You may remember Mike Allen as the Politico writer who gushed over Matt Drudge and slagged the Democratic party as “dogs” while ridiculing former vice president Al Gore. Today he’s written a story where he’s all upset that the Democratic party would do opposition research on Fred Thompson.
Well I Do Declare!
Regardless of what you think Fred Thompson is (I think he’s just another Republican no-nothing know-nothing who has nothing to offer America), the fact of the matter is that the right is falling all over themselves in praise of him and he’s beginning to lead in polls. The press and the right would like to have the old-style Democratic party, the one that lets the right and the media do all the talking and all the definition of the players in an election.
They have written the script and the Howard Dean-led DNC has the nerve to not play along, because that’s the sort of behavior that previously lost us the House, Senate, and White House. The establishment, in this case The Politico and The GOP doesn’t like it when the left fights back. They hate it when we simply show up because they start losing.
They would rather the DNC not have a research operation that simply does what the RNC’s operation did in the past. It would be much more amenable to the Politico and Mike Allen, much more “civil” if the Democrats would just be a dear and lie down and play dead.
It isn’t going to happen.
Character assasination is the name of the game, and if you ain’t playing, you ain’t winning.
The Repubs have been using the “Librul” media since at least the early 1990s (actually since the creation of the Moonie Times most likely) to make Americans hate Democrats because, gasp, they’re human and they might make some personal mistakes.
Now, thanks to blogs, we get to play by their rules and their party is over.
What a shame.
The thing about the right wing echo chamber is specialization. Swift Boat Veterans, Drudge, Limbaugh, etc. do the dirty work, and Bush gets go chuckle and say “It’s just politics.” So, there is plenty of mud, but the Republican candidate keeps clean, relatively speaking. Much the same structure needs to adopted when attacking Republicans.
The Democrats probably spent a couple million dollars to research the subject of Fred Thompson, and his history. After all that money, after all that time, they finally decided to come out swinging. Now, usually, if you’re going to attack somebody you start out with your best punch. If this is their best punch, trust me, Thompson has nothing to worry about, except possibly laughing too much.
Oh, and Oliver?
It’s spelled “Know nothing”. And he’s not, of course.
Glad to help.
The Democrats probably spent a couple million dollars to research the subject of Fred Thompson, and his history.
Really? You think a Lexis-Nexis account and Google cost millions? No wonder you guys can’t buy a clue. And thanks for the grammar lesson.
I’m surprised you would mention Politico again after having so recently have them hand you your lunch - after you and the rest of the left wing blogospshere botched that hatchet job on them.
Oliver, can you point out exactly where Allen is upset or where he insinuates Democrats are not allowed to be political. Thanks.
I see a reporting of facts. Is anything in the story that isn’t true?
If not, what is your gripe?
Dugger, the only mistake Oliver made was in not acknowledging that the Politico had the basic facts right, even when they were skewing them toward the GOP talking points.
Jay, how about the bit that’s actually the entire article getting uptight about the fact that the Democrats are doing anything at all in opposition to the Republicans in general and Fred Thompson in particular.
Dugger, the only mistake Oliver made was in not acknowledging that the Politico had the basic facts right, even when they were skewing them toward the GOP talking points.
Nonsense. It wasn’t about ‘basic facts. In two separate entries Oliver accused the Politico of making stuff up. Harry Reid said something. The Politico reported what he said. Other bloggers claimed Reid never said it. Liberal blogs said the Politico just flat out lied about it. Oliver agreed and never once did he update those entries to say he was wrong once it was determined that Reid did in fact, say what he was accused of saying.
Jay, how about the bit that’s actually the entire article getting uptight about the fact that the Democrats are doing anything at all in opposition to the Republicans in general and Fred Thompson in particular.
How is reporting something factual “getting uptight?” If you can show me where Allen is writing, “That’s not fair!” then maybe I could understand. But I don’t see any of that.
Allen is merely reporting what the DNC is doing. Again, what is the big deal?
Hi Oliver.
Have we met?
If you recall, Oliver didn’t go so far as to accuse the Politico, he merely implied that it was very very likely indeed that they were making shit up, and, most importantly, that they were skewing it toward GOP talking points (which they were). Barely a distinction at all, I know, but still: Oliver’s emphasis was more on the likelihood of the Politico skewing the story. He really should, however, have acknowledged that they were right, extra layer of bias notwithstanding. But it’s not quite a smear, because he wasn’t entirely wrong. They were promoting right-wing talking points, albeit with, for once, a fact to back it up. Oh, also it didn’t matter anyway that Harry Reid said this that and the other.
As for the current story, much as I admire your dogged insistence that it’s nothing but a dry list of facts assembled by a computer with absolutely no emotion or human imput whatsoever, we both know that’s not true, and I don’t understand why you keep running away from dignity when these things come up. Besides, search and replace DNC with RNC and you’ll be up in arms about the liberal media and smear campaigns and ranting your head off about injustice and bias and Dan Rather and such. And that’s the truth, even though you’re even now typing out a strenuous denial.
Shut up about Rather, by the way. He got punked. Big deal. The things you let Fox News get away with pretty much win that contest.
Hi, trollboy. Eat it.
Sorry Nimrod, but your explanation for Oliver’s lack of correcting the record doesn’t fly. He doesn’t get to operate in a way that allows him to attack other bloggers for linking to items without comment, accusing them of agreeing with what they linked to simply because they didn’t disavow, and then get a pass when he does it.
He linked to two separate blog entries that stated that the quote by Harry Reid was made up. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with “talking points.” The Politico reported what Reid said and the GOP picked up on it.
As for the current story, you’re just way off the fucking reservation my friend. I fail to see how reporting exactly what the DNC is doing is so terrible. The fact is, you cannot show me in the article at all where Allen shows he “is upset” or that he insinuates in any way shape or form that Democrats should be allowed to do what they are doing.
It’s a news story. Stop whining like little babies already and just deal with it.
Oh, for Christ’s sake grow up. It’s in the title of the article, for God’s sake.
Also he did link to blog entries that theorised that the Reid thing was made up (because it seemed likely given the Politico’s record) but he never explicitly stated it himself. That kind of nuance is good enough for you.
Also he did link to blog entries that theorised that the Reid thing was made up (because it seemed likely given the Politico’s record) but he never explicitly stated it himself. That kind of nuance is good enough for you.
Oh, but Oliver claims to be above all of that when he wrote:
When I think one way about an issue, I say it - I don’t post a link to someone else and let them do the dirty work for me.
Apparently, he is willing to let others do the dirty work for him.
Funny how that isn’t good enough for you clowns when the table is turned. Glenn Reynolds links to something without comment and is immediately seized upon by Willis and his ilk because they say quite clearly: If you link to it and don’t specifically disagree with it, then you agree with it.
Need I remind you about the Steve Gilliard fiasco with that female blogger from Tennessee? A certain person commenting on that whole issue said that Ms. Gilbert should have apologized because she didn’t make it clear to readers that she wasn’t agreeing with what she linked to.
Nuance is good for you when it suits your agenda.
That was in part an ironic joke there.
Bear in mind that I’m not claiming Oliver is completely blameless here. It was a fuck-up. It just wasn’t as bad of a fuck-up as you people really need it to be to beat him with it.
The Steve Gilliard thing has nothing in common beyond the fact that they centre around people linking things on blogs. For a start, Ms. Gilbert didn’t say anything. For a second, Oliver’s assumption, and that of Joshua Micah Marshall to whom he linked, that the Politico was not merely twisting a story (as it turned out) but actually talking bollocks from the ground up, was based on precedent. The post Ms. Gilbert linked to was basically an extended, faintly racist insult against a dead man.
But hey, let’s not change the subject for no reason here.
It was a fuck-up. It just wasn’t as bad of a fuck-up as you people really need it to be to beat him with it.
A fuck up is a fuck up dude. And considering Oliver takes no prisoners when others screw up for minor things, he should heed his own advice.
that the Politico was not merely twisting a story (as it turned out)
What in the world are you talking about? Twisted a story?
Nimrod, if a politicians says, “It’s raining today” and a reporter writes, ‘So and so said, “It’s raining today.”‘, he’s doing his job. Reporting. The Politico didn’t twist anything. They wrote what Harry Reid said. Period. To twist something is to distort what a person had said. There was no distortion.
And this is extremely similar to the Gilliard issue. The consensus amongst too many people is that by linking to something, it’s a tacit endorsement of anything that person being linked to has written, unless otherwise specifically specified. Others say all it does is create plausible deniability because the person linking can say he doesn’t agree nor disagree with what he is linking to.
Me? I find such a mindset to be total bullshit. I can link to something I find interesting simply because I find it interesting. Or I can link to something so stupid and not comment because the stupidity of what is linked to stands on its own. It is people like Oliver that have taken the side that by linking to something, you agree with it. There’s no middle ground. If he or anybody else is saying the same rules don’t apply to him, then that is just plain ole hypocritical.
And now that we have a bowl of glue instead of a horse, I’ve said all I wills say on the issue.
“The Politico didn’t twist anything. They wrote what Harry Reid said.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Harry Reid say he called the general incompetent to his face. Politico made it sound like he was talking about him behind his back.
That’s what I meant when I said that, though factually right for quite possibly the first time in its history, they still skewed it toward the talking points as Oliver feared. Ergo, he wasn’t wrong about them, but he did jump the gun somewhat in a way that could be seen as arrogant by someone less forgiving.
Well done for sucessfully changing the subject right after I point out that the tone of the article isn’t entirely flat and uninflected.