S-CHIP: Anatomy Of A DSCC / Media Smear On Sen. McConnell

Quick Update: And they are unfairly going after Bush, as well. As for this below, Dem Op Matt Miller drove the Foley scandal, now he's using misleading and false statements to target Minority Leader McConnell R-KY.

Despite, or perhaps because of the S-CHIP stalemate in Washington, liberal media outlets including the New York Times, Think Progress and now the Courier Journal in Louisville, Kentucky continue to somewhat sinisterly flame one aspect of the S-CHIP story at the urging of Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) staffer Matt Miller, even though the narrative they've woven isn't at all supported by the facts.

I've obtained a copy of one of allegedly many emails Miller has used to try and gin up buzz around a false story targeted at the Republican Leader. And as you'll see below, it seems the liberal media likes its gin.

From: Matthew Miller [mailto:(redacted)
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 4:11 PM
To: Matthew Miller
Subject: KY Station Asks: Did McConnell mislead public?

In case you missed it, the Louisville Courier-Journal reported this morning that Senator Mitch McConnell’s office played a key role in spreading false information about a 12-year old boy who receives health insurance from the SCHIP program.  Now Kentucky television station WHAS is reporting that McConnell appears to have misled the public when he denied any involvement in the story on Friday.  McConnell is now caught between his public statement denying any role in spreading the story, and his spokesman’s admission that he did.

Interesting that it would be Miller, you might remember him from his Mark Foley infamy and his links to Rahm Emmanuel.

Matt Miller, who was communications director for the House Democratic Caucus in 2005, testified before the ethics committee that he gave the (Foley) e-mails to the DCCC. Miller was also the source who gave the e-mails to reporters from The Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg Times, and later, to a reporter for Harper's magazine.

As a result of Miller's current smear campaign, today, critics of conservatism in general and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, in particular, continue to fuel unfounded allegations that the Minority Leader's office had a hand in a smear that didn't actually take place. Below is an analysis of the facts. A new editorial from the Courier Journal:

McConnell versus truth - Mitch McConnell can't have it both ways.

He can't luxuriate in a reputation for personal caution and political control, yet claim he knew nothing about the role his office tried to play in sliming a Baltimore boy and his family when they came forward in support of the SCHIP health care expansion.

This Courier Journal account even quotes Miller and presents his false smear of McConnell as fact. Why don't they just turn the paper over to the DSCC's Miller and save the sweat?

Matthew Miller, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in an e-mail yesterday that "spreading false rumors about a 12-year-old boy is despicable for any reason."

"No matter how McConnell's office spins it now, the e-mail makes clear that they were part of the campaign to smear a child who had the nerve to stand up and say children's health insurance shouldn't be cut," Miller said.

First, there was absolutely no genuine smearing of 12 year-old Graeme Frost. Not one media outlet fueling that charge has produced a single line written by any reputable Right-side blogger to support the false claim. Additionally, there is absolutely no evidence of anything at all negative about the boy or his family that appears to have been generated by McConnell or any of his staff. While many bloggers challenged the notion that a family in the Frost's financial situation might cause some Americans to think about whether or not the entitlement program was good policy, no one ever suggested they weren't qualified under current guidelines as details of their situation became available thanks to bloggers. Neither the DNC, nor the media did its job in vetting the family in the first place, as even mostly liberal CNN was forced to point out after bloggers did the leg work.

I think in this instance what happened was the Democrats didn’t do as much of a vetting as they could have done on this young man, his situation, his family.

Think Progress accused the Senator's office of "propagating the (non-)smear campaign" when all staffer Don Stewart did was alert some mainstream journalists to the buzz on the blogs. That's something any responsible staffer should do when it comes to breaking political news given the impact of new media, including blogs, today. Stewart made no charges, but simply pointed out what was being said on the blogs and then, according to sources, promptly followed up with two additional emails waving any potentially interested reporters off the story. One of those emails has been documented in previous press reports.

But Don Stewart, the Kentucky Republican's communications director, said he also wrote a follow-up e-mail later the same day that said a blogger he respected had determined that there was no story and that "the family is legit."

But let's not let the facts get in the way. Enter the New York Times' Paul Krugman, who penned a malicious, misleading piece attacking McConnell on October 12 which was full of falsehoods. It was subsequently picked up by the Louisville Courier-Journal in print on the fourteenth (no link available).

In fact, however, Republicans had already made their first move: an e-mail message from the office of Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, sent to reporters and obtained by the Web site Think Progress, repeated the smears against the Frosts and asked: “Could the Dems really have done that bad of a job vetting this family?”

In reality all the email did was repeat some very basic financial information which turned out to be true, while suggesting the press might want to look into it for themselves. There never even was any smear, unless of course pointing out that someone is middle-class has suddenly become an insult. Also, as Michelle Malkin, lead blogger on the story, noted here, there was no involvement between McConnell's office and bloggers at all.

Snort-worthy reverse conspiracy theorizing of the day: ThinkProgress in a tizzy over a McConnell aide’s e-mail to reporters about blogger coverage of Harry Reid’s poster child abuse, which the left-wing group touts as proof! proof! that McConnell was “involved in the right-wing campaign to smear Graeme Frost and his family.” He’s no more “involved” in the “right-wing smear” than CNN or any of the other MSM outlets trailing behind and finally asking hard-headed questions about the story behind the story.

WHAS 11 News managed to get McConnell on the record video here and now the liberal media and bloggers allege it's somehow proof that McConnell is lying. That's absurd. See transcript below. There was no leak and also see the clarification from Stewart below which the very media now accusing McConnell of lying actually printed itself. They know it's a bogus story but continue to cherry pick quotes and fuel the flames of a controversy that never really existed.

REPORTER: “Was there a leak from your office bashing that 12-year-old that made the Democratic response?”

McCONNELL: “No.”

REPORTER: “There wasn’t?”

McCONNELL: “No.”

REPORTER: “Was there an indication that your office was trying to push reporters to try and dig into this 12-year-old’s background?”

McCONNELL: “No”

REPORTER: “Then what was the deal with the email?”

McCONNELL: “What?”

REPORTER: “What was the deal with the email from your staffer?”

McCONNELL: “There was no involvement whatsoever.”

REPORTER: “From your staff.”

McCONNELL: “None.”

STEWART: "This is what I told McConnell: They said we tried to get this story started with the blogs. We did not. And part two, we spiked the story. Those are the two things I told him. Which is what he responded to. No, we didn't start the story and that we spiked it.

"I told him that we spiked it, so his answer would make sense to him, that no, we didn't try to get reporters to dig into this," Stewart said.

You don't need a calender to know we're heading into an election year. All you have to do is monitor the sleazy Democrat spin machine working behind the scenes and the all too often complicit mainstream media to figure that one out.

Comments

[Fred Beloit]

So now these rabid nitwits and propagandists are phoney-soldiering Mitch McConnell. From one so-called scandal to the next. Like jumping rocks to cross a stream. And the stream is in reality an open sewer of Liberal and MSM filth.

[Fred Beloit]

Now you want to see a real scandal? A Democraticic Congressperesonage, though clearly insane, gives aid and comfort to our country's enemies wherever they might be in time of war. His constituents must be proud, eh Boob?

http://plucrs.blogspot.com/2007/10/vod-peter-stark-unhinged.html

[IslamoLlama]

"As for this below, Dem Op Matt Miller drove the Foley scandal, now he's using misleading and false statements to target Minority Leader McConnell R-KY."

Are you still trying to defend Mark Foley? Seriously? Wow.

"First, there was absolutely no genuine smearing of 12 year-old Graeme Frost. Not one media outlet fueling that charge has produced a single line written by any reputable Right-side blogger to support the false claim."

If you haven't picked up the smear - and being one of the smear-jokeys yourself, that's pretty amazing - it's simple. The smear was that Graeme Frost should never have been enrolled in the program, that he was, in fact, the child of rich parents who's incomes greatly exceeded the allowed limits of the CHIP program. All that talk of $20k educations and granite counter tops was intended to suggest that Mr Frost had access to well more than the $45k/year he claimed as his income. And, by extension, his son was a social parasite leeching off a program intended for the "truly poor", whomever they may be.

"Think Progress accused the Senator's office of "propagating the (non-)smear campaign" when all staffer Don Stewart did was alert some mainstream journalists to the buzz on the blogs."

Indeed. Right wing blogs, like Stalkin' Malkin, tried to dig up dirt on the Frost family and, failing, decided to present everything from rampant speculation to full-on lies as revealed truth. Stewart then proceeded to contact MSM outlets and inform them that the right wing blogs' bogus information was, in fact, legitimate dirt on the Frost family. He was merely the middle-man in the gossip chain, but he was a vital link between Malkin's fact-free blog and the local newsroom desktop.

Now McConnell is taking heat because his office decided to throw its weight behind a pack of lies. And you seem pissed that people are calling him out on it. Perhaps the Republican Minority Leader could stand up and take a little responsibility for his roll in the scandal, but instead he's going to duck and cover, so he can trumpet bull another day.

Of course McConnell's seat is looking a little tight, what with it coming up for election in '08. Maybe McConnell needs to take all the cover he can get.

[chris]

Congratulations on the new house, Fred. All those years as a nobody in industry really paid off.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/17/trailer.sexoffender/index.html

[Fred Beloit]

Hey, Moe, gyna, gyna, gyna. How's your new free beer legislation doing? Any action on providing government-paid autos for those making a hundred Gs or less?

[Fred Beloit]

Well one has to live somewhere, Boob, a trailer, a basement. As to sex offender status, so far my sex has never offended any of the ladies who have let me share it with them.

[jj]

We're still waiting on you to tell the story of 'ole Cooter, Boob. Yuk..Yuk! He must have had a hairy back for you to like him so much.

[Fred Beloit]

What a shame. Lefty newsrags chewing bullets:

"Here in Silicon Valley, the two major newspapers, the San Jose Mercury-News and the San Francisco Chronicle, are shadows of their former selves, the former even been dumped in a humiliating fire sale."

Oh no. And the NYT as well. BoobinBridgeport, what are you going to do without your Monday-borrowed Sunday NYT magazine to tell you what is trendy in the Big Yapple? Just look at this:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/IndustryInfo/story?id=750595&page=1

[Fred Beloit]

Oh the humanity, Boob. Frank Rich will have to change his name to Frank Penurious. He might be out of work. Who else but the NYT would hire a verbal thug like him? Maybe he could join the Army, and if successful there, he might become General Penurious.

[jj]

The boob and his evil midget twin Islamoboob will have to import the al-Guardian to keep them abreast of socialist tendencies, Fred. But LOL, the genius economist, who makes a living as a pizza delivery boy, is sure to expound the economic logic of socialism, and why it will work if we try it just one more time. The fact that China and many other socialist countries have come to the conclusion that free markets are the secret to success, and that the more freedom you give people, and the less the government interferes, the better the prospect for economic growth.

[Fred Beloit]

I'm on the floor here, jj. Boob and mini-Boob.

[chris]

"I'm on the floor here"

That's what cheap booze will do to you. Won't you 'necks ever learn?

[Fred Beloit]

You callin' Ole Fly Spek, my favorite blended, cheap?

[Dan Riehl]

"cheap booze"

No doubt left over from bopping Randi Rhodes and her colossal ta ta's in the other thread!! woot woot

[Fred Beloit]

BTW, Dan, that thread's title was great.

[David M]

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 10/19/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2007/10/web-reconnaissance-for-10192007.html

[Observer]

Dan on thing you miss in your analysis here is the unchallenged assertion of the type miller is known for to drive an issue. He states there will be a cut in funding. To start with Bush was offering a 5 billion increase in funding levels which hardly qualifies as an intended cut.

Now in fairness since the issue started there has been a CBO report that basically states it would take about 14 billion to hold even.

If a examination of the calculations (not just a kneejerk reaction) shows validity then the final spending level should be adjusted to maintain the program. However that should also be no reason to fund adult single non pregnant people in a child's program. If the non-children are removed from the program their will surely some cost reductions since some states have a high percentage of people who fall in this class in the program now. If a state in their implementation is skipping needy children to put people into the program that are not children then this is an issue relating to that state.

If every needy child is covered in a given state and they still had money left over it is better to hold the money in a fund for rainy days than expand eligibility to non children and then try to justify the spending on needy adults who can take responsibility for their own insurance.

Typical Washington spin if someone wan'ts a 20% annual increase in spending and they get an 18% increase they call it a 2% cut in spending. This is pure semantic garbage if it is proven that 12% for example would hold the status quo then you in reality have a 6% increase rather than the shouted 2% cut, but that's Washington spin math for you.

Nice to see all the concerned commentors in the thread playing toss the pie instead of at least giving the appearance of trying to address the issues on it's merits.

The Dem tactic here is simply to try to shout unsupported charges to waste resources defending. A years old playbook for them that one day will be noted as going to the well one too many times.

[Observer]

As for those that still want to flail the Foley issue you were wrong then and you are still wrong now.

If Foley had been proven to have messed physically with under age children then the right would have nailed him to the wall just as fast if not quicker than the left would (and amazingly that is mainly one of their claimed group of voters and supporters). No evidence of such an occurrence has emerged even after all this time. Any evidence of physical interaction or lewd behavior has been with young adults of legal age from all I have seen documented. Sure there is information that seem to indicate that Foley was researching the leanings of those just before legal age, but no evidence of lewd behavior or contact with any below the legal age limit. So in analysis he like them young but legal that went with his lifestyle. He helped write the laws that limited the behavior and it seems that despite all the stuff thrown around he indeed complied with the letter of the law.

Yet still he was characterized as wrongly as a pedophile. That would only be true if he had improper physical acts with an under age child. Most have the image of an above 25 year old adult preying on as 8 to 13 year old child or even younger. Clearly their was no evidence of that in this issue or even any documented contact with someone just under the legal age limit except for some verbal jousting to determine possible leanings at best.

This is just wrongful beating of a drum here by many for their own spin. Even heterosexual males would be fibbing if they said the card girls even before they talk to them if they are borderline on the legal age limit. When you were near that age yourself if you are honest you talked to all who interested you but then only interacted with those of legal age.

Sure there may be sexual conduct between consenting persons all below the legal age limit, but that comes under different legal and moral structures. As long as the adult only may observe this behavior of the younger set and not encourage it but instead council about the poor personal responsibility and then restrict their actual contact interactions to those only of legal age then they have met their contract with society as the laws require.

The issue that is hard to address is what about the situation where a all underage physical relationship is on going and then one of the participants ages into the above legal age group.

There is an issue that society still has not completely come to grips with except for some cases with a 2 year age differential window for example. However that does not generally apply to new contact withing the window that cross the age boundary, but then in many states it does.

[Math_Mage]

IslamoLlama:

The right-wing blogs were right when they said that the Frosts had all those assets. Because they left it at that, that gave the misleading impression that the Frosts had acquired them all at the market price and thus made poor choices. This is something the right-wing blogs should be annoyed at themselves for doing. However, the main reason they should be annoyed at themselves for doing it is that they chose to focus on that point rather than the simple argument, "Frosts are already covered by SCHIP and would still be covered, irrelevant, give us a better example kthxbye." Who do you think is misleading the public more - the Democrats who presented a family already covered by SCHIP as a reason for the program expansion, or the right-wing bloggers who decided to raise questions about eligibility rather than simply claiming irrelevancy? I'd say the Dems did.

And when all that the guy in McConnell's office did was alert the media that as to what people were saying, I don't think McConnell deserves to take all this heat. Saying that he acted as the middle man between the press and the bloggers is correct; however, why is this a BAD thing? I don't see any claims that what the right wingers were saying was necessarily correct, only that they were saying it. Is that a crime?

Observer:

It turns out the Secretary of Health disputes that number, and says $5 billion is enough. Of course, he's Bush's man, so may have a bias...but then the CBO may have bias too (or just be wrong as you pointed out), I don't know. Besides, Bush was willing to offer more than $5 billion in negotiations, just not $35 billion.

[LOL]

Dan

it's amazing how you smear a man in a committed, married, heterosexual, and child-producing relationship. You yourself have criticized homosexuality and other liberal lifestyles and being well, crap, and now we find a man who is doing a lot of things right, and all you can do is take a crap on his face. You're really a shameless shill. You stand for nothing except following the master's orders. You have shown yourself and your movement to be without any shame or principles or empathy for fellow Americans.

You yourself are a childless unmarried failure of a heterosexual. A man who couldn't even feel sad when his own brother died. A man who couldnt' even keep in touch with his own family. How long have you been trapped in that self-constructed prison? How hateful it seems to have made you. How far from God has subterranean lifestyle made you

[joeyess]

Dan, you're an idiot. Replete with popsicles and a drool bucket.

[joeyess]

"cheap booze"

No doubt left over from bopping Randi Rhodes and her colossal ta ta's in the other thread!! woot woot

Posted by: Dan Riehl | Friday, October 19, 2007 at 10:59 AM

What exactly would you know about bopping anyone with big ta ta's? Unless of course we're talking about Hugh Hewitt.

[joeyess]

STEWART: "This is what I told McConnell: They said we tried to get this story started with the blogs. We did not. And part two, we spiked the story. Those are the two things I told him. Which is what he responded to. No, we didn't start the story and that we spiked it.

"I told him that we spiked it, so his answer would make sense to him, that no, we didn't try to get reporters to dig into this," Stewart said.

You don't need a calender to know we're heading into an election year. All you have to do is monitor the sleazy Democrat spin machine working behind the scenes and the all too often complicit mainstream media to figure that one out.

Email this

Friday, October 19, 2007 at 09:01 AM in Media Bias | Permalink

If you didn't start the story, why did you need to spike it?

I swear, you people are easily fooled.

No wonder you've been taken in time and time again by these sleazy GOoPers.

[Fred Beloit]

joey, joey, joey...ya coulda been a contenda instead of a bum. It is really not very complicated, joe. Let me try to help by quoting myself, a rare but nasty practice:

"Note how the lefties spin stories to match their evil dreams. This was the news story: 'WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's spokesman acknowledged yesterday that he alerted reporters last week to questions bloggers raised about the financial circumstances of a 12-year-old boy Democrats had used to urge passage of an expanded children's health insurance program.'"

Notice the aide, "alerted reporters...to questions raised by bloggers.." But the nutroots interpretation of these fairly innocent words leads them to say this: "Check this out: An aide to GOP leader Mitch McConnell has acknowledged in an interview with Kentucky's Courier-Journal that he actively sought to alert reporters to the wingnut smearing of 12-year-old SCHIP posterkid Graeme Frost"

Posted by: Fred Beloit | Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 10:56 AM

[Michael]

Wow. This has to be simultaneously the dumbest and most purposefully mendacious post I've seen in months.

McConnell's the victim....riiiight.

And your commenters attempts to defend your post are even dumber than your own. Beloit....put a cork on your fork before you hurt yourself.

God, that's good nuttery.

[Spartakus]

Another thing: when Mitch McConnell denied any involvement in the smear campaign against the Frosts, he had been told the day before that his staffers were sending heads-up messages to the media.

And I don't suppose it has occurred to any of you wingnuts that your tactics are blowing up in your faces like one of Shakespeare's petards.

[Fred Beloit]

OK, back to kindergarten:

"...he alerted reporters last week to questions bloggers raised about the financial circumstances of a 12-year-old boy Democrats had used..."---McConnell and newspaper version

he actively sought to alert reporters to the wingnut smearing of 12-year-old SCHIP posterkid Graeme Frost"---Labial version

Gee, Uncle Smeeds, these don't match. The Lefties used the word smear that was not used by the newspaper. The Lefties are trying to phony-soldier Sen McConnell's office.

[Spartakus]

Yes, Beloit, your ruminating over insignificant differences in vocabulary demonstrates that you *should* go back to kindergarten.

[Math_Mage]

LOL, cut the ad hominem. Insulting Dan will not help you get your point across. Same to you, joeyss.

Fred Beloit: I think you may be missing the point. Look at Spartakus' post: "when Mitch McConnell denied any involvement in the smear campaign against the Frosts, he had been told the day before that his staffers were sending heads-up messages to the media."

The Democrats are equating "telling the media that right-wing bloggers are saying something" with "being involved in saying something."

I say to you left-wingers, all McConnell's people did was say "oh, these people are saying something, go check it out," not "These people have it right, the Frosts are bogus, we support their statements, check it out." McConnell has no "involvement in the smearing campaign" that may or may not have happened to begin with (though blog commenters said some pretty nasty stuff, the main sources of the questioning like Malkin didn't actually smear Graeme or Bethany - go check her site out if you don't believe me).

@Michael: Prove to me that McConnell smeared Graeme Frost and I'll admit I'm wrong. But what his aide said happened does NOT constitute smearing or involvement with smearing.

[LOL]

My point is that Dan Riehl is a perverse kind of Christian. A twisted and sadistic American with no love left in his heart.

I've already provided a link for the wingers that proves that uninsureds actually cost taxpayers more money than having government insureds. Hint: The states have to pick up the tab. They just cover their eyes though, so what's left except to taunt them?

[Fred Beloit]

LOL wrote that I am: "ruminating over insignificant differences in vocabulary". Hahaha. Yes, LOL, that's what I do. It is also called "reading comprehension". Sorry to learn your teachers seem to have had no regard for it. If you think "raising questions" and "smearing" are synonyms, I'm afraid there is no use even attempting to communicate with you because you are intellectually deaf.

Nevertheless, if you had as much love in your heart as you claim others do not, you would voluntarily include extra money in your tax payment to help pay the government for its many wasteful social programs. Some of your money, probably not much though, might actually reach some poor person in the form of some kind of service that charities could provide at a lower cost. I do hope you will consider this option over the confiscation by government of the assets of your fellow citizens to pay for your priorities.

[LOL]

Yes, LOL, that's what I do. It is also called "reading comprehension".

----------

Speaking of reading comprehension, I think you meant to direct that at Spartakus and not me. Ah, but if you didn't hypocritically fail at the very thing you pretended to be an expert on, would you even be a wingnut?

[Fred Beloit]

I must admit you are right in this instance, LOL. Take that, Spart, you sneaky devil, hiding behind LOL's skirts. But how about the second paragraph, LOL? That one was directed to you.