COVER YOUR EYES!!!

Skip this post if you hate politics!

This is why I asked for proof of the Rove connection to the whisper campaign about John McCain's "illegitimate black child".

I read this statement over at Bissette's: "Rove’s appalling “Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain…if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?” slurs cost McCain that year’s candidacy." I've heard this before, but never really read the whole story, so I clicked the link. An article at "The Nation" says "Rove invented a uniquely injurious fiction for his operatives to circulate via a phony poll." That doesn't prove anything, so I go googling for the background, the proof behind this accusation.

I can't find it. I ask the intelligentsia at MyRant and the klassless klowns at jabberous to help me out. Nobody can. So far. It has been a week.

Hear me now and believe me later! I was genuinely curious. I really had no idea if proof would show up. I still think it could. I don't think it will because I don't think Rove was behind the "black child" crap, but I think it is at least possible.

But so far all I got was "Good luck! They cover their tracks!" and "Rove must be ousted! Period!"

I just find it ironic that unproven gossip is used to attack someone for spreading vicious rumors. It's no big important scandal. Contrary to what the small dust-up in the comments section here at jabberous may lead one to believe, it is not The Most Important Issue Facing Me Today.

I do find it very troubling that so much erroneous information gets passed around as "fact". It's subtle. There's not a big announcement that THE FOLLOWING IS A FACT. Things are just stated as if they are facts and become part of the public "knowledge". Some of these "facts" can be proved. Some cannot be proved. Some can be proven to be wrong, and not a fact at all.

Some are harmless. I think the Rove "fact" is relatively harmless, but not entirely harmless. I think the proveable fact that a whisper campaign about a black child occurred proves that there are still ignorant redneck racists among us. And I think it is a good thing to know that, to face reality and fight that sort of thing. But to attach Rove and Bush and an entire political party to it sends a signal that the problem of racism is much larger than it actually is.

Some anonymous goober fanning the flames of racism is bad. But I am more upset by a presidential candidate twisting Rush Limbaugh's words around and telling Hispanics that he and his army of brainwashed ditto-heads hate them. Or telling audiences in general that "they" are going to try to scare you and say I don't look like the other presidents on dollar bills.

The Rovian "fact" thing is small potatoes. It's nothing compared to the "fact" that Bush stole the election, drilling won't solve anything, Republicans caused the financial crisis, on and on and on.

As for all of the other issues that popped up during the last week and have strings attached to this...

This is not a political blog. I'm just addressing the Rove thing here so anybody who is interested can see what my point is, why I asked for that proof. And so I can include links (I'm not sure how to make a link in the comments section at MyRant.) And so you can actually READ it - those tiny little letters in MyRant's comment section hurt my eyes!

Speaking of MyRant: It's no secret that I think Bissette is a loon, and it's no secret that he thinks I'm a loon, so don't go thinking I am attacking him. Bissette and I go way back and we'll most likely go way forward. Unless McCain wins and we all sink into the muddy sewer of Roveness. Or unless Obama wins and Sharia Law prevents Bissette from talking to me because I am a married man and he is a burka'ed girl! So VOTE FOR RON PAUL!

Some of my best friends are loons!

Another great old loony friend Dobbs wonders if I can explain my politics. Why yes, as a matter of fact, I can. But it would take a very VERY long time to explain it to someone who thinks a conservative voting record is an outrage, but "What's wrong with a liberal voting record?" Or to someone else who thinks FOX should be investigated and shut down, but turns to The Nation Magazine for news.

Hopefully this helped shine a tiny bit of light on what the hell I can possibly be thinking.

But I doubt it.

PLEASE NOTE: This is not intended to be a complete and thorough analysis of every important issue facing mankind today, so please don't jump all over me with "How can you fret over so-and-so when so-and-so is so much more important???"

...

13 comments:

Jed said...

Did you say vote for Ron Paul or vote for Rupaul? RuPaul,I could see, but Ron Paul is a libertarian jack ass and I'd rather drink a diarhea and jizz milkshake.

Mike Dobbs said...

So, let me try and understand this: your objection about the Rove/black baby story is that is not attributed. There's isn't a document or a witness coming forward to say that yes or no Rove was involved.

Therefore it shouldn't be viewed as "fact."

The black baby rumor did happen and certainly affected that election – look at statements McCain said at the time and since – but you want that smoking gun kind of proof that would directly tie Rove into it.

Okay.

Since "All the President's Men" there has been the acceptance of using cloaked sources in new stories – something I don't do because the proof lies on the reporter then instead of the source.

I agree that this trend is bad for journalism. I don't let my reporters use that device in their stories. I don't print anonymous letters. I make people take responsibility. I take responsibility.

But then I have only 120,000 readers – a pittance to the big boys. I can't and won't defend their abuses. I worry about my own.

But here's the deal on this instance: we know the rumor hurt McCain, but has Rove ever denied any part in the rumor even though he has been commonly linked to it? That's a point I think that is worth considering.

If we ever get together again, I'd love to hear you explain your politics. I'll may the effort as well.

See my blog.

Jed said...

Bush stole the Gore/Bush election. No, really, Bush stole the Gore/Bush election. But hey, what do I know, I voted for Nader and still don't regret it!

Gore went pro-death penalty on us and picked LEIBERMAN as a running mate. LEIBERMAN. But of course, after Michael Moore and all those other Hollywood posers supported Nader with all their bleeding hearts, they conveniently decided that it was Nader's fault AFTER THE FACT.

Sure, afterwards Nader got stubborn and proceeded to discard all his credibility and to tear down everything he had built up for 40 odd years(see the documentary, An Unreasonable Man), but if the Democrats hadn't vilified him and Gore hadn't compromised his ideals so completely, it might have meant something.

And I also hate The Nation, but no doubt for different reasons.

And "Some people say" Fox News isn't news. Seriously, that's what "some people say". If anybody should know, it's Fox News since they obviously have a direct pipeline to the "some people" demographic.

My main problem with the Outfoxed documentary was that they played "Layla" in the end, which was pretty cheesey. The only thing more overused than Layla is Fanfare for The Common Man.

Also, does anyone know that crazy song they always play when there's a big battle or something, or they want to inspire awe in the audience, and there's this really big chorus of voices and they edit the thing to the percussion, which sounds like a big kettle drum or something, and there's this big finale of trumpets? What is that thing? They play it constantly.

SRBissette said...

Rove supervised the entire national Bush campaign in 2000 and 2004. That is commonly acknowledged, feted Rove to his Republican superstar stature, and landed him the post in the Bush administration he enjoyed until recently.

What more do you need to know, Mark? You think Rove had no idea those campaign ads were running? It was national news!

I've never idly posted, or published, rumors or deliberate misrepresentations of facts, and have heartily clarified those errors (or, in the case of your linking to the source of the obvious Palin fakery, let the comment stand to steer MYRANT readers to factual links).

That said, my attention was elsewhere this week, or I would have tracked the Rove attribution as best I could to its source in the original campaign (as I did the Fox/Obama reference you questioned earlier in 2008). This was your quest, though, not mine -- and your conclusions are as puzzling as ever.

Mark Landman said...

"Rove supervised the entire national Bush campaign in 2000 and 2004. That is commonly acknowledged, feted Rove to his Republican superstar stature, and landed him the post in the Bush administration he enjoyed until recently. "

That may be, but where's the proof? Huumph! I'm sure that it's just as possible someone just randomly called thousands of people and made those accusations about McCain for the fun of it...

...not! :)

Love & Kisses from Apostate California!

Mark Martin said...

OK, Mark, I'll bite. Where did you get your "thousands of people" info? Here's Richard H. Davis in the Boston Globe:
"We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made... We never did find out who perpetrated these smears, but they worked"
http://tinyurl.com/yl3rz2

Of course, this could be some sort of reverse-engineered rumor itself. I have not personally verified that Richard H. Davis did in fact run the 2000 McCain campaign, but I'm assuming the Globe at least fact checked that much. It's a leap of faith, but it appears to be a credible source.
What was your source?

Mark Martin said...

PS - It's not hard to believe that political zealots who are not connected to the official sanctioned campaign can generate smears, is it?

Mark Martin said...

(2 hours later) I'm trying to comment on everybody's comment, but it will be erratic. I can't dwell on this exclusively.

Steve: What "campaign ads" are you referring to?

Mike: You say -
"So, let me try and understand this: your objection about the Rove/black baby story is that is not attributed. There's isn't a document or a witness coming forward to say that yes or no Rove was involved. Therefore it shouldn't be viewed as "fact."

Very good! Yes, that is exactly right. There is no proof, therefore it is not a "fact". Putting "facts" in quotes is a nice touch, since it COULD in fact be a fact, but it is not the kind of fact one should use in a debate.

I'm not even aware of who the "cloaked sources" are behind it, other than the reporter at The Nation, Mark Landman, Steve Bissette, and all of the other people who say it is a fact. Can you steer to an article where it is reported that an unidentified source in the campaign says they have first-hand knowlege that Rove was involved? Naturally that would not convince me (we all know reporters can have agendas and lie) but it would at least help me understand how you guys can all be so sure about it.

Jed - I said vote for Ron Paul, but just in case my sarcasm alert is not working, I was being a smartass.

OK, back to work

Mike Dobbs said...

"Naturally that would not convince me (we all know reporters can have agendas and lie)"

Now this is why I get pissed off. I know you don't read what I do for a living as I report on areas that are away from where you live, but to make a blanket statement like that simply means all of this debate about Rove is moot.

If I found what you wanted to see you could easily dismiss it as a lie, so why bother?

And clearly my 30+ plus years in communications as a reporter, talk show host, media instructor and editor (among other assorted gigs) mean zip as I could be fibbing in order to sway you.

Here's the deal: since the founding of the country, the media has had agendas. In Jefferson's time, newspapers wore their political affiliation on their sleeve – you read a paper with which you agreed.

Over time the concept of balanced reporting took over, but there are many things that are still objective: story selection, story placement, run it with a photo, which photo, do a follow-up or not, how much space you give it, etc.

The goal for me is to try to run balanced stories with attributable facts. I think I do that, but people can still complain to me about whether or not I ran something or where I ran it and whether or not I'm prejudices against them. I've received those complaints and deal with them as best as I can.

Are there media owners with agendas who hire people to spread their point of view? Yes. Are they liars? Yes. Are there lazy reporters who don't get stories right? Yes. Are there bad editors? Yes. Does that mean all of us in this field are liars or idiots? No.

Mark Martin said...

Mike - Is it possible to disagree with you at all without it being a personal attack?

You get pissed off if I say "Naturally that would not convince me (we all know reporters can have agendas and lie)".

Then you say "Are there media owners with agendas who hire people to spread their point of view? Yes. Are they liars? Yes. Are there lazy reporters who don't get stories right? Yes. Are there bad editors? Yes."

So what is the problem?

"If I found what you wanted to see you could easily dismiss it as a lie, so why bother?"

This is ridiculous. If you find what I want to see I will admit it. Why do you not believe me?

I want to see an accurate provable link to Rove and the smear. That is what I have said from day one. Find that and I will gladly congratulate you.

Geez - you're so TOUCHY!

Mark Martin said...

ps - who are the cloaked sources?

HemlockMan said...

I can't believe I read this--even after your warning!

There is something I could say...but I won't. Alas, I can't decipher a way to say it that won't come out sounding like damnation (even though it isn't).

Mark Martin said...

I can imagine! I know you must be ready to explode. Your power of restraint is SUPERHUMAN!!!

Go ahead if you want to. I respect your right to be wrong! I am down with the struggle, man. You have moderator permission to say anything here (except you-know-what, the Condi bad word thing, but I know you would never say that anyway).