Mary Katharine Ham, a White Board, and a NY Times Smear Campaign

by Sean Hackbarth

It all equals a good episode of HamNation.

“They’ll break your heart everytime, Johnny.”

Save and Share:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Diigo

10 Responses to “Mary Katharine Ham, a White Board, and a NY Times Smear Campaign”

1

[...] Mary Katharine Ham is brilliant! Hat tip to Sean Hackbarth for the video. [...]

2

“They’ll break your heart everytime, Johnny.”

Oh, if only that were true. Instead, we see the amusing spectacle of the MSM falling all over themselves to discredit the story simply because one small part of it – the sex – isn’t absolutely known to be true (though we can assume that the leopard doesn’t change his stripes. The gentleman prefers blondes…)

3

Chet, you’re a total fool. You’ve moaned about going after President Clinton for an affair even after he acknowledged it.

You have no credibility. None. But keep yapping. You’re mildly entertaining.

4

You’ve moaned about going after President Clinton for an affair even after he acknowledged it.

Sean, it’s you who lacks any credibility if you think that the important part of this story is who had sex with who. (And, no, I haven’t moaned about it. That’s a falsehood.)

The important part is that McCain has been repeatedly caught out in several lies, here, first when he denied interfering in the FCC process (which the FCC chairman refuted), second, when he claimed never to have met with Paxson (which John McCain’s own words refuted), and third, when he claimed that Iseman wasn’t present at the meetings (which Paxson himself refuted.)

I recognize the smell of desperation, Sean. Your insubstantial ad-hominem attacks reek of it.

5

Chet, for a guy who’s all gung-ho about “consensus” when it comes to science realize the vast majority of e-mails and comments to the NY Times were negative about the McCain smear. They saw the “story” for what it is: tabloid trash. If the Times has something substantial they should have ran with it.

Ironically your claim of me using an “insubstantial ad-hominem” is itself an ad-hominem. Keep it up. You’re burying yourself more and more each day. It’s fun watching you get worked up into a froth.

P.S. I can’t be “desparate” with McCain as the GOP’s presumptive nominee because I’m not a fan. Remember who I worked for? I’ve stated I’ll vote for him in November, but that’s all I’m ready to do. His loss. Remember that the next time you try to paint me as some uber-partisan.

6

Chet, for a guy who’s all gung-ho about “consensus” when it comes to science realize the vast majority of e-mails and comments to the NY Times were negative about the McCain smear.

I realize that. Relevance? McCain has most of the media under his spell; lies don’t count, apparently, when McCain tells them.

If the Times has something substantial they should have ran with it.

They did run with it. You didn’t read any farther than the sex, of course, so you don’t know what you’re talking about. All of the statements I alluded to are on the public record; you could simply investigate McCain’s fabrications if you were so inclined.

Ironically your claim of me using an “insubstantial ad-hominem” is itself an ad-hominem.

Ironically, it’s not. Argumentum ad hominem is “argument against the man”, that is, the substitution of a personal attack in place of addressing an argument.

On the other hand, recognizing an ad hominem and labeling it that way is a response to the argument – it’s pointing out the fallacy you’ve employed.

How did you get hired by a “serious” presidential campaign, again? You don’t even know these basic logical fallacies?

I can’t be “desparate” with McCain as the GOP’s presumptive nominee because I’m not a fan.

And, yet, here you are completely misrepresenting the NY Times piece on his behalf. For a non-fan you’re remarkably active in his propaganda effort. Maybe it’s just reflexive for you, to take the side of the GOP guy against the media, regardless of the facts? You wouldn’t be the first.

7

How did you get hired by a “serious” presidential campaign, again? You don’t even know these basic logical fallacies?

The irony continues. You claim to have not used an ad-hominem attack yet you argue “against the man.” Your credibility continues to crumble, but it’s fun watching. Wants some popcorn?

As for the Times story Keller knew exactly what he was doing by putting the accusation of an affair into the lede. He didn’t have anything to back it up but did it anyway. The Time ombudsman thought the newspaper botched it and the non-conservative Jeff Jarvis called it “bad journalism.”

Chet, you’ve become an entertaining troll. You better hope I don’t get bored with you.

8

You claim to have not used an ad-hominem attack yet you argue “against the man.”

No, the bit about your employment was ad hominem.

See, I wanted to give you an example of what it actually looks like. To recap – calling me “a total fool”, that’s ad-hom. Calling that argumentnot ad-hom.

All clear?

He didn’t have anything to back it up but did it anyway.

Except for the McCain staffer, the NYT’s source. Nobody accused McCain of sleeping with anybody, remember. The paper simply (and truthfully) reported that McCain’s staff were concerned enough about the appearance that they felt the need to intervene. The NYT is hardly to blame if someone’s imagination runs a little wild.

You better hope I don’t get bored with you.

I confess I’m getting somewhat bored of your refusal to address my substantive points. Considering that this scandal may very well be the GOP’s opportunity to essentially “reboot” their primary, I’m surprised at the tack you’re taking, here. The NYT’s timing couldn’t have been better for your side – either McCain comes out the better for it, a major scandal defused before it could hurt him in the general, or the GOP gets the opportunity to sub in Romney. How is this whole thing not a “win” for you guys?

9

Chet, the blogosphere is full of other weblog. Wander away if you like. I won’t miss your “insight.”

That “insight” includes the lack of understanding of the GOP’s situation. McCain will be the nominee. The GOP (including me) is stuck with him. He’d have to die or drop out of the race. Judging from the Times’ anonymous sources and lack of real news he’s not going anywhere.

Keep it up. Eventually you’ll offer something beyond the trolling you enjoy.

10

Chet, the blogosphere is full of other weblog.

Relatively few conservoblogs allow comments at all, and the ones that do are so thin-skinned, usually, that making irrefutable liberal arguments is enough to earn the kibosh.

He’d have to die or drop out of the race.

Between the total deflation of his “I’ve never done a favor for a special interest” rhetoric and his mounting (and illegal) problems with the FEC, he may be forced to do just that.

What I can’t understand is why, if McCain is such a persona non grata over there on the right, you’re not trying to force that outcome a little harder. It’s certainly in your interest to do so, but I suspect that the cult-of-personality thinking on the GOP is simply too strong to allow you all to do anything but root for “your guy”, that is, the guy you’re being told to root for.

Judging from the Times’ anonymous sources and lack of real news he’s not going anywhere.

It sounds like the NYT is giving McCain just enough rope to hang himself – it sounds like they advanced the first story with enough “anonymous sources” to allow McCain to issue unambiguous denials, before they reveal their sources and catch McCain in the lie. After we’ve had all weekend to talk about it, I wouldn’t be surprised if the watershed revelations are imminent.

Or, alternatively, you all will bully the NYT into turning their back on a story that they never would have flinched from if it had been about Clinton or Gore. I guess that’s a possibility, too.

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>