Asymmetrical Information

IIRC, didn't Clinton party with Golfer Greg Norman, then take a stumble down some stairs in the wee hours of the night, hurting his knee? Didn't Ted Kennedy "accidently" kill some young pregnant woman while being under the influence. Was it a big deal then? Why is the "rumor" that Dubya is drinking causing such a stir? It's been 24/7 Bush bashing, and it's getting really tiring. And I don't particularly care for the guy. This country has a lot of obstacles to overcome, but this never ending assault on the man is accomplishing nothing.

IIRC, didn't Clinton party with Golfer Greg Norman, then take a stumble down some stairs in the wee hours of the night, hurting his knee? Didn't Ted Kennedy "accidently" kill some young pregnant woman while being under the influence. Was it a big deal then?

Clinton is not known to be a drinker. Falling down the stairs in the dark shouldn't lead to an alcohol inference.
Ted Kennedy did kill someone and it was a HUGE deal then. It was on national TV for crying out loud and very likely cost him the Democratic Presidential nomination, if not the presidency. The right STILL gets great mileage of of Kennedy's drinking, which by most accounts, he doesn't engage in much anymore after the Palm Beach affair.
As for Bush, there's more reason to be concerned since he's admitted to having problems with alcohol in the past and apparently, never sought any treatment other than Jesus. If you are going to raise the specter of alcoholism with a tumble in the dark with Clinton, should you raise it with Bush who has taken a few more tumbles?

Well, Ted K's drinking is unreported in the way that Rush Limbaugh being fat is unreported - it may not get mentioned every time, but it's so well known as to be hardly worth comment. Michael Kelly's Esquire profile on Kennedy from 15 years ago is devastating.

Some of Kleiman's other examples are bizarre - I've certainly seen columnists openly snipe about Weld's drinking, and Boris Yeltsin's drinking problem was legendary. (He also snipes about the Kerry-intern issue without mentioning that it was the camp of Kleiman's candidate, Wesley Clark, who put the story out there).

Anyway, this meme has been pushed for years by the Left. And their track record isn't great.

You mean when he's biking, numbnuts? You think Bush is loaded when he goes riding, like with Lance Armstrong and shit?

You people are nuts, you know that? BDS is real, and you have it bad. Seek help.

You mean when he's biking, numbnuts? You think Bush is loaded when he goes riding, like with Lance Armstrong and shit?

How about the pretzel incident? Don't tell me you are dumb enough to believe that. And how about the time the blamed a mark on his face for a bike tumble in the rain, even though the weather report that day showed no rain? Then there's the Segway. And you seriously believe someone with a drinking problem won't get a bike under the influence? Geeze, alcoholics drive cars, fly planes, compete in sporting events, operate machinery while bombed, why not ride a bike?

I agree that this meme is really, really strange. It's also interesting that Kleiman seems to be doing his best to keep that meme alive (even in conjunction with the Kerry intern story.)

What is even more substantial is that Kleiman describes the National Enquirer story is being 'fairly circumstantial, though unsourced.' I would argue that it is not circumstantial at all and just a bunch of baloney. It is one story (Bush took a shot of whiskey after Katrina hit; this must be along going golfing AND playing the guitar.) and three unnamed sources and one author who's shilling his book.

I suppose that all y'all are more plugged in than me. I also imagine that this White House which supposedly loooves its secrets would manage to let this secret somehow slip out. It just seems really unlikely.

Well you have to understand Kleiman’s perspective – if Randi Rhodes and the National Enquirer say it, it must be true!

/snark

Seriously though, as another poster pointed out, Kleiman seems to be letting his BDS control his blogging (again). I’m curious though why Jane thought to cite his post as if he were making a serious point rather than trying to sling more mud at “gwb the beloved leader.”

Fairly circumstantial National Enquirer story is rather a contradiction in terms. You know, like government intelligence.

I agree that this meme is really, really strange. It's also interesting that Kleiman seems to be doing his best to keep that meme alive (even in conjunction with the Kerry intern story.)

Mark Kleiman always struck me as an academic who might know a great deal about his own narrow field of study but mistakenly thinks that expertise automatically carries over into other areas.

In this case it seems more like wishful thinking and Kleiman had any good sense, he’d encourage everyone on his side to quit speculating about this unless and until they have something substantial. Otherwise this is (rightfully) going to be seen as yet another smear attempt by the ABB crowd.

I hope he's drinking. I don't trust the character of someone who doesn't drink at all.

I always assumed that "Bush quit drinking" was just an endearing story made up for campaigning.

I agree with Aaron about not trusting a non-drinker. Give me Mencken any day.

As to the libel issue, the press merely has to avoid using the word 'alcoholism,' but can be quite free in reporting individual drinking events.

E.g. you don't have to say Ted Kennedy is an alcoholic; reporting that he had five whiskeys with lunch is sufficient for the puritan elements of our society to make the inference.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...omnibibulous...

Ted Kennedy did kill someone and it was a HUGE deal then. It was on national TV for crying out loud and very likely cost him the Democratic Presidential nomination, if not the presidency.

Yeah, man, what consequences for negligent homicide. Cost him maybe a presidental nod, maybe a presidency! OH WHAT HORROR! Now he's only the lowly senior senator from Massachusetts. The shame of it all.

Most people, normal people, end up in prison (rightly) for that sort of thing.

"As to the libel issue, the press merely has to avoid using the word 'alcoholism,' but can be quite free in reporting individual drinking events."

Well, it can if the events are actual events. If the event really didnt' happen it could lead to libel. What protects the press more in incidents like this is that people like Kennedy and Bush are public figures, making it harder for them to sue, and the political reality of not wanting to give the stories more play by initiating a lawsuit and opening themselves up to the discovery process.

We survived three 19th century alcoholic Presidents (Pierce, Johnson and Grant) and in the 20th Century managed to put an active alcoholic (Buzz Aldrin) on the moon.

On the other hand, other world leaders (Stalin, for example) caused great difficulties for millions.

My guess: most of the journalists are heavy drinkers, too.

Kleiman sources:
A Letterman joke.
A story in the National Enquirer(!) (Our motto: More reliable than the Weekly World News.)
Screamin' Randi Rhodes.

BDS, definitely BDS.

email is human readable - aloud.

Actually, being reported in the National Enquirer makes it far more reputable than if it had been reported in the New York Times. The National Enquirer vets every story through a team of lawyers to make them as libel-proof as possible. So either the actual statements made in the Enquirer are accurate - and remember that it's not libel if you report that "John said X", provided that John actually said X, whether or not John is lying - or the Enquirer ran with the story believing that Bush wouldn't bother to sue for libel.

And Jane, bad spelling is a crime.

Justus hit the nail on the head. Though our illustrious blog host, Jane, probably has more experience with this, my limited familiarity with members of the media suggests they tend to be a pretty heavy drinking crowd. Unless someone's drinking a fifth of whiskey a night, they probably wouldn't even notice.

There is one guilty comment that I have to make: Just yesterday, I made a joking comment on the kind of woman that Bill Clinton liked to romance. It was certainly unkind and something that were I faced with the President himself, I would be embarrassed and I would certainly feel rude or classless.

I wonder if Kleiman, Kos et al., feel they are 1) spreading truth about our public officials 2) making a joke (like Letterman) or 3) gossiping for gossip's sake. There's nothing wrong with it, but it does seem a little unkind.

P.S. the President I referred to in the first paragraph of the last post was Clinton, not Bush.

I dislike a lot about Bush, but his honesty in how he turned to Jesus to kick the bottle is one of his more endearing traits. I am sure Laura Bush, who seems a smart and loving lady, would ensure the man is okay. This is a silly meme.

Personally, I like my leader to enjoy the odd tipple. Winston Churchill was a serious champagne and brandy man and even Maggie Thatcher liked a glass of whisky.

Johnathan, the point is that Bush may not have really kicked the bottle, and if he hasn't, his vaunted honesty is called into question as well as his health, sanity and ability to lead the country. Alcoholism is a disease that needs to be treated. Jesus and the lack of getting laid, as Laura threatened him with, are generally not considered sufficient medical treatments. Until this man checks into rehab, I am not conviced his has kicked the bottle.

A quick add-on regarding the idea of not trusting a candidate who never drinks:

In a presidential election, there are three candidates

Candidate A: Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists.
He's had two Mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

Who do you vote for?

Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.

It's a therapeutic orthodoxy that all alcoholics must go into "treatment" or "rehabilitation' to stop drinking, but it's not a true one. Twelve-step programs and residential treatment centers are fine, but they are not the only way to deal with a drinking problem. I've known of several people who stopped drinking with the support of their family and friends without intervention from therapists or counselors. "Kicking the bottle' is not a one-time event, like sending cancer into remission; it's a lifelong, constant effort of will.

Uh, I wasn't aware that when Laura said "It's me or the Jim Beam" she meant "it's either sex with me or the Jim Beam."

As someone who's getting married in less than two weeks, I gotta sit down and think about this.

his vaunted honesty is called into question as well as his health, sanity and ability to lead the country.

Let's keep this grounded in reality, hm? Having the occasional drink doesn't endanger anyone's health, sanity, or ability to lead, even if they're an alcoholic. What endangers your physical and mental health is chronic substance abuse, which Bush is obviously not engaged in -- you can't hide active alcoholism when you're as public a figure as the President. And how would a relapse damage Bush's reputation for honesty, anyway? His reputation for steadfastness, perhaps, but honesty?

Anyway, the reason the press hasn't run with this story is obvious -- there's no story to run with, and most of the media isn't ready to take that final step into full tabloid status by reporting pure hearsay. If the media could find a single credible witness to Bush being drunk in office they wouldn't hesitate for one second before running a story on it.

Kleiman thinks New Yorkers didn't know about Moynihan's drinking?

He's kidding, right? Pat got no small number of votes because of it -- not because of his drinking per se, but because he was seen as the kind of guy you could sit down and have a drink with in a way that few Washington politicians are.

As to Weld, most NYers don't even know he's here yet and the papers have already been full of stories of his sodden exploits (and the orgiastic escapades of his staffers). At least the tabloids have been.

Uh, I wasn't aware that when Laura said "It's me or the Jim Beam" she meant "it's either sex with me or the Jim Beam."

So it was a sexless marriage? Hmmm

Clinton is not known to be a drinker. Falling down the stairs in the dark shouldn't lead to an alcohol inference.

Of course, he *was* known as a man who constantly cheated on his wife (and he had admitted to doing so), and the media still bent over backwards to avoid acknowledging that he was boinking Monica in the Oval Office.

I have to agree that Kleiman's post has zero substance, and reads like rumor-mongering sleaziness from Kleiman himself.

Which would be quite hypocritical, in light of his outraged Kerry defense piece.

If Bush were drinking, I'd be concerned because from the reports of his early life, he would seem the excessive-drinker-and-can't-handle-it type. Unlike Winston Churchill, say, who handled it well enough...anyway we expected it from Winnie.

But nothing Kleiman cited is remotely credible evidence that Bush is drinking. It looks like a lot of BDS to me, or (almost the same thing but not quite) partisanship and gleeful gossip. Any chance to turn the knife on Bush, who after all is about to nominate an anti-abortion Supreme Court justice.

Thanks, Jane, for the link. And thanks to many of the commenters for illustrating the wisdom of keeping my own site comment-free.

As to evidence of Bush's drinking, there's lots of it, though it's not conclusive. I never said that a Letterman joke constituted evidence; I merely pointed out that, now that Letterman has made that joke, reporters can't pretend they don't know there's a question to be asked.

As to my being an academic straying beyond his "narrow field of study," I should point out that my narrow field of study is substance abuse. When someone who was an uncontrolled drinker for a quarter of a century goes back to drinking, that's very, very bad news. Yes, some former problem drinkers can return to controlled drinking, but the prognosis is lousy. There's simply no comparison between moderate drinking by those who can handle their liquor and a return to drinking by someone with a drinking problem.

Finally, let me note for the record that Ulysses S. Grant was not an alcoholic. He did drink occasionally at a time when the "temperance" forces were trying to make drinking taboo, and a temperance group decided to complain about it to Lincoln. That led to Lincoln's famous remark about finding out what Grant drank and send a case of the same to all his other generals. But there are no credible reports of Grant's being drunk on duty, or in office. He was in many ways a bad President, but liquor wasn't his problem.

Of course, he *was* known as a man who constantly cheated on his wife (and he had admitted to doing so), and the media still bent over backwards to avoid acknowledging that he was boinking Monica in the Oval Office.

In what parallel univerese was this?

What the hell is BDS?

In what parallel univerese was this?

This one. Mainstrea media outlets ignored the Monica story for months. They started reporting on it only because the tabloids (like Drudge) were making them look like fools. Even after the story broke, they still gave credence to the "it's just a vast right-wing conspiracy" spin until existance of The Dress was made public.

When someone who was an uncontrolled drinker for a quarter of a century goes back to drinking, that's very, very bad news. Yes, some former problem drinkers can return to controlled drinking, but the prognosis is lousy

So your claim is that a man with less privacy than anyone else on the planet has managed to drink uncontrollably for a year and a half -- without leaving any evidence of it aside from hearsay, and without ever being caught on camera or on tape in an inebriated state?

Oh wait, I forgot. There's supposedly "lots" of evidence of Bush's drinking (which the people pushing this story may one day deign to share with the public). Its just that the media, while willing to push unsourced smears like the Rathergate memos, and willing to actively promote stories of Bush's alleged past cocaine use, is unwilling to accuse Bush of something he's actually guilty of. Sure, why not.

Okay, describe the evidence to us.

Mr. Kleiman,

I'll put it a little more delicately than some of the other commenters here have. Would you please be so kind as to share any of this "plenty" of evidence with those of us in the peanut gallery. Falling off his bike for me just doesn't seem to cut it. There's ample evidence that he is pretty much an avid mountain biker, and that's not exactly a low injury sport. I mean even in your post, you don't exactly cite any evidence - just accusations attributed to others. If the evidence is so plentiful, lets see it. If what you're saying is accurate, I'd agree. Its an issue. But at this point I really don't have any more reason to assume that its so than I would someone who came along and said that they had it on good authority that Mark Kleiman likes to kick puppies and beat up kindly little old ladies.

PS: I assume that your comment regarding comments on your blog means the degree of accountability that readers subject a blogger to.

Then there's the Segway.

Ah yes, the Segway. You should know that there was a product recall associated with that incident, altho the news report does not confirm what I had heard, which was that it was Bush's fall which brought the design flaw to Segway's attention.

Clinton never boinked Monica in the Oval Office. It's one of the main things Monica complained about to whats-her-name.
Maybe Bush should take a drink, or a puff, or a snort. He couldn't do any worse at his job than he already is.

You guys are off on the wrong scandal. The real scandal is that Jenna and Mary-Kate have a third twin: Flora Bush.

This one. Mainstrea media outlets ignored the Monica story for months. They started reporting on it only because the tabloids (like Drudge) were making them look like fools. Even after the story broke, they still gave credence to the "it's just a vast right-wing conspiracy" spin until existance of The Dress was made public.

What utter rubbish! The MSM was all over this story. Michael Iskikof was on MSNBC telling us about what he heard on the Tripp tapes. Reporters asked Clinton at a press conference point blank if he had an affair (This where the "I did not have..." quote came from) Papers like the Times and the Post had front page stories on this scandal repeatedly, and well before the Blue dress was proven to contain presidential DNA. The MSM even reported on false leaks which were damaging to the president, for example that a Secret Service agent caught him in the act with Lewinsky. Nice revisionist history Dan, but its not what happened in this universe, sorry to say.

ABOR (or is it a bore),

Speaking of revisionist history, your comments seem a pretty good example. The story was broke by Drudge. The MSM was sitting on it (they claim from lack of proof) and Drudge found out and reported that they had the story (kind of a clever way of getting around libel laws from what I can tell). I have no idea how old you are, but I remember the event fairly well. The Drudge story was circulating pretty widely when the media realized that there really wasn't much option to covering it (The Times actually never mentioned it until the impeachmeent).

Good Grief! People are complaining because the MSM sits on unconfirmed stories, rather than using the "so-and-so said" dodge. You can - and the National Enquirer has - say that Elvis was seen at the Burger King and still be technically accurate by writing the story as "[insert name of mental patient here} says..."

Mr. Kleiman:

I heard someone say that they had read that someone else said that you beat your dog.

Then, I heard someone else talk about the same thing later.

Well, in retrospect, I was the one who talked about it later.

But that makes, Twice!

So, there has to be some merit to this rumor, right?

Andrew Johnson was not an alcoholic. Johnson has been unfairly smeared.

Someone said that Bush was once a heavy drinker, and he never went to rehab. That means he's still a heavy drinker, up until he goes to rehab. As we all know, everyone who goes to rehab stops drinking. And no one has ever stopped drinking who never went to rehab. We also know there's "plenty of evidence" that Bush still drinks heavily. Kleiman says it, and if Kleiman says it it must be true. So combining 1. Bush never went to rehab and 2. Kleiman says there's plenty of evidence that Bush still drinks, you have proof positive that the earth is flat and humans never went to the moon. Brilliant.

Megan,

You are on probation for a week for reporting nonsense. Leave it to lesser thinkers. That's a week of me turning off NetNewsWire and not reading.

Grant not an alcoholic? According to the (then) Viceroy of India he got horribly drunk, pinched all the ladies then vomited upon his wife during intercourse.
http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=19736

So how exactly would the Viceroy of India be in a position to know what Grant did or did not do with his wife during their lovemaking?

As he was the host, I'm assuming the Viceroy made sure his staff gave him juicy and detailed reports about what went on in guest rooms. SOP.

What utter rubbish! The MSM was all over this story

Please try to pay attention. I already said that the MSM eventually got around to covering the story. The point is that they ignored it for a very long time -- Drudge's first big scoop was from a story the MSM had tried to bury. They started covering it when less "legitimate" sources started stealing their thunder.

Thorley,
I'm not sure if we should blame the libs too much for going to the National Enquirer for their news these days. After all, it *does* seem to have a better accuracy rating than either the New York Times or CBS. ^-^

Should we start a betting pool on how long it is before Mr. Kleiman and the other liberals start breathlessly telling us of the latest Liz Taylor diet delivered by Elvis Presley from a UFO while still expecting the rest of the public to take them seriously? ^_~

- S.P.M.

pro solution pill

This is the same Mark Kleiman who suggested that Bush's use of the word 'Grecians' for Greeks proves that he dyes his hair: he got the word off his bottle of Grecian formula. Of course plenty of us have heard of Grecian formula and never even considered dying our hair (sometimes because we don't have any to dye). More important, Kleiman missed a more likely source for Bush's knowledge of the word 'Grecian': it's found four times in the King James Bible.

prosolution penis pill

How is it we can ocassionally get random letters of the alphabet banned out of the clear blue sky, but this "prosolution penis pill" nonsense had made regular appearances for about a week?

sizegenetics

EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE REFERRING TO THE "W" DRINKING RUMOR AS A MEME.
IT'S NOT A MEME. A MEME IS A GESTURE OR GESTICULATION, EG. RAPPERS WHO EMPHASIZE WITH WRIST FLEXED, AND THUMB AND PINKY EXTENDED. A FEW YEARS LATER, IT BECOMES A STANDARD BODY LANGUAGE TRAIT AMONGST MY PINKY-WHITE, IRISH CATHOLIC NEPHEWS.
THESE ARE MEMES AND THEY SPREAD IN THE CULTURE IN THE SAME MATHEMATICAL PROGRESSION AS GENES.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG

The Drudge story was circulating pretty widely when the media realized that there really wasn't much option to covering it (The Times actually never mentioned it until the impeachmeent).

Bill, you post crap like this and expect us to take you seriousl? I am not sure what date you are using as the start of "the impeachment" but being charitable to you, the earliest was in October of 98, when the house voted for an inquiry. The Starr Report was issued on 9/10/98. The Times printed it in its entirety in a special section. The Starr Report carried every detail of who touched who, when and where, yet you want to claim that the Times never reported on this until the impeachment? Give me a break!

Please try to pay attention. I already said that the MSM eventually got around to covering the story. The point is that they ignored it for a very long time -- Drudge's first big scoop was from a story the MSM had tried to bury. They started covering it when less "legitimate" sources started stealing their thunder.

Dan, not only am I keeping up, I am way ahead of you. The MSM didn't take "a very long time" to report this story. Drudge broke it on Jan. 17, 1998. The WAPO (clearly MSM) began coverage on Jan 21. Just about every media outlet in the country, (CNN, NY TIMES,) covered Clinton's denial. ("I did not haev sexual relations."..) on 1/26. Jackie Judd of ABC news first reported on the famous blue dress on 1/23. Again, the notion that the media ignored the sexual affair for a "very long time" is a piece of revisionist history.

While I understand your point, Jane, and having lived in DC for a number of years have experienced the hard drinking/working lifestyle myself, alcoholism is not just in the eye of the beholder. Ask anyone who has had an alcoholic in their lives. Personally, I make no claim as to where to draw a line (my personal test was to see if in times of stress I wanted to reach for a drink: in general, much as I love a good cocktail, I found that a cookie always seemed preferable!), but I've seen too many lives deeply affected by alcoholism to consider it merely a judgement call.

Once a drunk, always a drunk, and Bush admitted he was a drunk. That alone, if he has returned to drinking, should make him unfit for holding his office.

Once a drunk, always a drunk, and Bush admitted he was a drunk. That alone, if he has returned to drinking, should make him unfit for holding his office.

When he shows up for his official duties with an intern still dangling on the hook -- err, with a bottle still pressed to his lips -- then he can be regarded as unfit for office. Otherwise, his personal life is between him and his wife.

Or so we were told back when the Republicans were conducting a presidential witch-hunt, and with far stronger evidence I might add.

I'm considering this "story" in Hollywood light. Just about EVERYone in movies except a few character actors can be thin and beautiful in spite of wealth, temptation of all kinds, and constant ego gratification leading to a misguided belief that they're at the center of the universe, because they all have staffs of people who ride them like Marine drill sergeants to do the necessary to stay thin and beautiful. (The drugs may help with the "thin," but they'd be deleterious to the "beautiful" if there weren't a Marine drill sergeant makeup artist standing by to correct the damage.) If Bush were hitting the bottle again, I'd have to think that those concerned with the Fate of the Free World would be shadowing him day and night to ensure that, at minimum, he wouldn't screw up major policy initiatives or press conferences.

Falling off a mountain bike is half - well, maybe somewhat less than half - the fun.

Flaime,
Once a National Enquirer reader always a National Enquirer reader and the liberals have now admitted they are National Enquirer readers who take the National Enquirer seriously. That alone should make the liberals unfit for political life. Sad but true. If you doubt me then ask yourself "How often did the National Enquirer ever get it right?" ^_~

Comments are Closed.