Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

[TheIndependent]

http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coran...&tmpl=newsitem

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.


“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.


“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.


“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”

what led to this....

http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1

The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.

[RegBarc]

Obama almost getting as vicious as his ardent supporters.

This is really "getting in their face".

[JP]

I guess Blunt figures McCain lost the debate last night.

[RegBarc]

Originally Posted by JPriller

I guess Blunt figures McCain lost the debate last night.

I very much so doubt that's his reason.

[JP]

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs...OGS09/80927018

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — Gov. Matt Blunt and Republicans are accusing Barack Obama’s campaign of assembling a “truth squad” with law enforcement officials to intimidate Obama critics from speaking out against the Democratic presidential candidate.

Yet a top Republican National Committee official admits the Democratic prosecutors from across Missouri “haven’t specifically said” they would use their prosecutorial powers on Obama’s behalf.

On Wednesday, Obama’s Missouri campaign announced U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill would lead a group of Democratic lawmakers, prosecutors and one sheriff “who will be proactive in letting voters in the Show-Me State know the truth in the face of the distortions by the McCain campaign,” according to a news release.

The group includes prosecutors from St. Louis, Dunklin, Lafayette, Cass, Clay, Ripley, Audrain and Jackson counties volunteering to be surrogates for Obama on their own time.

The Missouri Truth Squad will “respond quickly, forcefully, and aggressively when John McCain or his allies launch inaccurate claims or character attacks about Barack Obama, or when they distort Barack Obama’s record or plans.”

In a conference call Saturday with reporters from battleground states, Obama national campaign manager David Plouffe said those who spread lies and mistruths about the Illinois senator have to be “held accountable,” but did not elaborate how.

Despite having law enforcement officials on the truth squad, none of them have publicly said they will invoke their official powers to enforce facts about Obama’s record.

In a telephone interview with the News-Leader, Donatelli admitted the Democratic prosecutors “haven’t specifically said” they would use their prosecutorial powers on Obama’s behalf.

“I don’t think you have to use the power. I think if you just call out somebody and you have the power, you’ve made your point,” Donatelli told the News-Leader. “It’s not that you have to prosecute a guy, but people think you might.”

Donatelli said prosecutors don’t normally join campaign truth squads because their mere presence as a campaign attack dog “has a chilling affect on people’s rights of free speech.”

But a review of McCain’s own truth squads shows he has a district attorney from New Mexico and the South Carolina attorney general ready to respond to misleading ads from Obama and Democrats in their respective states.

Democrats maintain the GOP has twisted the context of a news report to manufacture this controversy.

“It is the height of absurdity that Governor Blunt would try to deceive voters about the role of respected Missourians across the state who want to see this election be about the truth, not false attacks like the ones we’ve seen today,” said Justin Hamilton, spokesman for Obama’s Missouri campaign. “It’s clear why Missouri voters are rejecting the kind of campaign that they’re running.”

[JP]

Originally Posted by RegBarc

I very much so doubt that's his reason.

Then why they making shit up, you think?

[retrodog]

Originally Posted by JPriller

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs...OGS09/80927018

And this is exactlly what they'd say if it were true or false. So there's no way to tell in either case. It just comes down to everybody will believe who they want to believe and ignore the others... until a tape recording or a blue dress shows up.

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by retrodog

And this is exactlly what they'd say if it were true or false. So there's no way to tell in either case. It just comes down to everybody will believe who they want to believe and ignore the others... until a tape recording or a blue dress shows up.

Seems to me that most of the stuff in the article JP posted is verifiable one way or the other.

[JP]

Originally Posted by retrodog

And this is exactlly what they'd say if it were true or false.

And oddly enough Blunt's statement could be exactly what he'd say if there truly was a campaign to abuse power and scare people into not besmirching Obama, as well as what he'd say if the whole thing was what it clearly appears to be - a poorly constructed swiftboat attempt to help resuscitate McCain's failing chances. The day after the debate where McCain failed to put away the annoying upstart. While Obama and McCain "truth squads" have both been operating for a while.

Come on, be honest. What's that look like to you?

Originally Posted by retrodog

So there's no way to tell in either case.

Sure there is. You say "okay, what's your proof?" to the people making the accusation. When somebody makes so serious an accusation, wouldn't you say they need to back it up with at least something? But Blunt and his bozos, they got jack shit. While McCain having prosecutors (in fact a state AG) in other states on HIS "truth squads" hasn't appear to bother them in the least. And while they have to admit when asked that no, mumble mumble, nobody's actually really said anything about using their offices to target Obama critics, we're just saying maybe they could, mumble mumble.

Originally Posted by retrodog

It just comes down to everybody will believe who they want to believe and ignore the others... until a tape recording or a blue dress shows up.

It's true that people will believe what they want to believe. Look how many people still think George has been doing a swell job. The question should be whether they have any reason to believe it, besides badly wanting to.

[timesamillion]

put bluntly, the governor is quite the douchebag

[retrodog]

Originally Posted by JPriller

And oddly enough Blunt's statement could be exactly what he'd say if there truly was a campaign to abuse power and scare people into not besmirching Obama, as well as what he'd say if the whole thing was what it clearly appears to be - a poorly constructed swiftboat attempt to help resuscitate McCain's failing chances. The day after the debate where McCain failed to put away the annoying upstart. While Obama and McCain "truth squads" have both been operating for a while.

Come on, be honest. What's that look like to you?

Sure there is. You say "okay, what's your proof?" to the people making the accusation. When somebody makes so serious an accusation, wouldn't you say they need to back it up with at least something? But Blunt and his bozos, they got jack shit. While McCain having prosecutors (in fact a state AG) in other states on HIS "truth squads" hasn't appear to bother them in the least. And while they have to admit when asked that no, mumble mumble, nobody's actually really said anything about using their offices to target Obama critics, we're just saying maybe they could, mumble mumble.

It's true that people will believe what they want to believe. Look how many people still think George has been doing a swell job. The question should be whether they have any reason to believe it, besides badly wanting to.

That's blind party loyalty. You see it on both sides. Nothing new there. Stupid, but normal.

But technically, there's no way to prove that Bush hasn't made it much safer here.

[JP]

Originally Posted by retrodog

That's blind party loyalty. You see it on both sides. Nothing new there. Stupid, but normal.

But technically, there's no way to prove that Bush hasn't made it much safer here.

Actually yes, there is. You look at how many more extremists there are, how many more attacks there've been around the world since George's Excellent Iraq Adventure started, how much they're learning from years in Iraq fighting a top-notch modern military like our own. That terrorist attack in Yemen last week used terrorist techniques developed by bad guys in AQI and the Iraq Sunni insurgency. The only reason for believing we're actually safer is badly wanting to believe it.

[retrodog]

Originally Posted by JPriller

Actually yes, there is. You look at how many more extremists there are, how many more attacks there've been around the world since George's Excellent Iraq Adventure started, how much they're learning from years in Iraq fighting a top-notch modern military like our own. That terrorist attack in Yemen last week used terrorist techniques developed by bad guys in AQI and the Iraq Sunni insurgency. The only reason for believing we're actually safer is badly wanting to believe it.

We could be missing the empire state building by now, or numerous other things. Seeing some escallation of events is no proof that they wouldn't be worse if we hadn't been kicking ass already. Thinking otherwise is badly wanting to believe it.

I've merely pointed out that you can't prove either one. You're the one wanting to claim proof of one. That's proof on its own that you are the one badly wanting to believe something that can't be proven. I'm not.

[TheIndependent]

personally i find the notion of "truth squads" on either side trying to use law enforcement in ANY capacity as very troubling, and something that should be condemned by anyone that values the democratic process.

it doesn't surprise me to see it immediately dismissed as 'well McCain is doing it too' and a 'it's just swiftboating(sic) on either side'

[JP]

Originally Posted by retrodog

We could be missing the empire state building by now, or numerous other things.

Sure. But because you haven't been robbed recently and you put some better locks on your doors, that doesn't mean your neighborhood has gotten any safer, does it?

We've done a lot to improve security. But we've also done a lot to make sure more Muslims hate us, trained ourselves up a new generation of terrorists just like the Soviet Union's adventure in Afghanistan gave us Bin Laden, and fewer countries take us seriously now when we start wailing about imminent dangers.

Originally Posted by retrodog

Seeing some escallation of events is no proof that they wouldn't be worse if we hadn't been kicking ass already. Thinking otherwise is badly wanting to believe it.

Ah, but I've got something to back my opinions up with. Just look at something small, like the rapid evolution of home-made IEDs in Iraq. Would that have happened if we didn't provide the test bed for it? Probably not. We've also given Iran - remember them? - a whole lot more regional influence they are not at all shy about using. Would they have that if we hadn't taken down Saddam for them? Again, probably not.

You're welcome to believe all that would have happened anyway, of course. You just don't have any reason to do so.

[JP]

Originally Posted by pdjplano

personally i find the notion of "truth squads" on either side trying to use law enforcement in ANY capacity as very troubling, and something that should be condemned by anyone that values the democratic process.

The problem with your argument is that nobody's tried to use law enforcement to any capacity. Show me some indication that it's occurring and I'd be happy to condemn it. But Blunt's whining about something that simply has not occurred. It's just a made-up crock of swiftboating shit.

I guess you can be troubled over the possibility that maybe it COULD happen, like the RNC guy who claims he is even though he admits nobody's actually abused their authority or even suggested they would use their authority at all. But then you might as well be troubled that cops in your town who like McCain could take a dislike to your Barr yard sign and start harassing you for it. Dude, if that happens I'm entirely on your side. But until it does, or you got good reason to believe it is, I gotta call it kinda paranoid and silly.

Originally Posted by pdjplano

it doesn't surprise me to see it immediately dismissed as 'well McCain is doing it too' and a 'it's just swiftboating(sic) on either side'

I didn't say McCain was doing it too. I say NOBODY'S doing it. What I'm saying is that Blunt is sure all a'worried about Obama people in positions of authority and hasn't said anything about McCain people in other states in ever higher positions.

You'd think he'd be even more worried about that state AG on a McCain "truth squad". You figure once it's pointed out to him (as it surely has been by now) he'll be firing off a letter to that state's governor, so he or she can issue their own statement of worry and condemnation? Or not?

[retrodog]

Originally Posted by JPriller

Sure. But because you haven't been robbed recently and you put some better locks on your doors, that doesn't mean your neighborhood has gotten any safer, does it?

We've done a lot to improve security. But we've also done a lot to make sure more Muslims hate us, trained ourselves up a new generation of terrorists just like the Soviet Union's adventure in Afghanistan gave us Bin Laden, and fewer countries take us seriously now when we start wailing about imminent dangers.

Ah, but I've got something to back my opinions up with. Just look at something small, like the rapid evolution of home-made IEDs in Iraq. Would that have happened if we didn't provide the test bed for it? Probably not. We've also given Iran - remember them? - a whole lot more regional influence they are not at all shy about using. Would they have that if we hadn't taken down Saddam for them? Again, probably not.

You're welcome to believe all that would have happened anyway, of course. You just don't have any reason to do so.

All of your statements are only tangible if you want to believe them. There is the flipside. A point could be made that at the same time we are pissing off potential terrorists, we are scaring the hell out of others, maybe even more so that pissing them off.

You can't prove an unknown. It's impossible. All you can do is spin the stuff you want to as to allow your final statements to mean something to you. You're using data and comparing it to unknown data. The offset between the two is impossible to calculate. It's all subjective to reach a conclusion at that point. Your last sentence proves that you continue to either not get my point or deny the fact that I'm in the middle and you insist on being out on the left without any way to prove why. I'm not on the right on this one. I'm just way to the right of you.

[JP]

Originally Posted by retrodog

All of your statements are only tangible if you want to believe them.

No, I assure you that IEDs have indeed undergone rapid evolution in Iraq, I've read accounts from U.S. military personnel discussing how they've adapted quickly as we've adapted our countermeasures. And Iran does have greater regional influence than they did prior to our invasion, you can ask any expert on the Middle East. These aren't just wishful thinking, they're things you can verify.

Originally Posted by retrodog

There is the flipside. A point could be made that at the same time we are pissing off potential terrorists, we are scaring the hell out of others, maybe even more so that pissing them off.

You'd be surprised how many of the kind of people willing to blow themselves up to kill a few of us are actually not the least bit deterred by our acting tough.

Originally Posted by retrodog

You can't prove an unknown. It's impossible.

I'm not trying to prove an unknown. I'm sticking to what IS known. You're the one with the unknowns here, trying to argue that maybe things would be just as bad or worse if we hadn't invaded (or hadn't screwed up the invasion so badly). If you've got any concrete reasons at all for thinking that, I'd like to hear them.

[TheIndependent]

Originally Posted by JPriller

The problem with your argument is that nobody's tried to use law enforcement to any capacity.

i disagree. the problem with your view is that it fails to realize that the tactic is one of intimidation and coercion. it's not that they have to TRY to use law enforcement, it's that they are THREATENING to use it.

Originally Posted by JPriller

Show me some indication that it's occurring and I'd be happy to condemn it.

it should be condemned for the reasons i already stated, not wait until it actually lands someone in jail. the effect starts from the moment the begin with the threat.

Originally Posted by JPriller

It's just a made-up crock of swiftboating shit.

again, i disagree, and you sound like a complete moron using the term "swiftboating" so much.

Originally Posted by JPriller

You'd think he'd be even more worried about that state AG on a McCain "truth squad". You figure once it's pointed out to him (as it surely has been by now) he'll be firing off a letter to that state's governor, so he or she can issue their own statement of worry and condemnation? Or not?

He should if they are using the state AG in a threatening manner against the MoveOn.coms of the world.

again, i'm against all use of coercive tactics and threats in campaigns, and feel that these "truth squads" are more accurately viewed as "voter intimidation squads"

[JP]

Originally Posted by pdjplano

i disagree.

Okay then: who, what, how and where?

Originally Posted by pdjplano

the problem with your view is that it fails to realize that the tactic is one of intimidation and coercion. it's not that they have to TRY to use law enforcement, it's that they are THREATENING to use it.

Where was this threat made? By who? How? When and where?

Originally Posted by pdjplano

it should be condemned for the reasons i already stated, not wait until it actually lands someone in jail.

I'd be happy to condemn the idea of doing it. But I can't condemn anybody or any side if they haven't even suggested they intended to use (let alone abuse) their authority in the cause of their chosen candidate.

Originally Posted by pdjplano

the effect starts from the moment the begin with the threat.

What threat? Who? How? Where and when?

Originally Posted by pdjplano

again, i disagree, and you sound like a complete moron using the term "swiftboating" so much.

The term has a meaning, and it is applicable in this case - making up some shit to attack and undermine a political opponent. And that's what Blunt is clearly doing here, inventing boogeymen to pretend to squeak in fear of. I can't help it if you don't like hearing it.

Originally Posted by pdjplano

He should if they are using the state AG in a threatening manner against the MoveOn.coms of the world.

Who from the Obama side, or the McCain side, is being used in a threatening manner? How? Where and when? Is all you've got "well in theory it COULD happen, so you damn well oughta be mad about it just like I am!" ?

Originally Posted by pdjplano

again, i'm against all use of coercive tactics and threats in campaigns, and feel that these "truth squads" are more accurately viewed as "voter intimidation squads"

Eh? Even taking the accusations at face value, which I most assuredly DO NOT do, the people who'd be "intimidated" would be the groups airing false ads. Not voters themselves. Right?

[AJRitz]

There is not, and never was, any threat to use law enforcement as a tool. It's about using intelligent, informed, connected people to help counter false ads at a grassroots level.

Matt Blunt is a fool - so useless as governor that he's not even running for second term, and instead is putting the seat in play in a highly contentious election that only helps Democratic turnout in a toss-up state. He's been completely inept overall, and on top of it he's in the middle of a hiding-Emails scheme that has put him at odds with the Democratic Attorney General (and County Prosecutors) for about a year now.

[JP]

Originally Posted by AJRitz

There is not, and never was, any threat to use law enforcement as a tool. It's about using intelligent, informed, connected people to help counter false ads at a grassroots level.

Matt Blunt is a fool - so useless as governor that he's not even running for second term, and instead is putting the seat in play in a highly contentious election that only helps Democratic turnout in a toss-up state. He's been completely inept overall, and on top of it he's in the middle of a hiding-Emails scheme that has put him at odds with the Democratic Attorney General (and County Prosecutors) for about a year now.

I guess I was wrong then, Blunt's got a better reason for trying to float this crap than McCain not doing as well as desired in the debate last night.

[smak]

Originally Posted by JPriller

I guess Blunt figures McCain lost the debate last night.

And has seen the latest poll results in his state.

I guess we're forgetting the Alaskan "truth squad", who somehow got at least 7 people to stop cooperating in the troopergate case. People who are now ignoring subpoena's.

That has actual before and after results of the "truth squads" actions.

I find it kind of funny that the McCain campaign would care about Obama doing something about misleading ads.

They don't have misleading ads do they?

I have a solution. Don't lie in your ads.

Also, I wonder why Richardson isn't doing the same thing in New Mexico where it seems that McCain is doing the same thing.

Oh I know, he's not a lying douche.

-smak-

[retrodog]

Originally Posted by JPriller

No, I assure you that IEDs have indeed undergone rapid evolution in Iraq, I've read accounts from U.S. military personnel discussing how they've adapted quickly as we've adapted our countermeasures. And Iran does have greater regional influence than they did prior to our invasion, you can ask any expert on the Middle East. These aren't just wishful thinking, they're things you can verify.

You'd be surprised how many of the kind of people willing to blow themselves up to kill a few of us are actually not the least bit deterred by our acting tough.

I'm not trying to prove an unknown. I'm sticking to what IS known. You're the one with the unknowns here, trying to argue that maybe things would be just as bad or worse if we hadn't invaded (or hadn't screwed up the invasion so badly). If you've got any concrete reasons at all for thinking that, I'd like to hear them.

9/11 happened after 8 years of us being too big of pussies to handle problems like them. After all of Clinton's wishy-washy tip-toeing around.

Read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Bin-Lad.../dp/0895260743

Or the time that Clinton actually didn't want to hurt Bin Laden
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697640/posts

Or did you ever see the documentary on the Blackhawk Down fiasco?

It's the same reason that the Iranian hostages were returned to us 10 minutes after Carter was retired from office and Reagan took over. They knew they were about to get their asses kicked into the stone age.

Being a military force will get some soldiers killed, but being a country full of pussies will get you in a world of hurt. Remember, a lot of these guys won't be happy if left alone... they will only be happy if we left them entirely alone, meaning no interaction or financial dealings either. Unless you're ready to park your car permanently and start walking everywhere (as well as grow all your own food), we have to deal with them. And we can either deal with them by force when they pull some crap, or we can beg them to do the right thing.

But to get back to the point more directly... You can only prove what has happened. Neither of us can prove what might have happened. I don't have to prove that it would have been worse because that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it might have been worse. And we have just as much history to show that there's just as much of a chance as that being the case as there is that it wouldn't have been.

[JP]

Originally Posted by retrodog

9/11 happened after 8 years of us being too big of pussies to handle problems like them. After all of Clinton's wishy-washy tip-toeing around.

Come now, you seem to have lost around around a decade or so of earlier pussiness. Reagan skedaddling from Lebanon after the attack on us there. Reagan's arms for hostages trade with Iran. GHWB's not finishing the job with Saddam. Why don't those count? Because those presidents were Republicans?

Originally Posted by retrodog

But to get back to the point more directly... You can only prove what has happened. Neither of us can prove what might have happened. I don't have to prove that it would have been worse because that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it might have been worse.

And I'm asking you to give me the reasons you have for thinking that. I can show you things indicating the situation is worse for us now than they were before George's Iraq invasion. Better trained extremists, with better quality weapons, with more experience fighting a super-power, with more Muslims convinced we want to kill all Muslims, with us having less credibility when we warn about dangers. What have you got, besides "well it MIGHT have been"s ?