Posted on 10/31/2007 11:44:31 AM PDT by kregger1
So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that “everyone knows” The LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate. “Everyone knows” meaning everyone in the DC mainstream media political reporting world. “Sitting on it” because the paper couldn’t decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it. The way I heard it they’d had it for a while but don’t know what to do. The person who told me )not an LAT person) knows I write and didn’t say “don’t write about this”.
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
I do not think it would stop her from getting the nomination, but it might cost her votes among the more culturally conservative (relatively speaking) portions of the Democrat coalition, blacks, union members, and Hispanics.
However, it would probably kill her chances of winning the General Election. I do not see how a lesbian presidential candidate could get 270 Electoral votes.
Do the math, she will win in the liberal Northeast, but by reduced margins, she will also win California, but Pennsylvania, Ohio, and the whole of the South and West will go Republican.
ROFLOLOL, now that visual will stick with me until I go out to with the ghouls tonight!
Hillary going down would throw the 'Rat party into such chaos and depression among the delegates that Gore will be nominated by acclamation at the national coven convention.
This is my story and I'm not sticking to it.
Leni
Argument from silence
The argument from silence (also called argumentum a silentio in Latin) is generally a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.[1] In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the deduction from the lack of references to a subject in the available writings of an author to the conclusion that he was ignorant of it.[2] When used as a logical proof in pure reasoning, the argument is classed among the fallacies, but an arguments from silence can be a valid and convincing form of abductive reasoning.[3]
Here is an easily recognizable example:
Bobby: I know where Mary lives.
Billy: Where?
Bobby: I’m not telling you!
Billy: You’re just saying that because you don’t know!
Billy’s conclusion may not be justified: perhaps Bobby doesn’t want to tell him. Their difficult situation could be resolved using a zero-knowledge proof. Consider, however, the following type of argument:
John: Do you know any Spanish?
Jack: Of course. I speak it like a native.
John: That’s good, because I need to know the Spanish phrase for “Happy Birthday”.
Jack: Sorry, I don’t have time for that right now. Maybe tomorrow. Bye.
Afterwards, Jack continually refuses to give John the Spanish translation, either by ignoring John or by giving excuses. John then concludes, by argument from silence, that Jack does not in fact know Spanish or does not know it well. In other words, John believes that Jack’s ignorance is the most plausible explanation for his silence. Use of argument from silence in this situation is reasonable given the alternatives, that Jack either doesn’t want or is afraid to translate, would be unreasonable without more information.
Here is another example using the same argument but in a different context:
John: Do you know your wife’s e-mail password?
Jack: Yes, I do as a matter of fact.
John: What is it?
Jack: Hey, that’s none of your business.
When John repeatedly asked for the password, Jack ignores him completely. Thus, using the argument from silence, John concludes that Jack does not actually know the password. Such an argument from silence, in contrast, may be considered unreasonable, since a password is a security feature not intended to be shared with a stranger simply because they asked. It may be reasonable, by contrast, to assume that Jack does indeed know the password but refuses to say it for legitimate security concerns.
MAN IN BLACK:You've made your decision then?
VIZZINI : Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
MAN IN BLACK:Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
You are going to pay for that one Past Your Eyes:)
If it is Hillary and I’m sure hoping it is, they will have a tough time squirming out of this one. I think one more sex scandal involving the Clintons will be the kiss of death. Most of her supporters are willing to forget Bill’s dalliancesfrom the past but I’m sure they don’t want to go through that slime again.
I don’t know about Mitt, but it might be Mitt’s dog. After the trauma of riding to Canada on the roof of the family car, the dog, it is rumored, became oversexed and impregnated all the neighborhood female dogs. Mitt had to have him neutered.
I likeyour theory! Gore will be easier to beat than Hillary.
Give me a break.. they are all actors... Fred has just pushed it up a notch...
If there is anyone who is even less likely to see her power broken by some scandal, regardless of the seriousness, or level of proof, it is Hillary. Hillary will have to be beaten, and she and Slick are 2-0 in Presidential races. That is not cause for dispair, but it is cause for grave concern. We need to focus on getting our house in order, and working to win next year.
If some scandal causes Hillary and Democrats to implode next year, GREAT!, but we can't rely on it, and dreaming about it takes our focus off the hard job at hand.
This is not exclusively an MSM tactic, it pretty universal among Dems and "progressives", and has been used a long time, at least 40 years that I know of.
It may have "started" in many local places, where it is very effective. My personal experience is in Marin County California, where the "dirt at the last minute" tactic was used with great success by Barbara Boxer when she was elected to the Board of Supervisors and subsequently to Congress.
Surprisingly, when she attempted to continue that tactic in DC, she was marginalized never to play a serious role again.
To a certain extent, Pelosi and Feinstein may have also dabbled in the practice.
The one about Edwards already has been. That's where I read about it. I would post it but I don't remember the title of the article.
Didn’t he have prostrate cancer? Were they able to save his ability?
Rudy had a mistress on the side while he was divorcing the wife, then the mistess became the wife. It could be happening again.
It’s hildabeast....she’s no longer a bi...she’s pure lesbo...and has a live in lover...
NA...it’s hildabeast...she’s no longer a bi...she’s a pure lesbo...has a live in lover...who travels with her...and a campaign aid...that’s rather HUGE...
BREAKING!!!
RON PAUL HAS BEEN MARRIED TO THE SAME WOMAN FOR FIFTY YEARS!!!!
oh, the humanity.
Hillary? drugging and raping now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.