Skip to comments.Our say: Steffen setup just a side issue (MD4BUSH vs. NCPAC)
Posted on 12/20/2005 5:47:51 PM PST by HighWheeler
ONE THING is certain about dirty politics -- it's a malady afflicting both parties.
A conservative Web site is alleging that a former Democratic Party worker baited an aide to Gov. Robert Ehrlich Jr. into discoursing on the Internet about the personal life of Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley.
This rumor-mongering got the aide, Joseph Steffen, immediately fired. But it was a black eye for the governor, even if he wasn't personally involved.
Now, the conservative Web site freerepublic.com says one of several addresses used in the e-mail exchange with Mr. Steffen is email@example.com. Democratic Party officials confirm that is the address used by Ryan O'Doherty, who worked for them for one year in communications.
It appears Mr. Steffen got set up -- but so what? He's still guilty of putting smears on the Internet.
This entire episode is much ado about nothing. Mr. Steffen's role in sweeping out longtime state employees who happened to be Democrats is far more interesting -- and far worse -- than his cheap shots on the Internet.
Mr. Ehrlich fired Mr. Steffen and said he neither ordered nor condoned a smear campaign against a likely gubernatorial opponent. Since no leader in any organization controls all the activities of all subordinates, we take him at his word. But how does the governor explain Mr. Steffen's activities in cleansing the state workforce of Democrats?
The public shouldn't be fooled by efforts to shift the discussion to side issues. The real point is not who set up Mr. Steffen, but whether Mr. Steffen used the power of the governor's office to fire competent state employees because of their party affiliation.
I guess MD4BUSH is in the clear with these guys.
Actually MD4Bush did all the talking. The Rats and their supporters are certainly trying to spin this.
If Steffan flushed the state of Dem workers, he needs a medal.
"He's still guilty of putting smears on the Internet."
No, Doherty or the WashPost reporter pasted private Freepmails to a public board.
That's what I was thinking, it was MD4Bush was the one that was doing the smearing and trying to get the other guy to agree with him.
"He's still guilty of putting smears on the internet"
Isn't that called SLANDER?
"But how does the governor explain Mr. Steffen's activities in cleansing the state workforce of Democrats?"
If he has any sense he will explain it as a damn good start.
I believe Freepers are the only ones that have even made that point.
Mainly depends on the truth or falsehood of the content. It can get a bit complicated due to issues like presentation and provability of the charge - but if the "smear" is true then it's protected under law and First Amendment.
Of course some individuals try and turn "valid smears" in to blackmail. Those folks go to jail.
These morons could NOT possibly have read these posts and come away from the posts with that understanding.
So, let's get this straight:
Don't believe me, though, that it was MD4Bush that was slamming O'Malley...
Amazing that they could take Kerick down sooooo easily-- yet O'Malley still roams unscathed. Should send a note to Kerick, Baltimore is looking for a Police commissioner, it doesnt matter if you cheat on your wifeThis is, as far as I can tell, THE FIRST reference to marital indiscretions on the part of this O'Malley character. In that entire post, there is ONLY 1 reference to O'Malley and it is made by MD4Bush.
Source: Post 71 of 153 Double affair laid bare: Kerik cheated on wife with Judith Regan and correction officer
It isn't until FEBRUARY 8TH, 2005 that MD4Bush triplicate posts (at 11:05:05 PM EST, 11:13:59 PM EST, and 11:14:48 PM EST, respectively) the alledged conversations between NCPAC and himself. In one of these "private" emails (FREEPmails) there is some banter that Duncan is holding the MO'M story until the primaries (clearly refering to the marital allegations).
The O'Malley issue isn't a topic of discussion, feverish debate, or notable mention of discussion by NCPAC. It is, at most, a passing jab at O'Malley.
Really, what else is there to know? Ok. You want to go a little deeper? Ok. Let's do that.
The closest thing to outright "rumor-mongering" that NCPAC is remotely involved in happned on this thread: Attn: MD residents - Norris & O'Malley traveling/party pals, posted on 08/13/04. The story is a rumor, to be sure. And, the rumor regards both O'Malley and former Policy Chief Norris. On the same day of the original thread (08/13/2004), NCPAC makes a post on the original thread, but it is poking fun, at best. One of the (many) rumors was that O'Malley had an affair with a reporter named Sade Baderinwa. So, NCPAC pokes fun and says:
I have a glossy of SB [Sade Baderinwa] from her TV11 days. Am thinking of taking it to one of MO'M's concerts and asking him to autograph it for me.(Note: The "MO'M's concerts" reference is to Mayor O'Malley's band that he plays in from time to time).
Now, I don't think that can be called "rumor-mongering" of any accord. Poking fun? Sure. Making a joke at some else's expense? Certainly.
But, "rumor-mongering"? Get real.
It isn't until the 26th post that was posted on 02/10/2005 (Link) that the rumor mill is cited...well, re-cited. Post 26 (made by Iam1ru1-2) reiterated the rumor about an alledged affair the O'Malley had with Sade Baderinwa. In fact, the post is actually a repost from the website Bestandworst.com, which is a sort of rumor mill.
That's it. That's the extent of NCPAC's "rumor-mongering.
So, out of the, literally, hundreds of posts that NCPAC has made, that is the ONLY reference to O'Malley to anything to do with O'Malley's marital situation.
NCPAC does concur with a post that called O'Malley "a complainer and a whiner" (#5 by spiffy). But, no marital implications. (Ironcially, spiffy rhetorically asked on the same post the afterthought in parantheses, "(He can't track me down, can he?)").
Hmm... That post was made all the way back in 1/7/2004. Wonder if the O'Malley gang was indeed seeking out political foes. It should be noted that MD4Bush registered 10/7/2004, which is several days after the election. That's pretty odd. Someone that was supportive enough to take on the name "MD4Bush" joins one of the premier conservative forums after the President has already won re-election. It should also be noted that it was only weeks after SIGNIFICANT national exposure due to the Dan Rather/Memogate situation. (We all know it now, but it looks to me that this was a very planned operation by the Maryland democrat party. Talk about dirty tricksters.)
That takes an interesting turn, because NCPAC actually admits that he has worked for many different candidates, including Ehrlich. He did so on Post #231 of a thread titled "Are the "red states" in jeopardy for Bush?" (Click here for the link to his comment).
NCPAC also opines, with some "smart" information, about Erlich's intentions for 2008.
One has to wonder if he was targeted.
Then, it culiminates in the NCPAC (Steffen) resignation on 02/08/2005. NCPAC makes it clear that he resigned and that the MD Governor had nothing to do with the alledged "rumors" and admits that he doesn't know what "private emails" that the reporter is referring to. Presumably, it is referring to the "emails" (actually and supposedly FREEPmails between MD4Bush and NCPAC) where NCPAC spreads rumors.
Here is the question: if NCPAC didn't POST rumors (either by posting fallacious threads or promulgating them with rumor-based comments within threads), how could he even remotely be referred to as a "rumor-monger"? How?
Second question: how can ANY reporter believe the supposed emails (FREEPmails) posted by MD4Bush that give the appearance that NCPAC might have said something disparaging or remotely referring to O'Malley and the potential that his political rival (Duncan) was waiting to drop a heavy story until later...how could that be considered "rumor-mongering, 1) on it's face and 2) by the source of the post (MD4Bush) attribute the comments to NCPAC?
I mean, what is going on with these people? A guy that was pretending to be a conservative guy the whole time he was posting on a conservative, for quite a while, ends up being a paid democrat operative...THEN, that paid operative posts (and, essentially, introduces) supposed email exchanges between him and NCPAC...AND we are supposed to believe who?
MD4Bush, a paid democrat political operative, is the credible source to have introduced the supposed "damning evidence" of NCPAC's "rumor-mongering" by citing emails, not actual posts that NCPAC made?
MD4Bush, a paid democrat political operative, posts an email that may or may not have been NCPAC's actual comments and that's confirmed "rumor-mongering"? What?
MD4Bush, a paid democrat political operative, is the source for the rumor-mongering, not NCPAC.
Anyway following this story can see that..EXCEPT for the The Capital Online Editorial board. I'jits.
I meant to say:
that he HEARD that the reporter had one kid and heard that she had twins - i.e. inconsistent information from competing sources.
Pretty slimey but they are not denying it anymore.
From the article:
"Mr. Ehrlich fired Mr. Steffen and said he neither ordered nor condoned a smear campaign against a likely gubernatorial opponent. Since no leader in any organization controls all the activities of all subordinates, we take him at his word. But how does the governor explain Mr. Steffen's activities in cleansing the state workforce of Democrats?"
If I recall correctly, wasn't it the great DEMOCRAT Bill Clinton who, upon entering the White House, fired ALL federal prosecutors and the entire travel office?
The real point is not who set up Mr. Steffen, but whether Mr. Steffen used the power of the governor's office to fire competent state employees because of their [D] party affiliation.
Yes, these very same two thoughts are expressed in this above article. Amazing. I wonder if and when Dems and MSM share a "lobe", do they sacrifice brain cells in the process?
The executive editor, Tom Marquardt, recently wrote a personal piece where he denied any bias in the MSM and wanted people to send him examples of bias when they think they see it.
WOULD this qualify?
It seems that they are so blinded at the editorial staff that they refuse to look at facts although I realize "facts can be challenging", especially when they don't support your own particular bias.
Might be a good opportunity to send a few letters to the editor...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.