One of the posters in this thread made the following comment:
I personally found LS’s statement to be reckless and without merit simply because he refused to answer the obvious yes/no question. I’ve met LS, and he has a huge ego. He likes to talk about himself, and he likes to be the center of attention. He’s ivory tower. But when cornered he slithers past his weakness as though he is still in the right.
So when LS goes on national television and comments that a sitting US Senator has used the n-word without providing details and only a “take my word for it” attitude, that kind of opinion will just not work. LS and GA have never liked each other, and LS has often jumped at the chance to publicly critique GA. This could be viewed as a personal attack and not a rational statement—especially since LS has known GA for 35 years and LS has had an undisputed national platform and reputation for over 15 years in which to discuss this issue. So why did LS not come forward in 1993 or even in 2000?
Backing up this poster is an article in today’s Pilot. In it, Larry Sabato doesn’t quite admit that he never witnessed Allen using the term; instead he says his sources “are former classmates who came to me with stories that matched up.”
When Larry Sabato goes on national TV and makes a statement that he cannot or will not back up, then his credibility on this matter is, in my opinion, nonexistent. Why inject yourself into the debate when other sources are giving first hand accounts of it? You’re getting second-hand, at best, information and using your position as a political guru in an attempt to lend credibility. It ain’t working for me, Mr. Sabato. And I am disappointed that you would do so. Did your ego get in the way here?
There is enough noise in this campaign without you having to add to it. Please stick with what you do best – campaign analysis – and leave the rest to those who are not driven by personal gain to speak out.
UPDATE: In this AP article, Sabato says he never personally heard Allen use racial epithets.
Technorati Tags: George Allen, Larry Sabato
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I realize that this may cause the sun to not rise tomorrow, but this is a good post with which I wholeheartedly agree. I’ve only met Larry Sabato once — an intimate little dinner at Hampden-Sydney’s Middlecourt when I was a college senior with Si & Diana Bunting, the Poli Sci Department profs, and the two top Poli Sci majors, the other a Rhodes Scholar whom you probably know, Viv — but he struck me as a very astute guy. He diminishes himself by this more than he could ever injure George Allen.
Virginia Centrist:
I guess you were there to hear one, one hundred, one thousand utterances, or are you just “supposing'”, also? Maybe you should give it a break and not accuse people of something that you do not know for a fact is true?
It may be you someday on the receiving end of some “whisper” campaign that “you” said so and so… Then it is your “ox get gored”, and you wouldn’t think that too funny.
This campaign is in the sewer, and don’t look for the MSM to say “hey, what about the issues”? I thought Dems. were against “negative campaignging”?, what the heck is dredging up people from 30 years ago, to see if they “recollect” something now?
Well, that’s not negative, we are just looking for the facts! uh huh, Webb wrote an article very disparaging of women serving in the military, and Allen’s campaign daring to bring it up is well… negative campaigning!
VC, you discredit your University when you make such asinine accusations. Do the honorable thing and either back it up with facts or retract it.
You do remember what Honor is all about, right?
Larry Sabato’s career WILL be ruined, UNLESS he has the goods. I doubt a professor of politics would misjudge the gamble.
And the “why now?” is easy – George Allen never gave such a compelling reason, until recently. It is about honor.
Vivian, I think the answer is actually pretty obvious and honorable. Shelton was being attacked as a liar and a smear merchant. Sabato either had to let that go on when he knew different, or say what he knew. When you know that someone is lying, and they are using that lie to smear someone else, how COULD he stay silent? How would that even be moral?
When might Sabato save his reputation by disclosing the facts of his rumors and innuendos? Hearsay doesn’t quite get it.
Now that I have time to think about this, I think it likely that Sabato witnessed Allen using the term, which is why he reacted the way he did. But, he realized that he couldn’t possibly say that in public and backed off, saying that others that he trusted had told him about it.
If this is true, I think Sabato should just come clean and say he witnessed it. I’m not sure it would damage him any more than this already has.
Sabato’s original statement did not say that he heard it personally, and I doubt that he did: he didn’t really know George Allen in college. I think the explanation he gives both for why he spoke up and why he’s convinced Allen is lying are both pretty credible.
I know that he didn’t say that. I said I think he did hear it and that’s why he went out on the limb.