What Fresh Hell Is This?

November 13, 2011

Jack Kelly Sunday

I have no idea if Ed's doing a Jack Kelly column this week but if/when he posts, I am sure it'll be as good as always.

But sometimes, Jack's so whack that I gotta add my voice to Ed's and ask, "What is Jack doing?"

Take a look at Jack this week.  The column is more or less the cliched "lib'rul media double standard" argument.

Here's his setup:
Herman Cain's nightmare began two weeks ago when the webzine Politico reported two women had accused him of sexual misconduct when he was president of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.

The story was thin. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal summarized it this way: "Anonymous sources told Politico that unnamed women alleged that Cain said unspecified things."
Notice how Jack immediately quotes an opposing summary. But did you see a quotation from the Politico story that began it all?  You didn't?  Gee, I wonder if Jack just forgot.

Let me try to fix that.  Here's how that Politico story begins:
During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.

The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.
But there's far more than Taranto's limited summary.  If you read the piece (and I am assuming Jack does NOT want you to read it for yourself), you'll see a whole mess of confirmations on a whole mess of aspects of the case:
  • POLITICO has confirmed the identities of the two female restaurant association employees who complained about Cain but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.
  • On the details of Cain’s allegedly inappropriate behavior with the two women, POLITICO has a half-dozen sources shedding light on different aspects of the complaints.

    The sources — including the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the women upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.
And so on.  But let's move beyond that.  Let's get to Jack's "media bias" argument.  Here's how he frames it:
It triggered a media feeding frenzy anyway. ABC, NBC and CBS reported on the Cain "scandal" 84 times in the first week, according to Scott Whitlock of the Media Research Center.

This contrasts with zero, the number of times in 2008 ABC, NBC and CBS mentioned allegations of sexual misconduct by former Sen. John Edwards when he was running for president that year.
We'll just assume the research of the MRC is accurate (yea, I know - giggle).  But take a look at his data regarding Ex-Senator Edwards' creepy ("...zero, the number of times in 2008 ABC, NBC and CBS mentioned allegations...when he was running for president that year.").

Zero, huh?  That's a low number.  And a damning assessment of the media coverage.  But look carefully.

Edwards ended his presidential campaign January 30, 2008.  By framing the point as he does, Jack is able to dismiss any ABC/NBC/CBS news report of the creepy done after Edwards left the campaign.  Like this ABC NEWS REPORT from August 8, 2008.

Interesting to note, isn't it?

Then there's this:
And it contrasts with four, the number of stories the broadcast networks ran in the week after Juanita Broaddrick said she'd been raped by President Bill Clinton.
We've been through this before, haven't we?
  • Broaddrick signed an affidavit saying Clinton didn't rape her.
  • She recanted that affidavit a few months later.
So if one asserts that Broadderick was raped by Clinton, one also has to assert she's a perjurer.

Oh, and perhaps this was the reason why it had no MSM coverage. It's from the Washington Post the day after Broaddrick's interview with Lisa Myers of NBC, February, 1999:
Broaddrick was dubbed Jane Doe No. 5 in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton early last year, when Jones's attorneys cited her in court papers and she filed an affidavit calling the allegation of sexual assault "untrue." In the interview, Broaddrick, 56, said: "I didn't want to be forced to testify about the most horrific event of my life."

Broaddrick later recanted that affidavit when questioned by FBI agents working for independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, who found her account inconclusive. Two of the House impeachment "managers" spoke to Broaddrick but did not pursue her allegation.
Interesting details that Jack fails to include, aren't they?

Have we done enough damage to Jack's column?  I don't think so.  Let's take one more look:
Ms. Krausharr is currently a press aide in the Obama administration, used to work for Clinton attorney general Janet Reno and has contributed to Democrats.
Let's be more specific, shall we? The Daily reports:
Karen Kraushaar currently serves as a communications director at the Inspector General’s Office of the Treasury Department, a position she has held since last year.
Not exactly "in the Obama administration" is it? Especially since the person she answers to in the Treasury Department, according to Mediamatters, is a Bush Appointee.

That'll do it - oh, the stuff Jack has to leave out to commit a good smear!

1 comment:

EdHeath said...

Good job on your Kelly post, more research than I put into mine.

One thing I will say is that there was some fairly strong evidence that Bill Clinton was ... well, let's say a horndog before he ran for President, was nominated by the Democrats and won the popular vote (although as far as I can tell Clinton was never a harasser and all of his "victims" were willing or at least were not sufficiently convincing in their accusations). Of course, the most Kelly could say about the Democrats role in electing Bill Clinton is that they didn't disqualify him because of his (sexual) past; the voters elected him even while the whole media covered the story and the right leaning media trumpeted it.

All of which is *not* validate Jack Kelly's brand of hypocrisy, just to say that America's even recent past with sexual politics is kind of complicated.