Political smear campaigns and the hypocrisy of the Right - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

HarmlessRabbit · 08-12-2003, 08:59 PM

Gay Bishops, fair game. Arnold? Leave his personal life out of politics.

Hypocritical? Why yes, of course.

http://www.nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=8715

Quote:

Being Exposed
A gay bishop is smeared, jeered, cheered.

They tried to take down the president in 1998, impeaching Bill Clinton for his personal behavior. They succeeded in stealing the presidency in 2000, bussing partisan street thugs in to Florida to win the p.r. campaign during the recount, and relying on the more high-brow ideologues on the Supreme Court to make it all legal. Now the hard-right smear artists and power grabbers have mounted a campaign to oust the Democratic governor of California—a largely Democratic state that George W. Bush wants in play for the 2004 elections—by installing a film star whose positions on issues are a mystery. Contrary to a media-generated image of him as "pro gay," he has not offered a position on any gay issue. What we do know is, he’s a Republican who supports this White House.

Oh, and of course, they’re already saying that Arnold Schwarzenegger’s own peccadilloes—which, from what you hear, make Bill Clinton look like Mother Teresa—should be completely off limits. Smearing is okay as long as you’re the one doing it, right?

You have to marvel, too, at the hypocrisy, as Joe Conason sharply pointed out on Salon last week, of the rightists suddenly heralding a Hollywood celebrity for his politics after they just spent six months bludgeoning Sean Penn, Janeane Garofalo, the Dixie Chicks and assorted other liberal-leaning artists for speaking their minds. When celebrities are on the left, they’re treasonous "Hollyweirders" who should shut up and stay out of the politics. But when they’re on the right, they’re just the kind of "outsiders" who can do the job.

Governor Gray Davis wasn’t the only one the sleaze traffickers were set on destroying last week either. A drama played out, mostly under the radar, regarding the 11th-hour charges of "touching" and a "connection" to "sex sites" against the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson, the new, openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church. The fact that the charges surfaced literally minutes before the bishops were to vote on confirming Robinson as a bishop—after weeks of bellowing outcries from conservatives and lots of media attention—was enough to give off the whiff of a smear campaign. But throw in the identity of who broke the non-story and what his connections are, and the stench becomes totally unbearable.

The nasty business began on Monday. As it happened, that afternoon on my radio program I was interviewing Diane Knippers, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, an orthodox Christian group. The IRD stands against "radical forms of feminism, environmentalism, pacifism, multi-culturalism, revolutionary socialism, [and] sexual liberation," and includes a subgroup, Episcopal Action, that opposes gay unions and was fiercely opposed to having Robinson become a bishop. Shortly after our spirited exchange, the vote on Robinson’s fate was postponed, because the charge had surfaced that a gay-youth group he had worked with had links from its website to porn, and, in a separate charge, that a man claimed Robinson inappropriately touched him.

Still on the air, I did a search and found that the source in the media that "broke" the "sex site" story was Fred Barnes in the conservative Weekly Standard, on its website. (Barnes is also a Fox News commentator, which explains why Fox seemed to be breaking it first on television.) I then realized that, in researching Knippers, I’d noticed how Barnes had been named to the board of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, which made his dubious hit on Robinson not only unseemly but a conflict of interest, to say the least.

The vote was postponed, with the wingnuts thinking they’d scored big. But a day later, the bishops completed their investigation into the charges, dismissing them outright. The conclusions: Robinson hadn’t been involved in the youth group for years; the links from the group weren’t direct but rather were several clicks removed from porn (as if just about every site on the web isn’t three clicks away from porn) and the "touching," claimed in an email from an adult male parishioner to one of the bishops, amounted to Robinson having touched the guy’s forearm and his back—something that, as the White House website shows, our president has done to just about every foreign leader he’s met. (W even grabbed Ariel Sharon—heavens to Betsy!—on the knee.)

Exactly who put the "touching" guy up to his dirty work isn’t clear (he later said he’d not really meant for his charges to become public). But it turns out that the smear about the link to "porn sites" was apparently shopped around to other news outlets, including CNN. Nobody ran with it because there was nothing there. The non-story only had legs after Fred Barnes finally wrote it up and Fox picked it up.

It’s curious that the orthodox group on whose board Barnes sits, the Institute for Religion and Democracy, is bankrolled by Richard Mellon Scaife and others who funded the smears about the Clintons. I talked about Barnes’ connection to the group on my program, and it was reported on a few websites—pushed by the blogger Atrios—but the only mainstream media outlet to pick it up, as far as I can tell, was the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which connected all the dots in a stinging editorial, headlined "The Anatomy of Smear."

"So we come full circle," the editors wrote, covering the events that impacted the Episcopal bishops’ convention, which was taking place in their city. "Gene Robinson, meet Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. But there is a difference: In Clinton’s case, years of digging eventually produced evidence of private sexual misbehavior. Robinson appears guilty of nothing at all—save being a gay man who wants to be a bishop. For some, unfortunately, that is enough to justify all sorts of innuendo and dirty tricks. Be warned: This is the way they play."

And the only reason why they can get away with playing that way is because no one seems to expose it.

Michelangelo Signorile hosts a daily radio show on Sirius Satellite Radio, stream 149.
He can be reached at www.signorile.com.

Volume 16, Issue 33

The_Dude · 08-12-2003, 09:01 PM

i think arnold's personal life should be extremely scruitized and ripped apart wherever possible.

i know that the dem's are gonna do that for me.

Lebell · 08-12-2003, 09:07 PM

I guess I don't see the connection between an election in the Episcopal church and a public recall/election, but be that as it may.

I think it is very legitimate to question our leader's morals, be they bishops or governers.

I also recognize that some of our worst leaders (personal morals wise) were some of our best leaders.

Macheath · 08-12-2003, 09:34 PM

The mainstream right is saying Arnie should be off limits while the far right is gearing up to maul him most savagely. Rush Limbaugh has already started. Don't expect ALL of the Arnie smears to come from the left.

You wouldn't have expected it, but Arnold's candidacy has the potential to be a real mess for the GOP if they can't get their own troops in line; especially the evangelicals. I'm not saying the GOP will be unable to quietly smooth the whole thing over - I'm just saying there's a chance it'll go wrong.

Phaenx · 08-12-2003, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
i think arnold's personal life should be extremely scruitized and ripped apart wherever possible.

i know that the dem's are gonna do that for me.

Weren't you upset that people did that to Clinton? Why the change of heart, dude?

The_Dude · 08-12-2003, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
Weren't you upset that people did that to Clinton? Why the change of heart, dude?

exactly.

that was a statement based purely on revenge

Phaenx · 08-12-2003, 10:28 PM

Whatever floats your boat =).

ctembreull · 08-12-2003, 10:30 PM

What's even more ironic here is the difference in how the Right is treating Hollywood stars.

During the run-up to war, any celebrity who spoke his or her mind (save Dennis Miller, who agreed with the Administration) was derided as a un-American, a Communist, or worse.

Now, however, that a celebrity wants to run for governor in the GOP cause celebre of the week, the flacks are silent. No denunciations, no claims that he should stay out of politics, nothing.

Hypocritical? More than a little bit.

Phaenx · 08-12-2003, 10:48 PM

I had thought most political types knew better than to play this game. Calling one side hypocritical is begging for the other side to point out your hypocrisy. Wasn't Miller denounced as a moron by the left? Bush is a fascist moron, Ashcroft is the 1984 orwell haelp, Colin Powell is a liar, Rumsfeld is a fascist madman, who did I miss? Reminds me of a few years ago.

eris · 08-13-2003, 04:14 AM

Being left of center myself - I have a hard time with the idea that the right is littered with hypocracy and the left is not.

Both camps are hopelessly lost - are there no honest politicians?

Even Nader has seemed hypocritical to me at times...

geep · 08-13-2003, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eris
Being left of center myself - I have a hard time with the idea that the right is littered with hypocracy and the left is not.

Both camps are hopelessly lost - are there no honest politicians?

Even Nader has seemed hypocritical to me at times...

Being right of center myself - (substitute rest of above quote here)

onetime2 · 08-13-2003, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
Being right of center myself - (substitute rest of above quote here)

Ditto.

lurkette · 08-13-2003, 06:25 AM

Yup. Neither "wing" has a monopoly on hypocrisy. I think politicians' personal lives should be left alone unless something truly criminal and immoral comes to light.

reconmike · 08-13-2003, 06:28 AM

The hollyweird type who run their collective mouths about any issue, are just that running their mouths.

Arnold is at least stepping up to the plate and trying to DO something.

j8ear · 08-13-2003, 06:30 AM

I think a strong argument could be made that Grey Davis is the most politically disgusting hypocrite and negative campaigner that has ever (dis)graced the face of the earth.

Railing against the very tactics which got your man elected is hypocracy in itself. Wouldn't you agree?

The rules have changed in the political world. Anything goes and no holds are barred. You live by the sword you die by the sword. I would honored to deliver my best rendition of ~TAPS~ as Davis is escorted out of the building.

Try and leave the "GOP cause celebre" theories out of it. IT IS a straw man argument and to me reduces the will of the {polls currently predicting} 60 percent of californians who want the current governor GONE to nothing more then an anomoly to said theory.

over,

-bear

j8ear · 08-13-2003, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
Yup. Neither "wing" has a monopoly on hypocrisy. I think politicians' personal lives should be left alone unless something truly criminal and immoral comes to light.

Concur. Tempted to say that if it's picked up by the media and run with...then probably one or both of those qualifactions (criminal or immoral) has been satisfied.

It still remains upto the population to determine the [political] consequences of course.

-b

*edit*what does ~truly~ criminal mean? How is it different then just plain old criminal?*endedit*

sportsrule101 · 08-13-2003, 06:37 AM

If you vote for someone because they look better physically, or because of some small infraction in their personal life then you probably don't have a lot of intellegence. Which we all know there are a lot of these type of people in the US.

Sparhawk · 08-13-2003, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
Yup. Neither "wing" has a monopoly on hypocrisy. I think politicians' personal lives should be left alone unless something truly criminal and immoral comes to light.

I'd like to modify this: Unless it's criminal, I don't want to hear about it. I'd also like to expand it beyond just politicians, to all public figures. It's none of y(our) fucking business.

The politics of personal destruction make me sick, but I'd be a hypocrite and a liar if I said I didn't feel a twinge of glee at Gingrich's marital problems and Bennett's gambling vice. I guess we're all human...

j8ear · 08-13-2003, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
I guess we're all human...

Man, I hope so

The_Dude · 08-13-2003, 11:03 AM

i've seen polls were if the election were to be held today, arnold would win the governorship.

that just shows to me how idiotic teh electorate of CA is. basically, all we know about the guy is that he is an actor and a bodybuilder. we know very little about his political views and what he would do once in office. and why would u elect somebody like that?

Phaenx · 08-13-2003, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sportsrule101
If you vote for someone because they look better physically, or because of some small infraction in their personal life then you probably don't have a lot of intellegence. Which we all know there are a lot of these type of people in the US.

I disagree, I think a leader should be charismatic. The ability to speak with the force of nature and look good doing it will sway a room infinately more powerfully than a well developed thought can.

Lebell · 08-13-2003, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
Yup. Neither "wing" has a monopoly on hypocrisy. I think politicians' personal lives should be left alone unless something truly criminal and immoral comes to light.

Well stated, and I also concur.

My biggest complaint about politics in general is that one side points a finger while engaging the same abhorant practices.

Charlatan · 08-13-2003, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
The hollyweird type who run their collective mouths about any issue, are just that running their mouths.

Arnold is at least stepping up to the plate and trying to DO something.

Yes Arnold is running for office. However, this is not the only thing celebrities can do. They can also use their popularity as a platform to spread dis/information.

Just because a celebrity is "running their mouth" and making statements that you disagree with doesn't mean that what they have to say is worthless or that they are doing nothing...

Given the state of America and the type of information that has been flowing is it any wonder that many of the "left leaning" celebrities took it upon themselves to speak out?

It is very ironic that Arnold (and Denis Miller) is pretty much left unscathed...

smooth · 08-13-2003, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
i've seen polls were if the election were to be held today, arnold would win the governorship.

that just shows to me how idiotic teh electorate of CA is. basically, all we know about the guy is that he is an actor and a bodybuilder. we know very little about his political views and what he would do once in office. and why would u elect somebody like that?

No, this should show you the idiocy of the general population. The voting population, however, is expected to turn out quite differently than the popular polls are indicating because those people aren't likely to get their asses down to vote.

08-12-2003, 09:01 PM	#2 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i think arnold's personal life should be extremely scruitized and ripped apart wherever possible. i know that the dem's are gonna do that for me. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-12-2003, 09:07 PM	#3 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I guess I don't see the connection between an election in the Episcopal church and a public recall/election, but be that as it may. I think it is very legitimate to question our leader's morals, be they bishops or governers. I also recognize that some of our worst leaders (personal morals wise) were some of our best leaders. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

08-12-2003, 10:28 PM	#7 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	Whatever floats your boat =). __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

08-12-2003, 10:30 PM	#8 (permalink)
ctembreull Crazy Location: Silicon Valley, CA, USA, Earth	What's even more ironic here is the difference in how the Right is treating Hollywood stars. During the run-up to war, any celebrity who spoke his or her mind (save Dennis Miller, who agreed with the Administration) was derided as a un-American, a Communist, or worse. Now, however, that a celebrity wants to run for governor in the GOP cause celebre of the week, the flacks are silent. No denunciations, no claims that he should stay out of politics, nothing. Hypocritical? More than a little bit. __________________ Mac "If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

08-12-2003, 10:48 PM	#9 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	I had thought most political types knew better than to play this game. Calling one side hypocritical is begging for the other side to point out your hypocrisy. Wasn't Miller denounced as a moron by the left? Bush is a fascist moron, Ashcroft is the 1984 orwell haelp, Colin Powell is a liar, Rumsfeld is a fascist madman, who did I miss? Reminds me of a few years ago. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

08-12-2003, 09:34 PM	#4 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	The mainstream right is saying Arnie should be off limits while the far right is gearing up to maul him most savagely. Rush Limbaugh has already started. Don't expect ALL of the Arnie smears to come from the left. You wouldn't have expected it, but Arnold's candidacy has the potential to be a real mess for the GOP if they can't get their own troops in line; especially the evangelicals. I'm not saying the GOP will be unable to quietly smooth the whole thing over - I'm just saying there's a chance it'll go wrong.

08-13-2003, 04:14 AM	#10 (permalink)
eris Crazy	Being left of center myself - I have a hard time with the idea that the right is littered with hypocracy and the left is not. Both camps are hopelessly lost - are there no honest politicians? Even Nader has seemed hypocritical to me at times... __________________ allhaileris

08-13-2003, 06:25 AM	#13 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	Yup. Neither "wing" has a monopoly on hypocrisy. I think politicians' personal lives should be left alone unless something truly criminal and immoral comes to light. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

08-13-2003, 06:28 AM	#14 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	The hollyweird type who run their collective mouths about any issue, are just that running their mouths. Arnold is at least stepping up to the plate and trying to DO something. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

08-13-2003, 06:30 AM	#15 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	I think a strong argument could be made that Grey Davis is the most politically disgusting hypocrite and negative campaigner that has ever (dis)graced the face of the earth. Railing against the very tactics which got your man elected is hypocracy in itself. Wouldn't you agree? The rules have changed in the political world. Anything goes and no holds are barred. You live by the sword you die by the sword. I would honored to deliver my best rendition of ~TAPS~ as Davis is escorted out of the building. Try and leave the "GOP cause celebre" theories out of it. IT IS a straw man argument and to me reduces the will of the {polls currently predicting} 60 percent of californians who want the current governor GONE to nothing more then an anomoly to said theory. over, -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

08-13-2003, 06:37 AM	#17 (permalink)
sportsrule101 Insane	If you vote for someone because they look better physically, or because of some small infraction in their personal life then you probably don't have a lot of intellegence. Which we all know there are a lot of these type of people in the US. __________________ winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything

08-13-2003, 11:03 AM	#20 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i've seen polls were if the election were to be held today, arnold would win the governorship. that just shows to me how idiotic teh electorate of CA is. basically, all we know about the guy is that he is an actor and a bodybuilder. we know very little about his political views and what he would do once in office. and why would u elect somebody like that? __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal