Arlen Specter gets a taste of the GOP Noise Machine
After abandoning the Republican Party in favor of a new Democratic home, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter experienced a handful of awkward moments that accompanied his aisle-crossing adventure. Specter's three decades' worth of Senate seniority were mostly stripped away by his new Democratic colleagues, and he seemed to momentarily forget that he was no longer supposed to (publicly) root for Norm Coleman in his never-ending appeals process in Minnesota.
But for me, by the far the most eye-opening event that unfolded in the wake of Specter's move, which seemed to send Republican partisans into an even deeper and angrier funk, was the completely new way in which the senator got treated -- got abused, really -- by the Republican Noise Machine and how the vast array of right-wing media outlets that do the GOP's partisan bidding laid into Specter by manufacturing a classic smear campaign thinly disguised as journalism, a smear campaign that held Specter up for public ridicule and mocked him as a heartless, opportunistic pol.
Democrats have watched that drill play out countless times in recent years. But it was revealing to watch Specter become the Noise Machine's target. Even though Specter, as a moderate Republican, was never a favorite of the Noise Machine, the right-wing media movement never would have ripped his words out of context and spread a vicious smear about him if he had stayed put in the GOP. But now that he's outside the shrinking tent, Specter's fair game for whatever contrived and mean-spirited hoax conservative "journalists" can dream up.
And that's what The Washington Times, the Drudge Report, the New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, and an army of online minions did. What they dreamt up was the idea that while appearing on CBS' Face the Nation, Specter blamed Republicans for Jack Kemp's recent death from cancer. That Specter had pointed a bloody and accusatory finger at the GOP and blamed it for "killing" Kemp.
The onslaught seemed to catch Specter and his communications team off guard, but this is what the Noise Machine does the when the bell rings and smear campaigns are launched; facts are discarded and the phony allegations actually get embellished through a gruesome game of telephone. (I heard Specter once threatened to beat up Kemp!)
And boy, the frothing was just out of control. With his (supposedly) tasteless Kemp comment, the Republican turncoat had revealed himself as a "crass," "opportunistic," "perfidious," "disloyal," "traitorous" "dunce" and a "rank opportunist." And that was from just one unhinged post. Elsewhere, juvenile bloggers, busy spreading mindless misinformation, rang Specter up as an "asshat," "human ipecac," and an "official" convert to "Ass-dom." (Were these blog posts written on the playground during recess?) And yes, it seemed rather obvious the schoolyard taunts had much more to do with Specter abandoning the shrinking GOP than they did with his supposed comments about Kemp.
Here's how The Washington Times' Tom LoBianco first hatched the story, beneath the definitive, albeit comically misleading, headline "Specter: GOP priorities contributed to Kemp death" [emphasis added]:
Mr. Specter, responding to a question from CBS's Bob Schieffer over whether he had let down Pennsylvanians who wanted a Republican to represent them, said he felt his priorities were more in line with those of the Democrats.
"Well, I was sorry to disappoint many people. Frankly, I was disappointed that the Republican Party didn't want me as their candidate," Mr. Specter said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "But as a matter of principle, I'm becoming much more comfortable with the Democrats' approach. And one of the items that I'm working on, Bob, is funding for medical research."
Mr. Specter continued: "If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine."
We'll get to the "continued" nonsense in a bit. But from the Times' telling, it was obvious: Asked about why he left the GOP, Specter claimed that if "we" (i.e. Republicans, according to the Times) had followed Nixon's lead, "we" could have cured more cancer and Kemp would be alive today. In the Times' tortured telling, Specter made a direct connection between Kemp's dying from cancer and the Republicans' failed agenda.
Dutifully taking its cues from the journalism-challenged Times, that's how the entire Noise Machine presented the quotes and connected the dots for readers: Specter said GOP killed Kemp! Literally:
- "Specter: Republicans killed Kemp" [American Thinker]
- "Benedict Arlen: GOP Killed Jack Kemp" [Moonbattery]
- "Specter: Jack Kemp Would Be Alive Today If GOP Would've Pursued Mine & Nixon's Healthcare Views" [a hit clip posted on You Tube].
Not to be outdone by the Times' duplicity, the New York Post, a Noise Machine anchor, weighed in, announcing in an editorial:
But the prize for over-the-top zealotry has to go to newly minted Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter, who all but accused his erstwhile GOP colleagues of literally killing their own one-time vice presidential candidate.
That's no exaggeration, sad to say.
If the Post's editorial writers weren't already so widely know for their serial mendacity, this bout of falsehoods might actually be newsworthy. But this is what the Post does: propaganda, plain and simple. According to the Post, Specter "all but" accused Republicans of "literally" killing Kemp. No exaggeration.
But Specter never claimed what the Times and the Post and the rest of the Noise Machine goons claimed he had said. And that brings us back to the Times' "continued" and back to the idea that Specter made a direct connection between leaving the GOP and Kemp's death.
The right-wing Times claimed Specter went straight from his comments about leaving the GOP to directly discussing Nixon's war on cancer. Nothing Specter said in between was relevant to the story at hand. (Or the Times would have included it, right?) Except that what Specter said in between changed the entire context of the quote and made it clear that when Specter mentioned "we," he wasn't talking about Republicans, he was talking about Congress, which, of course, obliterates the phony premise the Noise Machine used to spread its Specter hate.
OK, it's a long sound bite, but here's Specter's entire response, which is needed to understand the smear that was launched against him:
Well, I was sorry to disappoint many people. Frankly, I was disappointed that the Republican Party didn't want me as their candidate. But as a matter of principle, I'm becoming much more comfortable with the Democrats' approach.
And one of the items that I'm working on, Bob, is funding for medical research. I've been the spear-carrier to increase medical research. And I've even established a website, SpecterForTheCure.com, to try to get people to put more pressure on Congress to join me in getting more funding.
This medical research has been a reawakening -- the 10 billion dollars. We were about to lose a whole generation of scientists, and now they're enthused. There are 15,000 applications to be granted. If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine.
Now, as The New York Times pointed out in the column today, when you talk about life and death and medical research, that's a much more major consideration on what I can do continuing in the Senate contrasted with which party I belong to.
As you can see from the bolded portions, when Specter mentioned "we," he was talking about Congress, not the Republican Party. That point was made clear when he then referenced congressional funding for cancer research going back to 1970. (Hint: Republicans didn't control congressional funding in the 1970s.)
But that didn't stop the Noise Machine for soldiering on. How? By making up more facts. Blogger Ed Morrissey wrote that for Specter to claim "he could have saved Kemp if only the GOP had spent a little more like drunken sailors between 2001-6 is just despicable" [emphasis in original]. Please note that Morrissey simply concocted the idea that Specter ever referenced cancer research "between 2001-6." Specter never said that. But Morrissey needed to make that up in order to prop up the phony claim that Specter called out Republicans, who controlled Congress from 2001-6, for not spending enough on cancer research. Specter did no such thing. Period.
What Specter did do, though, was specifically mention "Congress" and its failure to support cancer research. Specter also mentioned Nixon's 1970 call for a war on cancer. The fact is that between 1970 and Kemp's recent death, Democrats controlled Congress for many more years than did Republicans. And so it's rather obvious Specter was talking about both Democrats and Republicans and their failure, in his eyes, to spend enough on cancer research since 1970.
Oddly enough, a news report posted on FoxNews.com got it right:
Jack Kemp would still be alive if the federal government had done a better job funding cancer research, Sen. Arlen Specter said Sunday, one day after Kemp, the 1996 Republican vice presidential nominee and former congressman, died of cancer.
Also, note Specter's reference on CBS to his website SpecterForTheCure.com and how the senator wanted to use it to "try to get people to put more pressure on Congress to join me in getting more funding." Who controls Congress today? And who does Specter want people to pressure for more cancer research? The answer to both questions is, of course, Democrats.
But the Noise Machine simply set aside large chunks of Specter's comments and stitched together the phony claim that he had drawn a direct, partisan line from the Republican Party to Kemp's death. The senator did not. (Does that actually surprise anybody?)
I have to say that when the smear campaign was rolled out, Specter's communications team seemed to be caught flat-footed and made no attempt to push back on the phony allegations. Perhaps that was to be expected because until recently, Specter's team didn't really need an internal defense mechanism to deal with the fevered lies launched by the GOP Noise Machine.
But now that he's become a Democrat, Specter ought to invest in one.





















The man simply recognized the extraordinary shift in the mood of the national electorate, and of course it's the electorate of Pennsylvania that really only concerns Sen. Specter.
He saw the Pennsylvania electorate dismiss Rick Santorum in 2006, and so why stick with such a dwindling constituency of Republicans, and be at the mercy of an ever-shrinking Republican PA primary electorate that won't matter in the long run.
It really doesn't matter much to Democrats that Sen. Specter changed his party affiliation: it's just a mixture of primary politics and mere semantics... there's hardly anything substantial or important to it.
But the Republican backlash, the holding out stubbornly against the shift in mood of the national electorate, the blind antagonism toward the super-majority of the American People, and the complete lack of any policy ideas or initiatives to court that super-majority, that's important and substantial both.
It spells more doom for Republicans in 2010.
If Republicans were smart, they'd wake up... Arlen did.
Oh well, "screw them. They mean nothing to me."
I'm sure many moderate conservatives are hoping for something to happen, something akin to the moment when Joseph Nye Welch's challenge to McCarthy's bullying tactics punctured the red-baiting senator's image and sent his popularity into a downward spiral from which it never recovered.
But Rush is not an public official and therefore need not worry about overall popularity or re-election. And even so, Rush never, ever puts himself in a position of vulnerability. His power comes from his insistence upon always controlling the context of debate. So far, he's gotten away with it.
Perhaps instead of a Welch-McCarthy moment, the conundrum of Rush Limbaugh can only be settled the same way that the issue of getting 19th century physicians to wash their hands was settled - libertarians may just have to wait for the old guard to die off.
Forgive, please, the off-topic preening. My namesake uncle was a partner of Joseph Welch's at Hale & Dorr in Boston. That was always a great source of pride in my family. Whenever I see that famous clip run I remember the first time I saw it (on Omnibus), and the glisten in my father's eyes as he explained the significance and courage of the act and the "degrees of separation" between Mr. Welch and me. Still gives a tingle.
I hate it when media in general (and Fox in particular) like to push the claim that "America is Center-Right", when if anything has been proven (the Terry Schaivo debacle proved it) the nation is closer to the idea of a Center-Libertarian nation. Hell, I would probably be a Republican myself if that is what they focused on was controlling bureaucracy instead legislating morality.
Specter is the consumate politician, he checks the wind and prays he'll keep elected in office. He changed to Republican from the democrat party before and no surprise, he saw that he'd get trounced in the primary, he switches sides. He historically has been spineless from his invocation of Scottish law to condemn Clinton to signing on the stimulus onslaught.
When Bush went to bat for him bigtime against Toomey in 2004, I remember believing that it would affect Santorum, who also campaigned for him and the state. The republicans began to loose credibility with conservatives and lost their support. Toomey will do just fine in PA and it is nice to hear that another democrat is running against specter now too! We'll see if he grows a spine in the meantime.
Specter ran as a democrat on a republican ticket for his first elected office, but then changed party affiliations as soon as he won. He's never been anything but a republican whilst in elected office.
You can have him and by all means, continue to treat him as a second class member of the democrat party!
We'll take Specter, I'm all good with it. Thing is, he has to earn his keep, so to speak in the democratic party.
The party is the Democratic Party. We named ourselves, and until we ask for your input, STFU.
The sooner the republican party cuts out the rotten deadwood like these three...the sooner I might be able to rejoin the republican party's efforts as a conservative.
Democrats, on the other hand, don't demand that everyone in the Democratic Party feel exactly the same way about everything.
This is another false story. Specter, who was criticised regularly and roundly while he was a Republican, continues to be criticised now that he's a Democrat again. Breaking news! Boy! We really caught them this time!
The "noise machine"? That's cute. So am I posting on the Democratic "noise machine"? That's not a prejudicial term is it?
Your dedication to the trivial displays the lack of sufficient substantial issues to raise against the Right. Using MMFA as a gauge I can only conclude that the Right is composed of people that are seldom wrong and almost never try to deceive, but, being human, do make the normal number of insignificant errors. You should look to your own house first.
Rush is the designated leader of the republican party as it stands right now. How can you even deny that? Anytime someone from the right says something bad about him, next day, they're quivering at his feet, and apologizing for whatever it was that they said was true. And Cheney saying he'd take Rush over Powell? That's incredibly stupid. Talk about someone who is STILL highly popular with both democrats and republicans alike, and we're talking about Powell. I say that if he ran for President, I'd probably vote for him.
This is not the democratic noise machine, this is a place for exposing conservative misinformation. The DNC is the democratic noise machine.
The DNC, MMFA, the Daily COS and other internet blog-sites, the New York Times and a majority of the otrher papers, Air America and a minority of the other talk show stations and networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, don't complain, it's your second greatest accomplishment. Of course, none of these outlets pleases all of you all of the time. Some do allow some space for alternative views and some refuse to repeat all of the Leftwing misinformation. This is part of the noise machine. Then there is Hollywood and the TV entertainment industry and the majority of college faculty and administrations. Of course, some of you are so far left you think these guys are on the right.
This is another example of the right laying false claim that they represent most Americans and that those who don't share their beliefs are liberals or, to repeat Bill O'Reilly, "far left."
But you know what? The evidence points the other direction. Not only the recent election and voter defections, but polls on nearly all of the key issues. Mainstream America is more closely aligned with what you consider "liberal," than it is with your extreme and cloistered world view.
This blog references headline news from bastions of conservative spin. That is, your conservative media outlets are dedicating headline news stories to this "trivial" topic. And a lot more of them than Media Matters.
What does that say about them, following your logic? It must be much worse to run headline news stories in major metropolitan newspapers talking about this "trivia" than one guy writing a blog about it on a fairly obscure liberal website. Why would they do that? Why are they above reproach and seldom wrong, but when they are demonstrably wrong, you attack the source that points it out?
What did media matters get wrong here? You called this story "false."
In your view, is a better news source one that is wrong about major articles printed in NY or DC, than one online with minor articles correct about "trivia"?
Or are more ad hominem attacks preferred? MM has a fair amount of those, but they are all in reference to veracity vs. mendacity, which is a relatively scientific call for the journalistic world. (What remains of it.)
"Noise machine" is really more judgmental than prejudicial, as your word implies a lack of evidence supporting one's conclusion. There is no lack of evidence of their blatant partisanship. If you meant, perhaps, derogatory, then yes, it's intended to be. Obviously.
Take the article on Pelosi caught lying about her knowlege of waterboarding practices. They reference a statement by a CIA source that the records of the briefings might not be completely accurate and present it as though that means that Pilosi didn't know. It could, if the error was that they recorded her present when she wasn't. But that is a MAJOR error. It also doesn't account for the testiment of other witnesses. This single remark is what they make a story of, accusing the MSM of unprofessional conduct for not reporting it. Now that's both trivial and wrong.
In this article, being one of the stupid morons on the right, I actually listen to the Rightwing media more than the Leftwing. As such, I am aware of the level and intensity of criticism of Specter both before and after his switch. I have heard no quantifiable difference in the amount or vehemence of the criticism. So I tell you it's a lie that he is only now experiencing the slimey smearing of the Rightwing hate-mongering noise machine. (I added a few of my favorite insults I get on this site :) He's been getting, whatever treatment he's getting now for years. It's not the man we dislike, it's the way he votes some of the time. He's shown himself to be part of the opposition within the Republican Party, the conservative-Progressives.
I've been on both sides of the political spectrum. you can believe me or not as you choose. There is no qualitative difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Both sides are made up of human beings and as such are subject to all of the failures and glories of that species. Lies and misrepresentations are no more a Republican traight than they are a Democratic one and anyone who really looks at how complex and varied this world is ought to realize that no one can say with certainty that one of these sides is necessarily right and the other wrong. Sites like MMFA help me to remember the feet of clay on the side I now believe is best for America, but only when they catch them in some violation of substance. I hate seeing them waste your time and mine with the trivial and marginally significant. I already know that their fans are going to agree that the other guys are really bad and that anyone who disagrees is a boob. Reading that is like watching puppies play, amusing but not very informative.
So I just want MMFA to take their job more seriously. I challenge them so they will hopefully stop the slow dance with their girlfriends and start really presenting hard critiques of the Right when it really gets out of line. What? Don't you think they could do better?
You have never presented one iota of evidence to support any of your statements, relying on us to believe that your opinions are fact without proof. You also like another logical fallacy, the appeal to authority.
First, if you want to accuse MMfA of lying, present evidence and proof that it is so. You have never done that. Not once. Until then you are expecting to world to be a certain way because you wish it so, not because you can present objective evidence that it is so.
Juxtaposed with that is the record of the Left. Visit similar sites on the Right and you'll see the same sort of thing, claiming to expose falsehoods that are probably just errors, claiming untruths that are really a matter of interpretation, claiming a false implication when their own evidence fails to support it.
Open your eyes. You're claiming some weird vast conspiracy filled with villains aimed at duping the most susceptible among us vs. the tendency of human beings to defend their own beliefs and disparage the beliefs of those who disagree. A simple application of Occam's razor will tell you which is most likely true.
"Media Matters dedication to the trivial, displays the lack of sufficient substantial issues to raise against Republicans or their media hacks"
That's not only not true, it's illogical.
Whatever Media Matters chooses to dedicate itself to exploring or explaining or discussing, however trivial or not, it is no display in the least of a "lack of sufficient substantial issues to raise against Republicans or their media hacks."
Media Matters doesn't seem to focus itself on all things wrong with the Republican party and with their media noise machine (Fox News Channel being the prime component of that noise machine), and in my opinion they don't focus on the worst things about the Republican media either (like how much noise they make by way of FCC Licenses), but in any case, no matter how narrow or even trivial are the things Media Matters explores and explains and discusses, those things do not exonerate Republicans or the Republican hack media in any logical or sensible way, on any matter at all.
Nothing Media Matters does "displays a lack of sufficient substantial issues to raise against Republicans or their media hacks."
Also, it seems to me that the more that the Republicans lose the more shrill and outlandish their attacks become. Give it a rest, you lost fair and square, shrieking about it and manufacturing false accusations only make you seem all the more ridiculous.
I believe that it's possible that the Conservative belief that individuals may be in the best position to run their own affairs might be wrong. It might be that human beings are just not ready for that kind of individual self-determination and need a government with the power and resources to manage the society for them and keep them from doing things that might be harmful. I believe that the Liberals might be in a better intellectually justifiable position regarding "reproductive rights" and regarding Gay Marriage. Tell me, on what issues do you allow the possibility that the Right might have a better idea?
"... the story could be about a plane crash and the conservative posters will invariably segway into "liberal" or Democrat bashing and how the Obama administration is responsible for it." Even you've got to admit, if you're honest, the posting this was answering set no higher standard of evidence than I observed. Now you can call me a liar if that's all you're worth, or you can come out of your cave and accept that you can't simply pre-emptively discount every contradictory opinion or observation because it doesn't agree with your doctrine of Liberal perfection. At least, you can't do this and expect any respect for your honesty.