Will Major Dailies Do Stories On Allen's Divorce And Warrants?
Okay, so today both the New York Times and the Washington Post devoted substantial ink to GOP Senator George Allen's attack on Dem Jim Webb's treatment of women in his novels. So now the question is: When are the major dailies going to do stand-alone stories on Allen's refusal to unseal his divorce file and account for his unexplained 1970s appearance in court records? Allen and the NRSC (see ad below) are making a central issue of Webb's (literary and verbal) treatment of women. So Allen has opened the door for news orgs to press hard for his divorce record -- which could tell us something of Allen's attitudes towards women, specifically his ex-wife. As both Josh over at TPM and Political Wire noted yesterday, reporters are working on the story but the Allen camp is tight-lipped. Will we see stories on this? Relatedly, the DSCC today sent out a release demanding that Allen account for his appearances in court records and insisting he release his Bar application. Will we see stories on this tomorrow?
I strongly disagree. Divorce proceedings which are sealed should not be opened in order to examine the man's "treatment of women." This is dirt-digging, plain and simple.
The reason many otherwise good people don't enter politics is because of cheap crap like this. Leave the records sealed. The response to Allen is that the novel is fiction and if he can't tell the difference he shouldn't be representing Virginia.
The response is not to try to dig up dirt on him in places one shouldn't go. That's what we would expect Republicans to do. But that's not what we stand for.
October 28, 2006 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Writing a novel is a particularly difficult enterprise that requires a good deal of THOUGHT and REFLECTION. What has Allen written, lately? John McCain wrote a promo for the book and it generally received favorable reviews...these should be the basis for Webb's response to Drudgespeak.
October 28, 2006 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I strongly disagree with the person who strongly disagrees.
Lots of people don't get into politics because of exactly what GEORGE ALLEN is doing, picking ten SENTENCES out of five NOVELS, mischaracterizing them and handing them to Drudge, and attempting to disparage a war's hero's character with them.
The part that is missed in the "macaca" comments is that George Allen began that little campaign speech that day with, "We're going to run a positive campaign based on the issues."
Jim Webb has stuck with the issues; George Allen has smeared the character of his oppoent.
George Allen is an utter hypocrite. If Jim Webb's personal life is important -- as a novelist -- then George Allen's personal life is important -- as a divorcee.
My advice to George Allen: If you're going to try to throw someone in the mud, don't be shocked when you fall in yourself.
October 28, 2006 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is: It isn't important. And we don't show that it isn't by insisting upon a "I'm going to go personal on you" policy.
What is the point of having a stick to the issues campaign when, in fact, it gets ditched when the other side (that we knew would throw out a lot of dirt) gets personal?
October 28, 2006 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
To answer your question, there is a difference between personal attacks and character assasination.
Revealing your opponent's D.U.I. from 30 years ago is a personal attack. Repackaging old statements and writings to claim your opponent is a perverted misogynist is character assasination.
October 28, 2006 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
there is a difference between personal attacks and character assasination.
Oh, I have no problem with the distinction. But they both have no place in an issues campaign. Using one to justify the other when both are out of bounds is the kind of mean-spirited politicing we've come to expect from Republicans. There's no reason to essentially tell the voters of Virginia that there is no difference between how Democrats and Republicans approach politics.
October 28, 2006 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's also the matter of Allen's ex-wife, who is arguably entitled to privacy if she wants it.
October 28, 2006 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the Commonwealth of Virginia,with Divorce, it is one party -v- the other party, NOT THE COMMONWEALTH -v- GFA! Please, will someone with serious legal clout look into the '70's warrants...a man might be a B--tard to his spouse but divorce proceedings here (in Va. in the '70s) would NOT be listed this way. Please dig into this deeper...A bully never learns that "No means No!"
October 28, 2006 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Allen is telling people not to vote for Webb because he's supposedly a perverted misogynist, rolling out a 'record' through his novels and articles. That is the theme of his campaign. Not issues.
Webb is out there talking about issues. He's also defending himself and asking Allen to account for his character, as Allen -- not Webb -- has made this the capstone of the campaign. This isn't "mean-spirited," it isn't payback, and it is a different approach to politics.
October 28, 2006 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Writing a novel is a particularly difficult enterprise that requires a good deal of THOUGHT and REFLECTION." I don't know. The administration has been writing fiction for some time now. Thin characterization and bumbling, cliched prose, but a truly terrifying plot.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 28, 2006 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Albemarle County is a fairly small place. My guess is that there are quite a few locals who know the details surrounding the break-up of Allen's first marriage.
October 28, 2006 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
the ex-Mrs. Allen also has a lot to lose. Typically, if the contents of sealed divorce proceedings leak, the ex-spouse is likely to be the first suspect since they will be in the best position to
a) KNOW the contents
b) be motivated by a bitter divorce
Courts unmotivate them by providing stiff penalties for violating the seal. I don't know Va. law on this matter but it could cost her sizable chunk of change if it comes out.
the temptation is great but I agree with the post that suggested that we take the high road on this one. you can't sling mud without getting it on you.
October 28, 2006 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Virginian, who has been through a Virginia divorce (in the 1970's no less!) divorce cases are NOT listed as in criminal cases (i.e.COMMONWEALTH -v- Whoever!) Please quit barking up the divorce tree 'cause that dog won't hunt! (or fish!) And Virginia never throws away ANY court records, at least not in the past 400 years! The only court records which have been destroyed here are the ones which were sent to Richmond during the Civil War. Those records are known as the "Burned Counties" compliments of the United States Army. Those were mainly courthouse records from the eastern counties (except for York County.) The court clerks' thought the records would be safer in Richmond during the war.
October 28, 2006 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree with you, but I admit to being un-objective, since I am from Virginia. The reason his ex-wife won't talk is that her (very large) settlement was contingent on never discussing the abuse she suffered when married to him. He has more to lose by releasing it than by refusing.
What I don't understand is why there isn't a little more print about the non-fiction book George Allen's sister wrote in which she describes him as a sadistic, narcissistic, racist. The behavior she describes is truly deviant, and cannot be just passed off as youthful bad judgement (holding his sister by her feet over Niagra Falls, pulling her by the hair up a stairwell, hitting her boyfriend in the head with a baseball bat). Using the "n" word is not even the issue when a person views ALL other people the way Allen does; denying using it is an issue, because it is yet one more example of his lies. His former law partners were happy he got into politics since he was so difficult to work with and so bad at lawyering.
Jan Knaus
October 28, 2006 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"personal attacks and character assasination.
Oh, I have no problem with the distinction. But they both have no place in an issues campaign."
We're not electing issues or issue positions, we are electing people. Webb and Allen can talk all day about their views on the issues and change their minds the day after the election. But you can't change the person, not for 6 years. Candidates should talk about the issues, but mainly to show what their values are, what their knowledge is, and what kind of ideas they may have. That's information about the person, not the issues.
Digging around for embarassing stuff is something for which campaigns should be blamed if they do it recklessly and fraudulently. But what is the Democratic party going to say if voters ask: "Why didn't you say something during the campaign when you knew that this guy was an abusive, racist criminal?"
"Uh, we wanted to stick to the issues."?
October 28, 2006 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is preferable not to win a Senate seat for the Democrats (with all the concommitant national consequences) than to stoop to Allen's level.
October 28, 2006 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
I hope the major dailies don't do stories on Allen's divorces, warrants, racist remarks etc etc.
I hope they do stories on Jim Webb's DNC weekly radio address. I hope they do stories about the impending catastrophe in Iraq. I hope they do stories on how Allen/Bush are losing the war in Afghanistan.
I hope they do stories on Allen's warning that if Iraq falls the Chicoms will invade Taiwan.
I want the Dems to win that seat
October 28, 2006 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is (soon to be Senator?) Webb's response:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/28/205313/02
(complete with videos)
If Virginians cannot or do not respond positively to that, then well, we're doomed as a nation anyway, no Democratic majority can save us.
Spread the word!
October 28, 2006 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would we want to stoop to Allen's level? I thought that Jim Webb responded very well at a GOTV. Hit them back with issues, not slime. Go see:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/28/205313/02
Allen's time is running out and that's clear from the mud that he slings at Webb. But we all need to remember that in football--the guy throwing the hail mary is the one in trouble. And that's all Allen's latest attacks are.
October 28, 2006 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! Everyone who says that Webb "shouldn't stoop to Allen's level" learned nothing from 2004. Kerry needed to FIGHT BACK when the swift boaters started flooding the public consciousness with their lies. Instead, he "took the high road," and waited for the public to forget the charges. And look where that got him . . . and us. Sorry, folks, but in this day and age, we have to play dirty to win. Once we win, we can take the high road by enacting policies that put this country back on a more stable path. But first WE HAVE TO WIN!!!
October 28, 2006 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't fight back you lose.
You are telling Webb to lose.
Webb should fight back.
WaPo is doing a disservice by not suing to get Allen's divorce records unsealed and not telling voters that Allen is hiding things from voters.
The Chicago Tribune sued to get the divorce records unsealed for two different opponents of Barack Obama. Jack Ryan, his original Republican opponent, dropped out following it being revealed that he had attempted to take his wife (Star Trek star Jeri Ryan) to sex clubs.
Why won't the Washington Post?
October 29, 2006 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. His sister's book should be in the news right now if Jim Webb's book is.
The fact that his first wife got a big settlement should also be covered.
October 29, 2006 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did Kerry ever say anything equivalent to this:
" "Our government should no longer be in the hands of unprincipled, small-minded, power-hungry character assassins"
October 29, 2006 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even though George Allen is right wing wacko, he's always been a little ambivalent on the subject of abortion, even voting against Bush I with his very first vote in Congress.
I have absolutely no proof, nonetheless, I think there might be something in the divorce papers about reproductive choices by the first wife.
Rumor has it that Allen bossed her around and she just didn't want to play the Stepford wife role.
October 29, 2006 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
H-L One more item: The news is Iraq; and the fact most major newspapers in Virginia have endorsed Jim Webb, just like they did when Warner and Kaine won; and just like they didn't when Robb lost.
October 29, 2006 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Virginia never throws away ANY court records, at least not in the past 400 years!
I don't believe that is entirely true; the courts do not hang onto all records indefinitely, though I do find it hard to believe that Albemarle would no longer have any records at all, except index entries, of cases from the 1970s.
--------
The rest of this is off-topic, but just to set the record straight:
The only court records which have been destroyed here are the ones which were sent to Richmond during the Civil War.
No, that's not the case. Yes, the Civil War was the cause of a great deal of the damage to and accidental loss of court records suffered by Virginia counties, but it is not the only one. Courts have lost records to fire and other disasters and mishaps throughout the state's history. Nansemond County lost records when the clerk's house burned in 1734, Albemarle lost all but one of its order books during Tarleton's raid on Charlottesville in 1781, Appomattox County lost its court records in an 1892 courthouse fire, and some of the records in Greene County suffered serious water damage in the course of putting out a fire in the 1970s.
And the evacuation fire in Richmond was not the only source of record loss during the Civil War. The greatest damage to the records of Charles City County, for example, was done when papers were scattered in the woods during a rainstorm. See the Library of Virginia's notes on the burned record counties.
Those records are known as the "Burned Counties" compliments of the United States Army. . . . The court clerks' thought the records would be safer in Richmond during the war.
You're forgetting that the evacuation fire was set by the retreating Confederate Army. The records that were lost in that particular fire were a self-inflicted wound.
October 30, 2006 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's getting 1/1000th the play of the attack ads. Low-info voters are never going to hear about this response. If he hits back with a negative ad (or the DSCC does), they'll have a much greater chance of seeing it.
October 30, 2006 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's good, but the average VA voter has very little chance of seeing it.
October 30, 2006 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now is no time for wishful thinking! You know the papers aren't going to cover those things (other than general coverage of Iraq). That's why Webb either has to respond himself by hitting back hard against Allen or the DSCC has to hit back for him in order to win.
The GOP certainly isn't squeamish about working the refs (i.e. the journalists), and peddling garbage stories to them, like the one about Webb's novels. Why should Dems be?
October 30, 2006 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. You seem to be making a difference without distinction. All personal attacks are character assasinations, that is what makes them personal.
Both of the examples you used speak directly to the individual having poor judgement and that speaks to their character in a negative way. It raises questions about their judgement with regard to personal and public safety for the DUI and with regard to basic humanity towards the opposite gender. Either way, it is a smear on their character.
October 30, 2006 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink