So - I'm sitting here with 2 buckets of "dirt" on Deborah Johns

[pk_du]

and I'm about to dump one...and conflicted over the other.

Who is Deborah Johns you ask?

Deborah Kay Johns ( Roseville,CA) is the mother of a marine that served in Iraq that DIDNT get killed but is leading (?) a crusade/caravan to Crawford titled the "You dont talk for me Cindy Sheehan Tour".

Now my first reaction was "get your own 15 mins of fame bitch - stop pimpin it off someone else in the spotlight" and left it at that. Then I read all the attacks/smears on Cindy over the last week and I'm pissed.

So - a little research shows who is really behind this "little lady from Northern California who wants to Support the troops and our pResident".....this stuff I will post shortly. ( California GOP, Republican PR/Media firm etc - usual suspects)

The research also showed a lot of the personal dirt on Ms Johns , including tax leans , lawsuits against her by State of california and by her , etc. Also - where is her (ex)husband on all this - since it was okay to ask Cindy's.....this stuff I'm conflicted over - should I be?

[democracyindanger]

1. After what's been done to Cindy

I wouldn't be.

[MidnightWind]

2. Post it. And post it every single place you can.

It's time we turn it around on them and show them what it feels like to have their lives exposed for the entie world to see. And at least the info you have on Ms. Johns is factual---more than I can say for a great deal regarding Cindy I've seen thrown out there.

[fooj]

3. IMO, NO!

A legitimate protest is a legitimate protest. However, when you've put something together to SMEAR a person WITH LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS...that's NOT OK! Go for it! Just make sure it's accurate. Don't want anything bouncing back and biting Cindy in the rear!!!

Peace.

[Tigress DEM]

33. Asking what her EX thinks is valid.... speaking for him???

It isn't a SMEAR if it's only exposing fraudulent motives. I would just point out that her ex might not be in full agreement.

(On edit.. it's funny that the things the rethugs think they "have" on Cindy really are just pieces of her life.)

Cindy was lied to and when she found out the truth she got pissed and pissed off people make political statements when their politicians ignore them.

That and her difficulties maintaining a marriage after her son just died... lots of marriages fail after the death of a child.. especially when there is no ability for closure due to high level stonewalling.

[NJCher]

4. unleash it

Next question. How do we get maximum exposure for it?

Media blaster anyone?


Cher

[blondeatlast]

5. The divorce is off limits, IMHO, even if it's a matter of public record.

I say we should rise above personal matters unless they bring them up themselves (say, tha Ms. Johns has already discussed it).

The rest is public record--just solidly back it up and let the chips fall where they may.

[fudge stripe cookays]

8. They've already...

flung mud all over Cindy's divorce.

I say nothing's off limits. It works both ways.

FSC

[Hepburn]

30. The CA divorce records

On line in most CA counties. Whether or not this poster gives it over, those records are readily available.

I say with the total CRAP that has been thrown at Cindy....post every bit of public record info on this gal and let the chips fall where they may. If she is out there rep'ing Bush and the war, then IMO people have a right to know what kind of people stand behind that bastard in the WH.

MOO

[Tigress DEM]

34. OK, so say she is divorced, but we don't have to make a big deal about it.

The thing is, when this woman goes to Crawford, she may do just what the other mom did and change her mind.

It's one thing for her to have an opinion based on lies she hears from fundie radio etc... and quite another to keep her opinion when they play taps over the crosses at night.

I say, first find out if she's really a dedicated freeper or just someone who has been driniking the koolaid too long.

If she sees the light, welcome her over from the dark side. If she stays deaf dumb and blind, then she gets all the mud and smear she deserves.

[flpoljunkie]

6. The woman is featured in the Move America Forward Ad bashing Cindy!

Watch it yourself...

http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/DailyFile/new_ad_pro_troop_caravan_rally_counters_cindy_sheehan/

As for her personal life, no--connections to Republican party operatives, etc--yes!

The better question is who is Melanie Morgan--who is running this campaign for "Move America Forward." Has she communicated with Karl Rove recently, by any chance?

[flpoljunkie]

11. More on talkshow host, Melanie Morgan, co-founder of Move America Forward

from Media Matters.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508180004

Shortly after asserting that "we're still going to find weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, Morgan responded to a question from host Chris Matthews regarding the alleged connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda:

MORGAN: Oh, yes. Absolutely, there's a connection there. The reason why we are in Iraq is because those planes went flying into the World Trade towers, and Al Qaeda was definitely connected to a bunch of terrorists who are operating out of Iraq under the direction of Saddam Hussein and his general at the time, General Jassim, who confirmed to me that 4,000 terrorists who were related to Al Qaeda, involved in Al Qaeda, were working within the Iraqi country. The country of Iraq.

[stevedeshazer]

46. Thanks for that mediamatters link

She must be on the payroll like Armstrong Williams. That's one of the bigger whoppers I've seen lately in a big honkin' field of whoppers.

[kodi]

7. turnabout is fair play. why should the Right get pass on stuff like this?

if they want to get down and dirty, they best be prepared to have their lives examined too.

[Coexist]

9. we're always complaining about our Dem leaders playing nice instead of

kicking ass - after two stolen elections, 1,800 dead Americans, environmental damage, and rich-get-richer-poor-get-poorer tax schemes - I am through being nice.

All bets are off. Kick her sorry ass. Make her wish this is one fight she hadn't picked.

DO IT.

[sickinohio]

48. YEAH - you're right!!

NO HOLDS BARRED - I'm tired of playing nice guy, while the rePukes smear, smear, and more smear with lies upon lies upon lies!! Letting them get away with those tactics and us sitting back and taking it is what got this country into the mess it's in in the first place!! Turn about is fair play - kick the bitc*es as*!!
:mad: :grr: :grr: :spank: :banghead: :rant:

[union_maid]

10. Dump it all

I just don't want to miss it when you dump it. No, don't feel conflicted. Just make sure it's accurate so as not to make yourelf liable to any litigation.

[warrior1]

13. Do it.

[lildreamer316]

12. Set a poll n/t

[ewagner]

14. Post It!

Don't let them get away with anything.....

[Imagevision]

24. let's get some recommends in to kick this to the greatest!

[slor]

15. RELEASE THE HOUNDS!

Let it out, they drew first blood, so DO IT!

[Vinca]

16. Hmmmm . . . consider for a moment what a Republican would do

when faced with a similar situation. DUMP!!!!!!! We've got to stop playing nice.

[Seabiscuit]

17. Now if you were a reporter ...

Well if you were a reporter and doing a story on this woman wouldn't you include all the facts and information to show unbiased reporting?
Just make sure that all facts truly jive and this Deborah John's info/facts that you have found out really belong to her (and not another Deborah John's for example). If so, let the truth see the light of day. If you aren't 100% sure of the facts or details send them to a blog reporting website like Buzzflash or Truthout (I'm sure there are others) to fact check and use in a story. Just a thought.

Good luck!

[emulatorloo]

18. A Relevant Thread -- Rove Methods: Which Should We Use, if any

Please Read:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4408702

PS I vote yes for bucket 1, no to bucket 2

[dchill]

19. One thought, one philosophy, one motto -

NO MERCY

[OneTwentyoNine]

20. They want to play dirty,then play dirty.....n/t

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QC]

22. Dish that dirt! n/t

[Imagevision]

23. Deborah Johns representing moms who's kids wern't killed

CIndy isn't speaking for you but I'll tell you this much she would still hug you for being able to have an alive son that returned not in a box.

[MissMarple]

25. Absolutely not. She is fair game since she swung first.

And Cindy is a lady, that woman isn't fighting fair. I'd also like to know who is putting her up to this. Cindy started on her own, someone with deep pockets is behind this person.

[Rebellious Republican]

26. A better question would be... You see a neighbors child playing

in their front yard, next door. You see a suspicious adult approaching the the child, but the suspicious adult does not see you, maybe because you are just behind a hedge row, just behind the child.

What do you do, A.)just mind your own business and do nothing or, B.) Step out from behind the hedge row and place your self in between the child and the suspicious adult?

Sounds like a no brainer, do you not agree?

Protect Cindy Sheehan, she is our best chance to end this illegal war and save our childrens lives.

[Cha]

44. Yeah, that about sums it

UP!

[Norwood]

27. Fighting back is long over due

The right has taken off the gloves and we need to do the same. Enough playing nice, do it!

[Cha]

45. Somebody said on DU that

"the fascists don't want to just beat us they want to kill us."

And I said .."those who realize that will be the survivors".

[comsymp]

28. Well, the consensus seems to be "do it." But consider this -

If you do, you've just volunteered to be part of the problem. And you lose your right to *ever* object when another good guy is smeared.

[OneTwentyoNine]

31. And...when ISN'T a "good guy" re: Democrat smeared??

See..they don't have to do it,they just leaved it up to Cable TV News,screaming flaming RW radio Hosts,and several RW newspapers.

If those asses would have left Kerry alone instead of SMEARING his VN duty I would tend to agree with you. What they did to him was a GD wake up call IMO.

If the right has NO problem smearing the record of a decorated VN War vet when most of them are CHICKENHAWKS then they'll stop at no one.

[comsymp]

35. Of course they won't (stop) - why should they when they can just say

"hey, both sides do it," and then offer examples.

All I'm saying is, if you (one) engage(s) in the same nasty behavior, then you are (one is) just as guilty of hurting both the process and the country as the people you criticize. If the OP or anyone else here chooses to stoop to the level of the Roves of the world, it probably wouldn't have a significant impact on my life - I'd simply view 'em as just one more person to avoid.

[Cha]

47. I don't think what the OP

is doing is "nasty". But, that's just me.

This is war.

[comsymp]

53. "This is war."

Yeah, something like that. And we've seen who all too often takes the worst of the casualties during war.

As to whether or not what the OP is considering doing is nasty or not, well, that's a matter of opinion about which reasonable people can certainly disagree. There's no doubt in my mind that I've done (and enjoyed) some things some other folks would consider nasty - to which I say Yaaay me! However, when I see those on the right slime, smear and outright lie about people with whom they disagree, I find their behavior not only nasty, but repugnant. Reversing the direction of the slime doesn't change the fact that it still is slime.

My original point, which I strongly believe, is that (assuming the OP or anyone else deplores the behavior of the Swift Boat Liars for Bush, the Coulters, Limbaughs, Drudges and Roves of the world) s/he would be adding to their numbers by at least one, should s/he decide to adopt their tactics. In this instance, only the OP can decide whether that's a problem and, if so, if the possible ends would justify the means. Since s/he asked for opinions, I was only too happy to oblige! :patriot:


EDITED TO ADD: Just in case I wasn't clear in my reply to the OP, I see absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out who's funding and supporting her "movement" - hell, that should be mandatory, IMO. It's strictly the *personal* smears to which I object.

[Richard Steele]

55. Exposing FACTS is not the same as "smearing"...

From your posts on this thread,
you don't seem to see a difference.

If the info to be revealed is completely TRUE,
I say DO IT.

They LIE about us, we tell the TRUTH about them. Simple.

And we don't "lose our right to object" the next time they LIE.

[comsymp]

60. We're looking at two different aspects, then. Do you not see

bringing up, say, Cindy Sheehan's personal / marriage problems as "smearing"? Apparently, they're the *truth*

Bringing up personal allegations which don't relate to the subject's actions are just as nasty a smear tactic as making things up, IMO. In fact, false allegations are usually considered slander, not smears.

Clinton got a BJ - that has been established as true. By your logic, the R's were right to make it public.

So-and-so may be a closeted 'mo. If his/her professional life has nothing to do with LGBT issues, yet he's, say, a hard-core Neocon pushing for war on Iran, is outing him the right thing to do?

Yeah, you're right. I don't see a difference between exposing "facts" and smearing.

ON EDIT: took a sec to check my facts, but FWIW, neither does Webster.

[MadisonProgressive]

29. Fight fire with fire as far as I'm concerned

[struggle4progress]

32. Use the GOP operative stuff but do lay off the personal dirt except ..

.. in direct response to similar attacks against Cindy by DKJ.

"Who is Deborah Kay Johns and who's funding her" are legitimate questions.

"Deborah Kay Johns is a liar / hypocrite" might be appropriate responses to her attacks on Cindy.

But muddying the waters won't generally keep the real issues in focus ...

[fooj]

36. pk_du......what's your decision?

Peace.

[Kurovski]

37. A little reverse " Swift boating" is in order.

Just use the truth to show up the lack of decency, morality and respect that Repub smearbots specialise in.

[Seabiscuit]

38. So, pk-du: what's the "dirt" on Ms. Johns you're thinking of dumping?

What liens? What kind of lawsuits? What connection to CA GOP, what connection to what PR/Media firm? Etc.

Inquiring minds would like to know.

[Gay Green]

39. Time to stop playing nicely-nice.

DUMP IT!!!!!!!! :mad:

[tomg]

40. I would use bucket 1, but as

to bucket 2 - don't do it, unless it is directly - and politically -relevant to the issue at hand. How her husband feels ( unless she claims to speak for him ) doesn't seem relevant. Tax lines ( unless she is getting out from under them as a result of who is backing her)
doesn't seem. Go with your better self. We have to be better than they are. We'll win.

[Donailin]

41. You post, we leak

fire with fire folks. Nice guys finish last, don't we know?

[AuntPatsy]

42. Please don't hold back, as they say, fight fire with fire.

[Cha]

43. Your sig line is darkly hilarious.

I remember seeing that woman on DU from a cnn clip or something. If it's the same one ..she had quite a jolly look that made me want to punch her lights out! OoooouuuhhhhHHH, I can't believe I wrote that!

[Time for change]

49. I see no reason to be conflicted over it

That would be like if someone punches you in the face, and you being conflicted over whether to hit him back out of self defence.

[sendero]

50. If you have reasonable...

... sources of facts, why would you hesitate?

This idiot makes stuff up out of whole cloth. Lies, lies and more lies. The least we can do is tell the truth about her.

It's time to stop asking these question IMHO. This is not a game of tiddly winks, people are dying for NOTHING.

[Raster]

51. Ms. Jones has every right to say the Cindy does not speak for her.

This is still America. We still allow differing viewpoints to be expressed. End of story.

Now as to the question who is funding, leading, spearheading this little caravan, let's lay it all out in the open. The organizers of this little right-wing p.r. extravaganza are dirty g.o.p. operatives. They had a huge hand in swift boat and have had their little grubbies in just about every puke dirty media trick. Oh yes, shine the light of day on the bastards. These are dirty, underhanded, lowlife vermin with no scrupples or interest in fair play. They are traitors and should be treated as such. They have knowingly and willingly aided bushco*. Oh and miz melanie: g.o.p. attack cunt. That's her job, and she's very, very good at it.

[npincus]

52. POST IT

please

[sniffa]

54. oh her son's aLive?

and she's pretending otherwise?

post it.

[ismnotwasm]

56. If you have verifiabley factual infomation

Let the dogs out. They've already done so with Cindy, and WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO. Without any illusions of compasion or fair play. Without an ethical debate. Without a second thought. We have to fight with the tools we have. If this women is a RW tool, whose son came back safe and sound and is attacking a woman whose son is DEAD, then perhaps a strong light shining on her motivations will help others see that light. What we want is not the "us against them" crap we've been forced into by folks like this, but the truth to get out. The fact that are available. Beyond mere opinion or personal feelings. This is a war based on lies, and people are dead and dying because of it.

[Califooyah Operative]

57. dadadadado it. nt

[QC]

58. It's time to shit or get off the pot.

If you have the info, post it. I would say that the personal stuff is OK, too, since the GOP's whole raison d'etre these days is character assassination.

[bettyellen]

59. no conflict here, no reason to go easy on her.....

except the part about what her ex-husband might think, it's all fair.
the swifters didn't get the treatment they deserved hard or fast enough, if you ask me.
go get her, tiger.

[mom cat]

61. It is not dirt if it is truth....Time for some truth!

[Moderator]

62. Locking

While the thread is interesting and well worth discussion, the egregious use of the "bitch in the blue dress" violates the rules on sexist language.

pk_du is welcome to continue the discussion with a new thread without the offending language.

the DU Moderators