Elizabeth Warren Slaps Down Karl Rove, Latest Attack Ad ('Morally Wrong')

[Hissyspit]

Source: Boston Herald

Elizabeth Warren slaps down Karl Rove, latest attack ad

By Hillary Chabot
Friday, December 9, 2011 - Updated 2 hours ago

A feisty Democratic U.S. Senate hopeful Elizabeth Warren shot back at Republican strategist Karl Rove yesterday — calling his second negative ad “factually wrong and morally wrong” after a University of Massachusetts at Lowell/Boston Herald poll found an earlier spot hurt her among voters.

“I can’t find the right words to describe how wrong that is. Factually wrong and morally wrong,” said a miffed Warren about the 30-second spot released by the Rove-backed Crossroads GPS yesterday.

“Karl Rove is not telling the truth, and I think anyone who is not telling the truth shouldn’t be running ads in this race,” she told the Herald. Warren has said she supports negative ads from outside groups so long as they are telling the truth, while U.S. Sen. Scott Brown has said he believes all outside groups should stay out of the race.


Warren brushed off her seven-point lead over Brown in the UMass Lowell/Herald poll — and her favorability dip.

The poll found that her unfavorable ratings rose by 9 percent due to attack ads.

Read more: http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/2011_1209warren_slaps_down_rove_latest_attack_ad

[alp227]

1. haha just read the comments section at the Herald

This comment quoting a Simon Johnson article breaking apart the Rove ad got 1 like and 4 dislikes, yet anti-Warren comments were "top rated". Shows which audience the Herald reaches out to. I wonder where the idea that there has to be a right wing "alternative" to the top newspaper has to be.

In New York City, the Post is the Murdoch-owned tabloid competitor to the Times

In Washington DC, the Times is the Unification Church-owned RW fishwrap for those who can't stand all that liberal bisa in the Post, and the Examiner the free RW tabloid

In Boston, the Herald against the Globe

In San Francisco, the Examiner is the RW-leaning tabloid vs. the Chronicle

At least where I am (San Jose) the Mercury News doesn't have a Drudge-like competitor.

[karynnj]

4. Boston's papers seem to be even more complicated than that

The Boston Globe was had several reporters who have been unbelievably supportive of Brown, giving him a huge amount of unwarranted good press. They also appear to "clean up" his comments - making them less goofy.

The Herald is definitely right wing and they have a large segment of posters who sprout every right wing theme and attack possible. There are others who lean right, but seem genuine. Any centrist or left leaning poster should expect to be attacked - often with accusations that they are working for Kerry, Patrick or, now, Warren.

I notice that you leave out Chicago, where the dominant paper is the very conservative Chicago Tribune. Chicago has not elected a Republican mayor since 1923. (Looking to find that, I read the extremely colorful biography of that Republican mayor. I think he and Rove would have been BFF if they were alive at the same time.

"n 1927, Al Capone's support allowed Thompson to return to the mayor's office. Pledging to clean up Chicago and remove the crooks, Thompson instead turned his attention to the reformers, whom he considered the real criminals."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hale_Thompson

Interestingly, he was hated by the Chicago Tribune.

[WilliamPitt]

8. The point being

Boston is deranged.

:crazy:

:hi:

[tcaudilllg]

2. Let the whole world know Karl is headed straight to hell.

Who wants to go with him?

[lunatica]

3. The way to fight Rove's tactics is to never ignore them. Never

Democrats learn from previous mistakes. Republicans just keep making them. The fact that their lies worked for a while and are now what's destroying them is lost on them. They seem truly puzzled as to why everything is falling apart for them.

Elizabeth Warren has no fear of them. And she's the kind of person who confronts her enemies with facts, which are anathema to Republicans. It's like shining sunlight on vampires.

[karynnj]

6. She is also lucky that she is running in MA, a place small enough

and politically interested enough that she should be able to easily get the facts out to enough people to stop the lies.

While I agree that facts are the counter to lies, you give too little credit to many of the people who faced Rove's lies. One thing that greatly aided Rove was that, to a very large degree, the media abdicated the responsibility that it had - imperfectly - assumed in past times starting in the late 1990s.

For instances, you are like eluding to the SBVT, but the fact is that as soon as they surfaced for the first time in April 2004, Kerry put all of his records from the Navy, except medical records on his web site - so ANYONE could read them in their entirety. The media had access to the medical records. However, they then handled the story as "Kerry's" story vs the claims of all these veterans - some of whom were never in the same place and same time as Kerry. As it was the official record, the first thing the media should have done was to ask the SBVT for the proof they never offered. It was never "Kerry's story - it was the official account of the US Navy. Then when the Kerry team disproved many accusations, the media just went on to other accusations. The sad fact is that, for whatever reasons, a large part of the US media condoned a character assassination of a major party's candidate.

I don't think we should diminish the potential that even in MA lies can hurt. However, she is in a better position for three reasons. Over the next year, she has the time to meet a significant percent of the voters face to face - an impossibility in a national election. The second reason is that Kerry had been a target of the right since 1971 and there were latent negative characterizations that helped their lies in 2004. The third reason is that this charge is NOT consistent with the demagoguery they have deployed for the last half a year. How can they simultaneously convince people that Warren is a socialist mother of OWS, who hates free enterprise and corporations AND the person who (presumably on her own) bailed out the big banks? Not to mention, where did the power of a previously little known woman come from to make Bush and Paulsen and Congress do what they did?

Though the lies against Kerry and Obama hit against unusually sound documentation, they were accusations about times people themselves did not see. Not to mention, in both cases, believing the lie was within the right"s comfort zone - where the truth wasn't. For them, their choice was to accept that a liberal MA Senator had been a brave, honorable war hero, who risked his own life to keep his men (and a marine) safe or they could believe that at 25 he tricked the Navy into giving him excellent fitness reports and prestigious medals while he was really a coward who broke rules. For Obama, they could accept that this charismatic, half black man had won the Democratic nomination in an amazing upset or they could wander off in conspiracy theory and question where he was born. The force of talk radio making those unlikely events seem plausible is hard to discount.

It might be odd that their nearly 6 month's of demonizing her as far too the left might actually make this charge less successful.

[lunatica]

7. Yes it worked then, but a lot more people get their news from twitter and

Facebook and the internet as we have witnessed during the Arab Spring and the OWS. People are relying less and less on the msm for their information. This is also a huge factor. Fox News isn't getting the people who have tuned out of CNN. The new electronic media is.

That's what I mean when I say the Republicans are clueless. They're relying on their old tactics because they worked at one time. They're just not working anymore.

[karynnj]

9. not to mention, I think many people woke up to the likelihood that

Republicans are willing to just make things up - due the complete absurdity of those who question Obama's birth certificate. But that more people depend on twitter and Facebook is not all a plus. Lies can easily fly on social media and it likely contributes to groups of people hearing just their allies.

[Cal33]

17. Then we also have to consider the fact that the right-wingers have been lying

since way back when, and they have to invent new lies to cover the lies with other lies,
with other new lies ... ad infinitum ... This makes it a much harder job than simply
telling the truth - which requires no covering up.

Yes, I must say that these Greedy Obnoxious People do work hard for whateve they've got!

[ieoeja]

12. On top of that, the truth gets told once, while the spin never ends.

New York Times: "Al Gore claims to have discovered Love Canal."

Everybody Else: "New York Times reports that Al Gore lying about having discovered Love Canal."

New York Times: "Correction. Our journalist misheard Al Gore when the journalist reported on Gore and Love Canal."

All Other Real Media: "Gore never claimed to have discovered Love Canal. New York Times columnist was in error."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

Rightwing Media: "New York Times reported that Al Gore lied about having discovered Love Canal."

This statement is only a lie by omission, not a lie in and of itself. For it is true that the New York Times did report that. They since corrected that report. But that does not change the fact that at one time they did, in fact, report it.

For awhile you would have Rightists and Honest pundits on shows where the Rightist throws a line like "Al Gore's internet" to which the Honest pundit replies, "just to remind the audience, the man often viewed as the father of the internet said the internet would not exist if not for Al Gore. Even Newt Gingrich who hardly ever says anything good about a Democrat defended Al Gore against this claim."

But after a couple weeks, the Honest pundit gets tired of repeating himself. So the Rightist just keeps right on tossing "Al Gore's internet" out there as a throwaway line on unrelated issues, and the Honest pundit ignores the idiocy. Except that it isn't idiocy, because it keeps the lie alive.

It's like a child repeating, "can I have a cookie now," until you finally relent and give him a cookie just to shut him up.

[karynnj]

15. Great examples - though they now often don't even have an error or misstatement to blame

Remember before Obama went to India that they had stories - made up completely about the exorbitant cost and the diversion of I think a fourth of the US Navy? Utterly bizarre how quickly it took hold and how far it traveled - even to India!

[robbob]

19. Remember "The Daily Howler"?

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

....I followed them religiously during the Gore/Bush election; it was shocking to really see just how the corporate media echo chamber lies and distorts to push an the agenda or "narrative" that THEY decide is needed. Gore was repeatedly painted as some kind of serial liar and boaster while the painfully inept Bush got a pass on every stupid thing he said.

It continues to this day; want a scandal to have traction and last over several news cycles? Just make sure it is done by a Democratic politician. If the same type of infraction is committed by a Rethug it will never see the light of day, or if it does it will quickly be replaced by other stories.

Just look at the Newt/Pelosi dust-up. How many Americans are even going to hear about the ethical failings of the GOP front runner, especially if he gets the nod? Now just imagine if it were a Democratic leader with this kind of baggage; we would be hearing about it non-stop. It makes me sick how they can get away with this.

Anyone who isn't familiar with the Howlers coverage of Bush vs. Gore and how it was played out in the mainstream media should take some time to look at it; it's a shocking indictment of the criminal corporate media that is brainwashing us daily.

[karynnj]

21. They did an excellent job in 2004 as well - but I don't remember them from 2008

Were they writing then?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. The Corporate Media is STILL abdicating it's responsibility. If it would just do its job, Scott

Brown would NEVER be even close to Elizabeth in the polls.

And I will never forget how the Corporate Media grabbed on to the talking points and fed the lies that the wingnuts spewed during the Bush-Kerry campaign. Its treatment of Kerry alone should have opened our collective eyes as to what side of the coin the media stands, but apparently not. :(

[karynnj]

20. Agree with everything

It still hurts to think how badly the media - including many considered liberal- treated both Senator Kerry and his wife. I suspect it was that they really did want to continue the neocon experiment. Both the WP and the NYT praised Bush's "spreading democracy" 2nd inaugural address to the heights - ignoring that the Republicans did not say that was their reason for the invasion before the election.

[kenfrequed]

26. it isn't abdication

It is willfull abandonment. Worse, since they play right wing spin on their own networks I think the best analogy would be to accidentally be one of a few cars that hits a pedestrian and then throws out a couple of cheap adhesive bandages as you keep driving away while the person bleeds on the street.

[kenfrequed]

24. Hell yes!

You have to counterattack early and often. The only time the Democrats got away with ignoring Rove was when they ran Clinton. Ignoring him allows the creation of a meme that will get repeated until the end of frigging time.

[Octafish]

5. Rove's got a lot of money. Our side has one thing -- Truth.

Applied liberally, ours will win.

[Zorra]

10. Lies are the native tongue of the republican party. nt

[Kingofalldems]

11. Kick and Rec

Malicious Intruders not liking this one.

[No Elephants]

13. Go Warren!

I wish the headline had used a different verb, though.

[Uncle Joe]

14. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Hissyspit.

[SoapBox]

16. Go Elizabeth GO!

Oh how I wish she was here in California.

[Akoto]

22. She needs to find the right words, or she will lose.

These ads need to be directly countered by the candidate, preferably addressing each lie individually and detailing the truth behind it.

Karl Rove will not hesitate to twist (or outright manufacture) reality, and he has an exceptional amount of funding with which to do so. I don't think reacting with disbelief is the right move when he can continue to bombard the population with these ads.

[CTyankee]

30. She just needs to bring out the proof. That's all.

the people of MA are not undereducated. They are smart people. And besides, she is addressing this ad. In fact, it's part of her own campaign ads. It's ridiculous. He can't rewrite history here. It's not like Kerry and the Swift Boat stuff. That happened YEARS before the 2004 campaign. This stuff is too recent for Rove to pull the wool over MA voters eyes.

[AnneD]

23. Remember People.....

He successfully slimed Ann Richards. He started a whisper campaign that Ann was a lesbian.

Rove is a one note Johnny but it works for him and he knows the tune real well. If he can't twist the truth into a lie, he will try to pin a sordid sex scandle on the candidate. Most folks running make the mistake of trying to take the high road with this scumbag. Slap him and slap him hard.

He is the one that got the sex charges pinned on Julian Assange. In Sweden no less! :eyes:

AnneDe: Native Texas that has been warning folks about this evil golumn and the BFEE since 1975. If he hits you with a flyswatter, whack him upside the head with a 2x4.

[CTyankee]

25. Massachusetts ain't Texas.

[AnneD]

28. Well, Rove managed to

convince the nation that George W Bush was from Texas instead of Connecticut. BADA BOOM

Edited to add I have never, ever voted for a Bush or a ticket they were on. I am not the only Texan that can make that claim.

[CTyankee]

29. Well, I am a transplanted Texan who never ever voted for Bush...

I was born and raised in Dallas. Moved on when I went to college in the Northeast cuz I couldn't stand Texas any more. Family was pissed but I was happy.

I consider myself a real Yankee now! Hooray!

Glad you never voted for a Bush. I have family member in TX who didn't, also...

[24601]

31. So young children whose parents take them to live somewhere

else can't stay there 40+ years and be considered residents? Not even citizens can change state residency?

Tell us how you REALLY feel about immigration.

[concord]

27. "Slaps" ... "Feisty" ... "Miffed" ... sounds like a little girl

So, that's how they want to play it ... "she's a feisty little spitfire! can't hurt a fly" Haha ... just keep misunderestimating her while she takes that seat.

[Hissyspit]

34. I noticed that too. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. Karl Rove has failed in the northeast every single time he has tried there

It's very simple. People here view the South as a region, and view Texas as its own kind of entity. But the Northeast is a region, too. If you're not from there, or you don't live there for some time, you will not understand it. It's the same as the basic fact that I will never understand South Carolina 9or even southern culture), because I'm not from there, and I sure as hell won't ever move or live there. Karl Rove does not understand the northeast. He thinks he does, but he doesn't.

Warren will win. By a lot. Rove can run all the ads he wants to. He's never won up there, and he never will.

He doesn't get it.

[MBS]

33. good for her! n/t

[wordpix]

35. Rover should be in jail, recall Fitzgerald almost indicted him

Rover is a scourge on the planet.