Sunday, September 23, 2007

Raising Kaine: "graffiti off the underside of an underpass"

A post today at Raising Kaine, which must be "official" because it was promoted by Feld, enthusiastically supports the credibility of Karen S. Johnson-Cartee, from Alabama, speaking of Hugo quoting from a diary found at www. raisingkaine . com:

To me, it is like quoting graffiti off the underside of an underpass and using it in a political ad," she said

Of course, RK misrepresents much of what is in the article. Not surprisingly, Feld himself confused a Washington Post reporter so much that the reporter thought Feld was claiming that Raising Kaine speaks for the Governor:

By attributing the ad to Raising Kaine, Feld said, Hugo wants voters to think Kaine opposes Simmons's candidacy. Kaine has endorsed Simmons.

Other misrepresentations? Their title suggests Karen attacked Tim Hugo personally, but here is what she said:

Karen S. Johnson-Cartee, a political science professor at the University of Alabama who has written several books on negative television ads, said Hugo's ad "means we have sunk to a new low."

Further, while they accurately quote people from the article, most of them gave opinions based on a faulty premise that the quotes were from an unknown source. For example, a Democratic Party operative said:

Gary Nordlinger, a Democratic consultant and past chairman of the American Association of Political Consultants ethics committee, said unnamed comments on blogs should be off-limits.


"In political advertising, you always have to have a source, and that source has to be credible," said Sean T. O'Brien, executive director of the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership.

It's not surprising those quoted had the wrong idea, because the story has been repeated with that false claim that the quotes were from an anonymous commenter. That's what the Raising Kaine blog first charged.

But they were the ones being misleading. We know exactly who the source was, it was not an unnamed anonymouse source, but someone who was directly involved in the primary involving Rex, and who spoke with authority. The source WAS credible, being on the campaign of a competitor to Rex in that primary. The Washington Post knows who the source was, but failed to get a comment from the source. And of course Lowell wouldn't confirm it, althought he knows who it was.

This person, Nate de la Piedra, can't be dismissed as some crazy anonymous commenter. He had regular diary entries, he's active in the Democratic party, and is the executive director of Next Generation Democrats.

We can see here of course the connection between the liberal blogs and their helpers at the WP. How many times last year did we see negative stories circulate in these blogs, followed by favorable front-page articles citing those blogs from the Washington Post? But here the Post couldn't work the magic. But they sure tried.


Brian Kirwin said...

The Post gets comments from Sean O'Brien (campaign staffer for a Democratic campaign before suddenly becoming "non-partisan"), Karen S. Johnson-Cartee,a political science professor (Oh, and the post seems to leave out how she's an active Democratic political consultant to many Democratic campaigns), and Gary Nordlinger, another Democratic consultant.

Karen said...

Hi, I am an active democratic and republican consultant; in the state of Alabama, one has to work both sides of the aisles to avoid the demagogues, theocrats, and racist iconoclasts. And, I was a registered Republican, when I lived in Roanoke, Virginia, for a number of years. Thank you very much. Furthermore, I served as the 5th and 6th District Young Republicans Campaign Coordinator for Presidential, Senatorial, and Congressional races, in the 1970s in Virginia, staying active in Republican politics, at William and Mary and later at the University of Tennessee, where I volunteered for Lamar Alexander. Not that I've established my Republican bona fides, (does being a CREEP Nixonette help you to see the error of your characterization of me?), let me correct what I have done and why. Here in Alabama, I've done a Republican Attorney General's race, numerous judges, district attorneys, and other local races. And, yes, I've been a gubernatorial Democratic Campaign consultant, Democratic Congressional Campaign Consultant, and a host of other regional, local, and state legislative offices. I vote the man or woman and the issues, not the emotion. Here, I just want the good guys or gals to win, and I don't play party-belong games, where in the true areas, with at risk populations, you need to walk both sides of the aisles to get things done for the betterment of society and the body politic. And, coded insider language that only a fellow blogster would know, violates universal ethical constraints for identifying ad hominem attackers (AAPC). Yours truly, Karen Johnson-Cartee, Ph. D.

Charles said...

Dr. Johnson-Cartee,

Since I am honored with your presence, can I ask you if, knowing that the blog comment was not an anonymous random comment, but a diary entry from a known active Democrat who is the executive director of a Democratic organization, would that change your opinion in any way regarding whether it is ethical to quote the blog entry?

And to indulge me further, if a campaign sends a mailer which quotes from a news article, and it cites the Newspaper name and page number, would you complain if they did not include the name of the reporter who wrote the article, on the grounds that the mailer is incorrectly suggesting the entire Newspaper was making the statement?

Two more, if I may. Suppose the article was not a news article, but an opinion column. Would quoting from an opinion column and citing the Newspaper and the page number be misleading if the mailer did not also identify the person who wrote the opinion piece?

Last question. In another delegate race, Paul Nichols mailed out two fliers in which he made up "advertisements" with his opponents picture, putting words in his opponent's mouth. The local paper says that was unethical and a lie, and deceptive to voters.

Would you provide a quote about how that unethical behavior compares with what Hugo did, accurately quoting a known democratic activist and providing the correct citation for a web search to find the article?

After all, if you are really trying to make sure everybody plays fair, making up stuff about an opponent has to be worse than failing to put a person's name on a quote, right?

Thanks for your time.

I hope that since you have time both to provide quotes to the Washington Post, AND to post to my blog, that you'll have time to answer my questions.

Thanks very much,