The
Dirty Trick Season
by
Jed
Babbin
Posted:
01/07/2008
What
happened to Fred Thompson on the day of the Iowa caucus was a
political dirty trick worthy of the great tricksters of the Nixon era.
The rumor that Thompson would drop out after Iowa and endorse John
McCain, reported by The Politico -- picked up quickly in so
many print and broadcast media -- was untrue as
I wrote last week.
Political rumors flood our eyes, ears and e-mails every day. What
qualified this as a dirty trick were the falsity and the timing.
Rumored the day before the primary and publicized highly the day
Iowans went to their caucuses, the trick was intended to dissuade
Thompson supporters from bothering to brave the snow and cold to go
and vote for their guy. And it probably succeeded, leaving Thompson
tied for third in Iowa.
Dirty tricks aren’t new to American politics. The two most memorable
tricksters were Dick Tuck, who worked for John Kennedy and Donald
Segretti, who was part of CREEP: Nixon’s hilariously-acronymed
“Committee to Re-Elect the President.”
Tuck’s
tricks were small time, but sufficient in number to hurt Nixon. Tuck
posed as a fire marshal to give the media a misleadingly small
attendance count after a Nixon rally. He reportedly hired a little old
lady to accost Nixon after one of the debates -- with media
pre-positioned -- to say, "That's all right, Mr. Nixon. He beat
you last night, but you'll win next time." It seemed that every
time Nixon turned around, there was Tuck.
Segretti was less humorous but probably no less effective. Among his
tricks were accusing Democratic contender Ed Muskie of racism in
anonymous ads and -- through a fictitious “Mothers Backing Muskie
Committee” -- passing out bumper stickers that said, “Help Muskie
In Busing More Children Now.” Did Segretti cause Muskie’s famous
tear-laced appearance in New Hampshire that doomed his campaign? Maybe
not, but he probably took credit for it in private.
Tuck and Segretti defined the modern political dirty trick: willfully
misleading the press to damage a candidate. There’s a lesson here
for all of us, especially my fellow editors. The dirty trick season is
upon us. That imposes on us a professional obligation of skepticism
toward stories that break very soon before a vote, when the candidate
who would be hurt is deprived of the time to respond effectively.
All evidence points to the Politico story being the result of a
dirty trick. As
Bob Novak reports today the rumors of Thompson’s supposed plan
to drop out after Iowa were apparently being pushed by Mitt Romney’s
campaign. One political consultant who appears on the news as
unaffiliated with any campaign was apparently at the center of the
trick. His involvement is something we are investigating. Why
isn’t anyone else tracking him down? Who was he working for, and
how? Do any of the grand guardians of journalism even care?
Perhaps after today they will.
Politico’s coverage broke several basic rules. Most
importantly, it was reported on the day of the caucuses at about 11 am
Eastern time, when Iowans were making last minute decisions to go to
the caucuses that evening. Several other media outlets apparently had
the same story, possibly from the same sources. Yet they declined to
cover it because they recognized the red flags that waved all around
it. Politico chose to go with it.
I asked Politico editor John Harris why. In an e-mail response
to several questions I’d e-mailed him, Harris said, “The Politico
story that you and others focused on was based on reporting within
Thompson’s political circle. It was not based on information from
rival campaigns. The writers were passing on newsworthy reporting
about the state of thinking within Thompson’s operation.” Harris
also wrote, “Thompson spokeswoman Karen Henretty did not deny our
reporting when we contacted her. She told Politico, and was
quoted in the story saying, ‘Doing well in Iowa means exceeding
expectations, and Fred has been exceeding expectations for more than
40 years, Thursday’s results aren’t likely to close any
chapters.’” And, “I do not have any knowledge about your
assertion that the Thompson story was being promoted by other
campaigns. It did not influence our reporting.”
Politico -- either willfully or by being duped -- was party to
a dirty trick. But Politico’s coverage broke another basic
rule of campaign reporting. Though Thompson’s campaign denied the
rumors, the denials were buried in the story rather than properly
written into the lede. There was no attempt at balance. The editors
didn’t do their jobs.
Politico’s coverage -- despite the obvious problems -- got
worse, not better. The following morning, a second story quoted a
Thompson volunteer reacting to Thompson’s post-caucus speech:
“‘Michael Murphy, a Thompson volunteer who drove down from
Cleveland, shouted exuberantly after the speech, ‘You hear that? No
dropping out!’ Not just yet anyway.” The broad sneer in that last
line couldn’t have been missed by any editor who had read the story.
Leaving it in removed any doubt about Politico’s bias.
It was only after my questions reached Harris that they published a
piece saying Thompson was staying in the race. But the damage had
already been done. How many voters didn’t go to the caucus for
Thompson because they believed their cause was lost? How many donors
didn’t write checks that day -- or since -- because they believed
Thompson would soon drop out?
The issue here isn’t only the fate of Fred Thompson’s campaign.
The issue is how the campaigns and the press will do their jobs this
year. There are huge undercurrents of nastiness among the candidates
and distrust of government among voters. Negative advertising seem to
have crowded out all other ads. If that isn’t leavened by skepticism
in the media to what the campaigns say privately, the dirty trick that
befell Thompson will this year beget many more.
Note to Howard Kurtz: why aren’t you investigating this one?
Mr.
Babbin is the editor of Human Events. He served as a deputy
undersecretary of defense in President George H.W. Bush's
administration. He is the author of "In
the Words of our Enemies"(Regnery,2007) and (with Edward
Timperlake) of "Showdown:
Why China Wants War with the United States" (Regnery, 2006)
and "Inside
the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think"
(Regnery, 2004). E-mail him at jbabbin@eaglepub.com.
