• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

In the end, will all this bad publicity for Bush really make a difference?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Matlock

Banned
Honestly, in today's world with attention spans less than 15 minutes, can we really rely on the voters to choose the right guy? God, I hope so...

...but I'm losing faith.
 
the fake documents?

lets hope it doesnt effect him... otherwise we could all come up with fake documents, get them on 60 minutes, and then effect elections.
 
no it won't matter joe dipshit public, and jill cellphone SUV (aka america) wont give a shit. Bush would have to sacrifice a baby on the alter of satan for anyone in this country to notice.
 

Diablos

Member
Matlock said:
Honestly, in today's world with attention spans less than 15 minutes, can we really rely on the voters to choose the right guy? God, I hope so...

...but I'm losing faith.
Good point. Radiohead's Scatterbrain comes to mind once again.
 

Triumph

Banned
ZombieSupaStar said:
no it won't matter joe dipshit public, and jill cellphone SUV (aka america) wont give a shit. Bush would have to sacrifice a baby on the alter of satan for anyone in this country to notice.
Funny you say that. David Cross has a bit on his latest cd where Bush gets frustrated that no one notices all the fucked up shit he's doing, and decides to eat a Jewish baby.

And yeah, it would take something like that, or catching him in bed with RuPaul(gay and black! Trent Lott and Rick Santorum would DIE!!!) for Bush to lose the election at this point.
 

Teddman

Member
I found Barnes' testimony in the 60 Minutes piece more compelling than the documents they cited anyway. Too bad what he said about being pressured to hook Bush up with a cushy National Guard post will get swept aside in the document backlash.
 

sonicfan

Venerable Member
Teddman said:
I found Barnes' testimony in the 60 Minutes piece more compelling than the documents they cited anyway. Too bad what he said about being pressured to hook Bush up with a cushy National Guard post will get swept aside in the document backlash.

Yeah, too bad Bush went into the guard before this guy was Lt. Gov., and he left politics disgrace:

But “after he was involved in a bribery and stock fraud scandal in the early 1970s,” wrote leftwing Mother Jones Magazine, Barnes “never held office again. He was involved with a number of banks and thrifts that were mentioned during the S&L crisis, and forced into bankruptcy when the Texas thrift industry cratered in the late 1980s.”
By the late 1990s Barnes had become a millionaire lobbyist working for GTech, a company that operated lotteries in 37 states including Texas. The Texas lottery was losing money, in part because of a sweetheart deal in which Barnes received 3.5 cents for every ticket sold – more than $3 million per year. When the Texas lottery commission re-bid GTech’s contract, the company sued and – after buying Barnes out for $23 million – hired a new lobbyist. A fired Texas lottery director sued, claiming that he had taken the fall for GTech because Barnes had a National Guard story embarrassing to then-Governor George W. Bush.

Barnes, facing potential charges of yet more wrongdoing, told his National Guard story in a deposition in a successful effort to politically deflect his own responsibility in this matter. In multiple re-tellings since 1999, the details of Barnes’ story have changed several times. Its gist is Barnes’ claim that when he was the Democratic Lt. Governor he intervened to get Republican Houston Congressman George H.W. Bush’s son George W. into the Texas Air National Guard (alongside the sons of Governor John Connally and Senator Lloyd Bentsen, Democrats). Barnes now says he is “ashamed” of this. Trouble is, George W. Bush began the first of six years’ service in the National Guard in 1968, but Barnes did not become Lt. Governor of Texas until 1969. Barnes has acknowledged that no member of the Bush family sought his help, but claims he was approached by a Bush family friend (who died three years before Barnes began telling his self-serving story).


Because Barnes’ tale rests solely on his word, how good is his word? Given his long past of shady dealings, the shipwreck of his career on scandal, and the changes and inconsistencies of his story, Barnes appears to be less than a credible witness.

More doubt is raised by this partisan Democrat’s motives. Barnes promoted an earlier version of his story in 1999 and 2000 in a clear attempt to damage the presidential campaign of George W. Bush. And Barnes apparently has had the same aim in reviving this story, long ago discredited by an investigation by the liberal Los Angeles Times, in 2004. As CNN reported in 1999, “the Los Angeles Times said it found no evidence that either Bush or his father, former President George Bush, had personally tried to influence or pressure anyone to get the younger Bush a place in the Texas Guard.”

Ben Barnes has a large vested interest in the outcome of the 2004 election. He is a co-chairman of John F. Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. Barnes, as CBS News reported in June 2004, has made bundled contributions of more than $500,000 to Kerry’s campaign. Barnes owns a home near his friend Kerry’s home in Nantucket on the Massachusetts shore.

For many years Barnes and the lobbying firm he founded in Austin, EntreCorp, have made many millions of dollars by acting as the go-between bringing special interest groups and companies together with highly-placed Democrat officeholders. The Center for Responsive Politics has listed Barnes as the third largest all-around Democratic donor in America 1999-2004. So influential and important is Barnes to the Democratic Party, as this column reported last January, that Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle has nicknamed this fat cat money man and lobbyist “the fifty-first Democratic Senator.” If Kerry becomes President, reported the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in July 2004, Ben Barnes is at the top of the list of those close to the Kerry Administration likely to become “gatekeepers and endorsers for…appointees and job-seekers.” Given his sticky-fingered past, Barnes would likely also become a toll-collector at this gate, charging everybody he allows through it, and overnight he could become an even wealthier and more influential political lobbyist and “fixer” serving special interest groups, corporations, nations and individuals.

Given Ben Barnes’ shady past, dubious reputation and selfish mercenary motive to defeat President Bush and elect Barnes’ close friend and partisan ally John F. Kerry, what honest reporter would give credence to an unsubstantiated Barnes tale calculated to damage President Bush in the final days before the November election?

To top it all off, his own daughter says he is lying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom