Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Fighting the Right Wing Smear Machines

By Paul Waldman, TomPaine.com. Posted February 15, 2007.


Obama and Edwards have already been slimed by right wing smear campaigns. But we're learning to fight back.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Jim Hightower, Raising Hell
Jonathan Rowe

Democracy and Elections:
Are Feds Trying to Aid Republican Candidate's Election?
Tim Kalich

DrugReporter:
A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom
Lux

Election 2008:
The Real Elitist: Video of McCain's Collection of Mansions Reveal He's Not Your Average Joe
Steven Greenhouse

Environment:
Republicans Have Handed Democrats a Winning Election Issue
David Morris

ForeignPolicy:
Blocking a Gazan's Path to an Education
Fidaa Abed

Health and Wellness:
The Misshapen Mind: How the Brain's Haphazard Evolution Left Us with Self-Destructive Instincts
Sasha Abramsky

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Medical Neglect in Immigrant Prisons Reveals America at Its Worst
Kyle Hussein de Beausset

Media and Technology:
What's Going on with the Media's Ballooning Coverage of Celebrity Babies?
Meredith Blake

Movie Mix:
Protest over Use of the Word 'Retard' in Stiller's 'Tropic Thunder' Misses the Target
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Obama Should Pick Hillary
Lanny Davis

Rights and Liberties:
Stop the Execution: Jeff Wood Faces Death Tomorrow for a Murder He Didn't Commit
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
Catching the Wrong John: When Are the Media Going to Talk about John McCain's Infidelity?
Drew Westen

War on Iraq:
How Many More Iraqis Can You Throw Behind Bars Without Trial?
Fatih Abdulsalam

Water:
What If Your Tap Water Is Not Safe To Drink?
Elizabeth Royte

More stories by Paul Waldman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In June of 2004, I wrote a column for The Gadflyer asking why the right wing seemed so slow in getting its machinery of anger and innuendo aimed at presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry.

"Where are the anti-Kerry books?" I asked. "The conspiracy theories? The intimations of murder and drug-running? The maniacal ravings of the unhinged Right we've come to know and love?" Before long, of course, they got their act together, and Kerry never recovered from the blizzard of lies told by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and other assorted conservative dirty tricksters.

We all know how early the 2008 presidential campaign has begun. It is nearly a year before the first primary vote will be cast, and the smear machine is already taking aim at the Democratic contenders, hoping to replicate the successes it had in torpedoing the last two Democratic nominees and hamstringing Bill Clinton's presidency.

But it isn't just the candidates that are readying themselves for a campaign that will be longer and more arduous than ever before. And what about the reporters who have so often been the right's gleeful partners? There are reasons for both hope and concern.

In their repugnant book The Way to Win, ABC News political director Mark Halperin and John Harris of The Politico (and formerly of The Washington Post ) explain that, as journalists, "Matt Drudge rules our world."

In other words, when Drudge -- a right-wing operative who closely coordinates his activities with the Republican National Committee -- puts up a sensational story on his website, Halperin, Harris and the rest of their cohorts simply have no choice but to run off and cover it, whether it is true or not.

What's that, you say? Barack Obama once killed a man in a barfight? John Edwards is a pedophile? Hillary Clinton knows where Bin Laden is, but won't say because they're lovers? Run that baby! After all, "questions are being raised."

But amazing though it may seem to observers of the gurgling sewer of deception and distraction that is our modern news media, we may need to update Mark Twain's oft-quoted quip that a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on. Today a lie can get all the way around the world in the time it takes a liar to click "post." The good news is that the truth will be hot on its tail.

Consider the first of what will no doubt be many false stories spread about the Democratic candidates: the lie that Barack Obama attended a fundamentalist madrassa when he lived in Indonesia as a boy. When insightmag.com, a website owned by the right-wing Washington Times, put out a breathless report trumpeting the fantasy, Fox News immediately jumped on board, as did Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest of the talk radio bile spewers. "Why didn't anybody ever mention," asked "Fox & Friends" co-host Steve Doocy, a man who makes Larry King look like Oscar Wilde, "that that man right there was raised -- spent the first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father -- as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa?"

This sentence contained no fewer than five falsehoods: Obama wasn't raised by his father, his father left the family when Obama was two years old, his father wasn't a practicing Muslim, Obama wasn't raised as a Muslim and he didn't go to a madrassa . "Well, he didn't admit it," chimed in co-host Brian Kilmeade. "I mean, that's the issue."

But then, perhaps spurred by their more or less constant feud with Fox, CNN sent a reporter out to -- get this -- check to see if the story was true. ABC and the AP followed suit, and all reported to their audiences that what Obama had attended was nothing more than an ordinary public school. In other words, they did what journalists are supposed to do when confronted with a potentially scandalous story about a candidate: investigate before reporting it, then tell the public the facts. That those news organizations doing the right thing seems so remarkable is a testament to how debased American journalism has become.

Of course, by the end of the day there were probably many people who heard something about Obama and a madrassa , and now not only have the impression that he is a Muslim, but a Manchurian terrorist, as well. (You can read a timeline of the smear's spread.)

But among the politically aware, including journalists themselves, the story now stands as a cautionary tale. When the next Drudge-fueled myth is introduced into the media bloodstream, Democrats can say, "This is the Obama madrassa story all over again," and, if the stars align, perhaps journalists will decide to do their jobs.

After the madrassa story, it was rumored that Obama was now refusing to give interviews to Fox News in response to their appallingly irresponsible behavior.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election08, barack obama, john edwards

Paul Waldman is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America. His next book, Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success, will be released in the spring.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Be Fair!!!
Posted by: freedomhawk on Feb 15, 2007 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that the author might have mistaken who lied in the last election campaign. I remember a specific liberal news broadcasting company that forged documents to smear President Bush. That network was CBS, an openly left-wing syndicate for many years. Many liberal papers stated that they would not report anything positive about conservative candidates. It is easy to criticize yellow journalism of the right wing; however, be fair and equally critical of the shameful tactics used by the liberal media.

I do agree that the smear campaigns need to end. I have already seen several commercials by the liberal candidates attempting to smear Senator McCain specifically, but Democrats have already started smearing each other as well. Keep the posts honest and remember that in the last election in 2006, the smear campaigns got out of control on both sides.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Proof Posted by: freedomhawk
» RE: What Is Fascism? Posted by: bjerko
» Fact? Posted by: Guy
» RE: Be Fair!!! Posted by: David V
» conservative and liberal media Posted by: freedomhawk
» RE: are you for real? Posted by: dangerouslysane
» RE: conservative and liberal media Posted by: dangerouslysane
» RE: conservative and liberal media Posted by: dangerouslysane
» RE: Be Fair!!! Posted by: mewhins24
» And Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: And Posted by: babs
» doesn't matter Posted by: freedomhawk
» RE: doesn't matter Posted by: tweedster
» Don't be fair - be smart Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Be Fair!!! Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» You should be proud... Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» The Liberal Media? Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Be Fair!!! Posted by: opeluboy
» whose afraid now? Posted by: freedomhawk
» Criticism accepted Posted by: freedomhawk
» RE: Criticism accepted Posted by: BriMan
» Not a smear. Posted by: buh
RUSH LIMBAUGH IS A KNOWN PEDOPHILE
Posted by: Tom Degan on Feb 15, 2007 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rush Limbaugh likes to have sex with under-aged girls. How do I know this? He likes to take vacations to places that are known to have serious problems with child prostitution. Is that proof enough to label him a pedophile? Hell, no! But given the journalistic standard of the age in which we all live (Admit it, you live here too!) That's reason enough to go with the story. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that Rush is defiately not a pervert - I'm just saying that I don't have any tangable proof. Any hard (no pun intended) evidence would be greatly appreciated.

The fact that Matt Drudge is even taken seriously is just one of the many mysteries of our age. When will the so-called "respectable" just learn how to ignore him? The guy is the journalistic equivalent of a village idiot; standing on town square babbling nonesense. He doesn't even matter.

Isn't it sad? In a space of thirty years we've gone from the sage commentary of Eric Severeid to the vile ramblings of Rush, Matt, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. Somewhere, Edward R. Murrow is doing summersaults in his grave.

Pray for peace.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Isn't it sad?", YES! It is. Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: "Isn't it sad?", YES! It is. Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: USH LIMBAUGH IS A KNOWN PEDOPHILE Posted by: dangerouslysane
Yikes! More Lies about CBS & Bush's Military Service
Posted by: lizharper on Feb 15, 2007 6:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay. CBS researched a story known from various sources and documented by Bush's military record:
1. with his grades he did not qualify for the National Guard.
2. His name was moved up over other qualified people
3. On his NG form he said he would NOT be willing to go to Vietnam
4. He was disciplined for failure to take his physical
5. He was grounded for that
6. He requested leave so he could go work on a political campaign
7. It was denied.
8. He left anyway
9. Definition of Desertion is leaving without the intent to return
10. He did not come back after the politcal campaign
11. The Commander says he never reported for dut. NO ONE
at his new base remembers ever seeing him.
12. Bush claimed he showed up but his pay records for the military contradict that
13. After all that time AND just before he ran for office, he showed up to complete the time missed.
14. For that reason it is technically incorrect to call him a deserter because he can say he always meant to serve out his time but only at his convenience.
15. The guy who provided the General's letter to CBS had been trying to get peoples attention about Bush for years.
16. CBS documented that the sentiments in the letter were exactly what the General had expressed to his secretary and people around him.
17. AFTER CBS went with the General's letter, Barrett or Barnett, whatever the guy's name was, refused to tell CBS where he got the letter and how he could further document its authenticity.
18. The General's secretary went on record saying that, WHILE THOSE WERE THE GENERAL'S EXACT FEELINGS, she could not remember a time when the General typed his own letter.
19. On that basis, CBS buckled and called ina commission to investigate how they handled the story.
20. The commissions said they could NOT prove the letter was a phony and they could NOT prove it was real.
21. CBS story was NOT debunked.
22. CBS caved in as Democrats and the media are wont to do in the face of the smear machines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IT'S EASY TO FOOL ALOT OF THE PEOPLE ALOT OF THE TIME
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 15, 2007 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Huge numbers of people listen to Rush. A large segment of the population wants to be led by the nose. It's easier than being a skeptic. They expect to be yelled at by those who 'know better'. Told what to do and how to think. Their loyalty crosses over a line and they become sheep. It's OK to disagree. But on your own terms not because some loudmouth on TV says so. It's a personality thing. Too many people like authority. The Lies don't matter. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The dirtiest GOP smear campaign ever
Posted by: DougScott on Feb 15, 2007 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not even cannibals eat their own, which can’t be said for rightwing Republicans. Their most vicious smear campaign was used against the Party’s greatest living war hero, John McCain.

After he won the New Hampshire primary, Senator McCain, a highly decorated ex-Navy fighter pilot, was targeted for dirty tricks reportedly orchestrated by Karl Rove -- Lee Atwater prodigy, college dropout and Vietnam War draft dodger.

Nasty whispers spread by Bush/Rove operatives against McCain included:

1. He had been brainwashed while a prisoner of war in Hanoi.
2. The senator's adopted Bangladesh daughter was his love child.
3. He had infected his wife with VD.
4. He had turned her into a drug addict.
5. He was connected to the Mafia.

The rumors were never taken seriously by most Republican voters. Nevertheless, not once did George W. repudiate the outlandish lies. Nor did he ever apologize to Senator McCain for their use. Instead, Governor Bush countered with a whining "poor me" response that he, too, was being attacked by political enemies -- in his case, the Sierra Club, which had opposed his anti-conservation, pro-business philosophy.

One tool in the 2000 Bush/Rove dirty tricks kit was a falsified biography Dub-ya authorized to cover up his missing (AWOL) service in the Texas Air National Guard.

Created to make him competitive with McCain, the bogus bio claimed Bush had flown ANG F102 interceptors almost six years when the actual time was just 27 months. Not coincidentally, the inflated flying duty covered the same time period McCain spent as a POW in North Vietnam, from 1968 through 1973.

Bush’s phony Guard history is familiar to me because I found it while researching the Internet in February 2004. Of all places, the bogus bio had been published on a State Department website for the whole world to see. Everyone except the sleepwalking press, that is.

To validate my discovery, I called the Boston Globe. Impressed, it ran the story the next morning, on 02/28/04, and gave me credit as the source. To read the Globe article and learn more about the most corrupt White House in U.S. history, visit my investigative website: www.King-George.biz.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam veteran, ex-USAF pilot, lifelong registered Republican, Goldwater conservative, Ronald Reagan fan and the author of "George Dub-ya Bush, THE PHONY FIGHTER PILOT."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gotcha!!!
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle on Feb 15, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and, if the stars align, perhaps journalists will decide to do their jobs....

It's the planets that align or don't align. The stars are fixed.

How can we give any credence to someone who so distorts the basic facts of astrology?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gotcha!!! Posted by: deeannef
» So which are you gonna believe? Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» RE: So which are you gonna believe? Posted by: dangerouslysane
The republican noise machine
Posted by: xenacat on Feb 15, 2007 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is the main factor in toppling our democracy. It is amazing to me that the lies, innuendo and outright abuse are swallowed whole by so much of the American public. It is revolting to think we have become such idiots as to not tell these raving lunatics to shut up and go straight to hell. It doesn't just happen at the national level - just read the posts here on Alternate. Progressive comments about feminism and religion in particular will subject the poster to name calling and abuse more suited to the cretins that worship Rush than not. Their crap doesn't stop progressive thought - it just destoys the democratic process by seriously impeding civil, reasoned discourse. Of course, those right wing nuts can't see that....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whatever happened to libel?
Posted by: thinkingisfun on Feb 15, 2007 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not sue for libel? Obama could even take the money and donate it to charity. How great would it be if Drudge/Hannity/Fox News actually ended up funding a soup kitchen or medical clinic for the poor?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Whatever happened to libel? Posted by: aonghus36
A message to Democrats
Posted by: dover23 on Feb 15, 2007 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You donkeys control both houses of Congress now. Don't blame reactionary c#$%suckers like Hannity & Drudge for the selling out of your own party's leadership.

There's another funeral in my town today, how about yours?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A message to Democrats? Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: A message to Democrats? Posted by: dover23
» RE: Where was your Posted by: dangerouslysane
» RE: Where was your Posted by: dover23
» RE: Where was your Posted by: dangerouslysane
» RE: A message to Democrats? Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: A message to Democrats? Posted by: dover23
» RE: A message to Democrats? Posted by: Lincoln fan
Obama got smeared, but Edwards did not
Posted by: gerdhansel on Feb 15, 2007 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama got smeared, but Edwards did not.

What happened to Obama with the madrassa story is an obvious outrage. What happened to Edwards is a bit murkier.

I’ve been reading the posts on this site about Edwards and the two bloggers he hired, and I can sum up the criticism of Michelle Malkin and that Donohue idiot in two words: You’re a bigot too! YOU TOO! YOU TOO! Like some kid on a playground.

I’ve seen some of the blogs these two women wrote before they went to work for Edwards, and I don’t think the author’s description of them as “intemperate” does them justice. These anti-Catholic posts were incendiary and insulting to people of faith, period.

I’d be the first to point out that Americans are free to express themselves online any way they please. If these women want to post obscene comments about the Pope and the Virgin Mary, well they have a perfect right to do so.

But for a Southern Baptist Presidential candidate from the Bible Belt like John Edwards, hiring these sorts of “free thinkers” is political suicide. Edwards’ only hope in hell of winning the nomination is in states like South Carolina and Georgia, where his accent and his good looks scream, “Hey bubba, I’m one of you!” ala Bill Clinton.

The good-old-boy bubba thing is Edwards’ ace in the hole, the one thing he’s got that Hillary and Obama don’t have. His campaign can’t afford the kind of baggage that these two bloggers dragged in with them.

So what if it was Donohue and Malkin who outed these two women? If Edwards doesn’t have the sense to cut his losses and fire these two anti-Catholic bigots, why shoot the messenger?

I bet if the Boston Globe broke this story Edwards would’ve fired those women in a heartbeat. Edwards made the mistake of digging in his heels just because he was pissed at Malkin and Donohue, and that was a huge political mistake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» try media matters for starters Posted by: gerdhansel
» their sites are very easy to find Posted by: gerdhansel
» something else about the bloggers Posted by: MartianBachelor
How to fight the right wing smear machine?
Posted by: Linette on Feb 15, 2007 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's only one way to respond to the Rovian bastards:
The Republican Nemesis
This article says it all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

erick
Posted by: ericksonml@sbcglobal.net on Feb 15, 2007 10:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every ad should be required to carry the names of those who funded the ad and their home cities. The ad can't be aired unless there are funders and their social security number attached.

Expose the Johns and the whores!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: erick Posted by: Lincoln fan
Say it ain't so!
Posted by: willymack on Feb 15, 2007 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After 6+ years of a brutal, lying gang of liars, thugs, and robber barons, who seized power by fradulent means in 2000, is it possible ANYONE feels any loyalty to these evil cretins? Who in his right mind can doubt the fact that this regime has done nothing but lie to us and screw us over for the benefit of a few corporate fat cats?What about Iraq? What good have we actually done for those people, except deliver horrible death and terror to them? Is there anyone out there so pathetically stupid and ignorant who still thinks Iraq was a real threat to us, or had anything at all to do with Al Queda or 9/11? The evidence of this "administration's" many evils is out there in plain sight; all one has to do is look at it. This is a no-brainer,with no deep thinking required.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Iraq Posted by: Mal'ak
» RE: Iraq Posted by: Mal'ak
» RE: Iraq Posted by: BriMan
» RE: Iraq Posted by: Mal'ak
» RE: Iraq Posted by: shhazam4
» Iran-Contra Affair Posted by: freedomhawk
Setting the terms of the debate
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on Feb 15, 2007 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Smearing is a low level tactic that is easily unpacked and often backfires. It works with low level intelligence. Spinning is more sophisticated and is effective with intellectuals. Truth seeking is a higher level operation still.

Internet, alternet, outernet and innernet is the new consciousnet. The game is being played on many levels. The big players are the movers and shakerspeares who set the terms of the debate.

We're starting a new government called The Lover Government and its political arm, the Red Brown and Blue Party to take the game to another level. At this point, we're just getting the board ready.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Setting the terms of the debate Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Setting the terms of the debate Posted by: redbrownandblueparty
» RE: Setting the terms of the debate Posted by: redbrownandblueparty
Let's have a go at this
Posted by: babs on Feb 15, 2007 2:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some "talking points" to drop into your next conversation/argument about politicians:

- Dick Cheney and his lovely wife are charter members of the swinger lifestyle. Dick likes threesomes with two other men.
- Condi Rice is a man hating lesbian and a dominatrix in her off hours. Diapering is her specialty and W is a repeat customer.
- Karl Rove is rumored to have been a senior member of the American communist party and is Castro's penpal.
- George Bush Jr. prefers golden showers and has been featured in many German hard core porn videos.
- Rush Limbaugh is a woman and a liberal.
- Bill O'Reilly has/is a sphincter problem and wears Depends on air, under his lace garter belt.
- Ann Coulter uses abortions as birth control - she's had one termination per month since 1990 - paid by Medicare!
- Sean Hannity is an undercover agent working for the Baath party, OR he's 8 years old - pick one
- ABC/Disney have controlling financial interest in a chain of Thai whorehouses specializing in prepubescent boys.
- Fox Broadcasting is owned by Hugo Chavez.
- Israel is run secretly by Sasha Baron Cohen.

So how hard is that? Salacious crap is more newsworthy than regular crap so have at it! Truthiness is good enough for me and the MSM.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let's have a go at this Posted by: zipper696
open letter to the author
Posted by: mindcryme on Feb 15, 2007 4:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paul, according to your article, the right wing operatives attacked and the left wing operatives fought back!
How exciting. The only problem is you are ringside at an irrelevent fight.
Try to keep up, man.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» AMEN Posted by: Lincoln fan
open letter to the american public
Posted by: mindcryme on Feb 15, 2007 5:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
your government HATES you. the encumbents hate you. the candidates hate you. Bush, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Cheney, they all have more in common with each other (namely, money and power) than any one of them has with you. They see YOU as the enemy, not each other. They hate YOU because they have to gain your consent to control you, they enjoy the power to frame the arguments, to keep you tangled in irrelevent word-fights. Any one of them will tell you whatever lies they think you will buy. The power structure HATES you. Do any of you really think Obama or Hillary gives a rat's **s about your poor **s?

Paul, why don't you report on dem apples instead of reinforcing the frames the power elite has handed you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Circular Firing Squads
Posted by: radbear on Feb 15, 2007 5:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speaking as a longtime speech writer for politicians and sometimes campaign manager at the state level, I appreciate the damage that a dishonest journalist or a vicioius operative like Atwater or Rove can do to a campaign. However, the worst damage to any campaign is always done by the candidate, usually with the help of staff members or loyal supporters. Fox News has just discovered that Senator Clinton's campaign has bought the favors of a black southern state senator/minister and one of his friends, another black politician, who claims that Senator Obama will destroy the Democratic party at all levels, if he is nominated for president. Both of these men had just lavishly endorsed Senator Clinton. The recipient of the contract for services ($200,000 worth, according to the Fox report) does not deny that he has been hired. His justification is extraordinary and terribly damaging: All three leading candidates made "offers." None higher than Mrs. Clinton's, according to the black state senator. Apparently it did not occur to this elected idiot that he was describing a bidding process, a kind of auction for his services that smells very like the kinds of auctions for black services that were regularly held in his state, prior to the Civil War. Neither Drudge nor Rove could have invented a scenario as tawdry as this. Behold: bribery of a black official and an anti-black statement by his political buddy - a twofer, if you will. Fox didn't give the state senator a contract and, so far as we know, Rove didn't write that ringing endorsement of Senator Clinton, but the staff at the RNC must be nearly mad with joy over a story that makes nearly everyone mentioned in it look - at best - corrupt, and, far worse, has a black Democrat raising the issue of race in the ugliest way possible. One had hoped that Senator Clinton and her operatives had learned something from Bill's mistakes, but it seems they are ready to make awful blunders of their own that will haunt them for a long time to come.ˇ

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Circular Firing Squads Posted by: radbear
Smearing is usually the acts of the desperate
Posted by: shhazam4 on Feb 16, 2007 1:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check it out, when you read, see or hear obvious smearing, consider the source and the timing; and it usually turns out that the smearing party is desperate to counter a perceived advantage of the opposition.

Works of GOP smearers or DEM smearers.

Lesson learned.... don't smear unless you want to be considered desperate, shameless and dishonorable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

George Bush is..........
Posted by: tap17x on Feb 16, 2007 6:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...........fucking Condi Rice. Cheney rapes his daughter every day. Rove hangs out in gay bars and forces the men to go home with him. Limbaugh is an addict and O'Rielly is a drunk. Drudge was treated for being a compulsive liar. The Washington Times is a front for smuggling heroin and illegal immigrants. There are many, many other scandals among conservatives that I am privy to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Smear Machine Strikes - right here!
Posted by: John Q on Feb 17, 2007 9:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...broadcasting company that forged documents.." a lie.
CBS did not "forge" the letter. CBS was careless in checking its provenance, and it is still not clear (though likely) that it is a forgery. But the secretary of the deceased officer under whose name the letter was written did confirm that it accurately reflected his views at the time. The right wingers were able to deflect attention away from the story to the side issue of one letter - the genuineness of which did not alter the accuracy of the story one whit.
Freedomhawk has either been taken in by the right wing lying slime machine, or is part of it

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]