posted
Elenor Clift wrote a very damaging article for Newsweek which, if true, brings us another step closer to linking the White House and the Switftvets.
The article is based on information Clift received from a senior staffer to a Senate Republican:
quote:Instead of talking about a failed war in Iraq and a new report that shows 1.3 million more Americans living in poverty, we’re debating what happened in the Mekong Delta in 1968.
The strategy “came straight from the West Wing,” says the GOP staffer. “Nobody should be confused.” Asked to explain, this Republican says Rove is smart enough to keep technical distance. But all it takes is a well-placed wink to activate a web of Bush family hit men, confidantes and deep-pocket donors.
“They know what to do—it’s like sleeper cells that get activated,” he says, likening the players to “political terrorists.”
****
My Republican mole on Capitol Hill says the green light has gone out to Republicans to do whatever it takes to get Bush elected. “This is the way we hold onto power,” he says with disgust.
There are two issues. First, how reliable are these opinion articles? I don't follow Clift so I have no way of gauging her credibility.
Second, if this is true, does this change anyone's mind about the election? Or are people already pretty much settled on where they stand on the Swiftvet issue?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought one of the rules of good journalism was that anonymous sources had to have some corroboration, which should also be mentioned in the article.
In search and seizure cases, information from anonymous sources have to have indicia of reliability, usually in two forms. First, the basis for the source's knowledge must be known. Second, some record of this person's reliability as an informant, including possible motivations for lying, must be known. The key is that both of these must be present in the affadavit supporting the warrant, unless one is particularly strong.
In this case, there is none of either except the claim that this source is a "GOP staffer." I have no reason to believe this person at all, because nothing in the article could be confirmed by a reader in another source.
posted
*shrugs* there are 527s on both sides. You've gone moveon supporting kerry and swiftvets supporting Bush. Clearly both Bush and Kerry like the fact that these groups are attacking the other, while publicly condemning them.
The reason swiftvets is getting more press (and more donations) is the way the Kerry campaign has been handling the situation (poorly). Kerry called around before the election and tried to get people to support him. When he was told by many of the people he called that they would work against him if he tried to use his record as a campaign platform, he should have backed off.
Then when the movement started to gain steam, he said "bring it on" egging them on. Even worse, when they did 'bring it on' Edwards started whining to Bush about it. This makes them seem disorganized.
And his trying to use McCain in an add without permission was just foolish. They may be friends outside of politics...but he should have checked with him first. You don't risk pissing off a man who is respected by both democrats and republicans. McCain not only publicly spoke out against Kerry, he is now helping Bush his is campaign.
As for the article, it is a column by a person who has spent her life following around democrats, not a news story and the source is pathetic. An anonymous staffer to an unnamed senate republican. I always look suspiciously at stories built entirely around one anonymous source…but this is even worse. She could not get the real source, so she picked someone who worked for him/her…who by his quotes clearly has an axe to grind.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good points guys. We do have to question why Clift failed to find additional sources for her story. For all we know, this "Republican mole" could very well be a mole for the Democrats.
If this story is indicative of the state of journalism today, no wonder people distrust the media.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
