This blog features observations from Randy Turner, a former teacher, newspaper reporter and editor. Send news items or comments to rturner229@hotmail.com
Monday, July 26, 2010
Gutless cowards who remain anonymous attack Billy Long
When I sat in the front row at the Seventh District candidate forum at Missouri Southern State University last week, I was pleased to see the auditorium was packed with voters interested in seeing which of the 10 men on stage would best represent southwest Missouri in Washington.
The attention that has been paid to this race has been gratifying. The Joplin Globe and Springfield News-Leader have gone above and beyond their usual political reporting to provide a thorough examination of the candidates' platforms.
A teenager named Eli Yokley with The Fuse-Joplin has once again shown with his standout coverage of the race, and politics in general, that young people are ready and willing to play a part in making our system, the best system in the world, work.
People have been talking politics and that is good for our nation.
And even the attempts by some of the major candidates to gain an advantage in the campaign through the use of poorly written, ham-handed attack blogs, have been unsuccessful. For once, the issues have been what mattered.
Unfortunately today we have been slapped in the face with a reminder of why so many people have become disenchanted with politics as usual in the United States. The rumors spread over the weekend that an attack ad would be launched today against the presumed Republican front runner, Springfield auctioneer Billy Long.
I saw the ad for for the first time and it was everything the rumors indicated it would be- it was low, it was dirty, it was negative, and most of all it was misleading. And, of course, the source of the ad cannot be traced to any of Billy Long's opponents.
It was paid for by Americans for Job Security. Sounds good, doesn't it. What Americans wouldn't be for job security. If Americans who want job security think Billy Long is bad, we must have all been asleep and failed to notice his red horns and tail.
Americans for Job Security was started several years courtesy of a $1 million donation by the American Insurance Association. According to documents filed today with the Federal Election Commission, Americans for Job Security spent $44,100 against Billy Long. That amount will increase between now and August 3.
Billy Long is the front runner and apparently he must be doing something that has the people in Washington, D. C. worried- or there is a candidate the special interests would much prefer to have as Seventh District Congressman. No way of knowing just who those special interests are. They are not required to submit their names to the FEC. They can feel free to hide behind patriotic sounding names like Americans for Job Security and make claims that no one will have the time or the money to refute.
This would be a perfect time for Billy Long's opponents in this Seventh District race to restore some decency to the campaign by issuing statements condemning Americans for Job Security and the group's effort to destroy what has been the most fascinating race the Seventh District has seen in decades.
And one last message to Billy Long: You and your supporters do not have a corner on the market.
Ever since I saw cowards, hiding behind the cloak of anonymity, attempting to hijack this election, you can count me as being fed up, too.
so...tell us which opponent(s) are behind this. Frankly, I don't see this as any more "dirty" than someone talking Steve Hunter into filing to cut Nodler out of the race....I would guess the most dirt in this race has been against Mr. Nodler.
ReplyDeleteBut when dirt is thrown it often misses its mark...how many votes is Hunter going to take away from anyone? This was a dirty deal and it makes Hunter and his string puller look pretty bad....I think most people know who put Hunter up to this and who helped with the orchestration.
The question the ad raises, about the airport bus terminal, is a legitimate question that Billy has been ducking.
ReplyDeleteWhen on the airport board he voted to seek out earmarks, now, when it is political expedient, he is against them.
He has never explained his vote.
Billy is a buffoon.
Where does Billy's own involvement in anonymous cowardice fit in to this? Many say it is his campaign that entered Steve Hunter into the race. Many think the Long campaign is behind the Defeat Nodler site. It is also known that Long's campaign filed an ethics charge against a minor.
ReplyDeleteHow can you portray Long as innocent when he had only one chance to vote for or against an earmark and voted for it?
I posted on this airport earmark last week. One commentator left this remark:
ReplyDelete"This is the rush-job earmark that spent $7 million dollars to build a $900,000 metal building for charter buses that seldom used it and CU bus traffic.
"Was this part of the Vision 2000, or 20/20 or 40/12 or whatever program that has wasted so much money?
"And to think that Mr. Long is so politically challenged that he pledges not to ask for earmarks after mis-handling this earmark while he had oversight responsibilities on the Springfied/Branson Airport Board.
"Enough is enough Mr. Long, and you've had your chance and blew it. Sure don't need your blind eye in Congress."
As an aside, I drove my bus to the airport to pickup a large group of family members and I was told I could not park in the bus barn, it was reserved for buses.
I will agree. Billy Long is no innocent, but the timing on this attack cannot be ignored. We are on the eve of a Congressional vote that would require the kind of people who are willing to pay millions of dollars to pervert the system to come out from the shadows. This is something that would be good for America.
ReplyDeleteLet's be blunt about this.
ReplyDeleteLet's see. One character who abused his position as a reporter and editor to tell half-truths and outright lies about others and laughed at his superficial smarmy cleverness all the way until the readership and management of the Carthage Press booted him out is whining about 'gutless cowards' who, for all their faults, spend their own money telling the truth about a politician pretending not to be a politician.
ReplyDeleteGutless coward, thy name is Randy Turner.
As the ad in question and some of the commenters point out, Long was in a position to deny and refuse an earmark, but when it was his turn at trough, plunged his snout deep and slurped on down. So, an ad pointing this out is an 'honest' political ad insofar as any of them are. Pointing out that a political candidate is a liar and hypocrite is what these idiot fraudulent [s]elections should be about, for those idiot feebs concerned about the appearance of honesty is politics and those do-gooders who 'think' that they need to tell the rest of us what to think. Me, I much prefer an honest cynicism.
Now when I seen the ad, I thought that it was by some public union or school teachers PAC and thought that it would backfire and actually help Long. And maybe it is indeed backed by Long as well.
As long as you have an idiot population of drones turned out by the Turner Corps[e] of pub[l]ic edumacation liberals and a bunch of crooked politicians and lawyers wanting to have a renewed turn at the pub[l]ic trough, especially in a year that most of these thieving parasites have been term-limited out, then you will have lying political advertising, especially when advertising is usually puffery at best and lying as usual.
Turner bitching about the elections being corrupt is like a streetwalker complaining about the working girls going into caucus to choose the new madam at the brothel from which Turner has already been turfed out for picking the pockets of the tricks and making the rest of the working girls look bad.
Look, Dick. Look Jane. See (and hear) Turner squeal? Squeal, Turner, squeal. Squeal, squeal, squeal, squeal, squeal.
Wrong. Gutlesscoward=attorney=shyster=Dwight Douglas
ReplyDeleteThis thing does not pass the stink test.
ReplyDeleteIt takes some powerful people with lots of political skills and connections to make this happen. Who could line up the thousands of dollars to produce this crap and then purchase media time?
Who has the power to use this approach to help a another congressional candidate? It takes a political slime ball to make this happen.
It has to be someone with the skills of Jeff Roe or James Harris. It has to be someone with direct connections to one of the candidates.
It's, it's, it's...........not me! I'm just an interested voter.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the Blunt's and Goodman behind this, they're the only ones with enough influence (maybe Nodler, but I doubt it).
ReplyDeleteBy the way Randy, I like the video version of your report, but HD camcorders are pretty cheap. If you spent $200 your videos would look about 200x better :)
talk about gutless cowards, what about the anonymous coward who runs defeat nodler and has attacked all major and some minor candidates other than billy long. Seems quite possible billy himself has his fingerprints on that little site.
ReplyDeleteI doubt these are the same gutless cowards taking Nodler's television commercials and phoning voters late and night and early in the morning attempting to eroid Nodlers's support.
ReplyDeleteJeff Roe operates this way.He directly reflects the ethical standards of his candidates. All it would take would be for his clients to say 'You know what Jeff, I do not want to be associated with that type of political campaign.
Think about the deep-down values of candidates like Long, Steelman and Huckabee when they use this type of political consultant to win at any cost.
The airport board vote to pursue funding to expand the infrastructure was a good vote.
ReplyDeleteSimply put, Branson and Springfield recognized that people would 'fly in' and 'bus down' to spend money on vacation.
Wardell and Nodler appear to be the ony two candidates who understand how the appropriations process works.
Long's vote may indicate that he only goes along with the crowd, which is not what we need in Congress.
To Anonymous 4:57: I totally agree with your assessment of the Defeat Nodler website and I should have written about it long ago.My only excuse is that I began ratcheting up coverage of the Seventh District Congressional race in recent weeks, by which time Defeat Nodler and the other similar websites had become totally irrelevant (if they ever were relevant).
ReplyDeleteAny problem with the First Amendment, Randy? You might consider that anonymous commentary (which this ad is NOT; its source is clearly identified) played a vital role is this Country's founding. Far from being un-American, anonymous political commentary is as old as America herself. "The great debate between Britain and her American colonies . . . took place on many levels. However, the debate was dominated and carried on most consistently by anonymous essayists and by pamphleteers who purported to be anonymous but whose identities were usually known to their contemporaries." Merrill Jensen, Tracts of the American Revolution, 1763-1776. All the modern day hand wringing over the lack of civility and transparency in politics would seem silly to the (mostly) men who built this Nation on a foundation of VERY rough-and-tumble political speech, much of it anonymous(lest they be hanged from the same tree you would proverbially hang the AJS from). So if you have something to say about the veracity of the claims in the ad, let's hear it. But leave the overwrought laments and tired innuendo about shaddowy sources to the howl-at-the-moon types. Alternatively, stop letting people post to your page anonymously.
ReplyDeleteIt is ridiculous to say the ad is not anonymous because it says paid for by Americans for Job Security at the end. Check out the website for this "organization" and try to find more than one or two names associated with it. It was clearly set up to allow some well-heeled people to influence the electorate without having their fingerprints all over the results.
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous 6:03: Thanks for the advice on the videos. I started those because of the greater readership I had once I started adding other videos to the blog. However, after looking at these commentary videos (and then screaming in horror) I may just stay out of the vidoes (except for Natural Disaster videos, of course).
ReplyDeleteIt's equally ridiculous to keep calling it "vicious" lor "misleading" without yet explaining why.
ReplyDeleteAnd what is it you want? Name, address, phone numbers, SSN's, occupations, income? How much fodder for those who disagree with the ad should it's authors have to voluntarily turn over?
Re-posting your column on the Daily Kos doesn't seem to have garnered a much more favorable response from the loons there than it did here. I also noticed that one person there made the exact same point I did previously about anonymous pamphleteering in the 1700's. Again, hey were alot less dainty back then than the AJS ever could get away with today.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I don't know if your intent here is to maintain a non-partisan front or not but, if it is, going on the Daily Kos and flatly dsavowing every single straight-down-the-line-conservative position held by a Republican Congressional candidate in your district goes a long way toward blowing your cover.
If you will check, my Daily Kos articles have often irritated many of the readers there because I am not a follow the party line person But I am willing to tangle with those guys as much as I am some of those who comment on this blog.
ReplyDeleteWell, they're an irritable bunch on spec, so that's no surprise. But even several of them seem to grudgingly acknowledge that cataloguing affiliations in the name of an imagined "right to know" that isn't in the Constitution when the First Amendment right to free association most certainly IS enshrined there is a bad idea. If you're getting hit from the left and the right, it might be a good idea to re-evaluate.
ReplyDeleteI look at it differently. I figure when both sides are irritated with me, I must be hitting the nail on the head.
ReplyDelete2+2=5 is wrong no matter how many people line up against you to tell you it's 4. And the Constitution doesn't contain a "right to know" clause no matter how many people you irritate by saying it does.
ReplyDeleteYou must not be reading this blog closely. I can't recall ever saying the Constitution says anything about that. What the Constitution does do is authorize Congress to make laws. And laws to protect the people's right to know and to ensure the openness of our elections are wise, sensible, and necessary to restore faith in the system.
ReplyDeleteNo, the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to "pass laws" willy nilly. The Bill of Rights LIMITS their ability to pass laws. The First Amendment says Congress "shall pass no law" respecting the right to associate. You can't use the "Necessary and Proper" Clause to trump the First Amendment and create rights that don't exist. I defy you to point to a single provision that says the people have the right to know who donates money to whom without misusing the "necessary and proper" clause.. And I'm still waiting to know what the difference is between AJS and the pamphleteers who anonymously railed against taxes two centuries ago.
ReplyDeleteRandy, say you get the law you want and access to the names of everyone who ever donated to AJS. Then what, my friend? That information is useless unless one thing happens: you or someone else finds out what they can about that person or persons and . . . then what? You use that information to, at best, paint them as biased or, at worst, persecute them and try to discredit them. See Joe the Plumber. Either way, what in the world have you done to address the merits of WHAT THEY SAID? Something is not more or less true as a result of who said it. Either Billy Long voted for an earmark or he did not. The only reason whatsoever for you or anyone else to get the names of AJS contributors is so you can paint them as biased. Guess what? They are. They don't want Billy Long elected. That much is clear already from the ad. You don;t need their names unless you intend to discredit the message by dirtying up the messenger, whom you already have decided are "well-heeled" without even knowing their names. That's dangerous. If the people are too stupid to figure out for themselves whether the claims in an ad are true or false without knowing who financed it, then shame on them. Maybe they and Billy deserve each other.
And that last part is what it all comes down to. Let's blame the voter and call him stupid if he is unable to figure out the truth behind an ad when he has no real idea of who is behind the ad. Americans for Job Security sounds much better than any one particular millionaire with a score to settle or any cabal of special interest groups. You are twisting the First Amendment. The speech rights of those who finance these ads is not being threatened. They can speak all they want. But those who are affected by that speech have the right to know who is attempting to influence them and through what means. There is absolutely nothing that would make the Disclose Act, if it is ever passed, unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete"But those who are affected by that speech have the right to know who is attempting to influence them and through what means."
ReplyDeleteSays who? You? Chuck Schummer? Obama? Certainly not the Constitution. And how are you not assuming the voter's "stupidity" by using language like "those affected by that speech"? Does this or any other ad have some sort of Orwellina power to annex the ability of the hearer to think or investigate the claim itself? If the ad were put out by Barbarians for a Fascist and Dictatorial State and financed by the Manson Family would you be any closer to knowing whether Billy Long voted for an earmark? No. But you'd have more than enough grist for the mill in papering over the speech by trashing the speaker. Which is the one and only point of disclosure laws.
Thanks you two! You have allowed me the opportunity to be entertained this afternoon in a civil discussion.
ReplyDeleteAnd now, it's gin:30 and the lounge is open.
Interesting that the commercial has been removed from Youtube and from airing on TV.
ReplyDeleteWhy would this happen?
Says who? You? Chuck Schummer? Obama? Certainly not the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteOr the Supreme Court led by Warren deciding on this issue in 1960.
2:51
ReplyDeleteBecause the folks a UpYourTube can be intimidated.
That attempt by the Long legal team to get a restraining order in Circuit Court failed.
Or did I just make that up?
I believe the Blunt/Goodman family is responsible.
Or did I just make that up?