Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Multiple GOP scandals are good for the GOP.

As Glenn Greenwald pointed out here, and we later chronicled here and here, everything is always good for the Republicans. Always.

Even lots of Republican scandals.
SCANDAL SATURATION? Mickey Kaus wonders about the "Densepack Theory," in which

the anti-GOP media have launched so many damaging GOP stories--see Josh Marshall's list-- that they are all arriving at once and, like fratricidal incoming ICBMs, are knocking each other out of the news rather than destroying their target!

Hmm. A bigger risk is that with this many GOP scandal stories, the press will feel obliged to run with at least a couple of Dem scandals, too, to preserve the illusion of evenhandedness.

There's only two words for this kind of scintillating analysis: ass clownery.

A bigger risk? For whom? And why would the press feel any obligation at all to be evenhanded, Putz? The press's sole purpose is to drive Bush's numbers down, isn't it?

Memo to wingnuts who are feebly spreading the "the Democrats have scandals, too" meme: no one believes you. Now watch this video.


Guy Smiley said...

Did you see this:

"GAY PATRIOT says that Democrats are descending into "sexual McCarthyism" in the wake of Foleygate, circulating lists of Republican Hill staffers who are presumed to be gay."

Then click through to Gay Patriot's source, David Corn:

"On CBS News on Tuesday, correspondent Gloria Borger reported that there’s anger among House Republicans at what an unidentified House GOPer called a “network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the Speaker a disservice.” The implication is that these gay Republicans somehow helped page-pursuing Mark Foley before his ugly (and possibly illegal) conduct was exposed. The List–drawn up by gay politicos–is a partial accounting of who on Capitol Hill might be in that network."

See if you can find the word "Democrats" in there anywhere!

Charles Giacometti said...

Great catch, Ted. I wonder sometimes if Instarube even reads what he links to. This raises the question about whether he is duplicitous or stupid. Your example illustrates he has to be one or the other--or both.

Anonymous said...

Here Putz links to a Roger L. Simon post wherein Simon links to another blog that publishes the identity of one of the pages:

Simon's (and, by extension, Putz's) "point?" "Meanwhile, does anyone think it is ironic that so-called progressives who excoriated eavesdropping on terrorists are feasting on the publication of supposedly confidential email and IMs? You can forget about privacy. It no longer exists, if it ever did."

So, here's a link to a sex crime victim's identity!

Charles Giacometti said...

Instarube is spreading a lie. He quotes an incorrect post about Gerry Studds that falsely claims Studds was only reprimanded and not censured. He was censured; see the historical summary here. I have now emailed him three times, including two links that correct the lie. He has not responded.

But it is even worse than this. At the time Instarube quote the false post (7:35 pm yesterday) it had been refuted in a comment in the post three hours earlier. So when he repeated the lie, it had already been refuted. Now I have emailed him three times and he has still failed to correct the lie.

There is no doubt what he is up to--engaging in partisan lies and smears to gloss over the immoral, irresponsible, and potentially criminal behavior of his party's leaders.