| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
14 Sep 2004 03:19:04 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Kitty Kelley |
Don't mess with the Bushes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/salon/0,14779,1304379,00.html
David Talbot talks to Kitty Kelley, whose scathing portrait of the
Bush family has fired up the Republican camp
Tuesday September 14, 2004
After weeks of bracing by the Bush White House, the category 5 storm
has hit: Hurricane Kitty. Bestselling author Kitty Kelley's withering
portrait of the Bush dynasty, The Family, is landing in bookstores on
Tuesday - more than 720,000 copies of it. And the White House is
already on high alert. "This book is fiction and deserves to be
treated as such," snarled Republican spokeswoman Christine Iverson, as
the RNC fired off an anti-Kelley talking-points memo to friendly media
assets.
Kitty Kelley
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22Kitty%20Kelley%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kitty+Kelley%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kitty+Kelley%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Kitty%20Kelley&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Kitty Kelley |
14 Sep 2004 03:28:27 PM |
|
|
On 14 Sep 2004 13:19:04 -0700, (maff) wrote:
Don't mess with the Bushes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/salon/0,14779,1304379,00.html
David Talbot talks to Kitty Kelley, whose scathing portrait of the
Bush family has fired up the Republican camp
Tuesday September 14, 2004
After weeks of bracing by the Bush White House, the category 5 storm
has hit: Hurricane Kitty. Bestselling author Kitty Kelley's withering
portrait of the Bush dynasty, The Family, is landing in bookstores on
Tuesday - more than 720,000 copies of it. And the White House is
already on high alert. "This book is fiction and deserves to be
treated as such," snarled Republican spokeswoman Christine Iverson, as
the RNC fired off an anti-Kelley talking-points memo to friendly media
assets.
I haven't read this one. But if it is like her previous books on the
Royals and the Reagans, every story she tells names the source. She
even phrases it as "this person says xyz". So she can't be sued. She
is merely repeating what somebody who could be sued if they were
lying, told her. Yet none of her sources have ever been sued.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Kitty Kelley |
14 Sep 2004 04:44:07 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
On 14 Sep 2004 13:19:04 -0700, (maff) wrote:
Don't mess with the Bushes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/salon/0,14779,1304379,00.html
David Talbot talks to Kitty Kelley, whose scathing portrait of the
Bush family has fired up the Republican camp
Tuesday September 14, 2004
After weeks of bracing by the Bush White House, the category 5 storm
has hit: Hurricane Kitty. Bestselling author Kitty Kelley's withering
portrait of the Bush dynasty, The Family, is landing in bookstores on
Tuesday - more than 720,000 copies of it. And the White House is
already on high alert. "This book is fiction and deserves to be
treated as such," snarled Republican spokeswoman Christine Iverson, as
the RNC fired off an anti-Kelley talking-points memo to friendly media
assets.
I haven't read this one. But if it is like her previous books on the
Royals and the Reagans, every story she tells names the source. She
even phrases it as "this person says xyz". So she can't be sued. She
is merely repeating what somebody who could be sued if they were
lying, told her. Yet none of her sources have ever been sued.
Sued *successfully.* The Reagans tried, oh! how hard they tried. To no avail
:-P
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"The accumulation of all power, legislative,
executive, and judicial in the same hands...
may justly be pronounced the very definition
of tyranny."
- James Madison, _The Federalist_, #47
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Az" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Kitty Kelley |
14 Sep 2004 04:55:48 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
lying, told her. Yet none of her sources have ever been sued.
She has been sued numerous times. And each time her story stood up in
court. She may be a sleaze bucket. But she is an accurate sleaze
bucket. Just glad she is taking a bite out of the Bush clan this time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Kitty Kelley |
14 Sep 2004 05:27:20 PM |
|
|
Az <None@ofyourbusiness.com> wrote in news:tpGdnfG1V_FE9drcRVn-
vw@comcast.com:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
lying, told her. Yet none of her sources have ever been sued.
She has been sued numerous times. And each time her story stood up in
court. She may be a sleaze bucket. But she is an accurate sleaze
bucket. Just glad she is taking a bite out of the Bush clan this time.
Since she only goes after public figures, the burden is on her victim to
prove that she *knows* that he stories are false and that she intends harm
by publishing them. Look at how often the National Enquirer gets away with
their stories; very few suits against them have ever stuck.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Kitty Kelley |
14 Sep 2004 09:07:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:27:20 GMT, Fred Stone wrote:
Az <None@ofyourbusiness.com> wrote in news:tpGdnfG1V_FE9drcRVn-
vw@comcast.com:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
lying, told her. Yet none of her sources have ever been sued.
She has been sued numerous times. And each time her story stood up in
court. She may be a sleaze bucket. But she is an accurate sleaze
bucket. Just glad she is taking a bite out of the Bush clan this time.
Since she only goes after public figures, the burden is on her victim to
prove that she *knows* that he stories are false and that she intends harm
by publishing them.
In a purely rhetorical sense, and not implying or hinting at the Bush
clan in any way, would you consider the person "victims" if the
stories weren't lies? I can see arguments either way, the only
difference being is that if the stories were true, they'd be victims
who deserved it. Just curious.
Look at how often the National Enquirer gets away with
their stories; very few suits against them have ever stuck.
One of those that did that I still get the warm fuzzies from was Carol
Burnette. :-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Kitty Kelley |
14 Sep 2004 08:04:22 PM |
|
|
Uncle Dollar Bill <UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in
news:810yt2z77u6m$.j4d80066824j.dlg@40tude.net:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:27:20 GMT, Fred Stone wrote:
Az <None@ofyourbusiness.com> wrote in news:tpGdnfG1V_FE9drcRVn-
vw@comcast.com:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
lying, told her. Yet none of her sources have ever been sued.
She has been sued numerous times. And each time her story stood up
in court. She may be a sleaze bucket. But she is an accurate
sleaze bucket. Just glad she is taking a bite out of the Bush clan
this time.
Since she only goes after public figures, the burden is on her victim
to prove that she *knows* that he stories are false and that she
intends harm by publishing them.
In a purely rhetorical sense, and not implying or hinting at the Bush
clan in any way, would you consider the person "victims" if the
stories weren't lies? I can see arguments either way, the only
difference being is that if the stories were true, they'd be victims
who deserved it. Just curious.
I wasn't trying to load the term that strongly either way. Kelley's
overblown approach makes victims of anybody she writes about, whether
they're guilty of her charges or not, they end up being tried in the
media by the very act of trying to defend against her.
Look at how often the National Enquirer gets away with
their stories; very few suits against them have ever stuck.
One of those that did that I still get the warm fuzzies from was Carol
Burnette. :-)
I can agree with that, though the usual approach of simply ignoring them
is generally best. Making a fuss about it just gives the media more of
an excuse to dwell on the story. They're going to make much of these
"revelations", regardless of truth or objectivity or honesty anyway, no
need to give them any excuse, even at their own expense like the
Rathergate memos.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Kitty Kelley |
14 Sep 2004 10:14:48 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9564D661A7621fstone69@207.69.189.191...
Uncle Dollar Bill <UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in
news:810yt2z77u6m$.j4d80066824j.dlg@40tude.net:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:27:20 GMT, Fred Stone wrote:
Az <None@ofyourbusiness.com> wrote in news:tpGdnfG1V_FE9drcRVn-
vw@comcast.com:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
lying, told her. Yet none of her sources have ever been sued.
She has been sued numerous times. And each time her story stood up
in court. She may be a sleaze bucket. But she is an accurate
sleaze bucket. Just glad she is taking a bite out of the Bush clan
this time.
Since she only goes after public figures, the burden is on her victim
to prove that she *knows* that he stories are false and that she
intends harm by publishing them.
In a purely rhetorical sense, and not implying or hinting at the Bush
clan in any way, would you consider the person "victims" if the
stories weren't lies? I can see arguments either way, the only
difference being is that if the stories were true, they'd be victims
who deserved it. Just curious.
I wasn't trying to load the term that strongly either way. Kelley's
overblown approach makes victims of anybody she writes about, whether
they're guilty of her charges or not, they end up being tried in the
media by the very act of trying to defend against her.
Look at how often the National Enquirer gets away with
their stories; very few suits against them have ever stuck.
One of those that did that I still get the warm fuzzies from was Carol
Burnette. :-)
I can agree with that, though the usual approach of simply ignoring them
is generally best. Making a fuss about it just gives the media more of
an excuse to dwell on the story. They're going to make much of these
"revelations", regardless of truth or objectivity or honesty anyway, no
need to give them any excuse, even at their own expense like the
Rathergate memos.
NBC's been airing this crap, but apparently Lauer is acting "tough." It is
rather like someone giving an endorsement along the lines of, "I for one
don't give any credibility to the rumors that you beat your wife, Senator."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
