Don't you love how just because someone doesn't like your source they think it isn't happeneing even though it is......

lurkette

So does this apply to NewMax not liking the source (LAT), so they don't believe the allegations against Schwarzenegger?

I never said I didn't believe what they (Newsmax) were saying about the allegations being brought out by Democrats. (Frankly: duh!) I just meant that they have a lot of nerve criticizing the LA Times for being blatantly pro-Democrat when they themselves are so blatantly pro-Republican. Or pro-whatever-the-hell-they-are. Taking an opposite slant doesn't make you any less slanted.

I prefer news outlets that present a balanced and complete picture (not, incidentally the LAT), rather than being spoon-fed ideology that just confirms what I already believe. But that's just me.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

sixate

I don't know what they believe, but it's obvious they do ignore all of it. I look at all news sites, but for obvious reasons, I prefer conservative news... Yeah, you guessed it. I'm very conservative in almost all of my political views.

lurkette

Incidentally (heh, to get back to the subject at hand) I do think the "sexual misconduct" allegations are completely beside the point. If he behaved illegally, they should have filed charges. If he's a prick, don't vote for him. I don't think this has anything to do with his suitability as a political candidate. I wish both sides would quit bringing this crap up in elections. It's so irrelevant. Why are they wasting time on whether he groped some women instead of asking WTF makes him qualified to run the most populous state in the U.S.? Because it's what the people (ba-a-aaa! baa-a-aa! that's my sheep impression) will pay attention to, or at least what the media assume they will pay attention to. If they're dumb enough to vote for him they get what they deserve. Maybe he'll be a good governor but I haven't seen a single thing, not one, to suggest that would be the case.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

MuadDib

Who cares if a friend of Davis prompted some of these women to come forward? The fact remains uncontested that Arnold sexually harassed these women! There was plenty of reason to fear coming forward before now, not the least of which was Arnold's fame and wealth. This election gives these women a chance to prevent a deviant actor from taking the highest state office as well as bring attention to their claims. Now, maybe there are ulterior motives to why they came forward, but thats quite irrelevant because the claims are true and Arnold has admitted to them!

On a side note doesn't anyone else find it humorous that the Republican parties extreme moral opposition to Bill Clinton because of his sexual escapades still is heard today, but they have no qualms supporting with vigor a man who has admittedly sexually harassed no less than 6 women?

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

seretogis

The fact remains? Uhh.. The last I checked, only half have even identified themselves, so I really don't know how such an accusation can be considered "fact." As for the stunt double that claims Arnold pulled her shirt up and suckled on her breasts, several people have come forward to call bullshit on that claim. Fact? No. Desperate mud-slinging? Yes.

As soon as Arnold lies straight-faced to the country and a grand jury about it, you can make that kind of comparison. I didn't like Clinton because he was a sleazy career politician that didn't give a shit about the law and system that he was in charge of protecting. I'm not a fan of Schwarzenegger (other than as a form of amusement), but he has not yet proven himself to be in the same class of sleaze as Clinton.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

onetime2

First off he has not admitted to sexually harassing them. Second, very few Republicans gave a damn that Clinton was having sexual escapades. Having them with an intern and lying about it under oath is what pissed people off.

seretogis

And ruining a perfectly good dress!

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

MuadDib

First, he did issue a public aplogy about his sexual misconduct. By apologizing he is admitting he did it and he has never denied the charges. Second, some of the women have come forward and the difference between 3 names and 6 is further irrelevance as there are names and their is guilt. The only question is rather he does this sort of thing a lot or a frickin' lot. Also, the lack of names do not mean the 3 are lying nor is it even related to truth telling. Third, don't tell me that "most" republicans didn't care about the sexual impropriety. The mud slinging started long before Clinton's official testimony and if you really believe that lying to the public is what made them hate Clinton then how can they support Bush who's lies cost lives!

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

filtherton

Seriously, you're telling me you hated clinton because he lied???
I think the most politicians really could care less about lying, under oath or not.
Anyone who thinks deception isn't an integral part of politics is a little naive. It also seems a little deceptive then to claim to condemn clinton for lying when you accept the fact that all politicians lie, especially presidents. Apparently his only real crime was getting caught. Besides, if it wasn't really about the BJ, then the BJ wouldn't get brought up every time someone wants to invalidate his presidency. It was really all about clinton hating. I'm not saying the man was my hero, but it is ironic that now that there is a bush in the white house, criticizing the president is off limits and people are written of as "bush haters" to discredit them..
But then again, flip-flopping on the reasons after the fact is apparently now part of the republican platform.

If the people of california want to elect someone who does not deny that he gropes women and also, judging from the way he runs from any kind of uscripted questions, has little knowledge of how to run their state more power to them. Electing his predator costar worked out great in minnesota. We got a governor who threw a tantrum at any kind of criticism. Atleast it wasn't politics as usual.

onetime2

Obviously you did not listen to his "apology". He basically said that he may have done some things that at the time was "acceptable" in the name of "fun" and are now thought of in a different light. That's far from admitting sexual misconduct.

Mudslinging goes on all the time, no shit. The real outrage was the blatant lies under oath and the constant appearance of improprieties.

As far as Bush's lies costing lives that's your opinion. Whether Iraq had wmds ready for use or not, Bush would have gotten support for going into Iraq.

You prefer to think everything with Clinton was about sex and some deep hatred of him. I find it interesting that on one hand you say, "yeah he lied about having sex with an intern, no big deal" and on the other you call Arnold a deviant. Hypocrisy? Yeah it seems to be everywhere.

onetime2

Reading is fundamental. Show me where I said I hated Clinton? You may wish to believe that's my motivation and that's your choice. Personally, I take great offense to those who cheat the system. Whether it's people scamming insurance companies to those who blatantly lie under oath. Deception is certainly a part of politics and again, point to where I said it wasn't?

All politicians probably do lie. But not all politicians F*** their interns and then argue over the definition of sex or the word "is".

Character is important. Is Arnold the greatest guy in the world? Nope. is Clinton? Nope. How about Davis? Nope. It comes down to who is the most in line with your ideas.

Would I have voted for Arnold? Don't know since I'm not up on all the facts of his platform and certainly not up on the platforms of his competitors. If I lived in CA I would have been and I damned sure would have voted.

You point to the term "Bush haters" being used against anyone that criticizes him yet look at how you started your post? You claimed I was a Clinton hater. Pot, kettle, etc.

filtherton

First off, i wasn't talking to you specifically^^. I post for lurkers too. I was talking to any number of people who post on this board who have claimed or implied that they dislike(hate seems accurate) clinton only because he lied. That's my fault, but i guess since reading IS fundamental, tell me where i said your name at all? Where did i quote you? I was talking to every person who now conveniently labels clinton's dishonesty as their reason for disliking him.



Maybe hate is too strong a word to apply to you, but this:
seems like bullshit to me. Maybe this is what you believe, but i doubt that most republicans agree with you. Unless the minority that hate him for his BJ recieving qualities are the only ones who i see on TV and talk to.

He got a BJ and then lied about it. You agree that all politicians, including whichever ones you support, probably do lie, so clinton isn't anything special in that regard. Hopefully you aren't holding clinton to a higher standard than whomever you support. So it IS about the sex then, right. Arguing over the definition of "is" may be a losing battle, but it is still in the realm of deception and therefore grudgingly accepted as common practice. Don't say it was because he did it under oath, because lying is lying. The oath just makes lying a crime.
I got it! If he had just said, "I don't recall one way or the other," like a different president did when posed with difficult questions he could have gotten away with it.

Which is more important, character or being in line with your ideas? Sometimes they overlap, many times they don't. Sometimes an asshole is the only right person to get the job done. Sometimes the guy who does his job well is also a pervert. These aren't meant to be references to anyone in reality, just examples that when it comes down to it, character can mean nothing if it doesn't get in the way of doing the job.

idiotgene

That's funny. I never recall seeing anything of the sort as for Arnold's admittance to these claims. To be frank, what 20 year old guy DIDN'T grope women in the 70's? I know, I know, it's "immoral, it's wrong!", but when you find me a human being that has never done anything considered wrong or immoral, let me know. If the claims are indeed true, I think the degree to which these acts are considered immoral are pretty irrelevant when considering Arnold as a candidate for governor. So he might've groped some boobies when he was a young, immature, stupid guy... get over it.