October 24, 2008

10/24: The Freak Show Ruled By Matt Drudge

Thanks to heavy promotion from Matt Drudge, the top story in the political blogosphere is a report that a 20-year-old PA female was robbed and mutilated by an African-American male who wanted to "'teach her a lesson' for being a [John] McCain supporter." Several prominent conservative bloggers are using this incident as an opportunity to criticize Barack Obama. Erick Erickson blames Obama for the assault, while John Hinderaker describes the incident as "symbolic of a race in which every voter who has not jumped on the Obama bandwagon has been subject to various forms of harassment and bullying."

On the other hand, Michelle Malkin thinks the story might be a hoax (as do several liberal bloggers). These bloggers are pointing out that officials have requested that a polygraph test be administered because the victim's "statements about the attack conflict with evidence from the Citizens Bank ATM where she claims the incident occurred." Regardless of whether this incident turns out to be completely true, completely false, or somewhere in between, the buzz it has generated is reflective of Drudge's ability to drive a story into the media spotlight (to the frustration of liberal bloggers).

UPDATE, 1:56 PM: "Police: Campaign Worker Admits Making Up Story"

ASSAULT ON COLLEGE STUDENT: Symbolic?

Several conservative bloggers are explicitly linking the assault to Obama:

• RedState's Erickson: "Josh points out in RedHot that Obama did tell his supporters to get in people's faces. Hey! The dude was just doing what The One asked him to. Full pardon on January 21st. [...] This means we cannot just blame the media. We must blame Obama too."
• Dan Riehl: "Well, I'm sure the Kos Kidz will get some real laughs out of this. Obama's run his campaign just like a street thug out of Chicago. Now we get to see what some of his worst supporters are like. Don't tell me -- after Obama passes his welfare-like tax plan guys like this won't be forced to rob and maim innocent people, right? Yeah, sure."
• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "Change, the 'Direct Action' Way."

Other conservative bloggers are arguing that this incident will hurt Obama at the voting booth:

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Do those who stoop to engaging in violence in service of Obama's cause really think they're helping their candidate? Rather, they may be frightening normal voters, who won't be eager to bring to power someone who, even unintentionally, inspires such ugly zealotry."
• Power Line's Hinderaker: "I don't think for a moment that Barack Obama wants his supporters -- even the muggers among them -- to engage in this kind of brutality. I think he is content with financial fraud, voter fraud, and mild bullying of voters without actual physical attacks. (The physical attacks will come once the Democrats have enacted the Union Thug Empowerment Act, and they are 'persuading' workers to vote for unionization.) Obama condemned this felonious assault, and I am sure his condemnation was sincere. But I also think that a great many voters, some of them heretofore uncommitted, will see this incident as symbolic of a race in which every voter who has not jumped on the Obama bandwagon has been subject to various forms of harassment and bullying. Americans, generally speaking, don't like to be bullied. This, as much as anything, explains why the McCain campaign still has a chance."

Other conservative bloggers are complaining about media bias:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Of course, it's unfair to hold Obama responsible for hooligans and nut cases claiming to act in his name. But then again, for the past two weeks, we've seen the press holding McCain and [Sarah] Palin responsible for what a few hooligans and nut cases shout at campaign events."
• Glenn Reynolds: "This is so serious that I predict it will get almost one-tenth as much national coverage as something some guy may have yelled at a Palin rally once. [...] A commenter...adds: 'But, were it a black woman with an 'M' carved in her cheek, we'd be getting 24/7 coverage.'"
• Erickson: "Words versus actions. How many news outlets have covered the Obama supporters trying to block Sarah Palin's motorcade? How many news outlets covered the vandalism of Senator Norm Coleman's property? Compare that to how many covered the words spoken at a Palin rally that allegedly foment hostility toward Barack Obama. Today there is a new, more violent twist. A McCain supporter, a 20 year old college Republican volunteer, was savagely attacked by a Barack Obama supporter in Pennsylvania. She was at an ATM getting money. He saw the McCain sticker on her car, robbed her, and carved a 'B' into the side of her face. He carved her face like it was a pumpkin. [...] But someone yelled 'kill him' at a Sarah Palin rally in reference to Bill Ayers."

ASSAULT ON COLLEGE STUDENT II: A Hoax?

Several conservative bloggers think the alleged assault might be a hoax:

• Ann Althouse: "Come on, people. First, verify. I've seen the photograph, and, quite aside from the backwards 'B' -- does the surveillance camera show an upside down attack? -- the scratching looks too even and shallow to seem like the result of a violent attack. And even if it did happen, what would it mean? There are violent attacks all the time, for all sorts of reasons, and if you want to assert that they say something about anybody other than the attacker, you'll need to prove that too. Bottom line: This is the stupidest distraction in the whole history of this crazy campaign season."
• Malkin: "Throughout my career, I've covered dozens of fake hate crimes -- campus hate crime hoaxes, Muslim hate crime hoaxes, fake noose hangings, etc., etc., etc. Most were perpetrated by liberals, but there have been some shameful ones on our side of the aisle as well. [...] Which is why I'm not jumping up and down with outrage over Drudge-promoted story of a McCain volunteer claiming to have been attacked by a black man whom she accused of carving a 'B' in her face after spotting her McCain bumper sticker. She refused medical treatment after reporting the incident to police. Why on earth would she do that? [...] If I'm wrong, I'll apologize. If I'm right, will this woman? [...] Hate crimes hoaxes -- by anyone, of any political persuasion, and of any color -- diminish us all."

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey thinks "the two media reports appear to check out," but adds: "I don't think this says anything terribly significant about the election or either candidate. [...] The initial crime had nothing to do with politics at all, so it's not an example of partisan thuggery as one would expect some to paint it. [...] We have many more important issues to debate, and many more cogent reasons to oppose Barack Obama than the offhand cruelty of one criminal in Pittsburgh."

ASSAULT ON COLLEGE STUDENT III: The View From The Left

Several liberal bloggers are have doubts about the story:

• Wonkette's Ken Layne: "From the rest of alleged victim Ashley Todd's Twitter page, we learn she got a speeding ticket, and oh boy she is sure sore about those ACORN people trying to register minorities to vote, and then she is just cold twitterin' while driving around, lost, on the 'wrong side of Pittsburgh' (where blacks are), and of course she doesn't use her phone to call Bank of America and ask where there's a branch, because why do that? And then oh noes she gets mugged out of view of the bank security cameras, and one of Barack Obama's brothers jumps out of the bushes and, uh, sort of gently indents a backwards 'B' on the side of her face, the way you might do such a thing to yourself, using a mirror, if you were a tragic loser trying to get attention -- you know, like that black Tawana Bradley!!! Is any of this real? Because it smells like the dumbest stunt in two years of incredibly dumb stunts."
• Oliver Willis: "Why do I have doubts? Well, there's a history. I'm not saying it isn't true, just that this sort of thing needs verification."

Other liberal bloggers are criticizing Drudge's role in pushing the story:

• The New Republic's Michael Crowley: "Even Michelle Malkin is skeptical about the alleged act of anti-McCain brutality in Pennsylvania that Drudge is pushing like crazy. She's right: That backwards 'B' is pretty hard to explain. It's worth noting that even if true, this sounds like a standard robbery with an insane, politically-related act tacked on after the assailant noticed a McCain bumper sticker. Even in the victim's telling, the original assault was not about politics. [...] Clearly something terrible happened here, but I'd be happy to say nothing about it because it has no real relevance to the campaign--except that it's clear some people, notably Drudge, are determined to make it an issue in a critical swing state where race is probably a factor."
• The Huffington Post's Jeffrey Feldman: "The problem with this crime, however, is not just that it happened, but the way that Matt Drudge has obviously tried to spin it into a political watershed for the 2008 Presidential campaign by rewriting the headline and carefully omitting several crucial elements. The end result is that a mugging punctuated by an odd act of violence has been transformed at the hands of a right-wing media figure to appear like a targeted act of violence against the McCain campaign."
• Mark Kleiman: "Maybe Michelle Malkin is moving too fast in saying that the story has 'shades of...Tawana Brawley all over it,' but certainly caution seems to be in order. The McCain flacks who are pushing this before they know what's there, and people like John Hinderaker who use an incident that perhaps never happened as 'symbolic' of the Obama campaign, are acting disgracefully."

OBAMA: First It Was Voter Fraud, Now It's Donor Fraud

Conservative bloggers are accusing the Obama camp of not doing enough to combat fraudulent online donations (which the New York Times details here):

• The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini: "The Obama campaign has turned its security settings for accepting online contributions down to the bare minimum -- possibly to juice the numbers, and turning a blind eye towards the potential for fraud not just against the FEC, but against unsuspecting victims of credit card fraud. The issue centers around the Address Verification Service (or AVS) that credit card processors use to sniff out phony transactions. I was able to contribute money using an address other than the one on file with my bank account (I used an address I control, just not the one on my account), showing that the Obama campaign deliberately disabled AVS for its online donors. [...] The end result? 'Donors' like 'Doodad Pro' can submit tons of donations totaling well above the $2,300 limit using different bogus addresses (this does clarify how donations from 'Palestine', or PA, got through). And the campaign has no way to reliably de-dupe these donations, besides looking at the last four digits of the credit card number, which with 3.1 million donors is an identifier that could be shared by literally hundreds of donors, and is not as easy to eyeball like a common name or address would be. The ability to contribute with a false address, when the technology to prevent it not only exists but comes standard, is a green light for fraud."
• Geraghty: "Everyone who has ever bought something from a web site knows the basic security precautions taken to prevent fraudulent purchases. It appears that the basic minimum precautions were not in place for Obama's web site, the kind of precautions that were in place for McCain and Hillary [Clinton] (and almost any other candidate or sales web site). This is a huge story. It doesn't necessarily reflect on Obama (although some of my readers won't give him the benefit of the doubt on that) but it sure as hell does reflect on [Obama strategist] David Axelrod, his tech team, and his fundraising team. The press has been telling us about Obama's amazing online donations for more than a year now. There is absolutely no excuse for not digging into this story."
• Erickson: "There is now ample evidence that Barack Obama's campaign has intentionally opted out of credit card address verification services ('AVS') thereby making it extremely easy to contribute to his campaign while the campaign can claim ignorance to theft, excessive contributions, improper contributions, and illegal contributions."
• NRO's Mark Steyn: "The AVS security checks most merchant processors use to screen out fraudulent transactions (and, incidentally, overseas customers) were intentionally disabled by the Obama campaign -- and thus their web donation page enables fraudulent (and/or foreign) donations. The McCain campaign retains the AVS system used by other online retailers and thus rejects fake names and fake addresses. Advantage: Obama!"
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "The Obama campaign has chosen to establish an online contribution system that faciliates illegal anonymous or falsely sourced contributions, illegal foreign contributions and the evasion of contribution limits. Why has it chosen to do so? Why has it not availed itself of the AVS protection that would expose or prevent such illegal contributions?"

Some righty bloggers are denouncing the Obama camp's conduct in even harsher terms:

• Hinderaker: "Everyone knows that Barack Obama has created the biggest money-machine of any politician in American history. But it is becoming increasingly evident that Obama's money-machine is largely fraudulent and therefore criminal. One can imagine a world in which newspaper reporters think it's a serious matter when a Presidential candidate tries to buy an election with illegal and fraudulent contributions. That, of course, is not the world that we live in."
• Ace of Spades: "Draw up the impeachment papers. If Obama wins, we should be ready. This is the deliberate evasion of campaign finance rules. It's shocking the media never checked before -- and apparently isn't even checking now."

PALIN: She Still Doesn't Know What She's Talking About

Liberal bloggers are once again accusing Palin of ignorance after she offered the following definition of "precondition" during her interview with NBC's Brian Williams:

WILLIAMS: Governor Palin, yesterday you tied this notion of an early test to the new president. Would this notion of precondition --
PALIN: Right.
WILLIAMS: -- that you both have been hammering the Obama campaign on. What — first of all, what in your mind is a precondition?
PALIN: You have to have some diplomatic strategy going into a meeting with someone like Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il, one of these dictators that would seek to destroy America or her allies. It is so naive and so dangerous for a presidential candidate to just proclaim that they would be willing to sit down with a- a leader like Ahmadinejad and just talk about the problems, the issues that are facing them. So that -- that's -- that's some ill-preparedness right there.

• Democracy Arsenal's Ilan Goldenberg: "Ummm...What Palin is describing is what would be called preparation not preconditions. Just to be clear. Not negotiating until preconditions are met means not starting your negotiations until the other side has met some kind of condition you imposed. In the case of Iran, McCain insists that the Iranians suspend their uranium enrichment program before we can even begin to negotiate. Obama opposes this precondition. The basic argument against preconditions is that you can't ask your adversary to give up a big negotiating point in exchange for absolutely nothing and expect them to actually sit down at the table. [...] Anyway, this is not very complicated. It also happens to be the crux of one of the most important foreign policy issues being debated between Obama and McCain. You'd think Sarah Palin would understand this."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[Palin's explanation is] just not what preconditions are. As Ilan Goldenberg says, she's talking about the need to prepare before a meeting, which is different, 'not negotiating until preconditions are met means not starting your negotiating until the other side has met some kind of condition you imposed.' That's our current policy -- that we need to isolate Iran until they preemptively give in to all our demands, and then we can talk. Obama's proposal is also Palin's proposal -- to negotiate first in hopes of getting a deal. Of course you have to prepare. You don't just fire up Air Force One and head to Pyongyang without some kind of bargaining strategy and preliminary meetings. But that's uncontroversial."
• Ezra Klein: "[Palin] found herself trying to attack Barack Obama for endorsing negotiations without preconditions but instead accidentally endorsed negotiations without preconditions but condemned negotiations without preparation, which is something we can all agree on."

Yglesias notes that this is not the first time that Palin has strayed from GOP orthodoxy: "One of the virtues of Sarah Palin being badly underbriefed about national security issues, is that she has to rely on common sense to bluff her way through questions, and she keeps accidentally straying from conservative dogma. When asked about the 'Bush Doctrine' of preventive war, she said she embraced the doctrine, but then actually outlined a much more reasonable 'imminent threat' standard for action."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Freedom To Create Your Own Reality

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan:

"If you read Drudge, you might believe that there's a one-point gap between Obama and McCain, and it's neck and neck in the final stretch. If you read 538, you find that McCain's chances of winning this election just shrank dramatically to 3.7 percent from 6.5 percent yesterday. The beauty of the web is that every take has a chance. And the beauty of democracy is that you get to have the final say."

LEST WE FORGET: What Gives A TV Show Bipartisan Appeal?

The Hater's Amelie Gillette:

"Nielsen analyzed several cable channels to determine which shows had the highest level of engagement amongst Republicans or Democrats, and also which shows engaged members of both parties equally. Not surprisingly, Republicans tend to enjoy the Blue-Collar comedy of The Bill Engvall Show, while Democrats watch the shit out of The Colbert Report. But some of the other results were a little surprising: generally, it seems that Democrats love watching people do dangerous, blue-collar jobs (Ax Men, Deadliest Catch), shows that take place in a bar or in close proximity to alcohol (It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, My Boys), and tawdry dating shows involving people who have touched Flava Flav (I Love New York). Republicans, on the other hand, enjoy watching morally bankrupt big city lawyers (Damages), people win money by getting in a big city taxi (Cash Cab), and tawdry dating shows involving Bret Michaels (Rock Of Love).

So what gives a cable TV show bipartisan appeal? Blank stares (The Hills), characters that openly talk to God (Saving Grace, The Cleaner), and competitions where the winner gets to continue to star on cable (The Next Food Network Star, HGTV Design Star). But apparently one of the biggest things that both Republicans and Democrats look for in a cable TV show is a very high jerk judgment quotient. Three of the shows on the bipartisan list (The Hills, What Not To Wear, and The Real Housewives Of Orange County) are reality series that are essentially open invitations for the audience to judge the lives and overindulgent lifestyles of the participants. Judging spoiled, exhibitionist jerks on TV: it's what brings America together!"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at October 24, 2008 01:38 PM