CSNbbs

Ho Ho Ho!

Krystal Ball dressed as a naughty Santa at a party "right after college." Her then-husband wore a ***** on his nose and leash around his neck. Years later, Krystal decided to run for Congress in Virginia. Guess what happened next?

Krystal Ball is running as a Democrat in Virginia's solidly Republican first district, which means there's no way she'll win. Which is too bad, because how funny would it be if future history books had to include a paragraph about Krystal Ball's Great *****-Nosed Reindeer Scandal of 2010 ? Anyway, Krystal's 29 and graduated from UVA in 2003, which puts her squarely in the Facebook generation. So consider these nine pictures—which a right-wing blog dug up—our first glimpse at the coming ludicrous future where all political candidates have caches of embarrassing digital pictures lurking on the internet.

http://gawker.com/5657412/9-pictures-of-...bands-nose

That's naughty?

Looks pretty tame to me. And the husband just looks like an idiot.

If they had cell phones with cameras when I was growing I'd be embarrassed to death if not outright screwed and I'm pretty sure most people would be in this boat.

(10-07-2010 06:27 PM)WMD Owl Wrote: [ -> ]So consider these nine pictures—which a right-wing blog dug up—our first glimpse at the coming ludicrous future where all political candidates have caches of embarrassing digital pictures lurking on the internet.

It's funny - 20 years ago we were being told to get ready for a future where all political candidates will have used drugs. We're there now and it doesn't appear to be a big deal. Now it's dumb*** photos on the internet. I assume we'll get used to this too...

(10-07-2010 07:14 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote: [ -> ]That's naughty?

Looks pretty tame to me. And the husband just looks like an idiot.

Go to the link and see the other pictures.

And any "husband" that would let his wife put a ***** on his nose and take photographs deserves a one way ticket to ****land.

Big questions: Is the trend gonna be that small stupid **** like the above will matter to voters in the future (if so, I believe that campaigns are gonna suck)? Or will people just kind of give a pass to stuff that happened at age 23 (or some other arbitrary age) and below? I could understand if it was a crossburning or a repeat/trending type of thing, but to reject a candidate as unworthy based on a photo taken in college over 7 years ago is shortsighted and will really constrict our candidate pool down the road.

(10-07-2010 09:00 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote: [ -> ]Big questions: Is the trend gonna be that small stupid **** like the above will matter to voters in the future (if so, I believe that campaigns are gonna suck)? Or will people just kind of give a pass to stuff that happened at age 23 (or some other arbitrary age) and below? I could understand if it was a crossburning or a repeat/trending type of thing, but to reject a candidate as unworthy based on a photo taken in college over 7 years ago is shortsighted and will really constrict our candidate pool down the road.

Agree.

I think we've gotten to the point that neither side has any ideas worth a damn, so the best way to campaign is to dig up some dirt on the other side. So anything that passes as dirt becomes a legitimate political issue.

It was really brought home to me in the closing days of the 2004 presidential election. Being in Texas, which was pretty much a foregone conclusion, we were spared the overkill that happened in key states. But the one thing that held was that if an ad showed pictures of W it was a Kerry ad and if it showed pictures of Kerry it was a Bush ad.

Wish we could focus on ideas. But, of course, that would require somebody to have some.

Our most recent presidents have admitted to smoking pot and doing blow. These things are slowly becoming of little importance. The question is if it's a good thing or not.

BFD

I dont think she is supposed to be santa....and someone that is from this generation and is only 25 and will be voting for some time does not see this as a big deal, do we honestly truly believe anybody has never let loose and partied, more importantly do we want those people in office? think about its like a sheltered child that leaves home and then goes wild(i do however care she is fugly)

I'm 37, and I say BFD. I'm tired of gotcha politics. "She's a witch!", "He smoked weed!", "He snorted coke!". Hell, even "He was a Marxist when he was younger". Who the hell cares what someone someone does when they're a youth unless they continue it through their maturity? Now, Brock's problem is he continued it through maturity.

Bush was hammered mercilessly about his youth.

This is the best publicity she has gotten if not the only. I live across the harbor from the 1st district (in Norfolk; a media center for the 1st) and until this I had never heard her name.

(10-07-2010 07:22 PM)smn1256 Wrote: [ -> ]If they had cell phones with cameras when I was growing I'd be embarrassed to death if not outright screwed and I'm pretty sure most people would be in this boat.

This...

Here I was all feeling bad that she is getting dragged through the mud and then I watch the interview...

"This is Sexist"

Wha-what? You're actions as photographed were sexist or the release of them was sexist? Do you honestly think if it were the guy running for congress these would not have been released?

I am sick and tired of -ist and -phobe being thrown about whenever anything happens that you don't like.

Sum.. people talked about G.W.'s youth, but obviously it didn't matter with the voters. Just as it didn't stop anyone from voting for Obama. Which is part of the reason I think you saw less talk about it with Obama, GOP realized there was no point in pushing the issue. If previous drug use didn't stop conservative voters from voting for G.W., it surely wasn't going to stop liberal voters from voting for Obama.

I think people have realized that what you do when you're 16 or 23 isn't a great measuring stick for the person you are at 35 or 45.

(10-08-2010 09:21 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote: [ -> ]Sum.. people talked about G.W.'s youth, but obviously it didn't matter with the voters. Just as it didn't stop anyone from voting for Obama. Which is part of the reason I think you saw less talk about it with Obama, GOP realized there was no point in pushing the issue. If previous drug use didn't stop conservative voters from voting for G.W., it surely wasn't going to stop liberal voters from voting for Obama.

I think people have realized that what you do when you're 16 or 23 isn't a great measuring stick for the person you are at 35 or 45.

Oh really? Somehow Wicca comes to mind.

I think the fact she's running for a conservative base, makes it a bit more relevant. When replying to Sum talking about Bush's youth, I was mainly referring to drug use though, not religion choices. I think it's obvious that in this country, what religion you practice is extremely important to some voters.

When you run part of your campaign based on Christian values, not being a Christian might matter to those people who would vote for her. That being said, I still don't think it's going to have much of an effect on if she wins or not anyways.

If George Bush or Barack Obama campaign's focus was on an anti-drug stance, then they'd look pretty stupid, and I'd suggest their drug use was more relevant to the conversation.

(10-08-2010 10:04 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the fact she's running for a conservative base, makes it a bit more relevant. When replying to Sum talking about Bush's youth, I was mainly referring to drug use though, not religion choices. I think it's obvious that in this country, what religion you practice is extremely important to some voters.

She's not taking heat from Conservatives. She's being trashed by liberals.

To be fair, plenty of Establishment conservatives have trashed her.