Cliff LyonIn Honor of OneUtah’s Most Loyal Soldier
My good friend Ken Bingham, is the kind of guy you want on your side in any battle. Unfortunately, he is on the ‘other’ side. But his disciplined and reliability in bringing us the latest right-wing canard hot off the starting line is appreciated and welcome.
This gem has spread like fire across the Internet. When I Googled this latest smear and found an unbelievably well coordinated attack well-underway across the Internet.
Led it would appear by Drudge, this drivel from one of the most hated Republican Governors in modern history (Matt Blunt -MO) is everywhere.
Follows is the REAL story for your consideration. Please spread it around.
Reprinted from:
Blunt, GOP say Obama ‘truth squad’ seeks to squash free speech with police power
Democrats: It’s a manufactured controversy
Chad Livengood • clivengood at news-leader.com • September 27, 2008
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — Gov. Matt Blunt and Republicans are accusing Barack Obama’s campaign of assembling a “truth squad” with law enforcement officials to intimidate Obama critics from speaking out against the Democratic presidential candidate.
Yet a top Republican National Committee official admits the Democratic prosecutors from across Missouri “haven’t specifically said” they would use their prosecutorial powers on Obama’s behalf.
Using his taxpayer-funded press office to level a political attack, Blunt issued a statement Saturday to denounce the unproven allegations.
“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment,” Blunt said in a written statement.
On Wednesday, Obama’s Missouri campaign announced U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill would lead a group of Democratic lawmakers, prosecutors and one sheriff “who will be proactive in letting voters in the Show-Me State know the truth in the face of the distortions by the McCain campaign,” according to a news release.
The group includes prosecutors from St. Louis, Dunklin, Lafayette, Cass, Clay, Ripley, Audrain and Jackson counties volunteering to be surrogates for Obama on their own time.
The Missouri Truth Squad will “respond quickly, forcefully, and aggressively when John McCain or his allies launch inaccurate claims or character attacks about Barack Obama, or when they distort Barack Obama’s record or plans.”
In a conference call Saturday with reporters from battleground states, Obama national campaign manager David Plouffe said those who spread lies and mistruths about the Illinois senator have to be “held accountable,” but did not elaborate how.
Despite having law enforcement officials on the truth squad, none of them have publicly said they will invoke their official powers to enforce facts about Obama’s record.
The controversy was sparked by a KMOV televion report featuring St. Louis County Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Attorney Jennifer Joyce saying they would respond to paid advertising twisting Obama’s record (the story was picked up by influential right-wing blogger Matt Drudge).
They never said they would invoke their powers, but Republicans say just attaching their law enforcement titles to their names for political reasons gives off a perception of a police state.
“Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society,” Blunt said in his 258-word statement.
Frank Donatelli, deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee, held a conference call with reporters Saturday morning while touring the state’s offices for GOP presidential candidate John McCain.
In a telephone interview with the News-Leader, Donatelli admitted the Democratic prosecutors “haven’t specifically said” they would use their prosecutorial powers on Obama’s behalf.
“I don’t think you have to use the power. I think if you just call out somebody and you have the power, you’ve made your point,” Donatelli told the News-Leader. “It’s not that you have to prosecute a guy, but people think you might.”
Donatelli said prosecutors don’t normally join campaign truth squads because their mere presence as a campaign attack dog “has a chilling affect on people’s rights of free speech.”
But a review of McCain’s own truth squads shows he has a district attorney from New Mexico and the South Carolina attorney general ready to respond to misleading ads from Obama and Democrats in their respective states.
Democrats maintain the GOP has twisted the context of a news report to manufacture this controversy.
“It is the height of absurdity that Governor Blunt would try to deceive voters about the role of respected Missourians across the state who want to see this election be about the truth, not false attacks like the ones we’ve seen today,” said Justin Hamilton, spokesman for Obama’s Missouri campaign. “It’s clear why Missouri voters are rejecting the kind of campaign that they’re running.”
In his statement, Blunt said Obama “needs to grow up.”
“Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family,” the governor said. “Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them."
September 28th, 2008 at 10:14 am
To refer to McCain’s campaign of lies as “free debate” is another lie.
I’d like to think dishonest character attacks won’t get the low-information voters to turn against Senator Obama, but the same tactic worked against Gore and Kerry.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Blunt said he has “exposed plans.” He does not site any incident of actual treats to anyone. I watched the video. There was no statement from the interviewed individuals to indicate they planned to doing anything in their official capacity of enforcing laws. Claire McCaskill is too smart to do anything that stupid. Federal and State employees are trained about the law about not campaigning on official time or while wearing a uniform.
It has not been in the KC Star or any major news site. Searching the web only finds the story on a few small websites.
It appears to be a smear by Republican Matt Blunt, who is so unpopular that he is not running for reelection.
On Their Own Time - NOT Illegal
“On Wednesday, Obama’s Missouri campaign announced U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill would lead a group of Democratic lawmakers, prosecutors and one sheriff “who will be proactive in letting voters in the Show-Me State know the truth in the face of the distortions by the McCain campaign,” according to a news release.
The group includes prosecutors from St. Louis, Dunklin, Lafayette, Cass, Clay, Ripley, Audrain and Jackson counties volunteering to be surrogates for Obama on their own time.”
Another reason for Blunts attacks. Obama has been gradually going up in Missouri polls.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Obama is looking more and more like a graduate of the Castro school of governance. It’s scary to think of this radical leftist having control of our country’s law enforcement and justice system.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Matt Blunt and his father Roy are two of the most crooked Republican politicians in the history of this country, and considering the low character of most Repugs, that’s saying something. They have absolutely no business slandering Barrack Obama, or any of the fine people trying to defend him from the Republican slime machine. I just wish they’d both crawl back under the rock they slithered from.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Jitterbug– Most of us think Senator Obama isn’t progressive enough in his policy positions. If you have evidence of Obama’s “radical leftist” views, please present it here or offer us a link.
Unless you view the Presidency as a dictatorship (the way Bush does), then you have to admit that the White House only controls federal law enforcement. The judiciary is a separate branch of government which the Chief Executive has no control over.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:41 am
The appearance of using police powers to support a political campaign should be avoided, and the prosecutors in this “truth squad” should at least know that.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:53 am
This is not an isolated incident with Barack Obama and his strong arm tactics to silence his critics. The Obama goon squad has sent letters to the Justice Department demanding investigations of GOP donors as Well as Well respected Journalist Howard Kurtz who has exposed Obama’s extremely close relationship with domestic terrorist William Ayers. This is reminiscent of Bill Clinton using the IRS to intimidate conservative groups. Obama has attempt to intimidate TV stations that dare run ads exposing Obama’s deep relationship with the terrorist Ayers. Obama is already showing he will not tolerate any descent and will not hesitate to use the strong arm of the law to silence anyone who dares speak out against him. Hitler in the making? When you have a charismatic leader that has the press and millions of people blindly following that is exactly what you get.
Obama is the most closed candidate ever. The Clinton’s kept many of their past writings and papers secret but Obama has taken this to new heights. Much of Obama’s past has been hidden from the public. He has long periods of his life where there is virtually no records. Even his college papers are hidden and he has never produced an official birth certificate. It’s not a question whether Barack Obama is a Manchurian Candidate, the only question is who are the “Manchurians” behind him.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Hi Michael from Long Beach. At least as important as avoiding the “appearance of using polices powers,” is being a responsible informed American.
You are clearly uninformed on this canard. “Police Powers?”
Please pay attention young man!
September 28th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Prosecutors do have police powers. After all, they have the power to file criminal charges.
And there should be no debate that these prosecutors should avoid the appearance of using their police powers to support a political campaign.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Michael,
To claim that the ability to file criminal charges is a “police power” is analogous to saying Congress has police powers.
Lets be honest. You are using ‘police powers’ hyperbolically (if thats a word).
I commend you for being a fighter. I’m sorry you have to stoop so low.
Tell, what REALLY bothers you about having a black president?
September 28th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Wow Ken, Unbelievable!
Hey listen. Given the the ongoing corrupt and criminal strong-arm tactics of the Republicans in the last 2 stolen elections, not to mention the full on abuse of our civil liberties, the Justice department activity, the false imprisonment of a sitting Alabama Governor…
I will admit, I fully support the strongest-arm tactics possible.
For starters, Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rove, Rumsfeld, Yoo, Feith, and many others should be arrested and join the other Republicans already in jail.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Ken, Are you suggesting Obama is actually the product of a long-term plan by foriegn interests to take over the US by infiltrating the Government?
Please do elaborate.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:36 am
The Missouri news report on Channel 4. Youtube
September 28th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Standard GOP method:
(1) Break the law, ignore the Constitution, violate civil liberties, engage in rampant corruption, election fraud, voter suppression…
(2) Accuse the Democrats, without evidence, of doing what you’ve been doing for years.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Maybe this will be helpful:
The Obama campaign didn’t ask Joe and Jane Citizen to help out, they asked them as prosecutors and sheriffs, That makes this section applicable.
September 28th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I would love to elaborate. The “Manchurians”, in Obama’s case, aren’t necessarily a foreign government but a collection of radical fringe groups spearheaded by people like William Ayres who have had deep associations with Obama throughout his college days up to today. Investigators trying to piece together Obama’s history have reported hitting brick walls and discovering huge gaps in Obama’s life. There is strong evidence that Obama’s official “auto-biography” was ghost written by William Ayres himself because the writing style of Baracks book fits the word print of Ayres and not Obama. What makes Obama so dangerous is that the mainstream media has never asked the question of him that is standard for other candidates. Sarah Palin is getting an anal exam from the media but when it comes to Barack his past is a taboo subject in many news rooms. Obama’s past has been hidden so thoroughly that no one except his inner circle really knows who and what he is. This represents a threat to our national security because he very well could be sponsored by enemies of this country and that is too much of a risk.
September 28th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Bob S.:
Good to know you are still among the living - long time no parlay.
You cited a statute, now apply it to the facts, just like you did hundreds of times re gun control.
September 28th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Ken:
Your paranoia is now bordering on the ridiculous. Or, on the other hand, you have simply run out of material with which to attack Obama. Poor guy, your head must be about ready to explode; better pull it out of your rear end, lest you lose that, too!.
September 28th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Ken, you are proof that the misinformation campaign works. Example: Obama posted his birth certificate on his official web site months ago, but apparently you haven’t heard that correction yet. Do you suggest he should just let people like you continue to spread lies to scare people? Free speech is a two-way street.
September 28th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Here is Obama’s “Birth Certificate” on his official website. My Hawaii had some nice laser printers back in 1961 I see. They must have had a lower budget in 1963 however because if you look at this actual 1963 Hawaiian Birth Certificate they had to go with the real technology of the day, the common typewriter. Maybe they used an ink jet? Oh yeah they were not invented yet either.
As I recall Dan Rather was booted out of CBS because he produced a phony document that was printed on a laser printer when they had not been invented at the time the document was allegedly produced, and that document was in the late 60s.
September 28th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
JFarmer,
Simple, if those people shown on the news reports address any issues and identify themselves as acting in their capacity, or allow the people to assume they are acting in their capacity then the “color of the law” apply.
1st amendment rights as they pertain to campaigning allows considerable leeway on what is acceptable. Already the Obama campaign is working to get the media not to run the NRA ads.
Just the threat of being taken to court or legal proceedings started could convince people to stop publishing or running ads against Obama.
The NRA ads are a great example of this.
September 28th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Cliff already said this in his post, but I would like to sincerely thank Ken for bringing right-wing anti-Obama smears to our attention. The volume of lies is getting to be overwhelming and I can’t keep up, especially since I don’t read Drudge regularly.
Bob S.– I’m impressed by your principled commitment to the rule of law. Where were you when President Bush was relying on low-wattage lawyers like John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales?
September 28th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Ken,
We do have the ability, in modern times, to re-print/re-issue birth records.
I do not have my birth certificate either. But if I went back to PA to get a copy, I doubt very much if it would be 48 years old.
September 28th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Bob:
So, are you saying that a threat to enforce the law if broken is a bad thing? And all this time I thought you were all about the law and enforcing it. My mistake.
September 28th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Ken, please look at Factcheck.org Updated August 28, 2008. Unless you are a serious conspiracy theorist, you’ll have to conclude the birth certificate is real.
Here are a few links to help with your fair and balanced research on the matter:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
September 28th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
JF,
Nope, that is one thing if a law is broken but that isn’t what the “Truth Squad” is trying to enforce….otherwise Obama’s campaign wouldn’t have to do anything.
Notice the one sided nature of it, the prosecutors and sheriffs aren’t going after anyone just McCain’s campaign.
Also note they aren’t talking about the law being broken, just what they don’t like:
Inaccurate claims, character attacks or distortions –do those meet the legal requirement for breaking the law? Probably not, probably just things Obama doesn’t want people to hear. Like the NRA Ads.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Bekkieann,
Factcheck may not be the impartial source everyone believes them to be.
Why does Annenberg sound so familar?
Gee, who is an anti-gun candidate?
September 28th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
This McCain campaign isn’t organized enough. McCain says Obama is “scary” because he is naive and inexperienced. Now the paid liars are convincing Ken that he has been trained and preened for decades to impose martial law.
Which is it?
The biggest threat this country is experiencing right now is people are actually fighting for their right to remain stupid. Bob S WANTS the media to be controlled by corporate fat cats who lie about everything. It’s not surprising at all what side he is coming down on here.
Oh, I’m sorry, I’m not supposed to hate the fact that the republicans have ruined my country and that I wake up every morning now wondering if we’re ALL going to be living in the streets or working to make trinkets for richer societies elsewhere.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Larry,
I’ve tried to be nice, but when you make misleading statements about me, it’s no longer time to be nice.
You say:
.
Prove it or retract it. Prove it with my words.
September 28th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Bob S., are you saying that donations automatically negate an organization’s impartiality? If so, we can have a heyday with that.
But instead, please just let me know what you found to be questionable in FactCheck’s report. Do you also believe the certificate is not real? And in that case do you think McCain is actually running against someone who is not a U.S. citizen?
I find it incredible that any of you who believe this, don’t think for a second that the McCain campaign would have the most to gain by proving this to be the case. And they would have exposed the truth by now — if the truth were in their best interest. It turns out innuendo is in their best interest instead.
The argument is becoming silly.
September 28th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
So police powers are a myth?
September 28th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Last two stolen elections?
Now we know that you are a kook.
September 29th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Bob S:
You believe the ownership of our public airwaves and what goes on them should be controlled by whoever has the most money. I look for more romance. The fairness doctrine would END Limbaugh and Hannity because they would look foolish trying to debate their dogma with an intelligent 12 year old. Why are you afraid of the fairness doctrine, Bob?
September 29th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Larry,
I fear the fairness doctrine because it wouldn’t be applied equally and I think that you know this, that is why the liberals want it.
Would the fairness doctrine require “The View” to hire more conservatives so that Hasselbeck wouldn’t be the only conservative on a show with 4 other liberals?
How about the fairness doctrine on PBS? NPR? Would those organizations be subjected to the same requirements? Probably not.
The “Fairness Doctrine” is directed at talk radio, a free market place where the liberals are having much success. It is not about having conservatives debate anyone, it’s about having equal air time for the liberals.
The problems with the “Fairness Doctrine” is allowing the government to review a private business, who has already paid for the privilege of being on the air, and determining if that business is “balanced”. There is no need for it, want more liberal shows on the air? Start them, support Air America, call the stations and demand it.
The fairness doctrine is just another way to use the government to do something that the people have decided they don’t want to support.
September 29th, 2008 at 5:41 am
BekkieAnn,
I’m not saying that donations negate an organizations impartiality.
I am saying that we need to show there are connections that were known prior to this. Factcheck.org purports to be a-political, but given the connections between Obama’s projects and the organizations benefactors I wonder.
I’m not referring to the birth certificate issue so much as the review of the NRA ads by Factcheck.
There is too much of its false because Obama said so in their review of the NRA ads. Never mind Obama voting records, stated positions prior to the campaign,etc; because Obama said he is a supporter of the 2nd amendment everyone should believe it. Just call me skeptical.
September 29th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Okay, Bob. I don’t agree with you about FactCheck nor Obama, but you have a reasonable premise there. I’m glad to see you aren’t the wild-eyed paranoiac Ken is, at least.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Larry,
Show me where I’ve said this.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Bob S.– Don’t confuse the (now-defunct) Fairness Doctrine with the equal-time rule. The Fairness Doctrine simply said that public affairs programming on the public airwaves ought to be honest, equitable, and balanced. It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.
The equal-time rule is still in effect, however it applies only to political candidates.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Richard,
Who gets to decide what is “honest, equitable, and balanced”?
Is the Jon Stewart show “honest, equitable and balanced”? “The View”? CNN? FoxNews?
Should it apply to print media as well as those going out over the airwaves?
At one time, looong ago, the “fairness doctrine” might have had a purpose:
Now today, most areas have a large selection of broadcast media to choose from, so is this really a valid issue or as I’ve said an attempt to limit the conservative broadcasters?
September 29th, 2008 at 9:48 am
The public still owns the airwaves. I do think the publicly-owned broadcast bands are no place for propaganda, which is what right-wing talk radio is. The FCC would get to decide who’s honest, equitable and balanced– if we still had the Fairness Doctrine that the GOP took away.
Of course, “The Daily Show” is on cable, but yes, it’s fair (John McCain has been on with Jon Stewart many times, Barack Obama only once). I never watch “The View,” but I’ll point out that the (defunct) Fairness Doctrine applied to stations and networks, not individual shows. CNN is offers nonstop right-wing talking points and Faux News is pure propaganda, but they are cable networks.
I don’t want to limit free speech, only propaganda. And only on the public airwaves, where broadcasters receive a license to serve all citizens equally.