Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Dan Rather has documents

Dan Rather has documents

which prove that George W. Bush lied about his military service.

History No. 1:  Dan cannot let you see the documents which he obtained from an anonymous source he cannot reveal.  But the documents, in Dan’s estimation, reflect “inappropriate” conduct the exact nature of which cannot be disclosed.  You can trust Dan. George W. Bush must drop out of the presidential race.

History No. 2:  Dan lets you see the documents and identifies the source.  The documents and the accuser are subjected to vigorous scrutiny by guys in pajamas sitting in their parents’ basements.  George W. Bush is elected President.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

However I don’t think this will work for Cain? With both Rove and the DNCC stacked against him, I’m sure Tawana Bradley and Anita Hill are both forthcoming.

    I recall ‘that woman’ saying something to the effect that the media builds up a candidate just to tear them down.

    If Cain were not leading in the polls right now then the hit job would be on Perry’s Rock.

    Rinsing and repeating.

I am curious to know how many Americans actually know the full details of Rathergate.

If you asked a typical non-political American who pays attention to politics less than seven minutes per week what was Rathergate would they understand the question?

I believe Politico, as well as the rest of LSM, can easily get away with Journo-listic reporting ie ‘making stuff up’, reporting unsourced accusations rather than facts, creating a specific to drive an intended agenda, is because they know the majority of Americans pay attention to politics less seven minutes out of the week.

If the right side enables this disceptive practice how will truth be shown to those who do not pay attention?

I’ll say it again, I read Legal Insurrection because Professor Jacobson is not an enabler.

We came extraordinarily close to History #1. If CBS had not accidently committed an act of Real Journalism by releasing their forged documents, Dan Rather would today be known as the Man Who Got Gore Elected. Journalists have learned their lesson and now keep their fake-but-(not)accurate sources quiet, able to go forth and rend their garments in public and cry “If only my anonymous source could speak out on this horrible crime….”

Perfect.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | November 3, 2011 at 10:10 am

And yet, while Dan Rather pushed a story that relied on fake documents to try to take down Bush just weeks before the election, Kate Zernike of the NYT came to Rather’s defense and gave us the infamous “Fake But Accurate” column to remind readers that while the documents were not authentic, the gist of the story was pretty darned accurate.

FYI, Kate Zernike also contributed to the 42 front page NYT stories about Abu Ghraib and strongly insinuated that the rogue reserve unit was acting on orders from either Pentagon civilian leadership or high ranking commissioned officers. When testimony ultimately revealed that what happened at Abu Ghraib was not sanctioned from high above, the NYT buried it deep inside the paper and published it on a Saturday. How the NYT handled that whole story, with seemingly never ending front page stories and strongly implying that what happened was sanctioned policy, was a huge factor (but not the only one) in my decision to cancel my NYT subscription. I had been a subscriber for over a decade.

Finally, Kate Zernike was assigned to cover the rise of the Tea Party movement for the Slimes, and it would have been difficult for a mainstream media organization to present the movement in a worse light than how she presented it.

Sorry for highjacking the thread, but I’ve wanted people to know what I think of Kate Zernike for over half a decade.

Sure, but those allegations were floating around for a while. The only folks who glommed onto the allegations (pre-Rather) were rabid W haters. Bill Burkett was a loony-toon and everyone who came into contact with him seemed to realize he was a nut until Mary Mapes and Dan Rather decided it was worth risking their reputations in their attempt to take down a president. Defiant to the end, Rather still believes the ‘fake, but accurate’ defense.

In 2008, there were allegations John McCain was less than honorable during his time at the Hanoi Hilton. I am sure if you look on the internet these scurrilous claims still exist. TO date, there is no corroboration to support those claims and of course, no apology from the people who presumably still make these claims.

What we have with the current allegations against Cain is a much different situation. In some aspects it is similar to the ‘nuts and sluts’ defense the Clintons used against their accusers. Cain has thrown down the marker that all of these claims were false at the time and this is a “smear” and “witch hunt”. The Cain supporters have been rabid in their defense of their guy to the point of damning other candidates who they think introduced these allegations. Who wants to come forward and recall/relive their past in this environment?
The experiences of the Katherine Willeys, Paula Jones, Linda Tripps, Juanita Broadricks, and Monica Lewinskys have not been forgotten. Although, these accusers will be treated better by the media, it is still a toxic atmosphere out there. Of course, Cain also hides behind the confidentiality of the agreements the past accusers have signed.

Cain is distracting and obfuscating this issue while his conservative supporters are carrying his water. If there is one lesson this conservative has learned through the W years, it is let the politician carry his own dang water. I was tired of defending Bush and the thanks I got from W was he came down here to GA, in my backyard, and said anyone who does not support the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill was a bigot and a racist. This first-generation American learned a lesson.
We should defend the innocent, not the ideology. We should never confuse the two. Cain needs to make full disclosure and make the atmosphere less toxic so the accusers can speak their piece. If he refuses, that says plenty about the candidate. If he is telling us the truth, what has he to fear?

    SmokeVanThorn in reply to spartan. | November 3, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    Nonsense and distortions.

      Was that addressed to me or are you finally doing an analysis of your posts?

      Concerning Cain: this is not solely about the allegation of wrongdoing, it is about the revelation of the settlement. It is the problem with Cain addressing this issue. He had 10 days to get ahead of this issue and this is the best that he can do?
      At the end of the day, Cain is playing the victim claiming his opponents squealed about the sexual harassment case I had to settle. You are okay with that? How exactly does that help Cain? Is that not what we as conservatives do not want in our candidates or is Cain the 2012 version of ‘the one’?

        Owen J in reply to spartan. | November 3, 2011 at 5:05 pm

        To give Smoke the benefit of the doubt, he may be refering to his monitor. Or perhaps he needs a new prescription. Or maybe he’s reading this blog through the bottom of a whiskey glass.

        Bad optics, you know…

““Fake But Accurate” column to remind readers that while the documents were not authentic, the gist of the story was pretty darned accurate.”

Obama and the teacher!

“Sorry for highjacking the thread, but I’ve wanted people to know what I think of Kate Zernike for over half a decade”

Just a journalist, or something more?

“Although, these accusers will be treated better by the media,” not because of the treatment of the Clinton accusers. Because Cain is a Conservative.

Don’t forget that before he was forced to reveal the absolute kook who was his source, Rather constantly referred to him as an “unimpeachable” source.

When Kerry finally conceded to Bush in 2004 my first question was, “Okay … but will Dan Rather concede?”

Good one, legal insurection. Good one.

How many actually remember the Rather connection in the “fake but accurate” story? How many even know that Rather’s daughter, Robin, was a good friend, and strong supporter of Ronnie Earle, Prosecuting Attorney for the City of Austin, who was going after Tom DeLay and any other Republican from Texas, trying to check them off his list, one by one?

Or that the magic documents were passed to someone at the Houston Live Stock and Rodeo who gave them to Rather? Shades of “secret agent man” stuff there. Just happened to be walking through the cattle pens and a guy in a trench coat hands me an unmarked manilla envelope with campaign killing documents in it. Yeah, that works for me.

The problem that Herman Cain has is lack of control over the story from the git-go. Instead of getting out in front of it, his campaign allowed it to grow legs and it started running, not walking, across every publication in the U.S.

Then we have the head of Cain’s campaign on the Bret Baier show last night where he was actually reading prepared text to Baier’s questions. Instead of answering questions as they were posed to him, he read from a statement laying on the desk. How inept is that? The Cain campaign is now trying to connect the dots on a page where there are only x’s. First it was Rick Perry’s campaign that leaked the story, now it’s Rick Perry and Rahm Emanuel. If you want to see what a full blown campaign melt down is, look no farther than Team Cain.

Cain could have survived this. Pretty much with ease. But he make some major mistakes, claiming first the story was bogus, then going on Greta and giving detailed facts about a “bogus” story, then losing his temper with reporters only to have his campaign manager start accusing anyone who is even remotely involved in the 2012 elections. And Mark, the Campaign manager, did not help Cain when he said that Cain had no intention of requesting the NRA release the documents that could clear Cain and substantiate his claims of the accusations being “baseless.”

Blaming the one woman and saying she was a bad employee was not the route to go for Mr. Cain. He should have made a simple statement that “yes, there were accusations. They were found due to an internal investigation, to be baseless. The women in question were given a severence pay and they left the organization. I wish them well and hold no anomosity toward them. Unfortunately, in the world of business where women have reached some level of success, misunderstandings happen.” But Team Cain did not do that, and in fact, poured gas on a smoldering fire that could have just as easily gone out.

But this attempt to divert the direction by blaming other campaigns, or former Obama people, is just that; a diversion from a story that is now not going away in the typical 24-48 hour news cycle. It is Cain, and no one else, that is keeping the monster alive.

Ah, Memory Lane! The Bush TANG “scandal” was amongst the stupidest distractions in American political history, which is of course saying quite a lot. W didn’t exactly make his service in the Air National Guard the centerpiece of his candidacy (unoike JFKerry, who did exactly that in regard to his 4 months in ‘Nam). Also, Bush was already president when this media frenzy was going on. You had to wonder, why is this even relevant? Then there’s the problem that although Bush supposedly got into TANG just to avoid combat in Indo-China, at the time he joined, those kinds of units WERE, in fact, being sent to Vietnam. Of course, it later turned out (if memory serves) that, by the time he was supposedly missing his last few ANG meetings or attending them in Alabama, essentially NOBODY was being sent to Vietnam. It was 1972 and the U.S. role in the war was winding down. All in all, even if the allegations against Bush had been true (which they weren’t, as evidenced by his Honorable Discharge, etc.), it would still have just been a big nothingburger.

I’m getting an increasingly bad feeling about this Cain story. Its not any particular revelation, but something just doesn’t feel right. For whatever that’s worth.

    I have to agree. Though in my case, it is because there are many appropriate potential responses to this situation, and Cain used none of them — or, if that is too harsh, he failed to stick to one of them.

    The “Perry did it” thing followed by the “Rahm-Perry did it” thing almost comes across as a panic reaction. Why? Is Cain that easily spooked?

    This is not to imply Cain is acting panicky (if that’s what it is) becuase he has something to hide — he may just be acting that way because he’s losing control of the situation.

    Either way, that is not a good sign.

      SmokeVanThorn in reply to Owen J. | November 3, 2011 at 12:35 pm

      Do you Perry lackeys have your own version of Journolist?

        So Smoke, if people can see, and admit, that Cain has handled this scandal very, VERY badly (going off on reporters yesterday didn’t help him) they have to be Perry lackeys?

        What about Mark Block who can’t even give a simple answer to questions posed to him by Bret Baier without reading them from a prepared script? You think that is handling the situtation?

        Newt is correct. Cain needs to stop trying to play the blame game and address this issue head on and Block saying Cain is not going to give the NRA permission to release the women from the confidentiality clause is NOT dealing with the issue head on.

        So what is your senario:

        Women lied.

        Cain told the truth.

        Perry (and now Emanual) lied.

        I guess that’s your story and you’re going to stick to it. But it ain’t gonna fly.

          reliapundit in reply to retire05. | November 3, 2011 at 1:06 pm

          YUP.

          SmokeVanThorn in reply to retire05. | November 3, 2011 at 11:08 pm

          No – your record as a Perry lackey is well established in your numerous comments on this site. The same is true of spartan and OwenJ.

          Your “handled it poorly” meme reflects either your failure to understand the game played by Politico, et al., or your willingness to play it too.

          Jeff Goldstein’s posts at proteinwisdom.com lay this out in more detail and far better than I can. If you and your ilk are more interested in promoting conservative values than a particular candidate, you will read Goldstein and think about what you and other “sensible” types are doing.

          Cowboy Curtis in reply to retire05. | November 4, 2011 at 12:20 am

          Dude, he either did it or he didn’t. If he didn’t, it won’t hurt him. If he did, thank God we found out now.
          This isn’t a club, this is politics. And while I like Jeff and Rush both, they are wrong on this. Our candidates need to be examined, not just for their stated political philosophy, but for their viability. Anyone running against Obama is going to get pummeled in the press, with both true stories and false. I want to know what the true stories are beforehand, and I want proof of their ability to handle the fake ones as well. Because if you think this is dirty pool, wait till September rolls around.
          Ace pretty much sums up my feelings on this whole matter. I’m not buying this car until I’ve kicked the tires a bit:
          No, I’m Not Buying This Used Car Without Finding Out Its Carfax History, No Matter How Much You Try To Pressure Me

        Cowboy Curtis in reply to SmokeVanThorn. | November 3, 2011 at 12:50 pm

        Its a newsletter.

        The Libertarian in reply to SmokeVanThorn. | November 3, 2011 at 2:25 pm

        I donated money to Cain, so I’m no Perry lackey.

        It’s hard to imagine a candidate handling this thing any worse than Cain has. He didn’t remember he had two out of court settlements for sexual harassment? Please, even if they were both completely untrue, you’d remember *everything* about them.

        And blaming Perry, with not a single shred of evidence? That’s not just stupid, it’s not just reckless, it’s an unfounded assault against a rival. Cain now owes Perry an apology.

        Cain HAD to know this was coming. And yet he is completely unprepared for it.

        If he had half a brain he would have defused this a month ago by bringing it up in an interview so that HE could control the narrative (“As a front runner, I’m sure someone will mount a smear campaign based on two settlements the NRA reached way way back in 1998… I’m sure as a black man, the media won’t give me half the benefit of the doubt they gave Bill Clinton when he was groping Kathleen Willey in the Oval Office. Just look at what they did to Clarence Thomas…”)

        I like Cain and want to see him win, but his campaign staff is amateur hour.

          There is more common sense in your post than what Team Cain has generated since they first had knowledge of the Politico story. What you posted is exactly what Cain should have done. Well done!

        I think you are reading it. 🙂

      Cowboy Curtis in reply to Owen J. | November 3, 2011 at 12:45 pm

      That’s sort of my line of thinking. I just can’t shake the feeling that several more shoes are going to drop. I keep thinking he and his campaign are hiding something. Or somethings.

      At the very least, their awful response gives me a lot of concern for how Team Cain would hold up under the scorched earth campaign Obama and the media have planned.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR…

HEH.

[…] JACOBSON TO POLITICO: Show Us Your Sources Or Shut Up! With a RatherGate reference. He’s absolutely right that you can’t trust MSM on […]

Cassandra Lite | November 3, 2011 at 1:34 pm

I’d feel much better about the additional support Cain seems to be getting on affronted grounds if he was handling the crisis well. Accusing a rival without proof, and playing the race card, is no better–and is in some ways worse–than the original hit piece.

Dear God, please don’t let us once again go deaf, dumb, and blind to a candidate’s ineptitude just because we’ve fallen in love.

Constitution First | November 3, 2011 at 1:51 pm

I didn’t coin the phrase, but the “Palinization of Herman Cain” really has a ring to it.

That said, whatever the facts on the ground turn out to be, Herman did fumble the ball at the snap.

    Cowboy Curtis in reply to Constitution First. | November 3, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    I’m curious how the term is being used. Is it in reference to having a core of supporters for whom the candidate can simply do no wrong, no matter what? Or is it saying he’s being subjected to relentless media attacks of an unheard of nature?

    I can see something of the former going on, but not the latter. This story isn’t some outright lie or hit job. There were sexual harassment complaints, there were settlements. Its not a lie, and its not unfair to inquire about (even though Politico’s handling of it might be objectionable). And so far as I can tell, this is the first real scrutiny into his life, whereas Palin and her family had every stone turned. Further, in so many of the Palin stories there was no “there” there. Here, there is something. I might turn out to be no big deal at all, but there is something there.

    Folks, everyone of these people is a tragically flawed human being, be it Palin, Perry, Romney, Cain, and as much as it pains me to say it, even Teh Fred. We all are. Lets quit deifying them and assuming they can do no wrong. They can, and they have.

[…] Cain should also be able to face his accusers. Legal Insurrection is dead on target in comparing Politico’s hit piece on Cain with the Dan Rather attack on […]

The simple way for Cain to put this to rest in good humor would be to stand up and say, “In order to demonstrate to America that I take these allegations seriously and because I think protecting women from sexual harassment is so important, I will answer any question from any credible journlist. In this case ‘credibility’ means you have a) never worked in a Democrat political operation and b) your press organization wasn’t directly involved in covering up the Edwards love-child mess, the Tawana Brawley fiasco, or the Lewinsky scandal. If you can’t meet these criteria, America can’t trust you to tell them the truth and American women can’t trust that you will protect them from powerful politicians, and neither can I.”

At that point, he’d be answering questions from one dude from the National Enquirer and that’d be that.

Like I said previously… The democrat attack machine is just getting warmed up. Watch out for a slippery smelly pothole ridden road to November, 2012.

This nomination process needs to be concluded quickly so that the rebubs cannot respond in kind…

Divide and conquer is one rule the dims follow. Change the subject is another. Both are working quite well for them at the present time. Conservatives are arguing amongst themselves re Cain… whether or not he is guilty… and we are no longer talking about Solyndra, Fast and Furious, etc. The media knows th public’s attention span is about two weeks long and plan accordingly. Forget Cain for now. All this will come out int he future and no amount of discssion will change the facts. Everyone is just spinning their wheels for nothing. In the meantime, obama is dismantling our country and wants four more years to finish the job whle we go off in tangents the edia has fe us.

I need a new keyboard

tangants the media has fed us.

WTF! Have you people been paying attention? Cain was never a party to or informed of any agreement, or of what – if any – charges were lodged against him. Sort of hard to defend yourself when you haven’t a clue as to what the other person is talking about. I realize that some of you dwell out there in the fever swamps of the left – and I pretty much ignore those types – but we seem to have people on the right “demanding” that he defend himself against nebulous charges, that have been made by “nobody”. Are you that desperate to see Romney/Perry as the nominee?

Speaking of Rather, has Kenneth found the frequency yet?

[…]  Glenn links another of Jacobson’s posts, Show Us Your Sources Or Shut Up! (with a reference to a former CBS News […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend