Re: OT - right-wing smear machine

"DGDevin" <dgdevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13hvqbvlnc60f49@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"RichL" <rpleavitt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:h2RTi.28464$DX.6095@xxxxxxxxxxx

I'm just curious whether you think what you just said above qualifies as
a
smear.

Hmmmm, interesting question. It isn't based on false statements or on
previously hidden information that I've revealed only to cause Ed
embarrassment, it wasn't done long-distance using others to conceal my
identity as the source, and it isn't designed to frustrate Ed in some
particular endeavor like being elected to office, thus I don't think it
qualifies as a smear in the sense that I understand the word. Ed jumped
into this thread with an insult and then a statement that his own link
showed was false. Pointing out that he was wrong, and has a history of
being wrong in similar circumstances, and speculating on why he sets
himself
up to be wrong in that fashion time after time might be snotty and
probably
a lot of other things, but it doesn't seem like a "smear" to me.

How about you, do you think it qualifies as a smear in the same sense as
Swiftboating or an author citing anonymous sources claiming Bush had a
coke
bust that his family arranged to go away?

Nope. Obviously it's a lesser scale one. More akin to the revelation about
Bush's DUI arrest, IMO.

"Whenever Ed complains that someone took his words out of context, or
misconstrued something, or played a rhetorical trick on him, that's a de
facto admission that he has again painted himself into a corner with a
combination of ignorance and an inability to look at a situation rationally
rather than through the cracked lens of his emotional perceptions."

Character assassination?

"he shoots from the lip without knowing what he's talking about and then
when
someone calls him on it all he can do is hiss and spit in helpless anger"

Overgeneralization?

"his (sic) insists on jumping in and then looking like a fool over and over
again"

More of the same?

Hey, I'm just tweaking you. But I found it just a little bit odd in a
thread where you complain about someone exposing Bush's old DUI case.

At least the latter is totally based on verifiable facts. Yours, on the
other hand, has a significant amount of extrapolation and an ad-hominem
character.

But it's OK I suppose, since Ed's considered a legitimate target for such
things and Bush isn't. Of course, it goes both ways; there are plenty of
targets on both sides of the political fence.

Back to politics: I do agree with Mr. Soul that there's a difference
between an attack based on the truth and one based on lies and unverifiable
innuendo. Me, I'd rather not see either. But the present thread does raise
a legitimate question as to whether a DUI arrest, or say a drug bust, is or
should be a serious concern for voters. I think it is; but the trouble may
be that there aren't enough political candidates who are totally clean in
that respect.


.