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 firstname.lastname@example.org. 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...
Momentary, but notable, loss of brain function. Pardon.
Hopefully, the point still remains: that here is one of the most heated elections in the history of our country and a guy named MD4Bush "joins the party" (so to speak) right at election time.
Course, we now know that MD4Bush was a paid democrat operative, so it really doesn't matter. [wink]
Just goes to show that even when someone isn't brand new and an obvious ZOT, that the Viking Kittys should be ready to strike.
Thanks for the pings to this story.
Interesting that this "editorial" isn't screaming the word 'entrapment' as they would if the party affiliations were reversed.
"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?"
-- -- --
But, but, Clinton was cleaning the WH of evil people, so he could fill them with such competent people as Jocelyn Elders.
"Interesting that this "editorial" isn't screaming the word 'entrapment' as they would if the party affiliations were reversed."
Funny how these scumbags at 'The Capital' conveniently neglect to mention the complicity of a Washington Post reporter in this "setup".
(( ping ))
This had nothing to to with Martin O'Malley, it had everything to do with the Maryland Democrats trying to set up Joe Steffen to force his firing, because he was purging the state government of Democrat moles and because they wanted to embarrass Gov. Ehrlich. I will never believe that O'Doherty did this on his own, his superiors in the Maryland Democratic Party had to have known about it. And therein lies the scandal. This is a political dirty trick of epic proportions.
Imagine if the communications director for the RNC used RNC computers in 1998 to register on some liberal message boards with fake pro-Gore sounding screennames and then lured Al Gore's chief of staff into commenting on George W. Bush's alleged drug use. Would the media have howled about the rumor-mongering, or would it have gone after the RNC operative for setting the whole thing up and posing online as a Gore supporter? You make the call. My guess is that an incident like this would have led to the firing of several top people at the RNC, huge apologies to Al Gore and his staff person, and official disavowals by the Bush campaign which would have been sneered at by the MSM. This dirty trick would have dogged Bush the entire campaign. That is what SHOULD happen to the Maryland Democratic Party, Ryan O'Doherty, and whoever wins the Democratic nomination for Governor in 2006. But of course, it won't, because we have the "bigger scandal" of Joe Steffen helping to get rid of Democrat moles in state government who were undermining Gov. Ehrlich and giving information to his political enemies.
Not to mention the fact that MD4BUSH and probably Matthew Mosk at the Post violated federal law by allowing Mosk to log in to MD4BUSH's FR account and read his posts and private messages and by publicly posting private FReepmails between MD4BUSH and NCPAC (this was done in a blatant attempt to circumvent the law by making the illegally-obtained private messages public just before the Post story hit the wires.) If this had been the Gore-RNC scenario, you had better believe that the U.S. attorney would have prosecuted the RNC operative in a nanosecond. Terry McAuliffe would have been all over the airwaves about the "criminals" at the RNC who "invaded the privacy" of a White House aide.
Neither. They would have just run with the drug use story again.
Indeed, it is certainly curious that NCPAC (Steffen) was pretty open and honest about his brand of politics, that he was involved in politics, that had worked on many campaigns (all democrat foes, btw), and posted on a variety of topics.
What NCPAC never did, IN ANY OF THE THREADS on FR, was to quote-unquote "rumor-monger". Only an idiot or a liar could come up with conclusions to the contrary. And, while the left constantly has me asking myself, "Maybe these people really are that stupid?", I'm forced to admit that they aren't stupid. It leaves me with the more appropriate and only remaining choice: they are flatly dishonest. To their very core, these people are only about political hackery and advancement. All other things be damned.
If the "tables were turned", the media would have gone into orgasmic seizures by now. They, literally, would have killed each other stampeding to the microphones, keyboards, and presses. It would be wall-to-wall coverage, front-page news, so on and so on.
The reason that it's not is because, when the left's ideas (actions, thoughts, etc.) are compared to the right's ideas (actions, thoughts, etc.), the conservative movement comes up on the winning side of the argument 99% of the time.
And, they just can't have it. So, they shut the real story down, chop out the facts, wordsmith phrases to hieghten (or lessen) the impact (depending on their agenda and desired outcome). And that's what we get out of over 90% of the media.
When both sides of the story are told, most reasonably intelligent people would ask the left, "Who are you people? What planet did you come from? And, why do you all look like a bunch of pansies?" (or something to that effect).
Flat out. It doesn't really take a genius to know that these people are liars. Plain and simple.
For leftists...if they make a serious statement and it turns out to be true, they are oh-so perscient; if they are wrong, then they were "taken out of context" or "just kidding".
When you point out facts, lefts ignore it or accuse you of being a racist-bigoted-homophobic-oil-grubbing-hate-monger...and that's just to start.
Didn't MD4BUSH also pass along some tidbits about Senator Babs Milkulski's sex life? Not mentioned here....