Originally Posted by PressCoverage
No, only his direct campaign officers were known to have proliferated the Black Baby smear. And, of course, we all know Rove would be happy to deligate his directives to the point of being oblivious to his underlings' actions.
The bloody glove was proof there was no evidence against OJ either, right?
It's amazing... To empire supporters, whenever an obedient Bushie Con man is suspected of impropriety, then it becomes a burden of proof that would need to pass the mustard in a court of law to even be discussed. However, if a left-leaning or libertarian politician is suspected, then it's assumed guilt right on the surface. Ron Paul's "racism" being a perfect example.
Yes, nevermind numerous campaign officials who pointed to Rove, there's just no proof. But Ron Paul's name attached to a racist newsletter? He's immediately the grand wizard of the Texas Klan headquarters.
We went through this before, and I don't remember 1 shred of evidence that Rove was tied to that smear. Your evidence if I remember correctly was that Rove is slimy so it must have been him behind it. Am I "misremembering" that? Could be, wouldn't be the first time. I definitely couldn't find anything linking a member of the Bush campaign to the rumor.
I also don't ever recall saying anything about Ron Paul being a racist because of some questionable newsletters, I don't buy for a second that he is a bigot.
I also don't believe that Obama is a practicing muslim, or that he believes even one word of Wright's nonsense.
OK so I went back and checked, we did do this dance before and all you came up with was speculation from McCain's campaign and around the 'net. Here's what I wrote the last time, bold on the key part:
"So basically you can't provide any evidence to back up the claim that the Bush campaign or Karl Rove was behind that push poll or the rumors. I'm not looking for signed documents, I'm looking for ANYTHING linking the campaign to the poll. All I've found is speculation by McCain advisers (who of course would want to make the other campaign look bad by blaming it on them), opinion from some journalists, and a long list of opinion pieces that repeat the assertion that it was Rove without evidence, or referring to earlier articles that provide no evidence.
As you pointed out, Rove and Bush have both vigorously denied the rumor, though I didn't bother to use that as evidence they didn't do it, since of course they wouldn't admit to it. I can recognize a biased source, maybe if you're pointing to what the McCain campaign said as "evidence" you can not?
I don't think its a terribly high standard of proof to ask for some small shred of evidence linking the two. For example I found something possibly linking the Bush campaign to another phone poll conducted in 2000:
"Bush Campaign Accused of Using Push Polls Against McCain.
College of Charleston student Suzette Latsko said she received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself as an employee of Voter/Consumer Research, and that the caller misrepresented McCain’s positions and asked if Latsko knew McCain had been reprimanded for interfering with federal regulators in the savings and loan scandal. Voter/Consumer Research is listed as a polling contractor on Bush’s Federal Election Commission filings; the Bush campaign has paid Voter/Consumer Research $93,000 through December 31, 1999. Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer denied the call was a push poll, but said it was important that the Republican Party remember McCain’s role in the S&L crisis.
Bush Campaign Acknowledged Making Phone Calls.
Tucker Eskew, Bush’s South Carolina spokesman, acknowledged the Bush campaign made such calls, but claimed they were not “push polls.” Eskew added, “Show me a baseless comment in those questions.” "
So here we have a good example of at least a potential link, a firm paid by the Bush campaign conducting a poll that was questionable in the facts it presented. I can't find anything like this for the baby polling. All I can find is the rumor started by the a-hole Hand at Bob Jones University and propagated by what is called everywhere "unidentified" supporters.
I looked more this morning and still can't find anything. Again, I'm perfectly willing to believe that Rove would be capable of something like that, but absent any evidence I don't think we should be saying he did like it is a fact. Its speculation at this point, nothing more, even if you want it to be true.
The Rove Watch: 78 days.