So, why would Old Media be squawking about campaign "dirty tricks" when they themselves are more guilty of dirty tricks than anyone else? Well, it's just the old leftist double standard at at work. Apparently, when Old Media comes up with something that hurts a GOP candidate, it is good journalism, but when someone comes up with something that hurts a Dem candidate, Old Media brands it as "dirty."
Writing for Accuracy In Media, Cliff Kincaid and Roger Aronoff have the following to say:
| ABC reporter Brian Ross suggested that campaigns which expose other candidates' lies and deceptions are somehow engaging in dirty tricks. He cited the cases of Republicans helping expose Al Gore and John Kerry as liars. One case involved Gore, during a 2000 presidential debate with George W. Bush, making a false claim about flying with then FEMA director James Lee Witt to observe some oil fires in Texas. Ross said Gore had "walked into a trap" when he said that, and strongly implied that it was dirty politics to point out that he was lying. Gore, when confronted with the record, admitted the story was false the next day on Good Morning America. What is dirty about that? Another example of a supposedly dirty trick against Democrats was when a Republican operative had, in 2004, confidentially given Brian Ross a videotape of an interview with John Kerry from 1971, in which Kerry is seen saying, totally in proper context, that he had given back "six, seven, eight or nine" of his Vietnam medals, though he had been denying that on the campaign trail. Ross said ABC had verified the authenticity of the tape, and put it on the air. He then showed what he described as a "suspicious and angry Kerry" who accused ABC "correctly of using Republican material." But it wasn't Republican material, it was a videotape of a TV show that was given to them by a Republican operative. What is wrong with Republicans exposing Democratic lies? |
Apparently nothing, unless you happen to be a leftist-leaning reporter pushing a leftist-leaning agenda rather than actually reporting news.
The article goes on:
| Other cases cited by Ross involved good old-fashioned opposition research. All of these activities, including the distribution of videos of candidates making contradictory statements, are legitimate. What makes them possibly illegitimate is when the media focus on them to the exclusion of a serious discussion of substance and issues. The Washington Post, for example, ran a series of stories during the Virginia Senate contest about Republican George Allen getting caught on video using the term "Macaca" to describe a campaign worker for his opponent, Jim Webb. The Post constantly implied, without proof, that this was racist on Allen's part. Allen mishandled the controversy, in part by failing to adequately explain where the mysterious term had come from. In the end, the controversy prevented Allen from talking about legitimate campaign issues and was a major distraction. The coverage had the intended effect, from the point of view of the liberal Post. It helped elect Webb. |
And Webb has turned out to be a liar himself. One of his beggest campaign promises was that he would never vote to raise taxes and Virginia believed him. On his first opportunity to vote on a possible tax increase, Webb decided to become a lapdog of the DNC rather than represent his constituents. He voted to approve of an $800 billion tax increase despite his promise not to do so.
So, the next time you hear Old Media complaining about "dirty tricks," it probably means that someone in the GOP did some pretty thorough research.
Who's Guilty Of Campaign Dirty Tricks?
Cliff Kincaid and Roger Aronoff
Accuracy In Media via GOPUSA.com
January 8, 2008
Yesterday, the Supreme Court took up the issue of requiring voters to show proper identification before being allowed to vate. Personally, I think this is a good idea. It would help to prevent situations where people try to vote twice, try to vote in someone else's place or try to vote under a false name.
From Fox News:
| On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments challenging the Hoosier State’s controversial 2005 voter ID law. It’s the highest-profile Republican v. Democrat case to reach the high court since the infamous 2000 Bush v. Gore lawsuit that effectively decided that year’s presidential race. This case doesn’t have as much at stake, but has still managed to inflame the passions of political partisans even during this primary season. The law was passed on a party-line vote by a Republican-controlled legislature and signed into law by Governor Mitch Daniels — also a Republican. Those in favor of it argue that the law is necessary to help prevent election fraud at the polls. They also note that the Indiana law is one part of a nationwide trend since the controversial Florida ballot counting in 2000 to maintain and improve the integrity of the election process. And they say that the law effectively combats bloated voter registration lists that could be ripe for abuse |
And that is the big issue, combating voter abuse. Opponents claim that it amounts to a new poll tax but that hasn't panned out since they have been completely unable to produce anyone who was actually barred from voting under the new law.
Here in Loudoun County, Virginia, we are required to show proper ID before voting and that is the way it should be.
You can access the complete article on-line here:
Supreme Court To Hear Arguments Challenging Voter ID Law
Lee Ross
Fox News
January 8, 2008
And finally, we note with sadness that Ann Coulter's father has passed away. Ann has written a very moving tribute to John Vincent Coulter:
| Father hated puffery, pomposity, snobbery, fake friendliness, fake anything. Like Kitty's father in "Anna Karenina," he could detect a substanceless suitor in a heartbeat. (They were probably the same ones who looked nervous when I told them Father was ex-FBI and liked to shoot squirrels in the backyard.) He hated unions because of their corrupt leadership, ripping off the members for their own aggrandizement. But he had more respect for genuine working men than anyone I've ever known. He was, in short, the molecular opposite of John Edwards. Father didn't care what popular opinion was: There was right and wrong. I don't recall his ever specifically talking about J. Edgar Hoover or Joe McCarthy, but we knew he thought the popular histories were bunk. That's why "Treason" was dedicated to him, the last book of mine he was able to read. ... When Mother was in a rehabilitative facility briefly after surgery a few years ago and Father was not supposed to be driving, we were relieved that a snowstorm had knocked out the power to the garage door opener, so Daddy couldn't get to the car. It would just be a week and then Mother would be home. My brother came home to check on Father the first day of this arrangement to find that he had taken an ax to the side door of the garage, so he could drive to the rehab center and sit with Mother all day. |
Mr. Coulter sounds like a very devoted man.
You can access the complete column on-line here:
John Vincent Coulter
Ann Coulter
AnnCoulter.com
January 9, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment