tom wrote: "A decades-old story, however factual or not, was revived, written, and timed in a way to have maximum negative impact on a particular candidate in an election. By a supposedly objective news organization. They can make excuses as to why the timing happened to come out this way, but that doesn't explain number 2:"

1) Um, I'm sorry. You don't know what you are talking about. The Premier magazine piece was from early 2002. Unless you have a time machine, thats not decades old. If it has been going on for decades by a lot of different authors and a lot of different sources, I would say that only adds the the credibility... Don't you? Or are you not going to refer to 'everyone else' on the WMD matter ever again?

2) Regardless of the motive of the people involved, the allegations are either true or false. If they are true, it demonstrates a SEVERE lack of moral character. If they were false, why didn't Arnold reject them categorically, and why are the same reports made from sources on TWO different continents...

But on to your vaunted point number 2:

tom wrote: "This same news organization consistently spiked or ignored negative stories about Gray Davis and his violence toward employees, stories that had evidence at least as credible as that given by the mostly anonymous women in the Arnold story, stories that did not take place decades ago but in the current administration, and stories that were at least as relevant to the suitability of Davis to be governor."

Again, lets suppoze one further. Lets suppose Davis liked to dress in drag and whip choir boys with a steel cable while singing ABBA tunes. Suppose the LA Times new this, but did not report it. Suppose they instead reported equally knowable accusations about Arnold S. at a time dangerous for accusations to be made against Arnold S. All of this ONLY means that. The LA times has an agenda it does NOT mean that Arnold S is pure as the driven snow

In essence, Tom, you are trying to have an argument about Motive, and not factual truth. You think that the Smoke of Agenda and the Mirror of ridicule will distract everyone from the facts of the matter. This means you do not think very highly of your audience here, or you are a complete idiot (see how that argument from motive works?)

I am not well read on the the personal behavior of Davis. I am glad the recall happened in a philosophical sense as it sparked some of the best participation in the democratic process I have seen in awhile. Davis was also a profoundly bad politician (not necessarily evil, but ineffectual and worthless at building consensus). I also did not mind the politics of Mr. S. and was pleased to see him doing well. He is so much more interesting then Davis, and its not really my state anyway. But all that changed when this came out. Its just too credible and his reaction to it makes it even more so.

So I won't comment on your supposed plethora of Davis incrimination. But it means all of jack shit when it comes to the facts about Mr. S. You of all people should be able to get this. That you dont is very sad.

But notice, your accusations against Davis being true makes this, at best, a 'mommy-bu-bu-buuut-they-did-it-too' type of argument.

But not as sad as the "Tom is having his pants beaten off so he will appeal to his minions here on the zone" here:

tom wrote: "The inescapable conclusion is that the L.A. Times is largely devolved into an organ of the California Democratic Party, and that is the point that I am trying to get across. I'm sure a lot of other people didn't have trouble following it. "

No, thats categorically NOT the point you are trying to get accross, don't be dishonest. You are trying to defend mr S. by indicating this is all a liberal concoction, as part of 'dirty tricks thursday' or what-the-hell-ever.

And I really love your last sentence. You got all of jack shit here and you know it, so you are grand-standing. You know I'm not everyone else, and you know you don't have a point.

Davin L