Posted on 01/28/2012 12:19:22 AM PST by dixiechick2000
. . . of online media manipulation isn’t exactly new. In fact, it goes back well before Romney’s 2008 campaign got underway in earnest. It seems to date back to sometime in 2005, when RNC operatives arranged a meeting between Matt Drudge and Matt Rhodes — a highly placed operative in the Romney organization.
Last year, a delegation of RNC officials flew to Miami Beach, where Drudge lives, for a dinner at the Forge steakhouse to introduce the Internet maven to Matt Rhodes, the party’s new opposition research director.
Due to Drudge’s now-close friendship with Romney’s chief aide and longtime GOP opposition researcher, it’s a safe bet Perry supporters won’t have many positive headlines to look forward to from the erstwhile gadfly. Having apparently been fully co-opted by the dread Republican Establishment, Drudge has been feeding the conservative online community a steady diet of pro-Romney headlines for years and, more recently, anti-Perry headlines — just to strike a balance, you see.
Just this week, for example, five of six Drudge headlines about Perry include bad news, from polling to policy: “PERRY APOLOGIZES FOR CALLING GOP VOTERS ‘HEARTLESS’… Iowa: Romney 21%, Bachmann 15%, Perry 14%, Paul 12%…POLL: CAIN ON TOP, PERRY PLUMMETS…PERRY: MY WIFE PRODDED ME TO RUN.”
Romney benefited from similar treatment from Drudge during his last run for the White House, when Drudge went hammer-and-tong against each of his opponents — reserving special scrutiny for Mike Huckabee:
A year ago, Rhodes signed on to Romney’s campaign. Since then, Drudge-watchers have noted Drudge’s consistent refusal to hype–and in many cases to even mention–negative stories about Romney. But now Huckabee threatens to blow Romney’s nomination strategy. Since last week, Drudge has unleashed a torrent of screaming, anti-Huckabee headlines, culminating in today’s “exclusive” (which cites one unnamed Democrat) about the Democrats’ supposed hope that Huckabee will emerge as the G.O.P. nominee.
Rhodes (or Rhoades — the correct spelling is unclear at this time) was brought back on board to head up Romney’s “Free and Strong America PAC” as executive director early in 2015. As Ben Smith noted at the time:
Rhoades, who’s moving to Boston, is a well-regarded guy whose return to Romney pretty much confirms what will surprise nobody: That he’s running in 2012. He’s also, incidentally, been valued for his relationship with a key player in any GOP primary, Matt Drudge.
And by June of this year, Romney had already established a dominant position in what has come to be known as the “Drudge Primary” — which is apparently modeled on the Cuban electoral process:
A survey of the past 13 months of Drudge headlines found only one debatably negative reference to the 2002 Olympics CEO (“Bachmann Outraises Romney”) — and a survey of aides to his rivals found a rising level of frustration at what one described as “favoritism” by one of the most important, if also one of the quirkiest, referees.
“One of the mysteries of Drudge is how he continues to be such a mystery. Never clear how or why he leans for or against candidates. But there is a lot of behind-the-scenes, very quiet and secretive mojo that goes on,” said Mark McKinnon, who, as a top adviser to John McCain in 2008, watched with dismay as Drudge gave top billing to questions about the Arizona senator’s health.
“It looks like someone in Romneyland has figured out the secret code,” McKinnon said.
Of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong with an outlet having a preference for one candidate over the other. Matt Drudge is certainly entitled to support whomever he thinks is the best candidate and for whatever reasons he chooses to do so. At the same time, though, conservatives who frequent the Drudge Report to glean information are entitled to know of his connections to people involved in campaigns irrespective of whether or not he feels his editorial decisions are affected by those connections.
This post is by no means a call to boycott the influential online news source. That would be as stupid as just about all boycotts are. Instead, it’s a simple reminder to those who read this blog that going to Drudge’s site in search of information on any candidate other than Mitt Romney is going to be a discouraging experience the vast majority of the time. So, when you see the bold red headline with flashing sirens announcing some explosion of support for Mitt Romney, or some manner of crippling blow to any other candidate, keep in mind that it’s been placed there with a specific purpose — and that is to further discourage you.
What’s disappointing about all of this, though, is the fact that from Matt Drudge’s earliest days posting Hollywood gossip on Usenet discussion boards, he’s set himself up as the answer to the biased media that refuses to air, and often actively suppresses, information that shows conservatives in a positive light. Since then, it appears that Matt Drudge has become the new boss . . . same as the old boss.
FOXNEWS
FOXNEWS NATION
FRANCE 24
FREE REPUBLIC
GALLUP
GAWKER
Amen.
I think it's become clear with this week's document drop on Drudge that he's made a decision to do the same sort of thing the Manchester Union Leader does today, and that in the old days was done by Hearst, Pulitzer, and others, namely, aggressively selecting news to back or attack a specific candidate.
I believe in capitalism and don't have a problem with him doing that — his property, his rules — but I've never been terribly happy with Drudge anyway due to his problems with social conservatives in general and evangelical Christians in particular. I've usually used Free Republic the way others used Drudge.
How a homosexual Huckabee-basher could turn into a backer of a Mormon is beyond me, but politics makes strange bedfellows.
If you go back and read what you just posted..you will understand Romney's real agenda and why the gay republicans are pushing for him. As far as him being a Mormon..well, if he can lie about other things..why not that as well? MINO?
George Washington lost many a battle, until he WON the war.
Attitude and determination to weather the storm of opposition, while continuing to fight by any means for what you believe in is paramount....just ask any soldier.
We must stop signaling defeat with words like “we're done, it's over, we are dooooomed! Remember, if soldiers in WWII had signaled defeat in the heat of battles fought, we would have LOST the war! We must dig deep within ourselves for courage, swallow our fears, join forces with like-minded people, keep moving forward and fight like hell. May God bless us all in our fight to save the United States of America.
You sound like the clintonbots - no way could all this be true.
Mitt's been setting up his campaign for years! He has no good record to stand on. So getting the media on his side was his first order of business. He already had that part in full swing in '08. And his liberal agenda gives him the MSM's cover.
Someone in the Romney camp sure seems to know the secret to pushing Drudge’s “buttons...”
http://gawker.com/5200009/drudge-i-do-not-love-sex-with-men
Drudge: ‘I Do Not Love Sex With Men’
4/6/2009
Drudge has never been said to particularly relish his homosexuality or embrace it; in fact his gay romantic/sexual side has been described (when alleged) as conflicted and awkward.
David Brock, the former right-wing writer, wrote in his memoir Blinded by the Right about a “scary” date in which Drudge, after bringing Brock flowers and navigating the Santa Monica gay strip “like a pro,” stepped on a competing suitor’s foot “really hard” (in Drudge’s purported words) in a nightclub to scare him away from Brock.
Alec Baldwin stated that Drudge made an advance on him in an ABC Studios hallway, a proposition that had “kind of a creepy quality to it.”
Drudge denied he was gay to the Miami New Times in 2001, even as he launched into a disquisition on (as the New Times put it) “the reigning DJ king of gay circuit parties” and summarized his nightlife thusly: “I go to straight bars, I go to gay bars.”
http://www.mediaite.com/online/ann-coulter-named-honorary-chair-of-goproud/
Ann Coulter Named Honorary Chair Of GOProud
“Ann helped put our organization on the map. Politics is full of the meek, the compromising and the apologists – Ann, like GOProud, is the exact opposite of all of those things. We need more Ann Coulters.”
The board includes some other names you may recognize as well: Margaret Hoover, Grover Norquist, Andrew Breitbart, Liz Mair, Chuck Muth, Lisa De Pasquale, Christian Josi, Roger Stone, Andrew Langer, Kathryn Serkes and Bob Carlstrom. Last year, Coulter was a big draw at GOProud’s first-ever Homocon event in New York City.
It’s not treason to support someone else over Newt, just to support RINO Romney over Newt. Sure Romney’s getting a lot of support from mindless, ignorant idiots who can be easily led around by the media. We can’t necessarily hold moral outrage against them. But when people informed enough to know better support him, they reveal themselves to be traitors to the conservative cause. Whether or not they’re unprincipled, have been paid off, or are just too cowardly or insecure about conservatism to back a conservative candidate, they are either useless idiots or the enemy within to us.
Not likely, check Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hume
“In the months before his death, Hume, an alcoholic, had begun drinking again. The night before his suicide, Hume was jailed for drunk driving and tried to hang himself in the U.S. Park Police jail cell. He was evaluated at a psychiatric facility and released. He went home and took his life with a hunting rifle. He left a long note expressing shame at the previous night’s events.”
Thanks for posting. I hadn’t seen that.
Agreed.
The fact that Drudge chose not to post an equal number of anti-Romney pieces, is a glaring indicator that he's intentionally conducting a negative information campaign against Gingrich.
I'm sorry, but I simply can't see it any other way. I'm very surprised that Levin doesn't see this.
Dixie, didn't Drudge get rid of FreeRepublic's link a long time ago? If I recall it was around the same time Luciane Goldberg quit posting here and got her own site.
I used to go to Drudge first then click the link to FreeRepublic, but then Drudge took it away and I quit going there altogether. Did Drudge put the link back up at some time?
*
But there is a lot of behind-the-scenes, very quiet and secretive mojo that goes on,”
Does mojo equal money or power?.....or sex?
>>>Did you know that Drudge got rid of FR’s link?
Who Gives a Spit? Matt has removed that link on perceived slights countless times over the years only to put it back again. It’s meaningless.
I've spent enough time dealing with homosexuals to know that with some exceptions, promiscuity is normal, sometimes even after “marriages” or “commitment ceremonies” or “civil unions.”
The potential for blackmail is tremendous. Also, the visceral hatred for conservative Christians in much of the homosexual community isn't just “potential” but all too real. They don't want to be “judged” by people who believe their lifestyle is immoral.
As for the Romneys being “Mormons in Name Only,” I'm from Michigan and had very limited firsthand as well as more extensive secondhand contact with members of the extended Romney family (not Mitt Romney). It is exceedingly unlikely that any of the Romneys today would recognize my name — Mitt Romney's father would have known some people in my family, but I'm all but certain nobody in the current Romney family would. My list of friends and acquaintances, however, once included people who were in the Romney's circles, though I've had no personal contact, even secondhand, for about two decades.
People change over time and I understand that, but based on what I know from reliable secondhand reports, the consensus in the 1970s and 1980s was that the Romneys were straight arrows who, unlike many in the Republican Party before the rise of the Christian conservative movement, generally believed in private what they said in public about personal morality. I had no reason to pay attention to the Romney family in the 1990s since I was focusing on church issues, not secular politics, but I don't know anyone in Michigan Republican politics who was circulating private doubts about their sincere commitment to and practice of their Mormon beliefs.
The big problem, as I see it, is that Mormons in the upper levels of business have a reputation for hard work and strict honesty, but they have compartmentalized their faith to the extent that they can say, “This is what I personally believe but I won't impose it on anyone else.”
That can make sincerely committed Mormons into useful tools for the Republican RINO elite in ways that conservative evangelicals are not. On many moral issues, they believe the right things, say the right things, and in their personal lives do the right things, but unlike those in the Christian conservative movement, many not be committed to implementing their beliefs in the public sphere.
That makes Mitt Romney's flip-flopping on abortion doubly dangerous. I'm guessing that he probably **DOES** believe abortion is wrong and would try hard to keep a fellow Mormon from getting an abortion. But would he “impose his faith” on non-Mormons? Would he nominate a Supreme Court justice who believes abortion is murder and therefore a fundamental violation of the Constitution? Based on past history, I think the answer is obvious that Romney can't be trusted on abortion.
The Roman Catholic Church, to their credit, has made quite clear that you can't be a faithful Catholic and be “pro-choice” in your votes while being pro-life in your personal beliefs. That's not true with the Mormons.
I'm not going to tell the Mormons how to run their church, but I sure wish they'd get a new “revelation” rejecting the way Romney and others have bifurcated their political and personal lives.
I'm not in any way, shape or form a Romney supporter, and I have Free Republic to thank for waking me up to just how bad Romney's publicly stated views on abortion really were when running for governor. With views like that, he can't be trusted.
Also, I've had no contact with anyone from the Romney campaign either this year or even in 2008. I did interview then-Sen. Joe Biden shortly before the 2008 general elections when the Obama campaign was trying to win rural Missouri, and I treated him fairly, just as I would with any other candidate running for office. However, none of the Republican candidates paid attention to our county in the 2008 elections and it looks like David Limbaugh's speech to a Republican event next weekend may be the closest we'll get to Republican presidential campaign involvement in our area this primary season.
That's way different from what I was used to in Iowa when you couldn't get presidential candidates to stay away from newspaper offices if you tried, but obviously rural Missouri is much less important than rural Iowa in the presidential campaign.
ICAM!!
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.