York believes Masseuse’s Tale

Byron York at the Washington Examiner treats the Masseuse’s Tale as simply “credible,” and on that basis he conclusorily states:

[The allegation] has dealt a serious blow to the former vice president’s story that he and wife Tipper simply “grew apart” after 40 years of marriage….

And Gore’s family-man image will never be the same.

York asks no questions, he raises no doubts about whether the shocking and extremely damaging story of sexual assault is true. Instead, he simply assumes that it is true, and declares that Gore is permanently tarnished by it. This is unfair. I say that we don’t know if it’s true or not, and that that’s the way it ought to be treated pending further examination and information. Has York never heard of Potiphar’s wife? Has he never heard of Phaedra? Has he never heard of Anita Hill?

- end of initial entry -

Jim C. writes:

I don’t believe the masseuse’s tale, because she offers no rational explanation for the presence of Gore’s semen on her person. If Gore were a horny 18-year-old I might be persuaded that it was a spontaneous emission—but such things just don’t happen with men Gore’s age. A more logical explanation is that the masseuse gave Gore a happy ending and she wiped the sperm on her clothes.

LA replies:

I had not heard that the presence of Gore’s semen on her clothing had been established.

Jake F. writes:

I like your even-handed approach to this story. Whether or not the story is plausible, it’s still not credible until there’s been some sort of verification or corroboration. The corroboration doesn’t have to be about the same event, either: With Bill Clinton, we had Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, as well as undetailed rumors from Clinton’s security staff. Clinton was clearly a man of low character and high sexual appetite, but Gore’s flaws seem to run more towards a big ego and intellectual dishonesty.

I also like your post about the meaningless anti-Obama commentators. I’m really tired of hearing about how the public doesn’t like Obama. If that’s all the public remembers after his administration, they’ll chalk it up to political hack-work, racism, and the crises he inherited. We should be consistently talking about how bad his work has been for the country and about his racism. Instead of talking about how incompetent he has been, we should talk about how incredibly competent he has been at driving the stimulus, healthcare “reform,” and student loan “reform” through congress, and how bad it is for the country.

Jim C. replies:

The fact of the presence of Gore’s semen on masseuse does not matter—what matters is that she alleged its presence, and such semen on her person has no logical explanation as far as I can tell. Here’s Hannah Rosin on this.

LA replies:

The article you link doesn’t make a coherent point, as far as I can tell. Your previous point was at least understandable.

Leonard D. writes:

As I wrote you before on this: I would treat this story with a lot more skepticism if it were not for Gore’s recent separation from his wife. Younger people separate all the time. High level politicians, and people married 40 years don’t. What does Tipper know? She’s not saying. But certainly one reason good enough to leave your spouse of 40 years and the father of your children would be if you discovered that he was attempting to get sex from a masseuse in his many, many travels. A man who cheats once will cheat more than once. And that he sexually assaulted her.

I am by no means convinced of anything. Clearly my thoughts here are pure speculation. But I am considerably more willing to take the accusation seriously than I would have been one year ago.

Jim C. writes:

With Gore’s smarts he could have gotten a 20-year-old smokin’ Russian escort. Why would he be playing games with an older licensed masseuse? The allegation stinks. Does Gore possibly have women issues? Don’t know, based on this story. York is way off base.

Eric R. writes:

You are correct that this columnist’s supposition is a faulty inference. However, you have been guilty of such indulgence yourself in the past.

(this was regarding the separation of Sam Mendes and Kate Winslet, two celebrities for whom I suspect you and I share a mutual lack of interest)

Yes, I do realize you reclaimed your indemnity from judgment with your reply to the first comment. Your initial motivation, however, was betrayed with that post’s title, “Two different views of what life is about.” You assumed the polarization of those characters based only on the anonymous quotations of a gossip column.

That post has irked me like a tiny pea under the mattresses of your lucid writing.

Personally, I would love to see Gore figuratively crucified for his collective works of malfeasance. But it is not some commitment to intellectual honesty that causes my skepticism of this Masseuse Tale. Rather, I can no longer believe a modern liberal woman’s claims of a sexual assault. We have rewarded their commitment to Vitalism for so long now that hearsay has lost its sting. The timing of this allegation is far too perfect to be accepted at face value, and the (impossible, in this case) burden of proof is upon her.

LA replies:

I can see, sort of, why you wouldn’t like the title of that entry, but I don’t see it as in the same category as a writer in a newspaper giving credence to a very serious charge for which there is no corroboration. By contrast, I am a blogger who was commenting on a news story / gossip column. And what was I saying? That based on the statement attributed to Mendes by people who know him, he and Winslet had very different views of what marriage is about. Is that in the same class as giving credence to an uncorroborated charge of criminal conduct?

If one could never take published sources as being reasonably true and comment on them on that basis, that would put the commentating field out of business.

And again, a blog is different from a newspaper column. By its nature it is conversational and exploratory, subject to constant self-correction in a way that regular media are not.

Also, I have to say that I find it surprising that given the many highly controversial and sweeping statements I have made from time to time, this comment, “Two different views of what life is about,” is the one that has been the “tiny pea under the mattress” for you.

Steven H. writes:

I also believe the Massseus’s tale. This man is a veritable rogue. It rings of truth. This man is also a thief who would sell his country into the toilet. So let’s wait to see what unfolds. Please stop falling over yourselves to say he’s telling the truth.

LA replies:

“So let’s wait to see what unfolds.”

But that’s exactly what I and several others have been saying.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 29, 2010 02:04 PM | Send