Robert Kennedy Redux

The NY Times Sunday Styles section takes a loving look at Robert Kennedy, environmental activist turned election fraud expert.

Dead Tree readers will see that the Times is hyping Kennedy's recent Rolling Stone article accusing the Evil Republicans of election fraud in 2004.  That comes through less strongly in the web presentation, but a bit of the flavor is here; I don't see the Dead Tree photo of the Rolling Stone article anywhere on the web.

Despite the hype, the Times seems to have brought up the Rolling Stone article mainly to mock the lefty blogs.  Let me excerpt their coverage:

Recently, much of Mr. Kennedy's public focus has been on democracy, and he has taken increasingly audacious leaps into political swamps that transcend the environment. He roiled the blogosphere and cable news shows this month after declaring — in an article he wrote in Rolling Stone — that Republicans stole the 2004 presidential election through a series of voting frauds. "I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004," Mr. Kennedy wrote in the exhaustive, strenuously footnoted article, which relied heavily on the published research of others.

He has repeated the accusation on Air America, the liberal radio network on which he is co-host of a program, and on a procession of television talk-'n'-shout fests (with Stephen Colbert, Wolf Blitzer, Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews). Mr. Kennedy is hitching his iconic name to a cause that has largely been consigned so far to liberal bloggers and which nearly all Democratic leaders and major news media outlets have ignored and which, unsurprisingly, Bush supporters have ridiculed. Tracy Schmitt, the Republican National Committee press secretary, accused Mr. Kennedy of "peddling a conspiracy theory that was thoroughly debunked nearly two years ago."

Farhad Manjoo, of Salon.com, wrote: "If you do read the Kennedy article, be prepared to machete your way through numerous errors of interpretation and his deliberate omission of key bits of data."

It is impossible to read the Rolling Stone article without wondering how Mr. Kennedy's audacious accusations might relate to his philosophical evolution or even affect his political viability. Naturally he is asked all the time what he envisions next for himself, specifically, what he plans to run for.

And we segue to a discussion of his political future.  We are brought back to Ohio at the end of the article:

Mr. Kennedy said that he had "continually expanded my realm of interest." His recent focus on the 2004 election exists on that continuum, he added.

He had heard low-grade rumblings about alleged abuses in Ohio, faulty voting machines and minority voters waiting hours in line at the polls. But he remained skeptical, or complacent. "I kept the same kind of deliberate blinders on that much of the media did," he said, bemoaning the news media's relative preoccupation with "Brad and Angelina and the Duke lacrosse team."

THEN Mr. Kennedy spent Christmas skiing in Sun Valley, Idaho, at the home of Ms. David and her husband, Larry David, the "Seinfeld" creator and "Curb Your Enthusiasm" protagonist. Mr. David urged him to read a book on the 2004 election by the news media critic Mark Crispin Miller.

Mr. Kennedy did, and a few days later he was skiing with the Rolling Stone publisher, Jann S. Wenner, an old friend and Sun Valley homeowner. Mr. Kennedy suggested that Mr. Wenner commission a story on the "stolen election." Mr. Wenner said he would, provided Mr. Kennedy wrote it. He had written a much-discussed and much-challenged story for Rolling Stone last year linking childhood vaccines and a rise in autism.

After some hesitation, Mr. Kennedy said, he agreed to write the election article. Since it was posted on Rolling Stone's Web site on June 1, the Web has been ablog with a split between those who believe this is the biggest unreported story ever and those who think it's old news, discredited long ago. Mr. Kennedy said it's hard to prove that any election had been "stolen."

"If you're looking for proof and certitude, you're not going to find it," he said. Either way, Mr. Kennedy said he is committed to stoking the outrage of 2004, wherever it leads. "This is going to remain one of my central concerns for a while," he said, adding, "America should be indignant." But is it, beyond certain liberal airwaves and blogs? Congress has not exactly been rocked with speeches on the matter or with calls for investigations.

In a phone interview, Mr. Wenner said that John Kerry, the big loser in 2004, "does not question the validity of the piece," hardly a signal of outrage.

Senator Christopher Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat and a longtime advocate of electoral reform, called the article "tremendously compelling." But not compelling enough to talk about it: Mr. Dodd's comments were relayed in a statement from his office.

Mr. Kennedy called the silence of leading Democrats "a great disappointment," but declared himself undeterred. If anything, he said, the experience has left him more likely to run for office than before.

"It's all in God's hands," he said on Wednesday night at Treasure Island, a lemony sun setting over the Golden Gate Bridge. He was surrounded by environmentalists swapping stories about protecting the planet's liquid resources (and imbibing other liquid resources).

"I can only control my own conduct," Mr. Kennedy said, shrugging. "And I plan to go down fighting."

We shall not let the NY Times paint with too broad a brush - although I am sure there were plenty of lefty blogs that rallied to Kennedy's fantasy, plenty of other top lefties stayed away (Odd how the Times missed that in describing Kennedy's critics - one might almost think they would like to discredit the lefty blogs as a class in order to preserve their own ascendancy in the liberal pantheon).  I will toss in this link as evidence, cite Democratic Mystery Pollster Mark Blumenthal, and move on.  Dot org.

MORE:  Could I have toast to go with that marginalization?  Ann Althouse picks up a Newsweek article that strides boldly over the line between speculation and clinical diagnosis.  It begins ominously:

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga is sitting on his back porch in Berkeley, Calif., listening to the hummingbirds and explaining his plans to seize control of the Democratic Party.

Oh, his voices hum to him while he fantasizes of global domination.  Breaking news.  More psy-ops here:

When The New Republic's Web site published an e-mail from Moulitsas to a group of friendly activists urging them not to talk about Kosola and thus "starve it of oxygen," Moulitsas went berserk in a blog posting, accusing the venerable liberal journal of treason.

"Berserk"?  Troubling.  But they stay with the madness metaphor:

By the weekend, Moulitsas's allies were sending each other e-mails infected with the paranoia of revolutionaries who've gained power too fast: How should they deal with traitors? How much openness could they handle? Which fellow travelers could they really trust?

The best balm for his new headaches, of course, is victory.

It hurts, it hurts!

Finally, on page three:

The pressure on Moulitsas—to be consistent, to be pragmatic, to win—will only grow as the fall elections approach. Already, the strain of the spotlight is beginning to show in his growing belligerence and paranoia. When Kosola broke, Moulitsas e-mailed fellow progressive activists, wondering who might be shopping the story. "I've gotten reliable tips that Hillary's operation has been digging around my past (something I confronted them about, btw, and never got a denial), and you know the Lieberman/DLC/TNR camp is digging as well," he wrote, referring to the centrist Democratic Leadership Council and The New Republic. (Aides to Senators Clinton and Lieberman deny the allegations in the e-mails.)

Belligerence and paranoia!  I don't think the MSM loves him.

MORE:  But we love this bit of Kos hagiography:

It was the Iraq war that got Moulitsas to log on in the first place. He started blogging in 2002, largely out of frustration at how little the mainstream media were criticizing the Bush administration's apparent rush to invade Iraq. "It was a time that was very stifling for liberal voices in the American landscape," he remembers. "No one could criticize the president because it was considered treasonous to criticize the president in time of war." But as an Army veteran who served in artillery logistics in the first gulf war, he felt he could question the rush to combat with impunity. "I vowed my life for the right to criticize our leaders. Nobody was going to tell me I could or could not criticize anybody."

Emphasis added.  We respect everyone who volunteers, and soldiers go where they are ordered.  However, Kos was ordered to Germany during Desert Shield and Desert Storm, a point not made clear in what is otherwise a hit piece.

STILL MORE:  Kevin Drum also sees a Big Media pile-on on the liberal blogs.

Comments

[Jim E.]

TM wrote: "One might almost think they [the NY Times] would like to discredit the lefty blogs as a class in order to preserve their own ascendancy in the liberal pantheon."

So evidence that the NY Times sloppily mocks lefty blogs is somehow evidence of the Times' liberal bias?

[topsecretk9]

MODO didn't like what she saw ay YK...

[Cecil Turner]

So evidence that the NY Times sloppily mocks lefty blogs is somehow evidence of the Times' liberal bias?

I believe the contention is that the Times views them as competitors. But if you're looking to support the Times's liberal bias, citing this Pew study seems apt:

The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.

[Carol Herman]

Robert Kennedy is dead. And, after his brother got shot, the MSM has hid from you, the real deal.

Robert never liked LBJ. And, in 1964, running against Goldwater; LBJ won his election bid in a landslide. Robert ran for the NY senate seat. And, won it, too.

From the time of JFK's death, however, Robert (known as Bobby), was knocking on the White house door DEMANDING to be let inside.

I think from Robert's point of view it was supposed to be "quid pro quo." Did I tell you that Lyndon Johnson HATED the Kennedy's?

Of course, no need for me to tell you. You can judge for yourself.

Robert NEVER got a job in Lyndon's White House. And, Lyndon, ever the politician, did everything he could to keep Robert OUT.

Know how?

LBJ took away any and every topic that Robert could claim heir to. Not just escalating in Vietnam (which wouldn't have been bad IF we had been allowed to win. But it was a very long, and escalating JUNK war. Done on the backs of DRAFTEES. To show you how lacking in appreciation the public at large can be; It was NIXON who cancelled the draft. As soon as he was re-elected, handsomely, in 1972.) Without the draft, oddly enough, our military was put into much better shape. But Nixon, alas, like Dan RaTHer, always gambled too much. And, bluffed when he shouldn't have do so.

Back to LBJ. And, the tactics used to keep Robert Kennedy FAR AWAY from the Texan. Because that's what LBJ's "be-u-ty-fying" America was all about. The whole social train was designed to steal Robert's thunder. And, we got the Maven of the Senate (LBJ, himself), to strong arm Civil Rights legistlation through. (Okay. His reasoning may have been faulty.)

Mental derangements are interesting to behold. Because all Robert wanted was to get into the White House. Alas, he wasn't all that electable. And, he hesitated like Hamlet, in taking on LBJ at the polls. During the 1968 primaries. That "prize" went to Eugene McCarthy. An "egghead" professor, who knocked LBJ out of the box, in New Hampshire. Chasing LBJ back to Texas. (At least LBJ knew when to quit!)

Robert, however, saw Eugene McCarthy as an early incarnation of Howie Dean. And, he saddled up to run for the donk's nomination. So did Yoo-hoo-bert Humphrey.

Yes, Robert got shot and killed.

But it NEVER answered the question if he was electable. Or not. Because in 1968 itlooked pretty apparent that New Yorkers would UNselect him as their senator in 1970.

Like lots of theories, this one never got tested.

But, today, the Kennedy's aren't in charge of much (except grandpa's fortune), and being on the "A" list among the elites. Teddy's pretty much a beached whale. And, he hurts other democrats more than he helps that party. See if I care? Because I don't.

In a two-party system we are watching WHY most Americans have never taken a liking to the eggheads.

Then, recently, I read that Adeli Stevenson appeared at the trial Alger Hiss waged against Whitikur Chambers. (The one where Chambers WON!) Stevenson (and Felix Frankfurter, a seated Supreme-O, were character witnesses for Hiss.)

Hiss was, in fact, a communist. Nixon wasn't all bad.

And, the MSM have never gotten used to their loss of powers. Which they really only held and hold in swaying Ivory Towers.

It's a good thing Americans, by and large, have never been impressed with the "overly educated."

[Jim E.]

"I believe the contention is that the Times views them as competitors."

Yeah, I get it. But given what passes for media criticism around these parts, I don't find it terribly compelling.

If the NY Times *praised* liberal blogs, that, too, would be evidence of their liberal bias. And in cases, like this specific article, where they are critical of liberal blogs, that also shows their liberal bias. Heads I win, tails you lose. Neat trick.

[Patton]

Just another Democrat, liberals, Socialist, Communist playbook.

If someone else wins an election, immediately claim fraud.

[Carol Herman]

Lost in the shuffle is that John F. Kennedy had a certain style that carried him into the TV age with alacrity. Among the things he did well was repartee.

And, one line should be remembered, here. Since Nixon lost the 1968 race by a nose; Kennedy was asked about this. And, he responded "my dad didn't promise me a landslide."

In other words, all the Kennedy's were willing to buy was West Virginia. In close races these things work.

And, the Kenndy Clan still has a growing pile of Grandpa Joe's money. Nope. They won't waste it on un-win-able wars. Just like TheRAZOR, who was the promise to the donks that 2004 wouldn't "cost them." She was gonna open her Heinz vault.

Except, oddly enough, she didn't. She brought receipts. And, clipped $3 million dollars back on her gigolo's disasterous run.

Some rich people really keep tight reigns on spending anything. Since they live well, anyway.

[Carol Herman]

Typo correction. Nixon lost in 1960. In 1968 he won in a landslide, as a matter of fact.

Typing's not my forte. But not bad for an old lady who can't play the piano.

[patch]

What are the academic credentials of "Robert Kennedy, environmental activist turned election fraud expert."?

Why he's a lawyer. Has he taken any course in environmental science? Ecology? Statistic? Polling? Any type of hard quantitative course work at all?

I doubt it, Robert Kennedy is a jackass, who if he was Robert Smith would be ignored, or mocked.

[boris]

Heads I win, tails you lose

No evidence of NYT bias has been presented. Only speculation on the basis for their actions. "How does action X fit with bias Y"

A "Just So" speculation is not an assertion of proof for anything.

[Dwilkers]

Wow. Newsweek does everything but call Kos a lunatic in that piece.

[Moqui]

It's interesting that none of the stolen election conspiracy theorists ever mention Wisconson, where Kerry hung on and won by the skin of his teeth (~11,000 votes vs. the ~118,000 vote margin in Ohio). This is a state where we know there was election fraud and a concerted effort to keep specific classes of voters away from the polls. Except, of course, it was Democratic opertives who were convicted of this fraud and it was Republican voters who were its target.

Swap Wisconsin's ill-gotten 10 electoral votes and Ohio doesn't even matter.

[richard mcenroe]

I e-mailed Newsweek to correct the Gulf War lie, then I realized -- hey, this is Newsweek; they probably think that's just one more thing to dislike him for.

[BumperStickerist]

Ummmmmmmmm, Tom -

Kos's unit was called up, but Kos never served in theater. A point Kos makes in a BU article which I'll track down.

Markos served in Germany.

.

[richard mcenroe]

You know, even though Kos never fired an MLRS shot in anger, he facilitated the training and skills of dozens, perhaps hundreds of other contemporary soldiers who probably stayed in and went on to litter the playgrounds of Iraq with millions of unexploded cluster munitions just waiting for an innocent baby's foot.

He's an enabler! The child-murdering fascist bastard!

Maybe we should be pushing that angle, heh, heh, heh...

[richard mcenroe]

And just where east of the Hudson River and west of the Huffington Post is the Kennedy name an icon anymore?

Oh, well, at least it keeps Junior off the pork farmers' backs...

[BumperStickerist]

Repost of a comment I made over at AoS

--------------------------
I've noticed that Markos makes much of his status as a veteran, frequently juxtaposing his service against that of the so-called 101st Fighting Keyboarders, Chickenhawks, et cetera.

The chickenhawk argument has been thoroughly discredited. But the 101st Fighting Keyboarders is too good a turn of phrase for them to not use. So I expect Markos will continue to make much of his service., too much, I fear - and I say that as a veteran myself. (USAF, 208x4G, 4 years and a couple months, two tours Osan, honorable discharge, longer than 4 year stint due to extending a short tour overseas and having to have one year stateside)

This is an interview Markos gave to the Boston University alumni mag back in 2004.

The Partisan Bostonia, Fall 2004

The interview covers a wide range of topics, Markos's military service among them.

Markos says in the interview:

“My {Markos's} unit didn’t deploy because the war ended so quickly,” Moulitsas says. “But there is a kind of introspection and self-examination that knowing that you’re about to head out to war forces on you. Our vehicles were in the Gulf; we were ready to go. "

That forms a basis of a lot of my antiwar views, the fact that I was in a position of potentially heading to war.”

Well, then. Basically, like a lot of people who served, Markos graduated from high school and joined the U.S. Army basically to pay for college. He served in the artillery from 1989 to 1992 and narrowly missed being sent to the Middle East during the first Gulf War.

Markos gambled and won, in the sense that he got the educational benefits he wanted to 'escape Chicgo' but didn't have to fulfill that 'war' requirement that lurks in the back of his (and everybody else's) service contract.

There's nothing wrong with that - I chose to go in after high school and use my benefits for both college - but it does shed some light on Markos's subsequent claims about his service.

What's surprising to me is that Markos, given his childhood background of stepping over fresh corpses in the Salvadoran market, was surprised to find that the US Army truck with the big tube shaped thingies that launched multiples of rockets which he was trained to use was there for a reason ... a war reason.

I'd point out gently to Kos that 'swiftboating' is entirely dependent on the veteran being 'swiftboated' making exaggerated claims about his or her military service.

Just sayin'.

See you at the VFW, Markos.

.

[Rick Ballard]

JimE.,

Were both Trotsky and Stalin Communists?

The struggle to capture the flag on the dung heap is fun to watch. Who will have Napoleon's place?

(Orwellian rather than historical reference)

[Beto Ochoa]

As always Rick's astute mind boils the issue down, it's the scramble for the top of the pig pile. Markos has acquired power. The Times wants more influence and power and will do anything to get more of it. That includes Kos and Bush. Politics is about two things, money and power. Not necessarily in that order.

[Gary Maxwell]

Markos lives in the people Republic of Berkeley? That explains so much. Thanks Newsweek. The rest was just gratutious piling on, enjoyable nevertheless but totally unnecessary. Could have use the clumn inches to sell another ad.

[Carol Herman]

Perhaps the left could learn from Dan RaTHer's fall into disgrace? He couldn't muster the viewership. He didn't care that what he said would be seen for what it's worth. And, then the Eye blinked. He was gone. No gold watch for him.

I'd bet the NY Times, when they sit down to discuss their editorial content, just work from a thin list. Their readers now are on vacation at Murtha's vineyard. And, are quite pleased that the whale, Teddy Kennedy, used his clouts to prevent the wind farms. So, in one sense, when they look out to sea, they see an unobstructed view.

No one takes them seriously, anymore.

Heck, if it wasn't for the reports that we do get, and that then circulate here; Karl Rove would have to work harder at defeating the already defeated dems.

You don't think they're defeated? Heck, LBJ defeated Bobby. And, in those days the donks had clout. Poorly invested, if you ask me.

While the old man's wealth lasted because he knew to dump out of stocks in August of 1929.

The real idea behind accummulated wealth is to know when to cut your losses. Meanwhile, Murtha keeps on talking. And, Nancy bella-polosi has taken to rags, with which she hopes to dust off extra seats in the House. Are you watching this? I wonder if she wears a sign that says she "doesn't do windows?"

True, Adeli Stevenson is gone, now. But the donks suffer losses without eggheads. Something of a miracle, when ya think about it.

As to the NY Times, pinch is managing quite well to divest that paper of any real value. Since all it really once had was "reputation." Now it's just another whore plying her trade on 42nd street. You think I care? I've always wondered what men saw in whores, anyway.

[noah]

To answer your question Ms. Herman...nothing much when sober.

Its Adlai.

Your storytelling ability is improving with all the practice here at JOM. Keep it up. Someone suggested Tom start putting the author's name at the beginning of the posts presumable so yours could be skipped. I like the suggestion but not specifically for that reason!

[Delaj]

Redux is a banned weight loss drug

[jerry]

So the RNC had Diebold blocking telephone calls in NH during the election and this caused global warming?

[narciso]

In a word, yes, although it was probably E S & S, a computer company, which was developed by Chuck Hagel. The main reality
to consider is that Diebold, was originally
in cash registers; although the amount of
paper needed for an actual proof system, would make it as big as a Cray computer
for each terminal; not to mention very
cumbersome; for most locations.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

As for Kos having been a soldier and hence immune to being criticized, the inimitable Ann Coulter points out the flaw in that logic; Benedict Arnold had been a great militry hero to Americans during the Revolution.

Until, he turned and offered his services to the enemy.

[maxx]

Reading between the lines, I gather TM still spends money on the deadtree nyt.

Well, for those of us who keep the faith and refuse to put one dime in grunch and grinch's pockets, could TM give us the names of some of the more prominent advertisers in today's edition, the better to boycott them?

Thanks.

[BumperStickerist]

Patrick,

I'm drawing a finer distinction - Markos's own characterization of his service is changing, it's becoming Kerryified.

By 2008 my bet is we'll be treated to a guy who was stationed in Germany posting about his recollections of his feelings during war and the solidarity he felt with his comrades in arms as the shells came in.

At some point, Markos'll produce a hat.

.

[Other Tom]

I've come to the point where I think it's best to just lay back and enjoy these dolts' frustration over the stolen elections. No point in confronting them with facts; reason is a detour for these hapless simpletons.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

If the NY Times *praised* liberal blogs, that, too, would be evidence of their liberal bias. And in cases, like this specific article, where they are critical of liberal blogs, that also shows their liberal bias. Heads I win, tails you lose. Neat trick.

If anyone were making the argument here that this attack on the "liberal blogs" was evidence of liberal bias, you'd have a point. Since, however, they aren't, you don't.

Well, maybe one.

But comb your hair right and maybe no one will notice.

[Bruce Hayden]

Kennedy apparently makes a lot of his argument based on the exit polls. The theory seems to be that they were so far off that something underhanded must have been done by the Republicans.

But of course, the final results were extremely close to the last polls before the election, which showed Bush winning in places like Ohio by something very close to the level he actually won by. But instead of blaming the exit polls, like anyone with any statistical background would, and esp. in view of known attempts by Democrats to game them, he blythely assumes that they were right, and the polls right before the election, as well as the actual election results, were wrong.

Interestingly, it was Cheney who first questioned the exit polls on election night in the White House. He said something to the effect that he had been around politics and polling long enough to know that you can't reach into such early, biased, and incomplete numbers and expect to get anything meaningful out of them. (I can get the exact quote if anyone is interested).

[verner]

The "invasion of the body snatchers" line in News Week was a keeper.

[verner]

Rick, Today is George Orwell's 103rd birthday.

Happy Birthday Eric A. Blair.

[Neo]

I got a good chuckle out of the line that Kennedy is now more likely to run for office than before after writing about election fraud.

Kennedy's grandfather is often quoted as saying he wasn't above "putting on a new roof" (on a church) in order to garner more votes. So does the younger Kennedy see his newly acquired knowledge of election fraud as a path to success ?

[Ed Driscoll]

"TM wrote: 'One might almost think they [the NY Times] would like to discredit the lefty blogs as a class in order to preserve their own ascendancy in the liberal pantheon.'

So evidence that the NY Times sloppily mocks lefty blogs is somehow evidence of the Times' liberal bias?"

Well, that, and the Pew report mention in the third comment, and the 2004 op-ed by their then-ombudsman, which began "Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? OF course it is."

Oh, and the recent commencement speech given by its publisher doesn't exactly sound like grist for the VRWC, either.

But hey, other than those...

[tcobb]

So one of the Kennedy clan claims the will of the people was "subverted" in the election? Since when have the "progressive" elements cared about the "will of the people" when the will of the people does not agree with them? When rather substantial majorities of the people vote for propositions that go against the grain of progressive thought like denying public assistance to illegal aliens or forbidding affirmative action they don't mind the courts or anyone else subverting the will of the people. Not at all.

[jacflash]

One wonders what RFKjr thinks of the 1960 election, specifically the results in Illinois that year.

[kcom]

Please, Jim E., get some reading comprehension. Go out and buy some if you don't have any lying around handy. There is no argument being made as to whether the NY Times is left or right. The argument is more of a new media/old media argument. The premise is that the Times might be using this opportunity to paint Kos as a raving maniac, thereby delegitimizing him and, by extension, the blogosphere, in order to preserve (or attempt to preserve) the old media's previous stranglehold on political discourse. The crazier they can make him sound, the less their readers will take him and "his kind" seriously. And just to be clear, that kind can include both the left and right of the blogosphere (as distinct from the old media). You see, Jim, not everything is reducible to a battle between left and right. There are other battles going on in the world that don't fall neatly into that template. One could make the argument that it's in all bloggers' interest, if Kos is the target of an old media smear campaign, to come to his defense. I think this post actually goes some way in that direction. But maybe that's too much nuance for you?

[MayBee]

The premise is that the Times might be using this opportunity to paint Kos as a raving maniac, thereby delegitimizing him and, by extension, the blogosphere, in order to preserve (or attempt to preserve) the old media's previous stranglehold on political discourse

To some extent maybe, but I believe this is about Kos and Daily Kos in particular. They don't want to be just an information source, they want to be a movement.
They try to pressure politicians and the press to do stupid things. If DKos had its way, the world would be a stupider place.
As bad as the NYTs can be, they don't need to be dragged down to dKos level by the pitchfork-and-torches set.

[tcobb]

One could make the argument that it's in all bloggers' interest, if Kos is the target of an old media smear campaign, to come to his defense. I think this post actually goes some way in that direction. But maybe that's too much nuance for you?

Damn kcom, you would have fit right in there with all those House Representatives who objected to the FBI serving a warrant on D-La. Jefferson, who had all that bribe money stashed in his freezer. The community of bloggers will be better served by letting whatever weakness exists in their ranks being exposed to the light of truth rather than automatically closing ranks like a herd of water buffalo that is under attack.

After all, isn't that one of the big differences between the blogger community and the MSM?

[M. Simon]

Carol,

Glad you liked my Murtha's vineyard bit. First done right here at JOM.

Also note re:1960 - the Chicago shennanigins. Ballot boxes "lost and found". I listened to those returns from Chicago late into the night and was pleased by what was done. Was a Dem back then and a high school student.

Still, I thought Kennedy was an interesting President. Loved his news confrences.

[Carol Herman]

It's not much of a news flash now that "exit polls" were distorted in 2004. Because, on Air Force One, the scare of that day's exit polling data was real. THEN, it turned out, what the pollsters did was approach women, probably fat and blonde, staying away from the older crowd. And, then they extrapolated this particular feminist trick to make it appear that lots of normal women were questioned. When all of them that were looked like Susan Estrich.

Susan doesn't represent mainstream. Not even for women.

And, exit polls are BOGUS.

Of course, no true Kennedy can ever overcome Old Joe's hesitency not to fund a landslide for jack. And, back in those days ... that's as far back as you have to go, too ... You'd see there was one Kennedy who wasn't afraid to use his sense of humor to destroy his enemies. The press ate him up. Because his retorts delivered truthful punchlines. That's why Kennedy won over Nixon by a nose. Today? George Soros can't even buy West Virinia. He's bought the clowns, though. And, they make ya laugh only if ya laugh at the funny get ups on the hippies. Where the Peace Sign doesn't carry the weight it used'ta. And, even marijuana is not the drug of choice.

Still, it's summer. Mainstream America is not paying attention.

While from a business sense, you'd have to ask yourselves WHY WOULD bloggers (left, right, center, and porn in between) be liked by the MSM? It's ruining their business! Gee, you'd think that would have been obvious.

[MayBee]

The thing I love most about the NYTs Kennedy story is the detail that Larry and Laurie David encouraged Kennedy to look into it.
I love the idea that they are just stewing over what must have happened in the far away land of Ohio, bolstered in their conviction the election was stolen because nobody they know voted for Bush.

[Rocco]

A few years back, Teddy was photographed with a bikini clad woman, in a compromising position, off the coast of Martha's Vineyard.

Senator Howell Heflin from Alabama remarked in his southern drawl..."It looks like the good Senator from Massachusetts has changed his position on offshore drilling."

[SPQR]

RFK Jr's nonsense about the 2004 election will just result in the unreality community wrapping themselves in their paranoia all the more tightly. But his nonsense on autism and vaccination will result in deaths.

The man is a dangerous loon.

[davod]

The truthfullness does not matter. This has been the democrats model for some time. Get out so much negative that some will stick. Come the 2006 elections it will have an effect and by 2008 the dye will be set. It will be hard for Republicans to overcome the avalanche.

[Carol Herman]

Nope. 2004 wasn't even close. By now, the game plan adopted by the donks is obvious. Use lawyers to steal what you can. And, the super-duper blonde bimbo in the CIA, coupled to her Admbassador fraud (who must still have a relationship ongoing with his french spook, his 2nd wife); came up with the nuttiest of all game plans.

How nutty? Remember Nixon? Remember what he approved for the "plumbers" to do? Again, he was outed by the FBI. Not by journalists. The WaPo was just a conduit to get rid of Nixon. Who met his crisis by bluffing. A very goofy play.

The donks, of course, back then, met with success. So they dusted this off, and decided ... since from day one (campaigning in 2000), they portrayed Bush as a dumb chimp. And, they can't let go. But it doesn't work, you say?

Obviously, it doesn't work. Didn't work. And, very few people believe the dumb blonde super-duper spy in this hoax. It's probably much more obvious that Valerie was eye candy. And, desperate, too. If she was having sex with Lying Joe by her second or third date (he may have still been married to #2) ... and she told him she was a spy.

How can this woman claim she's been "outed?" Of course, she does look like the kind of broad a russian spy might get undressed for; but pillow talk isn't the kinds of secrets ya need to train an agent ta do. Women like that can be hired a dime a dozen.

What we have is an aggressive case of PC speech. Where all the elites have adopted this very unusual way of not stating anything that's obvious. Instead, it's code words. ANd, sensitivity training, if you don't get it.

Meanwhile, their base shrunk. You don't think that's a feat in itself?

Well, Chirac sipped champagne, and ate well, while Paris erupted in flames. And, anyone in a french made tin can had to give it up at traffic lights. If memory serves me correctly, when the french king lost his crown along with his head; part of the problem was an aristocracy that thought very little of the peasants. Then, Napoleon saw the crown of france in the gutter.

Maybe, that's what keeps the elites going, here? Sooner or later an opportunity will knock for one of these losers? Dean's a short person. They've got a lot of men who need elevator shoes to be tall enough to stand next to blonde bimbos without looking as if they're sitting down.

There are reasons organizations fail. Comes from a big breakdown in management. But when you look, all you see are "yes men."

For this reason I don't expect to see anything happen, come November '06. Even a weak GOP will muster enough votes to stay about where they are now.

What a war. Just like WW1. Body parts on the barbed wire. Fodder culled from the flock. Fighting over inches. Such a small field, that if you look away, it escapes your attention.

[kcom]

"Damn kcom, you would have fit right in there with all those House Representatives who objected to the FBI serving a warrant on D-La. Jefferson, who had all that bribe money stashed in his freezer. The community of bloggers will be better served by letting whatever weakness exists in their ranks being exposed to the light of truth rather than automatically closing ranks like a herd of water buffalo that is under attack."

Well I guess you didn't see the "if" in italics. I didn't say people should support him no matter what. I said an argument could be made that he warrants the support of other bloggers of all stripes if he's being smeared. Not criticized, but smeared. I took no position on whether that was true. And I certainly wouldn't support him in any other circumstance. Or William Jefferson either. When you have the facts on your side (money in a freezer) it's not a smear. But I guess making a fine distinction like facts versus (potentially) overwrought adjectives is beyond your nuance comprehension level.