Gawker's Misogynist War on Conservative Women

Michelle has the story, "The Gawker Smear Machine: A Refresher Course":

If you’re a longtime reader of this blog, you know all about the Gawker smear machine and its misogynist war on conservative women.

Under Gawker Media boss Nick Denton, barrel-scraping blog Wonkette published racist, sexist crap like this:

And manufactured smears like this.

In 2008, it was lying Gawker that published Sarah Palin’s hacked private e-mails, raided her family’s private photos, stolen from the e-mail account, used Bristol Palin’s illegally obtained private cell phone number from her mom’s private account, recorded her voice mail message and posted it on their website, and reprinted her husband Todd’s private e-mail address and son Track’s private e-mail address.

And today, it is Gawker running a filthy, paid anonymous hit piece on Christine O’Donnell that even other left-wingers have disavowed.

Salon: Gawker’s Christine O’Donnell tell-all backfires.

Politics Daily’s Jill Lawrence: “Gawker on Christine O’Donnell is absolutely, totally, offensively out of line. Awful. You won’t get link from me.”

Let me repeat again what I said about Nick Denton and his slime businesses in 2006:

There is a time to be tolerant and there is a time to draw lines. If you don’t draw those lines, bullies will be emboldened. The smug Gawker smear machine is all about pushing those boundaries with the expectation that no one will push back. They project their own cynicism, recklessness with facts, intellectual laziness, and bad faith on everyone else.

But outside of Manhattan and Los Angeles, not all of us think blogging is a for-profit enterprise founded solely to tear people down with gossip, rumor-mongering, and damaging lies disguised as “satire.” Funny how some of the loudest voices decrying the lack of civility in the blogosphere are the biggest promoters of the bottom-feeders and debasers at Gawker Media.

Still more at the link.

Unreal. But typical for leftists, for example, at Village Voice, "Is This the Guy Who Sleazed Christine O'Donnell?"

A Misguided Attack on Stanley Kurtz's Radical-in-Chief and Other Anti-Obama Books

From Ron Radosh, at Pajamas Media:

I knew that Stanley Kurtz’s new and important book, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, would be the subject of attack. I predicted that at first, the mainstream press would either ignore it or, if they found that they could not, would seek to go on the offense by comparing it to the score of rather knee-jerk screeds written against Obama by other conservatives, many of them rather easy to ridicule, dismiss, and demonize.

Clearly, Kurtz has his hands full, having to try to distinguish his contribution from the rest of the pack and hope that it is taken seriously. I have tried to do my own on its behalf by writing a serious review of the book that will be published in the next issue of National Review. I hope readers buy that issue if they do not subscribe, and take my arguments about it into consideration. I go so far as to write in my conclusion that if the work Kurtz has done for this book had been able to be accomplished during the 2008 campaign, “Barack Obama would not have been elected President because he is simply not who he claimed to be.”

Those who actually bother to read Kurtz’s book know immediately that he bases his analysis on rigorous scholarship, a careful look through the archives of various political groups with which our president has been associated with and influenced by throughout the years. No one else has done this work. The other volumes criticize Obama by talking about his record and his views. Some of the authors easily score points — after all, the Obama administration is not hard to criticize — but at times, they are way off base and issue arguments not backed up by real evidence.

Now, the centrist conservative commentator John Avlon has written a column he calls “The Obama Haters Book Club.” I usually find Avlon to be someone who makes shrewd and sound observations, and I have in past blog posts linked to him and singled out some of his earlier articles for praise.

What he does in this particular column, however, is purposely link together virtually every anti-Obama book as all being the same. As he puts it, “at this point the titles all blur together in a manic mad-lib, always accusing Obama of something close to war-crimes against the American people.” He next attacks the motives of the authors, writing, “You might not be able to distinguish between the self-published pathology and the semi-professional polemics — they are all fear-mongering for personal and partisan profit. And that’s the larger point.”

More at the link.

Ron Radosh is an old school kinda guy, from David Horowitz's generation, so it's interesting that he'd give Jon Avlon such credibility. I don't. Avlon's a typical leftist-claiming-to-be-centrist. Folks like this are socialist enablers at the least. The Avlon essay's here. I've read at least four previous anti-Obama books. And while Kurtz's Radical-in-Chief is a standout, the overall quality of the research on Barack Obama has been excellent. Critics dismiss these works --- for example, Michelle Malkin, Aaron Klein, Pam Geller and Robert Spencer --- for opening up the truth on a presidency that's been wrapped in mystery and lies. Amazing, really. But typical for leftists.

See also, "Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism."

Why Democrats Support Pat Toomey

At Midnight Blue: "PA Senate and Congressional Races Update."

RELATED: It turns out that Joe Sestak is getting down and dirty, literally: "Pennsylvania's Race Gets Dirty as Sestak Slings Feces" (via Memeorandum). Also, Gateway Pundit, "Sick. Joe Sestak Smears Dog Sh*t on Toomey in Attack Ad (Video)."

Whitman Ends Campaign by Lashing Out at Media, Brown

Yeah.

Sounds kinda whiny, actually:

As Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman seeks to regain momentum before election day, she is lashing out at the media and rival Jerry Brown, while trying to soften her persona in advertisements and mailers.

Her campaign insists that she is following a charted course and that the race remains tight. But political observers say that a rapidly changing strategy is a tacit acknowledgement that Whitman's campaign juggernaut — fueled by $141 million of her own money — has stalled.

"It's like in sports: You don't change a winning strategy and you always change a losing strategy," said Bruce Cain, a political science professor at UC Berkeley. "The fact they're changing strategies … usually signifies they know what the truth is, and the truth is not good."

On the campaign trail and in interviews, Whitman is increasingly interrupting her standard jobs-and-schools talking points to emphasize that she feels under attack.

"I have been called a liar, I've been called a whore and I've been called a Nazi by his campaign," she said Wednesday morning on Fox News Channel's America's Newsroom.

Days earlier, she flogged Brown and his labor allies for exaggerating her position on immigration to the Latino community, repeatedly saying that "It makes me mad."

Whitman is going out of her way to criticize as "bunk" a Sunday Los Angeles Times/USC poll that showed Brown leading by 13 points among likely voters.

Her criticism has not extended to other recent public polls, which have consistently shown Whitman trailing Brown by high single digits.

At campaign events Wednesday, she insisted that her internal polling shows the race to be tight.

"Our polls show this is a dead heat and you're going to start to see some polls come out that show that this is a dead heat," she said in Riverside. "And in a dead heat, we win because the people who want to take back Sacramento are going to come to the polls in huge numbers."

But the candidate is clearly responding to poll findings that suggest voters are skeptical of her character. In the Times poll, more than half of likely voters had a negative view of Whitman. By almost a 2-1 margin, voters said Brown was more truthful.

She's flailing.

See, "Majority Now Views Whitman Negatively."

Majority Now Views Whitman Negatively

From the new California Field Poll, "INCREASED SUPPORT FROM WOMEN, LATINOS, NON-PARTISANS AND L.A. COUNTY VOTERS PROPELLING BROWN TO A TEN-POINT LEAD - Whitman’s Image Has Deteriorated. A Majority Now Views Her Negatively."

The background's at S.F. Gate and Memeorandum.

Democrat Jerry Brown has amassed a 10-point lead in the California governor's race over Republican Meg Whitman, whose negative ratings have reached record levels despite her spending $162 million in the largest self-funded campaign in American history, a new Field Poll shows.

With election day on Tuesday, Brown holds a 49 to 39 percent lead over the former eBay CEO in the race, with 5 percent of voters favoring other candidates and 7 percent undecided, the poll showed. The Field poll last month showed the two candidates in a virtual tie.

"I don't think voters have warmed up to Meg Whitman," said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo.

It's no surprise. Whitman's given the voters nothing to get warm about.

GOP Election Day Advantage Aided by Surge in Independents who Lean Republican

At Gallup, "2010 Electorate Still Looking More Republican Than in the Past" (via Memeorandum):

The Big, Blue D Stands for 'Devil'

Great piece from Kyle-Anne Shiver, at American Thinker:

Whenever Democrats are scared down to their woolies that Uncle Sam's gravy train is about to get a new force of conductors -- who actually check for tickets and promise to balance the books -- their conservatives-are-haters reflex goes into overdrive. And it doesn't take a triple-digit IQ to see through this tacky ruse.

This reverse use of the hate card is so silly, really, when anyone with half a grain of true historical knowledge and an ounce of common sense knows that the big, blue D stands for "devil."

And, of course, the devil lies. Any second-grade Sunday-schooler knows that, honey.

Richard Warman Sues Blazingcatfur For Linking to 'Far Right' Mark Steyn — UPDATED!!

Blogging is the new hate speech.

UPDATE: There's a Memeorandum thread now for Blazing Catfur, and I'm cracking up at Aaron Worthing's comment that "'Blazing Catfur' is a blogger I have known since the Everyone Draw Mohammed controversy." I've been hanging with BCF since at least 2006, so I wonder if you can feel "old" in the blogosphere!

And via Glenn Reynolds, more at Five Feet of Fury:

Warman is suing for $500,000.

Arnie has already spent $10,000 in legal fees. We've put off asking for help for more than a year, but we now are coming to you for assistance.

I'm lucky: my readers have so far paid all my legal fees through their generous donations, which were made when the economy was much healthier.

We know that times are worse than hard for most of us. But all we can do is ask you to read the details of this SLAPP suit and consider helping us out in some tiny way.

These suits are designed to shut down conservative bloggers, and prevent public discussion of the censorship, bullying and bureaucratic abuses being carried out in your name, with your tax dollars.

Thanks in advance for your support!

More from Mark Steyn:

WARMAN WATCH

During my battles with the Canadian "human rights" regime, we relentlessly exposed the corrupt relationship between the Commissars and Canada's self-appointed Hatefinder-General, Richard Warman. See here and here, among many other places. I also spoke about him when testifying to Parliament. Almost as soon as the truth about his Nazi website postings became known, Warman began suing. He sued Ezra Levant, with whom I'll be appearing on Saturday, as well as Kate McMillan, Kathy Shaidle, Free Dominion and anyone else who got in his way. At the time, many people asked me why he hadn't sued me, both for columns that appeared in Maclean's and for posts such as this one at SteynOnline.

Well, the reason he didn't sue me is because (a) Maclean's is a corporate entity with very deep pockets and (b) SteynOnline is based in the United States, where no court would give him the time of the day. So considerably more vulnerable Canadians have had to bear the brunt and serve as proxy targets for Warman's shakedown racket. He is now suing Blazing Cat Fur merely for linking to "far-right web site" SteynOnline, and demanding half-a-million dollars for damage to his "reputation". "Lame," says Instapundit. Warman will not win, but please go over and drop a few bucks in the Cat's kitty for his legal defense fund. The disgusting Warman has already been rebuked by a CHRT judge for his dress-up Nazi activities, and we owe the exposure of that not to his doting stenographers at The London Free Press but to a few plucky bloggers like Cat Fur. Do help out if you can. (More on this from Mrs Cat Fur. See also Cat On A Hot Trudeaupian Roof - and some cartoon advice for both Warman and the Prophet.)

As for being a "far-right web site", during the period Richard Warman is suing over, SteynOnline featured my acclaimed obituaries from The Atlantic Monthly, my column from The Irish Times (one of the most liberal newspapers in Europe), interviews with Oscar-winning songwriters, and baking advice from Martha Stewart. By contrast, during the same time-frame, Stormfront member Richard Warman was busy posting racist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay comments all over Nazi websites. You be the judge. As they say at NPR, maybe he should see a psychiatrist.

~While North America's shrinking commitment to its free-speech inheritance is shameful, in many parts of Europe it's even worse. Like Geert Wilders, like Lars Hedegaard, like Ezra Levant, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff should not be on trial. Let's help her get a bit more media attention.

Brownshirts

Technically, it's Sturmabteilung, which is the German name for the SA, the Nazi Party stormtroopers that helped leverage Hitler to power in the 1920s and 1930s.

"Brownshirts" is the left's latest fad terminology to slur tea partiers are Nazis. Scotty Lemieux has been having a blast pretending to know a little history, and now here's Chris Matthews:

I gotta wonder when people are going to start wearing uniforms…I mean it isn’t far from what we saw in the thirties, where all of a sudden, political parties started showing up in uniform.

Tea Party Antics Could End Up Burning Republicans

That's the headline at WaPo:

The tea party's volatile influence on this election year appears to be doing more harm than good for Republicans' chances in some of the closest races in the nation, in which little-known candidates who upset the establishment with primary wins are now stumbling in the campaign's final days.

In Kentucky, a volunteer for tea-party-backed Senate candidate Rand Paul was videotaped stepping on the head of a liberal protester. In Delaware and Colorado, Senate hopefuls Christine O'Donnell and Ken Buck, respectively, are under fire for denying that the First Amendment's establishment clause dictates a separation of church and state. In Nevada, GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle is drawing rebuke for running TV ads that portray Latino immigrants as criminals and gang members.

Perhaps the most dramatic tea party problems are in Alaska, where Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller is suffering another round of unfavorable headlines after it was revealed late Tuesday that he had admitted lying about his misconduct while working as a government lawyer in Fairbanks.

Miller was conducting his own poll in 2008 in an effort to oust a state GOP chairman, and he used his colleagues' computers to vote in the survey, then erased their computers' caches to try to hide what he had done.

"I was beyond stupid," he wrote in a letter of apology included in documents ordered released by a judge Tuesday. He was suspended for three days without pay, according to the documents.

Miller, who was considered a shoo-in just two months ago when he defeated Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary, was already falling quickly in GOP and Democratic internal polls before Tuesday's revelations, strategists said. Last week, he was in the spotlight when a campaign-paid security guard handcuffed a reporter who tried to ask Miller a question.

Such moments are giving Democrats hope that the few undecided voters who remain may become turned off and move away from Republicans in the closer races nationwide, including those in Colorado, Nevada and Kentucky.

"In state after state, Republicans nominated a less viable general-election candidate, and that's more on display than ever in these final days of the campaign," said Eric Schultz, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Miller's latest travails are more likely to give the advantage to Murkowski, who began a write-in campaign shortly after her primary loss, than to Democrat Scott McAdams, the little-known mayor of Sitka. But even in Republican-leaning Alaska, no one is counting out McAdams: Both Murkowski and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is backing Miller, are running ads targeting the Democrat.

The Miller campaign did not respond to inquiries Wednesday. But the Murkowski team jumped on the latest disclosure. "The bottom line is Joe cheated, he lied, tried to cover it up, lied again, then finally got caught and had to admit it, just as he lied to Alaskans when he initially denied any problems with his employment at the [Fairbanks North Star] Borough, claiming his record was 'exceptional' and 'second to none.' "

Miller's most ardent supporters say they are unfazed. Asked whether her group plans to pull its support for Miller, Amy Kremer, head of the national Tea Party Express group, said via e-mail: "Absolutely not! As a matter of fact, we are going back up on the air for Joe Miller because he is the only candidate addressing the important economic issues facing America while Lisa Murkowski is following the Democrat game plan around the country of only making vicious attacks on her opponent."

In addition, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin will appear with Miller on Thursday at a rally in Anchorage.

I haven't been following the Alaska race much at all (so check Dan Riehl), although clearly WaPo sees these dramatic "tea party" incidents as a chance to slam the grassroots right. The media's demonization of Delaware's Christine O'Donnell is pretty much played out; Sharron Angle long ago proved that's she's the real deal in Nevada; and the Rand Paul headstomping story in Kentucky isn't even about Rand Paul. For the MFM, these stories --- now with stuff like Joe Miller's missteps in Alaska --- are opening up an alternative media line as we move into the last week of the campaign. And of course things are looking simply disastrous for the Democrats. (California Senator Dianne Feinstein went off message yesterday, suggesting things are just plain old "bad" for the party.) I'm not holding my breath for any big breakthroughs in the Senate anyway. I won't be surprised with 7 or 8 seats, but it's an extreme longshot for taking all ten needed to restore GOP control. Maybe James Carville's weird kinda hunch that voters will just sweep everyone out will come true. Mostly though, it's going to be sweet to win back the House. Democrats will be on defense for the next two years, and only a strong economy will save them from losing the White House in 2012.

VIDEO HAT TIP: The Other McCain.

Kid on the Street Campaign Endorsements

Robert Stacy McCain reporting:

Change! Voters Abandoning Democrat-Socialists Faster Than Rats From Sinking Ship!!

And nearly four out of five respondents rate the econony as "fairly bad" or "very bad"; a majority of 54 percent say they are "disappointed with the Obama presidency so far"; and 55 percent say they would "rather have a smaller government providing fewer services" than a "bigger government providing more services."

See "New York Times/CBS News Poll: Majorities of Women, Independents and Other Groups Switching Allegiances to G.O.P." (via Memeorandum):

Critical parts of the coalition that delivered President Obama to the White House in 2008 and gave Democrats control of Congress in 2006 are switching their allegiance to the Republicans in the final phase of the midterm Congressional elections, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Republicans have wiped out the advantage held by Democrats in recent election cycles among women, Roman Catholics, less affluent Americans and independents. All of those groups broke for Mr. Obama in 2008 and for Congressional Democrats when they grabbed both chambers from the Republicans four years ago, according to exit polls.

If women choose Republicans over Democrats in House races on Tuesday, it will be the first time they have done so since exit polls began tracking the breakdown in 1982.

The poll provides a pre-Election Day glimpse of a nation so politically disquieted and disappointed in its current trajectory that 57 percent of the registered voters surveyed said they were more willing to take a chance this year on a candidate with little previous political experience. More than a quarter of them said they were even willing to back a candidate who holds some views that “seem extreme.”

JammieWearingFool has more.

Bounce Boxer!

Longtime readers here will note the delicious irony in this, from Michelle, "Babs Boxer tries to recruit kiddie campaigners in L.A. public schools." (Via Memeorandum.)

Here's the clip social studies teachers were encouraged to share with their students, in violation of the California Education Code:

AND REMEBER: It's okay if Democrats do it, but not conservatives: "Bulletin Board Defacement - Leftist 'Tolerance' at LBCC!"

'You've Got to Know Who Your Enemy Is...'

Hey, if Obama wants to slam his opponents as enemies, that's fine by me:

In a radio interview that aired on Univision on Monday, Mr. Obama sought to assure Hispanics that he would push an immigration overhaul after the midterm elections, even though he has not been able to attract Republican support.

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

Sure. I'm down bro. "You've got to know who your enemy is" (from Canada's D.O.A., here, here, and here):

Meg Whitman Profiled at Los Angeles Times

By now I've pretty much laid out my feelings about Meg Whitman. But what the heck, I'll post today's profile at the Times anyway, in keeping with my election reporting. See, "Meg Whitman is All Business, All the Time." I'm not seeing any choice passages to quote, so readers can read it all at the link. The main thesis is that Whitman's obsessively private. She refused multiple interview requests by the Times. She's kept her family completely off the campaign radar screen, and her husband's been relegated to the sidelines (and he's only given one interview in 30 years of marriage). Perhaps, as some interviewed at the following campaign clip suggest, Meg Whitman's a genuinely down home woman who represents old-fashioned, small-town values. But how would anyone ever know? I met Steve Poizner during the primaries, but Meg Whitman must have considered the tea parties undignified. Maybe massive media buys would propel her to Sacramento. Who knows? Mostly, she's not run an effective campaign. She's especially failed to offer the voters something genuinely different. Why should we elect you, Meg? You don't sound so different than the dozens of cookie-cutter moderate Republicans who've come before. Indeed, by appearing as though you'd do just about anything to win office you've revealed more of yourself than you could ever buy with that endless spigot of campaign cash. It's seems like such a waste, and some say that it's not going to matter much on election day anyways. So there you go. See, "Good-Bye, California."

Lauren Valle Claims She Was 'Chased Around' Rand Paul's Car Before Being 'Pulled Down' and 'Stomped On' — UPDATED!!

A full report from Red State: "Exclusive Video: Lauren Valle Before The Head Stomp Vid." As noted at the post, and to reiterate, no one should be excusing head-stomping. It's not okay. That said, Lauren Valle's a liar? Here's her statement to Keith Olbermann, and at the top video. Below is a clip showing Rand Paul's vehicle pulling up to stop, just before the altercation. It's clear from the images that Lauren Valle's account is inaccurate, especially her claim that Paul supporters "chased me around the car":

Well just before the tape I was identified by the Rand Paul campaign because they’ve seen me around town at these events. And they realized they know me because of my work and they don’t support it. So they actually formed a blockade around me once they realized that I was there. And as Rand’s car pulls up they step in front of me and start to block me so I stepped off the curb to try and get around them and at that point they pursued me around the car, chased me around the car, and what you see in the video is when I’m in the front of the car and that’s when I’m pulled down and then my head is stomped on.

More details at Red State. But honestly, she's a young woman with a criminal history. And as we can see she's obviously lying about being "chased around the car," which is typical for leftists. And of course, commie idiots like Blue Texan and Scott Lemieux are simply suborning the dishonesty. It's all plain as day. Pathetic.

Lots more on this at Memeorandum.

**********

UPDATE: No More Mr. Nice Blog suggests I get an eye test. Is that Lauren Valle at 53 seconds running around the front of the car? Could be, so I'll concede the point, although that post is from "Red State Insider" and not Erick Erickson, so perhaps Steve M. will join me in getting an eye test:

Negative Ads Roil California Governor's Race

I don't see why folks are complaining. Some research shows that negative advertising supplies voters with more information on the candidates than any other source. At RCP:

Also: "Brown, Whitman Challenged to Pull Negative Ads in California Governor Race."

RepubliCorp

Neon Tommy has the background: "MoveOn Recruits Olivia Wilde From "House" For New RepubliCorp Ad." And let it be noted: This isn't gonna help lefties for squat.

Mayor-Elect Rob Ford

At the Toronto Sun (via Blazing Cat Fur, who's been blogging the Toronto mayoral election almost exclusively of late, on this stuff, for example, "Ontario Minister Accuses Mayor-Elect Rob Ford of Bigotry").

Typical leftists. Anyway:

Given the huge endorsement he received from Toronto voters Monday, Mayor-elect Rob Ford now has the moral authority to do what he said he would do at City Hall.

That is, grab the place by the throat, cut taxes, eliminate waste and, as he repeated thousands of times on the campaign trail, “stop the gravy train.”

Monday’s election was clearly a game-changer. With a new mayor and at least 14 new councillors, one-third of council was replaced in one fell swoop.

Five incumbents were defeated, one is teetering, virtually unheard of in a municipal election. Torontonians — with a stunning 52% voter turnout — made it clear they want massive changes at City Hall and they want them now. They want their municipal politicians to start listening to them and an end to the tax-and-spend madness and political and bureaucratic indifference and arrogance of the last seven years.

As mayor, Ford now has an obligation to work with this new council and to govern for the good of the entire city.

But make no mistake. Both newly-elected and incumbent councillors also have an obligation to work with Ford in the interests of doing what taxpayers want, especially given the size of Ford’s victory.

So let’s have no more foolish, arrogant talk as some on council’s left-wing started, that they would choose their own mayor and freeze Ford out.

Torontonians won’t stand for it and the voters are never wrong ...

And at National Post, "A Right Turn."

'I'm Voting for Liberty in November'

From the Chicago Tea Party:

Hat Tip: AT THE POINT OF A GUN.