2 golden oldies Drudge used to attack Dean

[dsc]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=84975

Notice what you won't find in here that is a Kerry supporter up in arms about using Drudge as a source. That speaks volumes.

Yet again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=26003

Yet again, this time in a huge thread, and 0, count them 0 posts attacking people for using Drudge by a Kerry supporter. FTR the words preaching Jesus which figured prominently in Drudge's headline didn't appear in the piece.

[dsc]

1. kick

[Malikshah]

2. Funny....

No replies to this thread as of yet.

On second thought...it's not funny. It's telling.

So--the rest of you hemming and hawing and attacking the sources--

Stop

Being

Hypocrites.

Attack the sources and veracity as much as you want for all--you cannot have it both ways.

Folks are doing their candidates a major disservice here.

Shame on you.

[dsc]

3. It should be noted that these are merely the first two threads I found

I know, from reading them, that there are others I could have found. I have literally had people tell me that they only had to defend their candidate and not Dean. I just am trying to show how common that mindset apparently is.

[Malikshah]

9. Key word there is mindset

It is shameful that folk cannot see how transparent they are in the methods.

A few predictions:

Folks will respond with "sour grapes"
Folks will respond with "get over it"
Folks will respond with "this is politics/if you can't stand the heat..."


Feel free to come up with more trite and trueisms...

And each of those misses the crux of the problem--

Folks don't realize that they are being inconsistent in their arguments/logic methods--and that this will surely do them and their candidates in in the end.

If we see through the BS they're spouting--damn sure the US public will.

[dsc]

11. Well said

that is why I have really tried to be consistent in what I consider valid things and invalid ones. The only things I have said on this issue is a) I don't trust Drudge b) If Kerry did this it is relevent due to his thinking my personal life is relevant. That is it.

[NashVegas]

4. And the Sadly Hysterical Thing About It

(the Drudge story, that is) Is the accounts that have come out about the Kerry campaigners who infiltrated Dean's IOWA organization, some even getting to the level of precinct captains, and then dropped out of site 1 week before the caucus.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

5. And you won't find it anywhere..............

People will quote Drudge when it is of benefit. Unless of course it's a Drudge report that doesn't set well then suddenly it's a RW trash report that should be paid no attention. What people fail to realize is that the Drudge report was the FIRST one to break the Monica scandle. Funny how some are able to brush off the media as biased and untrustworthy but when that same media announces a poll that falls in line with personal wants that same media suddenly becomes credible.

[kiahzero]

6. Things I've learned in GD2004, so far:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=293810

4) The Drudge Report is simultaneously horrendously inaccurate and the absolute truth.

[dsc]

7. yep

and let me congradulate you, bleatedly, on a wonderful thread. By the time I saw it most everything I had wanted to say had been said.

[kiahzero]

8. Thanks

It's come in handy a few times... so far, just for Drudge and Counterpunch sources.

[ShimokitaJer]

10. The fundamental difference...

Is that Kerry supporters believe Kerry is fundamentally entitled to the nomination. Thus, any attacks on him are necessarily attacks on the Party itself.

On the other hand, the other candidates are not deserving, so any dirt, be it from Drudge, Rush, or the Kerry campaign itself, is perfectly fair (and balanced, of course), even if completely untrue.

[Malikshah]

12. Ah the old entitlement game

I thought we had reformed welfare??? No one is entitled to anything}( }( }(

[GodHelpUsAll2]

14. If more people.............

Would research and question then maybe this wouldn't be a problem. I don't trust MSNBC or CNN any more than I trust Drudge. However, if it's out there it will eventually get to EVERY media outlet there is, period. The media simply can not be trusted and must be double checked. It is blatently obvious what the media did to Kerry in the beginning when his campaign was on the verge of collapse then the about face, Dean with the whole Iowa speech, Clark was shunned as was Sharpton, Kucinich and Mosley Braun the meia had a hand in beating up on all of them at some point and I believe there is a method to their madness. I have traveled to several states during this primary season with Iowa being the first and I have to say what I have witnessed first hand from 2 campaigns in particular shocked and pissed me off at the same time. It's ugly out there. And I don't suspect it will get anything but worse as it goes on. So let people brush this current ripple off and pay it no attention. Then when they are bitch slapped by the right with it with the help of the media (and they will be) we can all watch them cry in their beer and wonder what happened.

[maddezmom]

13. drudge is a sludge

and no one should use him as a source for any info about a dem candidate. He's done his fair share of smears on all the candidates.

What's really telling is when drudge smears someone other than "your"
(using the term your to address all of us) some people feel the source is valid.

Here are a few off the top of my head and there were plenty more:
- Clark's testimony before the house
- Kerry and Botox
- Dean and religion
- Edwards' and donations

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. Some major hypocrisy going on.

But we already knew that.

[Renew Deal]

16. Both of those were true with proof.

The first, Dean fired 2 staffers. The second came from Dean's mouth.

[dsc]

17. False on two counts

One, at the time of the thread there was no more info about those charges than there is about this. And two, both stories had major inaccuracies. Dean never said, nor were the words 'preaching Jesus' in the Globe piece. Nor did Dean take the tone of 'preaching Jesus'. The other piece incorrectly stated that the person involved was not an Iowan when he was (he had lived there for the requisite number of days).

[Renew Deal]

18. The person was from Georgia.

The other was from Minnesota.

[dsc]

20. He was originally from Georgia

but had moved there permanently and over 30 days before the article came out. Both were made clear in subsequent articles. He was, like many others, a person who moved for his job. He also, just happened, to support Dean. It is perfectly legal for, in point of fact the SC requires, states to register voters who live in their jurisdictions for the 30 days before an election.

[Catholic Sensation]

19. I have a question about the second one

why would #2 be a bad thing? I mean, who would go "Dean is a Christian, fuck that shit, I'm not voting for him"

I didn't read the first thread, because there was waaay too much to read :)

[stickdog]

21. Kick for hypocrisy. (nt)

[JVS]

22. Thanks for reminding me of why this current scandal is so enjoyable

[incapsulated]

23. You mean, people are being hypocritical and playing games on DU?

Good lord, what have we come to?

:cry:

[jpgray]

24. These stories provide a letter in one case, and facts in another

Point out to me the evidence that Kerry had sex with the intern.

[dsc]

25. They didn't at the time

The first 60 plus posts of the Jesus story thread was BEFORE AS IN EARLIER THAN IT APPEARED In short, when the first 60 plus posts in that thread appeared, none of which were a post by Kerry supporters saying we should wait, there was NO EVIDENCE AS IN NOT ONE SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE that that story was true. Further more Drudge was dead wrong as to what that story said.

[jpgray]

28. It was concerning the article to appear in the Globe

The article DID appear in the Globe, and its focus was what Drudge claimed--Dean and religion.

Now since Drudge is a right-wing source, why should it surprise you that he would spin the information to make it look like Dean was pandering? That is not limited to Drudge, and in those days you wouldn't have to look far for an anti-candidate X piece posted with nary a Dean nay-sayer in sight.

The difference here is that his is a Drudge-*initiatied* smear/rumor, and there ARE no major papers to present the facts. While your linked thread or the candidate X stories are easily dismissed as RW spin on a factual base, ALL THE KERRY STORY IS is RW spin. Do you get the difference? There is no independent source in this case, unless you count Murdoch's rag, which is just vomiting back up Drudge's innuendo, while including some nicely suggestive parental quotes.

I'll look at this seriously when the facts are on the table. Until then, I will call it silly and ridiculous. You forget that many posters AVOID threads with only Drudge as the source. Or was I exulting in these threads?

[dsc]

32. The Globe had not printed a word

not a single solitary word, before somewhere in the 60's in that thread. I defy you to find even one post out of those over 60 which is from one single solitary Kerry supporter saying one single solitary word about waiting until that article came out.

[jpgray]

34. But there WAS a Globe article. The Kerry story was ex nihilo

First there was nothing, and then there was Drudge, if you want to connect back to the threads you mentioned. :D

I don't deny that there are plent of people who delight in the woes of other candidates and won't hesitate to fall over themselves to spread rumors and obfuscate quotes. Some of every candidates' supporters do that.

But there is a difference. Drudge's Dean attack you cite was based on a Globe article. This one is based on NOTHING. When there are facts, it will stop being so silly. People enjoy seeing their candidate blasted by ad nauseum posts from obfuscating RW sources so much they have to turn around and do it another candidate when they get the chance.

And another point, of course. Was the entire forum filled with posts on these two allegations? Somehow I doubt it. There was far less chance for a Kerry supporter (at that time far less numerous than Dean folks) to come upon the solitary threads, whereas GD2004 is LITTERED with sex threads. Do you still not see the difference?

[dsc]

37. No there was not for the first 60 posts

there was Drudge's promise of one. Again find a single, solitary, post by a single solitary Kerry supporter in that entire thread that says a single, solitary, word about waiting.

[jpgray]

38. Drudge says an article "will be in tomorrow's Globe"--he's usually right

When he starts a RW smear, everything's up in the air. And you still won't answer any of my other points. You're comparing two situations that are not analogous to each other.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

27. why oh why

didn't you say that in the threads I found? Just what excuse will you come up with.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. I didn't participate in those threads - they were bogus Drudge flamebait.

BTW - please do not go into threads that repeat Drudge rumors and kick them by saying "this is from Drudge and it's bogus!" -- just let them sink instead. Much more effective.


Or just alert them:
7. You may not post any material from extreme right-wing sources, specifically WorldNetDaily.com, Newsmax.com, FreeRepublic.com, and their ilk. Material from more "mainstream" conservative writers or sources, such as The Washington Times and Fox News, are permitted as long as the post includes a clear warning about the source. (For example: "WARNING: Please note that this article is written by George Will.")

[Anwen]

29. What? Hypocrisy? Here???

I can't believe it.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[denverbill]

33. This should be illegal.

Obviously, times have changed. On January 8, Dean was the front-runner and Drudge stories were rock-solid. Now, it's February 13, Kerry is the front-runner, and Drudge stories are complete and utter fabrication.

[Malikshah]

35. It is illegal

In the karmic scheme of things.

Alas, that is all we can hope for.

Those who have lacked consistency in their views will reap the whirlwinds.

I do not wish it upon them, but will not do anything to stop it from happening.

As I've said before to those who were "pro Drudge" and are now "anti Drudge"

Shame

On

You.

You do a disservice to the process.

[denverbill]

36. It is rather karmic isn't it?

Some of the biggest crybabies about Kerry now are the exact same ones who have continually posted the same negative article over and over and over about Howard Dean. And when we bitched, they called us crybabies, told us to suck it up because it was the primaries and if we couldn't handle it in the primaries, we couldn't handle Rove in the general.

That same bunch who continually claimed Dean was 'unelectable'. How Rove 'wanted' to run against Dean (despite the fact that Rove actually ran anti-Dean ads in Iowa, which is an odd way to help get the candidate you want to run against) and has never run an anti-Kerry ad.

Frankly, I've been waiting for a bombshell like this. I knew that Rove had something on Kerry. My guess is he's got more than this too.