Posts Tagged ‘Smears’

Jeffrey Lord: Elliott Abrams Lied About Newt Gingrich

Friday, January 27th, 2012

Jeffrey Lord

In what can only be called a stunning, face-slapping rebuttal, Jeffrey Lord has discovered that Elliott Abrams’ story about Gingrich’s alleged criticism of President Reagan were not only erroneously characterized, but almost certainly indicates it was an intentional hit-piece by Abrams, that Abrams must have known was dishonest.  It points out the problem going on with much of Romney’s campaign of destruction aimed at Gingrich, and it points out how thoroughly damaging such a thing can be when amplified almost infinitely by the roaring link-fest of the Drudge Report.  Abrams’ hit-piece stayed up on Drudge for more than twenty-four hours, and there will be no rebuttal.  The only way the truth will be distributed at this point is for you, the public, to undertake this chore.

Lord used the more charitable word “misleading” to describe Abrams’ piece, but to me, once one has read Lord’s piece, there can be no way to conclude that Abrams had been anything but intentionally dishonest.  At that point, the question of motive is brought sharply into focus, and it is clear that Abrams is part of the establishment wing of the GOP out to destroy Gingrich in order to shove Mitt Romney down our throats.  Ladies and gentlemen, this is no longer an issue of electability. This is an issue of integrity, and whether you like Gingrich or hate him, if you claim to be a conservative Republican, you must not tolerate this from the party.  If the party machine  is permitted this scandalous behavior, there is no point to the party, and you must come to recognize that this has been the root of the smears of all the other conservative candidates too.

What this demonstrates all too clearly is what many conservatives have long suspected: The establishment is intent upon shoving Romney down our throats, and any foolish enough to fall for that deserve the just results.

Advertisements

Newt Being Assassinated; Public Being Suckered; Gingrich Must Call Bluff

Wednesday, January 18th, 2012

Perfectly Timed Political Hit

Let me start by saying I am speculating, but anybody who assumes the left is behind this character assassination is smoking dope.  If you think this was instigated for any reason except to combat the story that I reported earlier, you’re mistaken.  There will be no linkage back to the real culprits, of course, just like in the Herman Cain case, but you had better know the real reason:  Newt was beginning  to pull even with Mitt Romney.  If you haven’t noticed the convenient timing of these stories throughout the campaign year, I have news for you: You’re being led by the nose, and on the day that a story comes out about Romney’s offshore investments, what you’re actually seeing is a well-coordinated smear.  If you don’t understand, I’d like to explain.

The story about Romney is a set-up, and by the time they’re done “investigating,” it will be shown that Mitt Romney had done nothing illegal, which we could already guess. This is to give ABC News plausible deniability for being in bed with Mitt Romney.  In this manner, it looks as though Romney is just the lesser victim of this ABC News’ “diligent investigation,” but it’s much worse than that.

The story that Drudge is now pushing is a sham.  The very idea that ABC News wouldn’t run with this story in order to wreck Gingrich prior to South Carolina out of ethical concerns is a laughable hoax. ABC News has no journalistic ethics of which to speak, but in any case, we’re taking this no better than third-hand from a master head-line delivery artist named Matt Drudge.

How do I know the Newt story is a set-up?  I don’t, but let me explain why I think so:

If this was real, and if Marianne Gingrich had something shocking and new to disclose, the story would be running right now.  On the other hand, if the story is garbage, and what the former Mrs. Gingrich said was really not news, you would release the fact that you had the “dirt,” and you would withhold it while letting it “leak” that it was explosive and damaging.

For all we know right this moment, this is no more than the laments and disclosures of a jilted spouse.  I don’t mean to minimize the pain of divorce and all the things that lead to it, but if ABC News can dismiss Linda Tripp as a disgruntled former employee, it’s reasonable to suspect they could likewise dismiss Marianne Gingrich as a “disgruntled former wife.”  The only reason not to do so is that she has something so thoroughly damaging to tell that it would wreck Gingrich.  It could be anything from pillow-talk about political adversaries, or even friends, to something of a personal nature, but it could also be the complaints of an ex-spouse.  (Again, to ex-spouses, I am not dismissing your feelings, but let’s try to be objective about this, and admit that ex-spouses frequently aren’t.)

So why withhold it?  Because the speculation will be more damaging to Newt in the South Carolina primary if it’s a big unknown than if it were something less than catastrophic.  It is for this reason that if I were Newt Gingrich, I would insist that ABC make the footage public out of a “sense of ethics” for the candidates because an unknown looming negative is always worse in the imagination of voters than the facts of the allegation, short of murder or other gross illegality. If I were Newt, I would demand it, and I would demand it now.

I also suspect this will be used in an attempt to damage anybody who has endorsed Gingrich. After all, the argument will be, if they would throw their votes behind Gingrich or vote for him, how can they be trusted? Expect the media to immediately begin making the rounds of all those who have endorsed or in any way supported Newt Gingrich for comment, hoping to show them on camera or play the audio of them backing away from Gingrich.

I don’t think the former Speaker of the House reads this wee column, but if he does, the thing I would suggest to him is to demand it be released to clear the air before the election, particularly if he suspects that this is a trumped-up hit-job.  Speaker Gingrich, you should call ABC and Drudge’s bluff: Insist they put it out now, rather than damaging you by delay.  The damage being done to your reputation by this impeccably-timed leak is greater than the story is likely to do, because it will almost certainly come down to a he-said-she-said between former spouses.  Of course, it’s your campaign, and your life, but that’s my thinking.

Update: As I prepare to take this to press, Breitbart is reporting that ABC now “intends” to release the story on Friday night, the literal eve of the election.  It is either damaging or nothing, but it is the anticipation of the story that will do the most damage.  I still believe that Newt must call ABC’s bluff, because at present, he has nothing to which he can respond, and Friday, it will deprive him of time.  For this reason, I suspect the story is garbage, and when it’s disclosed, it will likely be nothing, but the whole thing is cooked and really, with the damage this will do hanging over his head, Newt would be better to demand it be released.  Even ABC couldn’t sell the “ethics” angle for withholding it, so it will go to press at the last possible moment when Newt won’t have time to refute it or anything of the sort, while the anticipation of the story is permitted to build right up to the eve of the election.  This is scandalous “journalism.”

 

Men in Media: What’s Wrong With You?

Monday, September 19th, 2011

Lacking What? Now, What Else?

I wish to apologize in advance for some of the graphic language in this post.  Unfortunately, this situation has left me few alternatives but to discuss the abrasive and disgusting tone of some in the media.  I do it as a necessity because I believe Americans should know the character of the people in whom they have placed their trust. Like Andrew Breitbart’s explanation in the movie The Undefeated, I’ve concluded that there is a real problem in our culture, and among many Republican men particularly, there is now a surrender of the values we once shared, and it is expressed in a general cowardice to be seen when conservative women come under sexist, vulgar attacks.  It’s not that conservative women in politics can’t defend themselves, but when allegedly conservative outlets begin to act like the worst leftist purveyors of filth, one begins to wonder about the character of people who claim merely to be reporting the news.  Frankly, it makes me sick, and it makes me angry.  What’s happening to we men that so many of us will say nothing about it? Now, I’m going to have my say, and I’m also going to show you the truth about some in the right-wing media.

I’m a middle-aged man.  I was raised to have a baseline respect for people in general, but particularly for my elders on the presumption of their wisdom, and for women on the basis of the assumption that they had already put up with more garbage from men than they ought to have been asked to endure.  It’s not to say that women aren’t equally capable of crass and vulgar behavior, as a quick tour of our culture will demonstrate, but I was raised with that nowadays primitive (and some say “sexist”) notion that my basic reflex as a man should not include treating women as another of the boys in a locker-room discussion.

Some feminists will insist that this is still a sexist view of women, and in one sense, I can see their point, but perhaps it is because the people I love most in this world are women, I tend to restrain my language in their presence lest I be considered a first-rate jerk.  What seems to have become the norm on both sides of the sexual fence is an increasingly crass tone to every disagreement, but that is not why I write this evening.  Instead, I want to talk to you men.  I realize that the younger you are, the more inclined you may be to talking to women like one of the fellows, but I’ve become tired of men using linguistic bombast that includes references to female genitalia when speaking to women.  You can call me a “fuddy-duddy,” or “old school,” or frankly anything else your courage permits, but in my world, you use that language in front of a woman at your own peril.

I realize some of you will complain that there exists no shortage of women who rush to verbally emasculate men with the immediate reference to their “penises.”  I’ve heard it, much too often frankly, and some of them should also be ashamed.  Having covered the excuse some men will use to justify their own vulgarity, let’s move on to what I observed Sunday evening that has caused me to boil over.  I was on Twitter, and Dan Riehl re-tweeted something another had tweeted and I could hardly believe my eyes:

@Nick_Rizzuto: Can someone please give me the 411 on why there are so many sandy vaginas over this @DailyCaller Tyson/Palin story?

I knew the name from somewhere, but I couldn’t quite place it.  I clicked into his profile, and was reminded:  Rizzuto works for GBTV and TheBlaze.  I was doubly incensed given the recent Brian Sack routine on GBTV, so I sent my own response, as did a number of others.

Let me explain something to you boys who think such language is cool, and yes I said “boys” because I fear some of you are barely beyond puberty, who think this is a really effective form of argumentation: You look like an ass when you do this, and for precisely the same reason the Carlson’s outfit looked like a bunch of asses the day before, and GBTV looked like a bunch of asses on Thursday:  Using this kind of language merely demonstrates that you view the opposite sex as nothing more than their genitalia, with the motive of dehumanizing them and dismissing them.  One might well expect a thug like Mike Tyson to use such language, because we already know what the ear-chomping, punch-drunk, has-been boxer thinks of women as demonstrated by his physical and verbal violence against them, but the reason you shouldn’t engage in this is because you aren’t (or should not be)that sort of sexist thug.  I can’t believe I’m having to point this out to the erudite Tucker Carlson, the pious Glenn Beck, or his staff member Nick Rizzuto, whose most recent tweets indicate he and his wife/girlfriend(no un-PC assumptions here) have recently had a baby.

Boys, this is garbage.  Carlson, in all honesty, after your publication ran with the post it did, and Beck, after GBTV’s ridiculous “joke” of Thursday, and yeah, you too Rizzuto, I don’t know what any of you could possibly believe you have to offer to a civil discussion about any subject after this.  You’re all embarrassments to manhood.  At least Rizzuto had the good sense (or at least a sense of CYA) to delete his post, and issue an apology via twitter.  That’s the sort of thing that got Carlson off the hook, somewhat, when he did a very similar thing back in March of this year.  Apologies are unlikely to help him now, however, as Greta Van Susteren is on his case after Dan Riehl pursued the story all day Saturday.  Mr. Beck has a special problem, and it’s one he’s yet to address:  Two of these three incidents involve people who work for him, and one took place on his new network.

I’m disgusted by this sort of conduct.  Carlson, your staff should know better too.  Beck, you ought to clear something up with your people.  I’m beginning to wonder about the sort of culture that pervades these institutions of allegedly conservative thought: Is it that you’ve now become the caricatures the left has drawn?  I simply don’t see any excuse for this.  Nobody is running stories about the unsubstantiated sexual improprieties of any of the other candidates.  Don’t pretend there are none.  Sure, they’re awful and tawdry and probably false, but that same characterization fits what’s been said to date about Sarah Palin. What we have here is a cowardly attack on Governor Palin, and it’s bad enough when the left does this, but it ought never to come from our side.

Worse, Carlson’s staff lets rip with a story about Mike Tyson’s commentary and his utterly foul and violent descriptions, and nobody at Carlson’s organization seems to think anybody has done anything wrong, except Dan Riehl for reporting on it on Saturday.  No, they were simply “doing their jobs” to report the news.  Ditto Beck’s own site The Blaze, which did a similar garbage pass-along story on Joe McGinniss’s salacious novel.  Then there was Sack on GBTV with his jokes over which even the studio audience groaned nervously.  Now Nick Rizzuto, from The Blaze and GBTV says this?

No way.  It’s not accidental, and it’s not merely “doing one’s job” to pass along stories as “News” the sole purpose of which is to further a smear, using people like Mike Tyson and Joe McGinniss as surrogates to deliver it.

Add to this Nick Rizzuto’s tweet, and what it looks like to me is a bunch of men who are using crude smears in order to dismiss another woman.  Why do this?  What could be their motives?  You tell me.

Monday morning, a colleague of Rizzuto’s, S.E. Cupp, also from GBTV, tweets:

@secupp: Pretty sure Tyson’s the pig here, not Tucker. RT @politico: Greta: Tucker’s a ‘pig’ for Palin story http://politi.co/pJAXSW
Now another Beck associate is piling on in this mess to defend Carlson?  I like S.E.Cupp, but I think she’s gotten this wrong.  Worse, I am beginning to wonder what flavor of Kool-Aid they’re drinking over at GBTV.  While all of this goes on, The Blaze runs a story about how Howard Kurtz is complained that his own network was ganging up on Perry during last week’s GOP debate. Well, at least I think I’ve figured out the flavor of the Kool-Aid.

Another conservative leaps into the fray questioning Carlson’s motives:

@marklevinshow: Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist. Why were his vicious words about Sarah Palin considered newsworthy? I think… http://fb.me/11CP0a4pf

Yes, thankfully, there are still some real men.

Added below is the screen capture of the Tweets in question from Sunday evening(Start at bottom and read up):

Tweets from 9/18/2011