Could somebody clarify the latest issues with Matt Blunt?

So it seems that Team Obama has a “truth squad” in Missouri to counter attack ads from the McCain campaign. Some members of these truth squads are in the law enforcement biz and have promised to go after ads that violate ethics regulations.

In response, Gov. Matt Blunt issues an interesting press release:

What’s the word in the local area about these goings on?

Sounds like boilerplate politicking to me. “Oooh! The OTHER SIDE is going to misbehave (even though they have not yet done a single thing wrong.

As to the charges by Blunt that simply noting that politicians are including their job titles on their statements is in some way “intimidating,” I quote from the article

At the end of the article Blunt is quoted doing a bit of spinning, himself:

This is actually no different from the responses of the “truth squads” (gimme a break) in both political camps. The only place that the Missouri folks are quoted as going beyond that is their promise to prosecute actual violations of campaign law. When did the Republicans openly give up the Law and Order platform?
(If a “truth squad” law enforcement officer is discovered prosecuting marginal spinning from one side while ignoring outright violations from the other, then that prosecutor should be stopped and held accountable. Until that time, this is just more campaign rhetoric.)

January 20, 2001.

Oh, you said “openly”. I’m guessing sometime in 2005-2006 when they discovered they couldn’t hide the Abramoff scandal, the phone-tapping stuff or the coverup of Mark Foley’s indiscretions anymore.

You don’t see any problems with politicians sending the police after their opponents?

Often it clarifies the issue if you change the players. If you think this would be OK from George Bush or Bill Clinton, then it should be OK for Obama.

And of course this kind of political involvement by the police works both ways. If a police chief, say, were to be fired because he didn’t support some politician or other who had just gained office, no doubt the Obama-ites would not object in any way.



First I’ve heard of it. It’s not even getting play on the morning radio talkies.

Of course, Blunt is a lame-duck by his own choice, probably because of shady dealings, and is not really relevant anymore. Even the Republican candidates for state offices aren’t using him for their campaigning – he’s even more ostracized by MO republicans than Bush has been by the US republicans.

Obviously Matt Blunt is a hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman. McCain, a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father, is the one upholding the ideals of the party of Thomas Jefferson. Politicians in this country are supposed to propagate slander, not defend against it.

That’s not what they’re doing. They’re saying they will respond to untruthful ads by [gasp] telling the truth. They also intimate that they would enforce the law if anyone did anything illegal, but do you have a problem with that?

The word in the local area is that the original story got screwed up.

A TV reporter said the Obama campaign “is asking Missouri law enforcement authorities to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad…”

The law enforcement officials (specifically prosecuting attorneys who supported Obama) quickly pointed out that their “targeting” would be limited to calling out the people who produced the ads, and that they wouldn’t be acting as prosecutors, but as politicians.

Somewhere between story A and response B, Blunt got involved.

You know, I live in Missouri, & I think Matt Blunt is a Reaganomics-believing putz. But so far, I’ve refrained from repeating the nasty rumor my active Democrat friend told me about why he didn’t run for reëlection this year.

He’s tempting me. Ah, it’d be meaningless on this board anyway.

Matt has that politician’s trait of saying really stupid illogical stuff & appearing to believe it.

Sometime in the Gingrich years, I think. Maybe never openly, but they haven’t been a real Law & Order party since Reagan at least.

Let me add: The mere fact that a GOP governor thinks that this–Dem officeholders naming a preference & speaking out against GOP lies–means they’ll stack the deck against the GOP says legions about the GOP idea of public ethics. Remember the Diebold guy promising to deliver the '04 vote to W?

(And I’m former Mo. GOP from the south of the state. Matt’s dad is my congressman. Really, no really, these are guys who can & do honestly slam* each other* for corruption, & a GOP rival of Roy Blunt once went to prison for abusing the power of the state Attorney General’s office.)

Here is the story that appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (no registration required). The furor appears to have started because the KMOV-TV anchor lead off the report by saying “The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.” This is hardly an accurate statement, but not out of character for TV news in their attempts to make every story seem like the biggest scandal/disaster in the history of the world. Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge have gotten into the act as well.

And the characterizations made in this thread of my esteemed governor have been mild.

This also sounds like a valid criticism of setting up a “Truth Squad” staffed with law enforcement-type people. (And yes, if McCain did it too, then I also think that’s :rolleyes:-worthy.)

Ah, that clears things up a bit. Thanks.

Obama supporters talk about using law enforcement personnel in something dubbed a “truth squad” and you don’t see anything wrong with this?

I see something wrong (i.e. stupid) with all the candidates using the term “truth squad” to label the members of their organizations who volunteer to watch their opponents’ advertising and to issue press releases “correcting” their opponents’ ads. Every candidate with a large enough organization uses exactly the same methods, using exactly the same stupid term. I am no more upset that Obama has law enforcement personnel in Missouri that are members of that “truth squad” than I am that McCain has law enforcement personnel on his “truth squads” in South Carolina (including its Attorney General), New Mexico, and Maine (and probably elsewhere, but that has not yet been reported in links from this thread).

The Governor of Missouri is using his bully pulpit to issue false and misleading statements about members of Obama’s campaign and you appear to have no problem with that. Just more boilerplate politicking. (And all the relevant information showing how stupid Blunt’s complaints are have already been posted or linked in this thread.)

You’ll have to explain what’s wrong with it.

Duh. Obviously it presages the onset of the Great Obamian Dictatorship and it’s roving Truth Squads made up of corrupt Democratic policemen and police chiefs, and the even worser Truth Enforcers made up of all of the vast multitudes of Democratic CIA torturers and military officers. Kneel, citizen! Big Brothah’s gonna take care of you!

I see something wrong with “swift-boating”. If “truth squads” are what is required to rid us of the former, I’m all for 'em, whether they be Obama’s or McCain’s.

Julius Henry, I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen someone refer to Blunt as “esteemed”. Last election’s gubernatorial choices were really “hold your nose and vote” for me. ugh.