Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Guilt by Association
The New York Times commits drive-by journalism against three Republican presidential contenders:
The leader of a white supremacist group that has been linked to Dylann Roof, the suspect in the murder of nine African-Americans in a Charleston, S.C., church last week, has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Republican campaigns, including those of 2016 presidential contenders such as Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum and Rand Paul, records show.
There is no evidence that the Cruz, Santorum or Paul campaigns solicited donations from Earl Holt, the white supremacist leader who has been linked to Roof. The Cruz campaign immediately returned the funds once they were notified of their origin. It is likely that the Santorum and Paul campaigns will do the same shortly. It doesn’t require a journalism degree to grasp that national presidential organizations do not have the time or resources to vet individual donations, even ones that run into the thousands of dollars.
The sophomoric attempt to link the Republican Party to white supremacism is almost par for the course, what makes this article truly appalling is the tangential linking of Cruz, Santorum and Paul to the tragedy in Charleston. You need to follow the Times logic very closely for it to make even the slightest sense.
In his manifesto Dylann Roof cited Earl Holt’s bigoted writings for helping to radicalize him. Holt in turn gave thousands of dollars to a variety of Republican candidates over the years. So because an evil and deranged young man read something by someone he likely never met, who in turn had made financial contributions to Republicans, there is enough justification for making this tenuous relationship a front page story in the newspaper of record.
It’s often been remarked that the Times spends much of its energy these days running interference for the Clinton campaign. I doubt even the Clintons would stoop quite this low.
Published in General
What I don’t understand is why White supremacists aren’t smarter about where their money goes. It’s obvious the Democratic Party has done far more for their cause than any Republican.
I think the Clintons would stoop that low or lower.
This stuff just writes itself.
NY Times, March 16, 2008:
“A radical church leader who promotes racial division and anti-semitism has been linked to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. When reached for comment, Mr Obama, who has called the reverend his “spiritual advisor” and in whose church he has participated throughout his adult life, stated that “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community”.
NY Times, March 20, 2008:
“An unrepentant terrorist bomber and self proclaimed “communist revolutionary” who advocated the forceable internment of millions of Americans in re-education camps and approved of the assassination of Robert Kennedy because of his vote in favor of selling American jet fighters to Israel has been linked to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Though advisors to the candidate deny anything more than his passing acquaintance with Mr Ayers, a Times investigation reveals that the Mr Obama’s first political fundraiser was held in the home of Mr Ayers and that the former terrorist bomber was responsible for Mr Obama obtaining the only executive leadership role he has ever held. ”
BHO, yesterday blamed Fox News for being out of step with the NYT. Fox is causing all the angst in the country.
Of course he did. Fox has been Moby Dick to Obama’s Ahab since 2008.
While I don’t think a war of “guilt by association” is necessarily a good idea, I would have thought the NYTimes would have thought a little bit, before throwing out their volley, about what the return volleys might be. A useful admonition: Before starting a fight, think about what your opponent has. Does the NYT really want to invite reciting the neverending lists of disgusting donors to the various Clinton enterprises?
So, this sounds like, “Game on!” Let’s start going down the list of Hillary donors. I’m guessing that there are some unsavory characters. What, wait? The NYT isn’t writing those articles?
To their credit, they did give a couple days’ coverage to Clinton Cash, and bravo for doing that. Still, these Lanny Davis pieces are pretty low, even for the NYT.
I was wondering why in the world anyone would think this.
But there is that.
Unfortunately, if you told the typical Clinton voter about “Orgy Island” they’d probably say, “Sounds like fun.”
Even though he won two elections so apparently it hasn’t been too damaging or threatening to him.
They would just think you were spreading Fox lies.
I thought it was called Pedophile Island.
And yet we have a party stupid enough to think that surrending on issues like a flag is going to satisfy them. Meanwhile, the Left puts another notch on their belt, and prepares to push the Right even further back. And they’ll succeed. Again and again. Because “This isn’t the hill to die on” has become the Right’s motto. So they buckle again and again, on issues large and small, and the “When did you stop beating your wife?” questions keep coming.
Truly… the stupid party.
It the Times is willing to make a huge story out of Rubio getting one traffic ticket every five years there is no depth they will not stoop too. They are completely in the bag for the Democrats and we will see them getting even worse over the course of the next year. The Times can actually believe it is possible for a Republican to win the Presidency and for the Republicans to control the House and Senate. They will do ANYTHING to stop that.
“Has been linked.” I like that phrase. Makes me nostalgic for the immediate post-McCarthy years. (I’m not old enough to remember the actual McCarthy years. Well, actually I remember quite a bit from those years, but I wasn’t aware of him until some time after his death.)
Not that the exact phrase “has been linked” was used back then, but similar techniques were used.