Mitch, while I will not buy into the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory, I will suggest that something similar happened with the Clinton era scandals. The constant yipping about minor scandals that never gained traction with the American public made it hard for the American public to actually pay attention when there was a scandal worth caring about. I think the same thing is going on here. The left keeps blowing its wad on minor stuff, and the public becomes inured to the whole idea of scandals. At this point, I think the administration could get away with anything as long as they don't try clubbing baby harp seals on the White House lawn.

Posted by: Peter at July 5, 2005 11:45 PM

Peter,

I basically agree.

I'm just doing my bit to make sure everyone knows exactly how far over the edge the opposition has gone this time. Other people can (and do) mind the right...

Posted by: mitch at July 6, 2005 12:13 AM

You realize that this could become bigger then the Urban Legends web site.

Posted by: Phil Keary at July 6, 2005 09:42 AM

Mitch,

During the Clinton years, we had daily "gate" reports.

We had "travelgate", "Haircutgate", "bedroomgate", "Whitewatergate", "Fostergate", "Paulagate" etc. etc. etc.

The very last "scandal" we were treated to was the trashing of the White House and Air force One by Clinton Staffers. Remember that Mitch...?

Remember there was an reported 2 million dollars worth of damage done, furnishings were stolen, there was porn and viruses on all of the computers, someone defecated on desks...

Remember...? It was plastered all over FOX News and a continual theme on Hannity...?

Remember the seething outrage of Republican AND democratic Senators and Representatives over these vile, insulting, petty and malicious actions against an incoming president perpetrated by bitter and out of control Clinton staffers?

Remember that the GAO reported after investigating these heinous crimes that it was all bullshit...?

Remember that the White House finally acknowledged that the stories being repeated over and over were crap but it took them weeks to finally correct the story - after all of the Damage had already been done...?

Why is it that a story with no basis in fact, no National security implications, no merit what-so-ever gets unprecedented coverage on FOX and later the entire broadcast news spectrum yet other stories with potential serious implications get barely a mention...?

What exactly is the mechanism in place that allows that to happen Mitch?

Now that some of these stories, no WMD's, Downing Street, Rove are finally getting some of the attention they deserve, you guys jump into discredit/mimimalize/vilify mode.

If you watch FOX News, which I suspect you do, pay attention to the packaging Mitch. A non-story that needs sensationalizing like Durbins comments... cool graphics and it's own sound effect then endless analysis by FOX propogandists.

Stories that need to be buried... no comment or simple an abridged mention as the 12th news item.

I would suspect you know I'm right but would never acknowledge it. It's not the legitimacy of the item, it's the influence of the media. You work in radio so I'm sure you remember the concept of payola Mitch. You can sell an idea more easily than you can sell a product because there's no investment needed from the consumer.

If I'm wrong, explain why nearly every book that Oprah recommends becomes a best seller even if it's marginal at best. Explain why, when the facts didn't support a war against Iraq, a majority of Americans supported the war.

Since you appear to be a student of early alternative music, you might be interested in a band called "The Saints, an album titled "Eternally Yours" and a cut titled "Know your Product".

Posted by: Dan at July 6, 2005 09:53 AM

Dan,

Duh.

I mean, no f*****g kidding. (How's that for acknowledging?) There were a zillion scandalettes during the Clinton Administration. And they certainly hurt the GOP.

I'm just doing my bit to make sure the current round of carping costs the Dems at least as much. Because it's for certain the media won't do it (like they did for the GOP during the Clinton administration).

Posted by: mitch at July 6, 2005 10:22 AM

Re: Dan at July 6, 2005 09:53 AM

Perjurygate is the one I remember from the Clinton era. That's the important one.

Posted by: RBMN at July 6, 2005 10:35 AM

Oh, by the way, Dan,

"If you watch FOX News, which I suspect you do..."

Wrong again, lil' feller. I watch almost zero TV news. I don't even know what channel Fox News (or, for that matter, CNN) is on my cable system.

"...pay attention to the packaging Mitch. A non-story that needs sensationalizing like Durbins comments... cool graphics and it's own sound effect then endless analysis by FOX propogandists."

On the rare occasions I watch TV news, I pay more attention to the "packaging" than to the content, honestly. Guess what; the major newscasts and the other cable networks are exactly the same.

Watch Katie Couric do an interview, for that matter; body language, vocal tone, the whole works, plus the production values.

Fox is only a pioneer in terms of the intensity of the packaging - how much they throw at the viewer per minute. The idea itself - careful spin management, selection of sources, selective myopia - is nothing new.

Posted by: mitch at July 6, 2005 10:45 AM

Here are a few scandalettes:

secret energy meetings between Cheney and ????

Cheney and Scalia go duck hunting -- possibly getting a few lobbyist perks as well.

Scalia uses only half of a round-trip airline ticket

White House okays Saudi exit flights when nobody else is allowed to fly

White House obscures cost of prescription drug benefit -- guy who misrepresented numbers to Congress goes on to be a pharmaceutical lobbyist.

And from the LOONY LEFT:

secret government underwater tests trigger tsunami

Rove plant gives CBS bogus memo and gives Powerline a heads up

Hey, let's make some up:

Bush buddies at Diebold Election Systems rig outcome of American Idol voting.

Cheney and Scalia go fishing off Aruba, on a lobbyist's boat, using Natalee Holloway as bait.

Posted by: Peter at July 6, 2005 10:46 AM

Love 'em! I'll have to dig up the links tonite!

And I thought they used Natalie Mains as bait?

Posted by: mitch at July 6, 2005 10:47 AM

Mitch: Easy on the affectation in the first paragraph! After four pairs of sarcasm-drenched quotes in one sentence, I was full up on arch hauteur.

The knife-carving over this latest development in the Plame story is premature, however fat and juicy Rove may appear. Still, there is an actual story here that bears watching, especially today's ruling on Matthew Cooper.

Conveniently, there's a post on the front page of TPM Cafe calling for a scandalog: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/6/103925/5696

It's your chance to make some hay!

Posted by: Ernst Stavro Blofeld at July 6, 2005 11:23 AM

Mitch, not sure if these Salon links are any good to non-subscribers, but here goes:

Bush not taking enough questions from female reporters at news conferences
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000944779

Duck Hunt
http://archive.salon.com/opinion/scheer/2004/02/17/quack/

Tsunami conspiracy
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200501/FOR20050107b.html

Another Tsunami theory -- this one uses a variation of how to get your letter published in the Strib by pretending to be a disgruntled Republican
http://www.etherzone.com/2005/dale040805.shtml

Scalia ticket
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/travel/04prac.html?ex=1120795200&en=9479bb495c483a24&ei=5070

Medicare prescription drug benefit
(I should get a bonus as this article contains a Pelosi quote: "An ethical cloud has hung over the Republican Medicare law . . . ."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12118-2005Feb9.html

Are you including DeLay stuff? There's a DeLay scandal related to the medicare prescription drug benefit:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63387-2004Sep30.html

Posted by: Peter at July 6, 2005 12:54 PM

It is the scattergun approach. If only one scandal sticks they win.

Posted by: davod at July 6, 2005 02:11 PM

Bonus! You can title every post exactly the same.....

Impeach Bushitler!

And pray, don't forget whathisname....What is his name? The reporter guy? This is all running together.

Ah yes. Gannon/Guckert

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/secret_service_gannon_424.htm

Posted by: Sandy at July 6, 2005 04:42 PM

I had a post about some idiots that did a show that implied Bush was behind 9/11. In doing that post I caught a quote by a German official claiming that people don't believe that. So I did a quick check and found that this is just the tip of the iceberg:
Hello, Morgan Rockwell, I'm Earth. Have we met? Morgan thinks that the WTC were a demolision project by Bush & Co.

And don't forget the moonbats that thought that there was no plane to hit the Pentagon. 'Where were the plane parts?'

Posted by: tony at July 6, 2005 08:49 PM

Mitch - any one of the Downing Street Memo stories....

Posted by: Cindy at July 6, 2005 08:53 PM

Typical Mitch deflection...

As I'm sure you're aware, my post was highlighting the manner in which FOX chooses to sensationalize SELECT items.

"A non-story that needs sensationalizing like Durbins comments... cool graphics and it's own sound effect then endless analysis by FOX propogandists.

Stories that need to be buried... no comment or simple an abridged mention as the 12th news item."

Your response is centered on only the first part - and you insinuate that all news outlets are doing the same.

Sorry but this selective embellishment is, as they say, a FOX News exclusive.

What I find really enlightening is that, just as in the case where you comment on polling results and methodology you've never actually read, here you comment on a News organization that you don't even watch.

Here's the exchange Mitch.

""If you watch FOX News, which I suspect you do..."

Wrong again, lil' feller. I watch almost zero TV news. I don't even know what channel Fox News (or, for that matter, CNN) is on my cable system."

How does one form an opinion about something he has no direct knowledge of Mitch?

You're establishing quite a pattern here.

You read and reference selections that you can use to support your argument but ignore the context. You comment on things you don't have the fact about and you consistently present yourself as being above and outside of the influences of the mainstream media.

I recall you commenting about "republicans" who write op-ed pieces condemning republican leaders. Well Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot.

Did you actually read Durbins WORDS before commenting on them or did you just regurgitate what you were told by O'limbaugitty? Interesting isn't it that almost every rightwing conservative pundit echoed the exact same words.

Now, here you are collecting bits of goodies by asking your readers to contribute anything that they consider a scandal created in the minds of liberals and progressives.

What you're doing, for example, is reducing the outing of a CIA operative with potential criminal implications to the same level as Bill Clinton allegedly holding up flights so he could get a haircut.

That's pretty irresponsible Mitch and if you were really a conservative Libertarian as you seem to suggest, you would be looking for solutions rather than contributing to liberal hate machine.

Posted by: Dan at July 7, 2005 08:24 AM

Dan,

"Typical Mitch deflection..."

As we shall see, it's you who's doing the deflecting.

"As I'm sure you're aware, my post was highlighting the manner in which FOX chooses to sensationalize SELECT items...Stories that need to be buried... no comment or simple an abridged mention as the 12th news item...Your response is centered on only the first part - and you insinuate that all news outlets are doing the same."

Insinuate? No, I said it flat-out. All news outlets punch up or spike stories depending on many factors - marketing, playing for viewers during sweeps, and of course bias.

" Sorry but this selective embellishment is, as they say, a FOX News exclusive. "

I show you examples up the wazoo, Dan, and could show hundreds more, of it being an ecumenical practice. You keep saying it's a Fox thing, but it's just not true. Where on earth do you get that idea? Is it the revealed Word of Kos or something?

" What I find really enlightening is that, just as in the case where you comment on polling results and methodology you've never actually read, here you comment on a News organization that you don't even watch."

Speaking of selective embellishment, Dan. Sheesh.

I've read and watched them all. I just don't watch any news network daily. Watching television atrophies the brain, and I do it very sparingly.

"How does one form an opinion about something he has no direct knowledge of Mitch?"

Dan, I have more direct knowledge of the media than you ever will! It was my first career! I know people in the business! Turn that same question on yourself!

"You comment on things you don't have the fact about"

As we've seen in this thread, so do you - in job lots.

"and you consistently present yourself as being above and outside of the influences of the mainstream media."

More so than the average person? Yes.

"I recall you commenting about "republicans" who write op-ed pieces condemning republican leaders. Well Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot."

Huh?

OK, we're playing the non-sequitur game, right? All right: "There are no bones in ice cream".

How'd I do?

"Did you actually read Durbins WORDS before commenting on them or did you just regurgitate what you were told by O'limbaugitty? Interesting isn't it that almost every rightwing conservative pundit echoed the exact same words."

There's that "not knowing the facts" thing again. I catch Limbaugh about four times a year (I work for a living), and have not caught ten minutes of Hannity in my life.

And we came to the same conclusion because it really is the only *rational* conclusion one can make.

"Now, here you are collecting bits of goodies by asking your readers to contribute anything that they consider a scandal created in the minds of liberals and progressives. "

Yep.

"What you're doing, for example, is reducing the outing of a CIA operative with potential criminal implications to the same level as Bill Clinton allegedly holding up flights so he could get a haircut."

Er, I'm not assigning value, lil' feller. Just collecting the stories.

"That's pretty irresponsible Mitch and if you were really a conservative Libertarian as you seem to suggest, you would be looking for solutions rather than contributing to liberal hate machine."

I AM the solution, Dan. I am the alternative media. And I'm holding the liberal hate machine accountable, day in, day out. I never blink, I sleep five hours a night, and I will be here long after they've taken their stock options and retired to Hilton Head.

Posted by: mitch at July 7, 2005 09:20 AM

"Er, I'm not assigning value, lil' feller. Just collecting the stories."

Uh huh...

What was that you said...

"I'm also going to try to capture links to the "scandals" with which the Dems slopped the public trough in the past year or two, to try start building the case for completely disregarding all Democrat scandalmongery and conspiracy theorizing."

Sure Mitch. No assigning value at all. None what-so-ever.

Posted by: Dan at July 7, 2005 09:06 PM