« The Clintons' pardon deals coming back to haunt Hillary | Main | Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio joins Team Romney »

Rewriting the dictionary

Smear, according to one dictionary:

charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; "The journalists have defamed me!" "The article in the paper sullied my reputation"

Smear campaign, according to the dictionary:

An attempt to ruin a reputation by slander or vilification, as in This press agent is well known for starting smear campaigns against her clients' major competitors. This phrase was first recorded in 1938 and uses smear in the sense of "an attempt to discredit" or "slander."

Smear, as defined by various and sundry leftists:

To expose someone's own words and deeds in an attempt to present an accurate portrayal of that person.

Examples:

The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth "smeared" John Kerry by exposing his fabrications, misstatements, and exaggerations about his service in Viet Nam -- most famously, the "Christmas In Cambodia" fairy tale.

Right-wing blogs "smeared" Amanda Marcotte, the brief in-house blogger for the John Edwards campaign, by reprinting her own words, in full context, for all to see.

Right-wingers routinely "smear" Bill Clinton by pointing out that, by his own admission, he raised his hand in a legal proceeding, swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and proceeded to lie his ass off to protect himself from embarrassment and financial culpability -- an action that resulted in his impeachment and disbarment.

Republicans regularly "smear" Democrats by taking the Democrats' stated positions, policies, and notions and comparing them with those of our declared enemies -- and noting striking parallels.

Critics of Al Gore "smear" him by pointing out that his home consumes far, far more electricity than the average person's, even when scaled up to reflect the size of his mansion.

I have my own definition of "smear." It involves a few elements that tend to get overlooked by the left. "Falseness" is one. "Guilt by association" is another. "Irrelevance" is occasionally a third.

Let's see a few examples of what I would consider "smearing," using former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as my representative.

(Disclaimer: I find myself liking Romney, but I'm not certain I'll vote for him. He seems a genuinely decent and honest guy, and I can live with most of his policies. But the nightmare of a "health insurance plan" he left the Bay State with has all the makings of a major train wreck, and he put his fingerprints all over it.)

Last fall, the Boston Globe decided that Mitt Romney's stance on illegal aliens was not to their liking. So they did some digging.

"Digging" in the sense of "Big Dig-scale excavations."

They investigated the (American-owned) landscaping company that tended his lawn. After serious investigation (including sending two reporters to Latin America), they found out that the company hired illegal aliens, some of whom (gasp!) worked on Romney's yard.

Funny enough, they never mentioned that Romney not only had no legal obligation to make sure his contractor's employees were legal, but (as I understand it) was legally forbidden from demanding to see such proof. Romney had done all he was obliged and permitted to, but that wasn't enough. So that one falls under the "irrelevant" category.

Recently, it came out that Mitt Romney's great-great-grandfather was a polygamist. This, of course, was because the Romney family have been Mormons for generations, and back then it was common. Never mind that out of all the leading Republican candidates, Romney is the only one still with his first (and only) wife; he had a POLYGAMIST!!!!!! ancestor. There's your "guilt by association."

(Also, the Boston Globe's attempts to play up his Mormonism in relation to the Christian Right and any bad blood between them is another of that example.)

I don't have any examples of the out-and-out lying type of smear against Romney at hand, but I do recall that during his 1994 run for the United States Senate, where he challenged Ted Kennedy, there was some serious fibbing going on against him.

Adlai Stevenson once famously said: "If the Republicans will stop telling lies about us, we'll stop telling the truth about them." And Harry Truman, when a supporter yelled out "Give 'em Hell, Harry!," answered ""I don't give 'em hell. I just tell the truth on them; it makes them feel like they're in Hell!"

How far the Democratic party has fallen in the 50 years since those two statesmen strode the earth.


Comments (56)

Jay, I'm not a Republican, ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Jay, I'm not a Republican, what is the point? Based on his poll numbers, he will drop out by this time next next month.

Check out the smear treehug... (Below threshold)
kim:

Check out the smear treehugger.com put on Bush's Texas White House.
=======================

The point is Romney is in t... (Below threshold)
914:

The point is Romney is in the process of really being smeared, while Kerry only wished it really was a smearjob..

Romney is:-Pro Choic... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Romney is:
-Pro Choice
-Pro Gay
-Pro Universal Health

All of the above is backed by his words and deeds. Where is the smear?

JT: An excellent post which... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

JT: An excellent post which will surely cause an increased use of Depends by our resident trolls.

Gulianie is:-Pro Gay... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Gulianie is:
-Pro Gay
-Pro Choice
-Pro Gun Control
-Pro Incest
-Pro Adultery

All of the above is backed by his words and deeds. Where is the smear?

BarneyG2000:<blockqu... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

BarneyG2000:


Jay, I'm not a Republican, what is the point? Based on his poll numbers, he will drop out by this time next next month.

Funny. JayTea writes a piece of the (mis)use of the word 'smear' and Barney comes away with the belief that it's a piece about Romney ?

.. piece on the (mis... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

.. piece on the (mis)use..

BarneyG--perfect liberal re... (Below threshold)
L:

BarneyG--perfect liberal representative--all bile, no brains. And no Barney, that's not a SMEAR, because it happens to be TRUE.

Mike,In case you h... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Mike,

In case you haven't noticed (which is hard to believe) BarneyG2000 has a major comprehension problem.

Of course that also explains why he/she/it's "not a Republican". If he/she/it could actually comprehend things he/she/it most likely would not be on the left.

P. Bunyan,Correct.... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

P. Bunyan,

Correct. It was funny, not surprising.

Barneyg' is:Dumb <... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Barneyg' is:

Dumb
Ignorant
Stupid
"club" member
useless troll
hypocrite
liar
bootlicker
appeaser
liberal suck-up

All of the above is backed up by his posts so where is the smear?

Mike and "P" wrote:"... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Mike and "P" wrote:
" and Barney comes away with the belief that it's a piece about Romney ?"

"BarneyG2000 has a major comprehension problem."

Gee, where did I get the idea that this piece was about smearing Romney? ??? Maybe from this?

"Let's see a few examples of what I would consider "smearing," using former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as my representative." by Jay T

I'll get right to work on that "comprehension problem".

Okay, I'll help you since y... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Okay, I'll help you since you're struggling.

The piece was about the (mis)use of the word 'smear'. As part of the supporting argument, JayTea gave examples actual smears and a few of examples of the incorrect use of the word 'smear'. In other words, JayTea simply used Romney as a case in point.

To wit, (from the article)


Let's see a few examples of what I would consider "smearing," using former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as my representative

It's okay. Keep trying, Barney. You'll catch on eventually.

Examples of smear campa... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Examples of smear campaigns ..I wonder why Jay you didn't include the most disreputable and infamous example in recent years :the anatomy of a smear campaign
"We had just swept into the state from New Hampshire, where we had racked up a shocking, 19-point win over the heavily favored George W. Bush. What followed was a primary campaign that would make history for its negativity"push polling" technique that suggest that McCain's (adopted )Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child".
Could it be you didn't include it, because this 'push poll technique' was enginered by Lee Atwater protegy, Karl Rove, and not a Democrat in sight..or is it alright for Rove to smear Republicans but not alright for Democrats?

Smear... blah... If you're... (Below threshold)
ammonius:

Smear... blah... If you're interested in how someone uses a word look at the context first. Didn't your English teacher tell you that? Dictionaries are references not law books.

What some liberals mean by smear (in various contexts) is simply to attack the "person" rather than the argument, philosophy or policy record of the opponent. It's the principle rhetorical strategy of the polemicists of the Right (Hanity, Coulter, Rush, Horowitz, and their plethora of parrots). I

n logic and argument it's called "argumentum ad hominem", it is used mostly with "ad hominem abusive", or "argumentum ad personam" as well as in "ad hominem circumstantiae", and "ad hominem tu quoque." It's a logical fallacy, look it up.

It basically goes like this:
Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable claimed about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

Put simply it is an attack on the "who" of an interlocutor rather than the "what" of the argument itself. That is, it is not a response but simply an attack. Hence the association with "smear". It is an appeal to the emotions, prejudices and special interests rather than to reason or intellect.

The excessive recourse to this rhetorical strategy should be easy enough to overcome with any familiarity with a basic logic or critical thinking text book. Of course, if your interested in either logic or critical thinking, you already knew that.

Strange that you say this,<... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Strange that you say this,

I don't have any examples of the out-and-out lying type of smear against Romney at hand, but I do recall that during his 1994 run for the United States Senate, where he challenged Ted Kennedy, there was some serious fibbing going on against him.

pointing out that your examples of Romney "smears" are very much like the examples you present as not smears (i.e. they are true). The only thing you point to as a smear, as you are defining it, is something from the 1994 campaign that you can't really remember or link to.

Here are some examples of real smearing:

Did you know John McCain has a illegitimate black child?

Did you know Barack Obama was educated at a madrassa and may just be a jihadist manchurian candidate?

Did you know John Kerry met with satanist Anton La Vey?

Did you know John Kerry was screwing an AP reporter?

Did you know Samuel Alito has mob ties? (implied)

Did you know the Republican Terri Shiavo talking points memo was faked by Democrats?

There's so many more those were just off the top of my head.

Oh, by the way, this,

The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth "smeared" John Kerry by exposing his fabrications, misstatements, and exaggerations about his service in Viet Nam -- most famously, the "Christmas In Cambodia" fairy tale.

does leave out quite a bit.

Actually, Steve C., I think... (Below threshold)
Dave A.:

Actually, Steve C., I think the most disreputable and infamous smear example in recent years was the October 2000 ad by the NAACP that tried to tie W to the vicious chain-drag lynching of James Byrd.

Jay, I'm not a Republic... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jay, I'm not a Republican, what is the point? Based on his poll numbers, he will drop out by this time next next month. Posted by: BarneyG2000 at February 28, 2007 11:24 AM

I could go down the cheap rejoinder route (the point is on your head) but I won't.

Rommney may of may not be in the race next month, but surely EVEN you would have to admit with the tripe the Boston Globe has published it could only serve to hasten his withdrawal from the race.

Right?

Dave A.. I had forgotten ab... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Dave A.. I had forgotten about that one.It seem the hate crimes bill that Governor Bush didn't push wouldn't have made any difference..As it was, 2 of 3 men got the death penalty anyway..I suppose the most controversial was Willie Horton in the George Bush commercial slighting Dukasis in 1982 ..It always seems race is somehow behind the worse of so called 'smear'campaigns so the future looks a little brighter in 2008, as we are now accepting the idea of a black Presidential candiate, something that would have been unthinkable even a few years ago.

Barney, Jay points ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Barney,
Jay points out the landscaping and polygamy smears, and you demand to know where ther smears are in 3 things he did not call smears.
You are quickly overtaking Lee as the resident knee-jerking moron of the left.

ammonius,
When someone holds up their status as say, a decorated veteran, as a reason they are fit for office (or more fit than another) then it is fair game to question and/or point out the record. Kerry's campaign made his Vietnam tour a centerpiece of his campaign. His detractors made his activism and "odd memory" (Christmas in Cambodia, medals over the fance but still hanging on the wall) a centerpiece of the rebuttal.

If Romney said "Vote for me, because I am a 10th Generation Mormon", then his religion and family history may be valid counterpoints.

marc, the ABC/WP poll has R... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

marc, the ABC/WP poll has Romney at 4%, and Romney has the highest net un-favorability rate of any of the Pubs.

The poll was conducted before the Globe story.

Romney is a dead-man walking.

I suppose the most contr... (Below threshold)

I suppose the most controversial was Willie Horton in the George Bush commercial slighting Dukasis in 1982 .

1988, and I believe that Gore brought it up during the primary. It only became a "smear" (it was 100% true, which is why I put it in quotes) when some non-profit (it wasn't Bush's campaign) ran the ad a few times.

Recently, it came out th... (Below threshold)

Recently, it came out that Mitt Romney's great-great-grandfather was a polygamist. This, of course, was because the Romney family have been Mormons for generations, and back then it was common. Never mind that out of all the leading Republican candidates, Romney is the only one still with his first (and only) wife; he had a POLYGAMIST!!!!!! ancestor. There's your "guilt by association."

Isn't Harry Reid Mormon? Where's the geneological research piece in the newspapers about him?

Oh, wait. That would be a smear. Because of the "D" after his name, don't ya know.

JohnAnnArbor: You are corre... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

JohnAnnArbor: You are correct...it was Algore who first raised the Willie Horton issue against Mr. Dukakis. Thanks for spanking that troll.

Here goes Jay again tossing... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Here goes Jay again tossing crap up into the air and hoping it sticks on the folks he doesn't like. You're in a real groove Jay...cowards, traitors and now this piece of, excuse the ....ah I don't want to use a bad word to desribe this one.

Why? Easy. You cite the Boston Globe for "smearing" Romney. And what is your conclusion?

"How far the Democratic party has fallen in the 50 years since those two statesmen strode the earth."

You become more unhinged with each post and comment.

But he hasn't caught up wit... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

But he hasn't caught up with you yet "hughie".

Joan and Old Coot:... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Joan and Old Coot:

When you make a bald assertion about something it'd be good to check the facts. Gore never brought up Willie Horton or ran any ads about him. What he did was challenge Dukakis during a debate in the primary about the furlough program. He never mentioned Horton's name.

Toss up the crap, see what sticks, shoot the messenger - you folks are on a roll.

Seems to me that if someone... (Below threshold)
Bunker:

Seems to me that if someone like Barney is against Mitt, it is only a good thing for Mitt.

If Mitt were indeed "-Pro Choice, -Pro Gay, & -Pro Universal Health" Wouldn't Barney be pulling for him?

Is it just me, or are the biggest attacks on Mitt coning from the Left? Wonder why that is?

Romney is a dead-man wa... (Below threshold)
marc:

Romney is a dead-man walking.
Posted by: BarneyG2000 at February 28, 2007 02:36 PM

You failed to answer the question.

"you would have to admit with the tripe the Boston Globe has published it could only serve to hasten his withdrawal from the race.

Right?

Nothing to say? Or afraid to air your true feelings for fear it would undercut your "credentials" as a raving babbler of the latest talking points?

Tell you what make the bet. I'll wager (make the amount light on yourself) Romney will last far past "this time next next month" as you opine.

Sorry guy, he ain't no Vilsack.

marc, you're right. The Gl... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

marc, you're right. The Globe article will have a devastating affect on Romney's poll numbers. I'm sure he'll tumble from 4% to 3%.

Interestingly, Mitt is not ... (Below threshold)

Interestingly, Mitt is not the first Presidential candisdate with polygamist ancestors. Morris Udall's grandfather, John King Udall, was a mormon and a bigamist.* Udall ran for the Dem nomination (briefly) in 1976.

So Barney, you think the Globe does not = the Dems?

Did you know The Globe owes its very existence to Tip O'Neill, who saved it from ruin in the 1950's when he was Chairman of the House Rules Committee?** Did you know that Davis Taylor, the owner of the Globe at the time, used to make (very large) cash contributions to O'Neill's political committee?***

*Tip O'Neill and the Democratic Century, John A Farrell, p. 280
** Id. p. 154-161
***Id., p. 316.

Care to peruse Boston Globe political endorsements over the past thirty years and identify more than one or two token Republican candidates?

You're really beyond the pale.

Barney:.... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Barney:

...marc, the ABC/WP poll has Romney at 4%, and Romney has the highest net un-favorability rate of any of the Pubs.

At this point in the 1992 election cycle, I seem to recall Bill Clinton having a sub 10% polling. I'll bet team Romney is keeping that fact in mind.

At this point in the 1992 e... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

At this point in the 1992 election cycle, I seem to recall Bill Clinton having a sub 10% polling. I'll bet team Romney is keeping that fact in mind. by scuzzy

O-really, Clinton declared his intentions on 10/3/91 about 6-months before the first caucus.

Got anymore facts that you can pull from your ass?

O-really, Barney, the "1992... (Below threshold)

O-really, Barney, the "1992 election cycle" did NOT start on January 1, 1992. Hell, it can be argued it started in 1989.

Likewise, we are currently in the 2008 election cycle.

Any more "facts" YOU'D like to pull from YOUR ass?

J.

Really Jay, do you want to ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Really Jay, do you want to provide a link for the 10% poll rating of Bill Clinton 13-months before the Iowa caucus?

Barney,Oh, so sorry ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Barney,
Oh, so sorry that I don't have a perfect recollection of 16 years ago. I am 7 months ahead of schedule. And Clinton was polling and sending up trial baloons long before October. I was a Dem back then, and I remember working the phones during summer break. One of the questions was who do you like better against President Bush, Bill Clinton or Paul Tsongas?

Doesn't change the fact that Clinton began in crapper, lost the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, then Colorado before he turned it around in IL. And then he spent 8 years in the White House.

The point is, it is a little early to declare anyone's run dead or alive.

Iowa caucus results, local ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Iowa caucus results, local boy Harkin won, but Clinton came in second. He also came in second in NH:

New Hampshire primary results

Paul E. Tsongas 55,666 33.2%
"Bill" Clinton 41,542 24.8%
"Bob" Kerrey 18,584 11.1%
"Tom" Harkin 17,063 10.2%
Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown, Jr. 13,660 8.0%

That is hardly "beginning in the crapper".

Is that another one of your facts?

Really Jay, do you <str... (Below threshold)
marc:

Really Jay, do you want to provide a link for the 10% poll rating of Bill Clinton 13-months before the Iowa caucus? Posted by: BarneyG2000

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Quick, someone make a poster...here's your boy.

Where's is your link for this tripe called the "New Hampshire primary results" barneyG-Rubble?

And BTW you posted what? Well this: provide a link for the 10% poll rating of Bill Clinton 13-months before the Iowa caucus?

And you promptly provide PRIMARY results to somehow "prove' your point.

barneyG-Rubble, you didn't just move the goalposts, you kicked them out of the stadium and the State it was sitting in.

You truly are a mess.

Jay,You should che... (Below threshold)
DSkinner:

Jay,

You should check out entry four at wiktionary. Someone brought this up at Hotair a few days ago.

Barney,Iowa 1992 Cau... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Barney,
Iowa 1992 Caucus:
Harkin
Uncommitted
Tsongas
Clinton
Kerrey
Brown

Explain to us how that means 2nd? The man got just under 3%. You can argue 3rd, but not 2nd.

You my friend, are the one storing "facts" in you ass.

scuzzy, I am big enough to ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

scuzzy, I am big enough to admit that my answer was incorrect for Iowa, but considering Harkin was predicted to win by a landslide (something like 74-76%, statistically everyone else finished second), all eyes were on the outcome of NH.

Coming from the south, Clinton did very well in NH (2nd to Tsongas whom was from Mass).

You still have not corrected yourself for saying that Clinton was at 10% in some made-up poll a year before the first primary, nor for saying Clinton was in the crapper early in the primaries, which he was not.

Barney,go back, re-r... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Barney,
go back, re-read.
I admitted that I was 7 months off in the time line.
I never said he was in the crapper early in the primaries. I said he began in the crapper AND lost the early primaries.

However, since I am home now, I have time to google. And I was only 1 month off, it seems.

http://www.pollster.com/charles_franklin/pres08_new_cbs_poll_on_favorab.php

A classic example is from April 1991, when Bill Clinton scored 8% favorable, 12% unfavorable and 80% unable to give any impression of him. That places him solidly in the company of Romney, Richardson, Brownback and Hagel. Of course that didn't stop him from gaining the nomination

So, Clinton was below 10, as I said, but it was about this time in the 1992 cycle. That is starting in the crapper.

And yet, much to my chagrin now (not then, as I supported him), he sat in the Oval Office for 8 years. Point again, it is too early count out anyone on a bad poll this early in the game.

By 1996, having seen the first 4 years of the Clintons and having worked (salaried, not volunteer) for Democratic legislators, I worked to elect anyone but Bill. And to always watch to see if a politician's walk resembled his talk.

This started out about rewr... (Below threshold)
epador:

This started out about rewriting the dictionary and ended up about rewriting history.

Mantis,Here was my... (Below threshold)

Mantis,

Here was my recent favorite:

Jane Harman staffer leaked classified materials.

I believe Jim Addison of this very blog held forth that "there was surely some other evidence found before the suspension, though." and "I doubt Hoekstra would have taken this action without a bit more than the coincidental timing, though." Of course, this was speculation based on absolutely nothing, and the charges were dropped against this staffer shortly after the election (but with Republicans still in power) when the Republicans failed to produce any tangible results from this blatant smear.

Have a Congressman make an ubstantiated allegation regarding a national security violation against a staffer with no evidence to back it up just before an election. That seems to fit Jay Tea's "Falseness" paradigm pretty well. This was no reporter doing the smear in an effort to pump up controversy and sell papers. It was an actual sitting Republican Congressman gettin' it done.

BTW, if the report of the charges against the staffer being dropped was ever reported here at WizBang by Jim or Lorrie (the original blog posters), I must have missed it...

Well Joe, while, stripped o... (Below threshold)

Well Joe, while, stripped of all of its context your example would be valid, the context requires that you consider Harman's antagonistic relationship with Hoekstra and others -- such as Speaker Pelosi -- and the fact that she had previously passed intelligence reports on to the press herself. Perhaps there were a few reasons why she was passed over for Chair of the committee. So "coincidence" is not the only external factor at play.

wavemaker,"the co... (Below threshold)

wavemaker,
"the context requires that you consider Harman's antagonistic relationship with Hoekstra and others "
Oh, I get it, this would normally be a smear, but since people didn't like her and were angry with her, it was OK to smear one of her staffers with no evidence. I'm glad we understand the rules now. Jay Tea should probably revise his article to take into account this important exception. What would normally be a smear is perfectly fine if the person doing the smear is angry with you about something.

"the fact that she had previously passed intelligence reports on to the press herself"
Is that a a substantiated fact, or just another smear? It's hard to tell since you provide absolutely no evidence to back up this assertion. I certainly hope you're not counting releasing unclassified findings on Duke Cunningham's lawbreaking as "intelligence". I believe that's what Hoekstra and LaHood (who made the original complaint) were mad about.

I was merely referring to t... (Below threshold)

I was merely referring to the report that was linked, joe. And the guy does work for her. Usually in a collegial body like Congress, when members of the body don't like you (especially the Speaker of the House), it's because you've earned it.

Hmmm. Can't hear Barney ov... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Hmmm. Can't hear Barney over all those crickets

A smear takes place when th... (Below threshold)

A smear takes place when the reader or listener is prodded into using some bizzarre extrapolation to create a connection between what was actually said and what it implies and making that implication a truth in the reader's mind. Anything beyond that is outright libel.

I think we're all grown up enough to know when a smear is taking place to create some political advantage.

... wait, I take that back.

Sure, it happens both ways. I think Jay's point is that we hear quite often from the left on this very blog, and many others, that giving actual facts or relating quotes in full context, which are unflattering about a candidate, is an attempt to "smear" the person. Hence, his attempt to clear the matter up.

When one is successful in relating to that person who has called it a smear the validity of the comment, the same lefties will use the, "Hey, people do change," or the, "That was a long time ago," argument. There have been many examples of this as well.

Another common response is the, "Yeah? Well so-and-so did [insert activity here]," with no effort to address the original statement. This, I find, to be a default admission/acceptance that the original statement is true.

wavemaker,"I wa... (Below threshold)

wavemaker,

"I was merely referring to the report that was linked, joe. And the guy does work for her."
So, you were referring to the WizBang articles on what later proved to be bogus charges against Harman's staffer to support your statement that Harman had previously passed intelligence reports on to the press herself? How does that make any sense? Let me walk you through this one more time:

1) LaHood accused Harman's staffer of leaking classified NIE based on no evidence.
2) Hoekstra suspended Harman's staffer based on LaHood's complaint and promised an investigation. LaHood stated, at the time, that he "ha[d] no credible information to say any classified information was leaked from the committee's minority staff, but the implications of such would be dramatic," and "There are some of us on the other side who can equally play politics, and I'm not afraid to do it."
3) Wizbang reported twice on this story, including naming the staffer and noting the large implications of the story (this was 2-3 weeks before the election)
4) After the election, the staffer was reinstated by Chairman Hoekstra on Nov 21st and plans for the investigation were dropped. WizBang follow up of this important development was none.

So, there never was any substance to this allegation. It was an example of a blatant smear, done for political purposes, and LaHood admitted as much. You just bought into the unsubstianted smear job. I guess WizBang never updating this story with the conclusion was a worse oversight than I thought for their uninformed readership. Months later, after I linked to the conclusion of this story, you still think it was true. I can see why smearing is so effective.

I'm still not sure why being unpopular makes smearing a person OK in your mind, but you seem to be determined to follow that line of bizarro logic to its conclusion.

Actually dipshit, I was ref... (Below threshold)

Actually dipshit, I was referring to the link that YOU PROVIDED.

Look pal, I'm not defending Hoekstra -- he made a false accusation and was proven wrong. But it ain't just that the lady isn't liked.

1. The Cunningham report was an internal document and its release was a violation of committee rules.

2. In case you're utterly ignorant of how the treachery and intrigue works, members get their staffers to do their dirty work. I'd link for you, but it's sort of linking to the time of day.

So Harman is unpopular because she has done things to piss people off. When you do things to piss people off, sometimes they think you must have done this thing. When they're wrong, they admit it and take the consequences.

Harman's consequences were apparently to be ditched as the chair-apparent. But that musta been because she was unpopular.

It's great that you finally... (Below threshold)

It's great that you finally got around to making the assertion that I predicted you would two posts ago. Good job on catching up. I think the relevant thread was:

wavemaker:"the fact that she had previously passed intelligence reports on to the press herself"
Joe: "I certainly hope you're not counting releasing unclassified findings on Duke Cunningham's lawbreaking as "intelligence".
wavemaker:I was merely referring to the report that was linked, joe. And the guy does work for her. (how does this response make sense in releasing the Duke Cunningham docs? Larry Hanauer had nothing to do with that...)
Joe:So, you were referring to the WizBang articles on what later proved to be bogus charges against Harman's staffer to support your statement that Harman had previously passed intelligence reports on to the press herself? How does that make any sense?
wavemaker:The Cunningham report was an internal document and its release was a violation of committee rules.

So, now that you've been stripped of all else, it's time to fall back on what I suggested was a weak argument a few posts ago. Your claim that "she previously passed intelligence reports onto the press herself" has now become the somewhat muted, she "violated committe rules" by releasing the Cunningham report. Then you make some point about "dirty work" being done by staffers, but that seems rather out of place here. Harman publically released the summary of the Cunningham report on October 17th. It was such dirty work that she did it herself with a personal statement attached.

Of course, if Hoekstra thought Harman had violated the committee rules, he could have taken action to strike her from the committee. I guess he was too scared how this would look after dragging his feet on releasing the findings that they had had since May about Duke Cunningham. I'll certainly agree that being embarassed like that made Hoekstra really, really mad at Harman. After all the trouble he had gone to in order to suppress this information, she released it and he couldn't do a thing about it without making himself look like a fool and her a martyr. So, he and LaHood took the easy, cowardly way out and smeared one of Harman's staffers instead with no evidence of wrongdoing to get back at her. This kind of turns Jay's quote from Adlai Stevenson on it's head. Harman told the truth about Cunningham and Hoekstra, so Hoekstra had no choice to lie in return.

Short Term Medical covers a... (Below threshold)

Short Term Medical covers a person for a limited period. You can get coverage for as few as 30 days or as many as 185 days. If you think you'll need more permanent health coverage, you may want to look at another health insurance option, such as an Individual Medical policy.


http:// www.easystm.com

Short Term Medical covers a... (Below threshold)

Short Term Medical covers a person for a limited period. You can get coverage for as few as 30 days or as many as 185 days. If you think you'll need more permanent health coverage, you may want to look at another health insurance option, such as an Individual Medical policy.


http:// www.easystm.com

okay let,s boil this down:<... (Below threshold)

okay let,s boil this down:

You make a statement. It turns out to be incorrect. You renounce the statement.

But regardless of your initial belief that what you said was true, you have lied.

Brilliant logic.

You clearly have never worked on Capitol Hill.

Again, this pont seems to be completely lost on you, but I am not defending the conduct (of either of them). But context lends the third dimension to a set of facts.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy