Posts Tagged ‘Politico’

NOW Politico Notices Rove’s Apparent Leanings?

Saturday, March 31st, 2012

Rove? Biased? Get Out!

Permit me a moment’s chuckle as I consider the brilliant “journalism” of  Here is an on-line “political news site” that brought to light claims by various parties against Herman Cain, along with other Pulitzer-Quality journalism that indicates just how spiffy they really are over at Politico.  Now they’ve posted a story by Kenneth Vogel and Keach Hagey speculating on the possibility that Karl Rove is assisting Mitt Romney.  Now that’s journalism!  Heck, that may qualify as outright rocket science.  I find the article laughable, but for the fact that they seem to be quite serious in their approach, a fact that makes the article all the more excruciatingly gut-busting.  Let’s be honest, shall we?  That they’ve only now arrived at the conclusion that Karl Rove might be pushing for one particular candidate is embarrassing.  Where have these guys been?

As their opening argument, they offered this:

“But it’s hard to miss, among all of Rove’s Fox commentary and Wall Street Journal columns, that he seems to favor one candidate over the others.”

No way!  Shocking!  Karl Rove favors one candidate over the others?  Is it possible?

“Over the last year, Rove has used these powerful media platforms to systematically undercut every rising Romney challenger in succession while lauding Romney’s victories as “historic.” The pattern has gotten under the skin of the supporters of Romney’s challengers, who argue that Rove has more ties to Romney and his super PAC than he is disclosing to his media audiences, and thus has no business assessing the Republican primary race as a purportedly independent analyst.”

I’d like to know what this pair of investigative gurus have been doing these last eight months.  In fairness, I will say they have done an excellent job of laying out some pertinent facts about Rove’s connections to Romney via his SuperPac, American Crossroads GPS.  What I couldn’t quite understand was why they suddenly felt the need to tell us what has been painfully obvious for some time, but they managed to tell us why they’re really concerned about Karl Rove’s machinations at this late date anyway:

“Santorum and Gingrich are both former Fox News contributors, and have been beating Romney handily, in terms of airtime, on the so-called “Fox News primary” throughout the campaign. But they are not winning the all-important Karl Rove Primary – significant both for his media prominence and his association with the super PAC American Crossroads and a sister group that together plan to spend as much as $300 million attacking President Barack Obama and other Democrats in the general election.”

That makes more sense.  It’s not that the writers are so concerned for the unfairness they document in Rove’s treatment of other candidates so much as the fact that Rove will certainly be turning his powerful machine against Barack Obama. Nevertheless, they did manage to put up a list of Rove’s dirty deeds, and it seems to match with what I have seen:


  • When Romney was being ridiculed for offering to bet Rick Perry $10,000 in last December’s debate, Rove told Hannity he “didn’t think it was a big mistake,” and then pivoted to attacking Gingrich for his talk of a lunar base.
  • Later that month, when Gingrich complained about being carpet-bombed by negative ads paid for by Romney’s super PAC in Iowa, Rove called him a “whiner.”
  • When Gingrich was leading the polls in January, Rove dinged Gingrich for calling Romney “a liberal” and suggesting that poor children should work as janitors in schools.
  • In mid-February, as Santorum was coming off a batch of wins, Rove said Santorum’s views on contraception, particularly within the bounds of marriage, “appears to be judgmental,” before going on to call Gingrich a “whiner” once again.
  • As things were looking close between Romney and Santorum in Michigan, Rove accused the press of “rooting for Santorum to win even though they are hammering him with a lot of social things” because “the media is rooting for Obama to win.”
  • On the night of the Michigan and Arizona primaries, he echoed the Romney campaign’s complaints about Santorum’s robocalls to Democrats and called out Santorum for labeling Obama a “snob” for wanting everyone to have a college education. That, Rove said, “hurt more than what you might think” because “most of us believe that higher education is a means for prosperity.”
  • In his Wall Street Journal column following those primaries, he declared the primary “solidly in Mitt Romney’s direction” and proceeded to reiterate Santorum’s “unforced errors,” from the college comment to his dismissal of John F. Kennedy’s speech about the separation between church and state.
  • Even when Rove is critical of Romney, as he was in a Feb. 1 Journal column declaring the “Romney campaign is tilted too heavily toward biography and not nearly enough toward ideas,” he acts like a supportive adviser doling out constructive criticism, tossing in lines boosting Romney and chiding Gingrich for their respective handling of Paul Ryan’s budget.

That’s a pretty decent laundry list of recent Rove doings, but as they point out, there are more complete lists including Tommy Christopher’s at Mediaite, penned back in December, noting that Rove was doing a number on Gingrich at the time, but he listed many others.

Of course, it’s difficult to say with any precision what may be lingering between Karl Rove’s ears.  I’ve never had any particular problem expressing my own concerns about his whiteboard antics on FoxNews, including some of the garbage he was heaving in the direction of Sarah Palin late last summer.  As The Politico piece concludes, Rove is part of the GOP establishment now, and his antics merely prove the point that if he’s involved, it’s because he has a dog in this hunt, as I asserted all those months ago.  As I said then, Karl Rove is a master manipulator and this is how he operates.  None of this is surprising to me, and I’m stunned that it’s taken Politico this long to notice.

Remember When Bev Perdue Wanted to Suspend Elections?

Sunday, January 29th, 2012

Bye Bye

Some of you who have been reading my blog from its inception will remember the story of Governor Beverly Perdue(D-NC,) who allegedly joked(while not seeming to be joking) that we should suspend elections so that Government could continue until the economy was straightened out. I kid you not. If you weren’t a reader of this blog at the time, you may not know what controversy this caused. In any case, it no longer matters, because now, Politico is reporting that facing the probability of a drubbing in the upcoming campaign, Perdue has said she will not seek re-election.  No wonder she wanted to suspend elections.  She was merely looking down the road and drawing the conclusion that she would be better off if she didn’t need to face the voters of her state.

Now she won’t.

Rand Paul Returns a Half-Million in Unspent Budget to Treasury

Thursday, January 12th, 2012

What Fiscal Responsibility Looks Like

Politico is reporting that Senator Rand Paul(R-KY) has returned one-half million dollars to the treasury unspent.  This was roughly 16% of the allocated operating budget for his Senate offices, and it represents an unusual act in terms of ordinary government practice.  In most government operations, every last dime is spent, right down to the penny, in order to justify a demand for even more in the budgeting process for subsequent years.  The freshman Senator from Kentucky, and son of Texas Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul said the following at a news conference in Louisville, presenting a symbolic check to the tax-payers:

“I ran to stop the reckless spending. And I ran to end the damaging process of elected officials acting as errand boys, competing to see who could bring back the biggest check and the most amount of pork.”

He continued:

“I hope this sets an example for the rest of government – at all levels,” he added. “We can carry out our duties in a fiscally responsible way. Government can be both smart and efficient. We are proving that – and trying to convince the rest of Washington.”

That’s fantastic. If we could only get the rest of Congress to match this, we could save something in the range of a quarter-billion dollars.  Of course, I won’t be holding my breath and neither should you.  There is talk of Paul possibly seeking the presidency in 2016, but that’s been speculation.  In any event, it is nice to see at least one Senator is living up to his promises to cut federal spending, and while the amount is trivial in the context of a $1.5 trillion federal deficit, it’s also true that it’s another half million that our children won’t be forced to repay someday.  Of course, this is a symbolic act in terms of the news conference, but I think it’s a positive development that for a change, a member of the Senate took the notion of making cuts even when it hits their own operations budget.

This stands in stark contrast to a FoxNews report that Barack Obama has requested an additional $1.2 Trillion in money we don’t have.

Newt Admits Error – Pulls Back on Bain

Wednesday, January 11th, 2012

Reaching for the Reset Button?

Despite the fact that the media continues to ignore the millions of dollars in dishonest or at least disingenuous ads that were run in Iowa and New Hampshire against Gingrich by Romney and his various Super PAC surrogates, Gingrich seems to have seen his Bain-centered attacks on Romney as unsuccessful, and perhaps harmful to his own campaign.   In an indication that Newt Gingrich is turning away from his attacks on Romney on the basis of the “vulture capitalism” theme, Politico is reporting that Newt said on Wednesday the following in response to an Army Reservist in Inman, S.C., who said this to Gingrich:

“I’m here to implore one thing of you. I think you’ve missed the target on the way you’re addressing Romney’s weaknesses. I want to beg you to redirect and go after his obvious disingenuousness about his conservatism and lay off the corporatist versus the free market. I think it’s nuanced,” said Dean Glossop, an Army Reservist from Inman, S.C.

Gingrich seemed to step back from the brink:

“I agree with you,” Gingrich said. “It’s an impossible theme to talk about with Obama in the background. Obama just makes it impossible to talk rationally in that area because he is so deeply into class warfare that automatically you get an echo effect. … I agree with you entirely.”

Now some will rightly note that Gingrich isn’t entirely backing down, but he’s admitting that at the very least, this was a bad approach to the question of attacking Romney’s record.  As I’ve written over the last two day, Gingrich is better off focusing on the things Romney has done in governing if he wants to go negative, or at least focus on those aspects of Bain that won’t come off as, or be reported as some sort of attack on capitalism.

I also think Gingrich would do well to point out that among the politicians now entered, Gingrich is the only one who ever accomplished real cuts in government spending.  This would require that Gingrich accentuate the positive again, and I think that’s a smart move as he certainly fared better when he was talking in positive terms about the country, but also how he is substantially different from Barack Obama, and perhaps how Romney really isn’t so different.  Gingrich is now campaigning in South Carolina, a state neighboring Georgia, from which he served in Congress.  As he works to try to regain momentum, he’s probably should consider changing this theme entirely for the moment.  It’s bound to land him on firmer ground with the electorate.

Bachmann Holds Fire Against Romney for VP Slot?

Friday, December 30th, 2011


Some Explaining to Do?

Politico has published a lengthy article about Michele Bachmann’s slide from being momentary front-runner to bottom of heap, minus only Huntsman. It’s a scathing review of her campaign, but that’s not entirely unexpected from Politico.  What makes this particular story so interesting is what it reveals about Bachmann’s intentions, and it’s interesting that so many folks had thought she was merely acting as a stalking horse for Mitt Romney, and it turns out that according to Ed Rollins, she had been holding her attacks against Romney because she had been angling for the VP slot.

“There was some talk early on between her and her husband that she could end up as the vice presidential nominee,” Rollins said.

That’s a stunning disclosure, and it should make every Bachmann supporter wince in pain. To have placed their hopeful support in a candidate who was merely making back-up plans out of presidential campaigns.  Slowly but surely, Bachmann’s campaign is breaking down, and she’s now having a substantial credibility issues, as people are abandoning her campaign.


Poll Results: Big Government is Greatest Threat to Americans

Tuesday, December 13th, 2011

Politico is reporting the results of a Gallup survey in which it was found that 64% of Americans, essentially the same percentage that opposes Obamacare, believe big government represents the biggest threat to the American people, ahead of corporations(26%) and big labor(8%.)  Myself, while I find this encouraging, I think the survey should have added a couple of categories. Myself, I’d have thrown “big media” into the mix.  That aside, the thing to learn from this survey is that the American people view government as the problem, and they’re right.  This is a near-record level of fears about the size of government, and most astonishing is how many Democrats and Independents now see government as a looming threat.

This may be Barack Obama’s biggest vulnerability in 2012.  It’s clear that an overwhelming majority of Americans see big government as the problem, and nobody is more thoroughly big-government than President Obama.  Looking closely at the numbers, what becomes clear is that the biggest shift has come among Democrats, who usually see big business as the greater threat.  In just the last two years, that has shifted markedly, with a plurality of Democrats now judging government the bigger threat.

Nobody is surprised when a majority of Republicans find big government to pose the most imposing threat of the three categories, but it’s astonishing to see that more Democrats now worry about big government than even about big business.  You can bet that over at the White House, these numbers are making some folks cringe.  It means that this coming election year, a truly conservative message may well be significantly more popular with voters in general, and this holds out some hope that if Republicans can nominate an actual conservative, they may capture the White House in grand fashion.

I think the writing is on the wall. If the Republicans can get their act together, they have a great opportunity in 2012, because all in all, voters have grown sick of Obama, and are worried about the kind of government he is building.  This poll merely buttresses that assessment.

Shock Poll: Politico Less Trustworthy Than Vladimir Putin

Friday, November 4th, 2011

Even Vlad Can't Believe It!

Respondents to an on-line poll have (thus far) overwhelmingly said they find the political website less trustworthy than Vladimir Putin.  Mark Levin is running his “Daily Temperature Poll” on this question, and as of this writing, more than 1619 respondents have voted in the poll, and by an overwhelming margin, respondents said they trusted Politico less.  This undoubtedly stems from Politico’s biased, ridiculous and very nearly fact-free coverage of  the Herman Cain story, and since they broke the story they ought to bear the burden when it turns out to be a fiasco.  I’ve been unable to contact any of the hacks reporters at for comment. I tried.  No, I really did.

Here’s a screen-shot of the poll.  (You can go take the poll by clicking the image):

Click Image to Take Poll

You can be certain that this won’t sit well with Politico, but then again, who cares?  This is also a great example of the sort of polls and analysis to which you are generally treated by the mainstream media.  Poll methodology?  Well, no matter what, it’s got to be better than the vote taken by Occupy Oakland. It certainly has had more voters already.  Politico has published 90 Cain stories in just five(5) days.  It certainly hasn’t helped their credibility.  Go take the poll HERE

The one thing to be learned from this poll is that recidivist commies are more trustworthy than the unrepentant ones.

Cain Under Fire: Can He Prevail?

Monday, October 31st, 2011

Dirty Politics or Unpreparedness?

Think whatever you like of the allegations against Cain, but what I’ve noticed has nothing to do with the details of the case, except for their absence.  Back when Herman Cain was serving as the President of the National Restaurant Association, just a relative few people would have been privy to the allegations and the case at the time.  What is now known is that the cases were to be held in confidence as part of the settlement agreements.  The parties to these cases wouldn’t have an interest in disclosing information about them, so it makes one wonder where the Politico dug all of this up.  If I was a betting man, I’d bet on somebody within the GOP establishment, or alternatively, one of the other non-establishment candidates who would like to topple Cain from the head of that pack.  Chances are, if it was a liberal, they’d have waited until after the nomination fight if Cain won, or accepted a VP offer.  While it’s true that Politico is a left-wing rag, they’ve often managed to get along with the GOP establishment when it suited their immediate political ends.

In their articles on this subject, Politico hasn’t revealed much detail, which only means they don’t have anything salacious on which to hang their hats, or it would be all over the media by now.  What this suggests to me is that whomever their sources may be, they were close enough to know there had been cases, but not close enough to have been bound by confidentiality agreements.  This suggest somebody close to the National Restaurant Association, or somebody at least somehow associated, who knew about the allegations, or the settlements, at least in that they existed, but this all has the stench of somebody with insider knowledge who tipped off somebody at Politico.

What I can’t understand about this is how Cain wasn’t prepared to see this happen.  Did he believe that because the settlement agreements had been made confidential, that nobody would spill the beans about their existence?  That seems naive for a man who spent a fair amount of time in and around Washington DC lobbying circles to know how things work.  Did he think, innocently, because there really had been nothing to the claims that nobody would dredge this up?  I don’t know, but I think it’s somewhat curious that Cain was caught short in this way. After all, if Cain has an Achilles’ heel, it is probably that he’s not quite as skilled in knowing  how the game is played, and one would have thought that he would have hired somebody who knew, and who had already been through an analysis of what the opposition would attempt.  He should have been ready to respond to this, because he should have known, or at least his advisers should have known, that this would be coming.

This is part of what makes the Beltway political scene so disgusting to so many Americans.  Examining this, all we really know is that there were some allegations made at some time by some people and that those allegations consisted of something, and that there had been some kind of settlement, but we know not a single meaningful detail about any of it. Does this sound familiar?  It should, as it is the methodology used to derail candidates year after year, campaign after campaign, and it stinks.  It’s as though the DC Establishment closes ranks to freeze out all others, and this is the manner by which they wage their war: Innuendo, implication, and smear are the tools of DC politics.

Predictably, Politico is now spinning this into a divide among conservatives, but that is mostly a pipe dream on their part, and the part of the Romney camp.  Politico is also trotting out the women’s groups, which have been conveniently absent over the matter of OWS hushing rape victims.  For this, of course, they show up.  Who would like to pretend NOW would ever endorse Herman Cain(or any Republican) over Barack Obama, anyway?

Presidential campaigns are always full of intrigue, and smears, and plain old lies.  For whatever reason, Cain seems hopelessly unprepared for the ferocity of it, and while they continue to deride him on this issue, I don’t think it’s going to matter, because this won’t be all and they’re hardly finished with him yet.  If Cain doesn’t get wise to the ways of establishment politics, they’re going to eat him alive.

Chris Christie Finally Out – Who’s Next?

Tuesday, October 4th, 2011

What does it mean?

I don’t know how he could say it any more plainly.  He was so adamant in his statements today that it seems there could be no way he would change his mind.  A few are clearly disappointed, particularly in the media, and they’ve already run off in pursuit of a new victim.  The media loves to gin up candidates, and then chew them up and spit them out.  Sarah Palin’s right about this, and I’ve said it before:  The media is playing what she calls “flavor of the week,” and I’ve called “savior of the month,”  all with the goal of crushing any candidate the Republican party might put up.  The goal is to wind up with the most liberal Republican possible, amenable to the media if their own guy should blow it, and tolerable to the GOP establishment.  While they push Herman Cain for the moment, we all know how this will likely end: Even if he somehow were to overcome Romney in the long run, and win the nomination, the media will act to destroy Cain too.  This is why the Republican party must nominate somebody who has been vetted already.  The media will save its most lethal ammunition, to be deployed in the general election.

Within minutes of the beginning of Chris Christie’s press conference, a story posted on Politico aimed at bringing up the next one the media would happily throw into the meat-grinder.  The story offered is that attorneys who represent Sarah Palin have been talking to states about the filing date deadlines.  To be honest, this could mean nearly anything, but the narrative being put forward suggests that Palin may be getting ready to jump in.  Maybe.  The problem is that I’ve lost all confidence in the media, and I don’t know what it means.  I’ve become a skeptic, not of Sarah Palin, but instead of all the media tidbits put in circulation each day.  To me, it’s no longer an issue for discussion:  Sarah Palin will announce a candidacy, or she will tell us she’s not running.  Either way, it’s not going to change my immediate future because I’ve decided to carry on as if she will run, and for a simple reason:  She’s the candidate I believe in, I know her record, and I know it compares favorably against any Republican already entered, or any whose names I’ve heard under discussion.

When I saw the Drudge Headline blaring: “Palin Time,” did my pulse quicken?  To borrow a phrase, “You betcha!” Once I saw it was a link to the same story I’d read from a link on Twitter two hours before, I resumed normal operation.  Every Palin-supporter I know is ready to roll.  Every person to whom I speak is hoping the day will come soon.  Until the day she announces her plans, I’m not going to waste many minutes in contemplation of that moment, and while like any of my friends, I’ll cheer when it comes, between this moment and that one, when I discover along with the rest of the world what her plans will be, I am going to continue to prepare for what will come after that moment.

The challenges of any political campaign are many, and while I savor the competition, I know the reality:  It will be a tough process, and it’s going to require all hands on deck, with as much devotion as we’ve ever poured into anything, and maybe a good bit more.  Like many of you, I made a trip to Walmart this morning, and I’ve handed out The Undefeated to potential allies already.  We’re going to need millions of them.  If Governor Palin decides to enter, as all of hope and believe she will, I intend to be already moving, already gaining ground, and already setting the stage for what I believe will be a pivotal campaign in American history.  The truth is that as much as this will be Sarah Palin’s fight, it will be our fight too, and a chance to save our country, maybe our last.  I refuse to entrust that future to cynicism or complacency or the simple folly that better, more able men will take my place.

It is now, if ever there had been a time in modern history when Edmund Bourke’s lament applied, “when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”  You may know it better by the oft-used “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.”  What his actual words reveal is that he knew not only that good men must stand, but that they must stand as one, together.  Does this not describe our position more thoroughly than the more common interpretation of Burke’s words?  I submit to you that it does, and for us to prevail, we will need to live by its intent.

As I’ve said, I no longer put enough stock in anything the media tells us to read any tea leaves from Politico’s story.  I also know that if it’s true, and its implications are perfectly correct, it doesn’t change anything in my immediate plans.  I’ll work with O4P and C4P and other Palin supporters wherever I find them, however I can.  I’ll still be standing on my little soapbox talking to any who will listen.  I’ll continue to work among and within my family, my friends, and my community as best as I can.  The Tweet that went out from @PeterHambyCNN sums up my view:

the line out of Palin-world: the race is still “wide open”

Indeed, the race certainly remains wide open, and I will pursue it as such.

Is Jonathan Martin Stupid?

Monday, August 29th, 2011

Stupid or Simply Dishonest?

Does he think the American people are stupid? In his recent smear of Rick Perry, he poses the question “Is Rick Perry Dumb?”  Having met the governor, I can answer that question easily.  Rick Perry is not a stupid man.  By way of full disclosure, I am one Texan who does not favor Governor Perry even slightly in the upcoming Republican primaries, finding any number of other perfectly valid policy reasons to oppose him from my position as a conservative.  Nevertheless, in the interest of fairness, we mustn’t permit such obvious Obama shills as Jonathan Martin to smear another Republican candidate as “stupid.”  Rather than engage in a point-by-point rebuttal of Mr. Martin, I would like to pose my own question:  “Is Jonathan Martin stupid?”  I submit to you that this is a far more relevant query, and given the media tendency to avoid questions aimed at their own, I intend to ask them mercilessly about such members of the press.

If I ever find myself in close proximity to Chris Wallace, for instance, my first question for him will be: “Sir, are you a flake?” Just as I have challenged the wisdom of others in the media, so too will I challenge anybody who carries out a war of smears against Republicans, Conservatives, and Tea Party folk, all under the guise of “News.”

The media likes to plant these words in association with Republicans and Conservatives(particularly those perceived by the electorate as the latter): Dumb. Stupid. Ignorant. Reactionary. Extreme. Chris Wallace added “Flake” with respect to Michele Bachmann, and Maureen what’s-her-name over at the NYTimes says Tea Party folk are “terrorists.”  Karl Rove added “thin-skinned” to the arsenal of the media in a smear against Sarah Palin.

What none of these people will ever tell you is that Barack Obama is dumb, is an extremist, and has hung out with terrorists, while his wife is a barely-restrained racist.  (“Racist” is another favorite, used most recently by a true dim bulb, Al Gore, to describe the nature of climate change skeptics.)  How many times has Sarah Palin been called “stupid” or “self-absorbed” or dismissed as a “publicity hound?” A thousand?  More?

No, it just won’t do to buy the left’s smears against the intelligence of center-right politicians any longer.  When considering the piece Mr. Martin has written, you might consider this: Virtually every source upon which he relied in order to make the case that “Perry is dumb” was a leftist politico, like Democrat legislators from Texas, and Paul Begala, a longtime political hack for the left.  This then prompts a question:  Does Mr. Martin think we’re dumb?  If so, he’s underestimated the people who read his columns on occasion.  Of course, the real problem is that Martin doesn’t care if you read it, but whether it pleases his masters, and provides another smear.  We’ve been down this road before with Mr. Martin. He certainly must be stupid if he had thought we would have forgotten.

Jonathan Martin has been in the limelight of political smears before, including his attack on Sarah Palin based on a completely manufactured story about Palin allegedly backing out of an interview with Mark Levin.  Levin was livid, and demanded an apology.  In fact, the episode turned into quite a big deal before all was said and done.  True to form, Martin has been involved in many smears against center-right folk, in a number of instances calling them “extremists.”  Not that we didn’t expect this, but to see it played out repeatedly in such a brazen manner suggests that if you ever get inside, you would be stunned at what these people really think.

We might well wonder what sort of surprise Mr. Martin has in store for his next release.  Let me guess: “Sarah Palin lacks gravitas.”  Yes, that would be par for the course, but I think it’s unfair to suggest that Mr. Martin is stupid.  It’s far more accurate to say he’s simply dishonest and incapable of thorough, accurate, and unbiased reporting.  In this whole smear against Perry’s intellect, I could find few things that were not twisted renditions of reality, but one did stick out:  He accurately described Texas Transportation Commissioner Ric Wiliamson as the intellectual force behind Perry’s ill-conceived and ill-fated TransTexas Corridor plan.  This is the most damning thing Martin manages to say about Perry, mostly without knowing it, while scurrying to advance his narrative about Rick Perry’s intellect.   You see, the TTC was a monstrosity, but so thin is Martin’s research that he never really addresses issues of substance, and this is key in understanding leftwing media.  It’s difficult to explain to readers the intracies and many problems with Perry’s ill-fated toll road project, but it’s much easier to imply or simply state the thesis of Rick Perry’s alleged “dumbness.”

For these reasons, I would suggest my fellow conservatives ignore these sorts of smears, against whichever candidate they may be leveled.  Instead, demand that the media provide real information, and real policy positions, and fact about politicians’ records on which voters can make informed decisions.  Of course, in their mission to elect Democrats, this becomes an obstacle to the real objects of the left-wing media scorn: Liberal-leaning voters.  These sorts of attacks on the intellect of center-right folk seem to play well with the liberal audience, and one could only wonder why.

As I said, Mr. Martin is not stupid, but he is artfully dishonest.  Translated, as he would present it for his lefty audience, he’s a “good liar.”