MPW Takes the Low Road
What's going on at Maryland Politics Watch? Yesterday blogger Adam Pagnucco publicized the latest in a series of illegitimate attacks by a fringe group on a County Council incumbent, and today he's bragging about how much damage his post has done.
Yesterday morning Montgomery County's anti-gay, anti-transgender group, now known as the Citizens for Responsible Government (CRG), sent out a press release slamming County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg, as they have done frequently over the past months.
The breathless news this time was that they had anonymously received "an unsettling document which purports to be a summary of a November 9, 2009, NOW Grievance Committee Decision against Trachtenberg." The linked document was a grainy pdf with no letterhead, no signatures, it does not appear to be an official document of any kind, though it does say negative things about Duchy Trachtenberg. There is no explanation of where the document came from or how the CRG got it, there is no reason for the non-gullible reader to believe that it is anything more than fiction. An anonymously received document purporting to be something, that's it.
Oddly, the CRG press release links to a Gazette article from January 20, 2010, titled Maryland NOW says grievance claim against Trachtenberg resolved. The article says, among other things:
It is classic for the CRG to assume their readers won't be intellectually curious enough to click on the link and see for themselves. Apparently there was some dispute between Trachtenberg and Maryland NOW a couple of years ago, and according to NOW it has been resolved. This sort of thing happens every day.
The CRG is a one-issue group that is still upset with Trachtenberg because she introduced the gender identity nondiscrimination bill that passed with a unanimous vote in the County Council. The CRG tried to mount a referendum effort to overturn the law but failed. And they're still mad about that.
A lot of people are following Maryland Politics Watch during this primary election season, it is the primary site for information about politics in our region as the elections draw near. The blog features frank insider discussion of candidates and policies, and readers expect a certain level of sophistication there. We know MPW isn't "impartial" exactly, they are much too involved in the political scene for that, but we expect objective editorial judgment.
You have to wonder then why they decided to publish the CRG's press release, telling their readers, without giving any real background, that the group "has released a set of serious allegations." MPW describes CRG as "the organization that fought Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg's transgender anti-discrimination bill." In 2008, when the CRG was filing lawsuits and trying to get their referendum on the ballot, MPW described the situation this way:
The CRG's campaign was fear-mongering of the worst kind. They argued that if County residents lost the right to discriminate on the basis of gender identity, it would become legal for male predators and pedophiles to hang around women's shower-rooms, ogling and molesting our wives and daughters, just by claiming to be a woman in a man's body. It was an embarrassingly hateful scenario designed to amplify people's fear and misunderstanding of their transgender neighbors, the worst kind of prejudice. It is worth noting at this point that the new law has not resulted in any incidents of this sort.
Even if Trachtenberg screwed up as treasurer of Maryland NOW -- and I don't know if she did or not, any more than you do -- just how is that a "serious allegation?" This shady document alleges that she did not provide accounting records to Maryland NOW upon her resignation in 2008, and left the accounting a mess. But again, there is no reason to believe the document is real at all. We do know that no legal action was taken.
Maryland Politics Watch should have made it clear to their readers that CRG is a radical group with a longstanding grudge against Duchy Trachtenberg based on their opposition to rights for LGBT citizens, and should have pointed out that the document they are propagating is very questionable. It is not a good sign that they would replicate this insidious meme without adding any critical thinking.
Yesterday morning Montgomery County's anti-gay, anti-transgender group, now known as the Citizens for Responsible Government (CRG), sent out a press release slamming County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg, as they have done frequently over the past months.
The breathless news this time was that they had anonymously received "an unsettling document which purports to be a summary of a November 9, 2009, NOW Grievance Committee Decision against Trachtenberg." The linked document was a grainy pdf with no letterhead, no signatures, it does not appear to be an official document of any kind, though it does say negative things about Duchy Trachtenberg. There is no explanation of where the document came from or how the CRG got it, there is no reason for the non-gullible reader to believe that it is anything more than fiction. An anonymously received document purporting to be something, that's it.
Oddly, the CRG press release links to a Gazette article from January 20, 2010, titled Maryland NOW says grievance claim against Trachtenberg resolved. The article says, among other things:
Beth Corbin, president of NOW's Maryland chapter, said the grievance was an "internal Maryland NOW matter that's been dealt with."
Corbin would not discuss it further, but said that it had been "resolved."
It is classic for the CRG to assume their readers won't be intellectually curious enough to click on the link and see for themselves. Apparently there was some dispute between Trachtenberg and Maryland NOW a couple of years ago, and according to NOW it has been resolved. This sort of thing happens every day.
The CRG is a one-issue group that is still upset with Trachtenberg because she introduced the gender identity nondiscrimination bill that passed with a unanimous vote in the County Council. The CRG tried to mount a referendum effort to overturn the law but failed. And they're still mad about that.
A lot of people are following Maryland Politics Watch during this primary election season, it is the primary site for information about politics in our region as the elections draw near. The blog features frank insider discussion of candidates and policies, and readers expect a certain level of sophistication there. We know MPW isn't "impartial" exactly, they are much too involved in the political scene for that, but we expect objective editorial judgment.
You have to wonder then why they decided to publish the CRG's press release, telling their readers, without giving any real background, that the group "has released a set of serious allegations." MPW describes CRG as "the organization that fought Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg's transgender anti-discrimination bill." In 2008, when the CRG was filing lawsuits and trying to get their referendum on the ballot, MPW described the situation this way:
CRG’s fear-mongerers are running wild while the bill’s original, necessary purpose is receding into the background.
The CRG's campaign was fear-mongering of the worst kind. They argued that if County residents lost the right to discriminate on the basis of gender identity, it would become legal for male predators and pedophiles to hang around women's shower-rooms, ogling and molesting our wives and daughters, just by claiming to be a woman in a man's body. It was an embarrassingly hateful scenario designed to amplify people's fear and misunderstanding of their transgender neighbors, the worst kind of prejudice. It is worth noting at this point that the new law has not resulted in any incidents of this sort.
Even if Trachtenberg screwed up as treasurer of Maryland NOW -- and I don't know if she did or not, any more than you do -- just how is that a "serious allegation?" This shady document alleges that she did not provide accounting records to Maryland NOW upon her resignation in 2008, and left the accounting a mess. But again, there is no reason to believe the document is real at all. We do know that no legal action was taken.
Maryland Politics Watch should have made it clear to their readers that CRG is a radical group with a longstanding grudge against Duchy Trachtenberg based on their opposition to rights for LGBT citizens, and should have pointed out that the document they are propagating is very questionable. It is not a good sign that they would replicate this insidious meme without adding any critical thinking.
posted by JimK at 9:25 AM
12 Comments:
Well it's obvious why MPW published the CRG's fear-mongering without commenting; they said so themselves:
"that is one reason why our site traffic is currently at all-time highs."
Ask FAUX news - fear-mongering brings in viewers!
"The internal squabble among Delaware Republicans heated up in the run-up to a contentious Senate primary, as the state Republican Party dropped the L-word -- liar -- in calling out Tea Partycandidate Christine O'Donnell over her alleged financial problems.
O'Donnell is trying to replicate the kind of Tea Party upset that rocked the Alaska GOP Senate primary last week by casting her more established Republican opponent, longtime Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, as a moderate disloyal to conservative principles.
But some Republicans fear she has too few credentials and too much baggage to beat Democrat Chris Coons, a local county executive, in the race for the Senate seat previously held by Vice President Biden.
O'Donnell, in an interview Thursday with Fox News, repeatedly denied claims that she owed back taxes, never received a college diploma and had her home enter foreclosure.
But the Delaware Republican Party picked the interview apart in a statement Friday, questioning whether she was misleading the public. The primary is Sept. 14.
"Is Christine O'Donnell actually this unhinged from reality? Or is she simply a liar, whose total lack of respect for Delaware voters leads her to deliberately and repeatedly deny the clear facts surrounding her many personal and professional failures?" party Chairman Tom Ross said, calling her interview statements "bizarre and untruthful."
That level of intra-party rhetoric is unusual even in a tense election year that has mainstream Republicans increasingly jittery over the recent success of Tea Party-backed challengers.
O'Donnell's campaign shot back Friday, saying her critics "don't have all the facts." On the diploma issue, the campaign produced a letter from Fairleigh Dickinson University showing that she had earned her English literature degree -- effective Sept. 1, two days earlier.
The campaign explained that it took her 12 years to pay off her student loans and that a "separate bill" for tuition from her last semester had held up her degree. The campaign said O'Donnell had already earned a graduate fellowship from the Claremont Institute.
O'Donnell said on Fox News that she's "not a multimillionaire" and did not have a "trust fund" to pay for her college education. She said she attended the graduation ceremony in 1993 but did not receive her degree then.
O'Donnell and her Republican Party foes are going back and forth over a series of other accusations.
The state GOP cited a Wilmington News Journal report from March that detailed those troubles. The report said that, at the time, O'Donnell owed nearly $12,000 in taxes and penalties from 2005; that she owed nearly $24,000 in campaign debt from her prior Senate runs; that she had trouble paying her mortgage and sold her home in 2008 right before it was set to go on auction; and that Fairleigh Dickinson University sued her for nearly $5,000 in unpaid expenses 16 years ago. The debt was reportedly repaid years later -- apparently paving the way for her to receive her degree Wednesday.
O'Donnell has also acknowledged paying part of her rent with campaign donations -- which she said was justified because her townhome is also her campaign headquarters.
O'Donnell has addressed these allegations point-by-point on her website. She says the IRS mistakenly claimed she still owed money and that the "remaining balance" had been paid. She says there was no foreclosure.
Federal campaign finance reports show that, as of the end of June, her campaign debt has fallen below $12,000."
"Apparently there was some dispute between Trachtenberg and Maryland NOW a couple of years ago, and according to NOW it has been resolved. This sort of thing happens every day."
really?
she's a public servant and we have a right to know the details- and, if she refuses to disclose those details, to draw the appropriate conclusion
"The CRG is a one-issue group"
seems like they've engaged a number of issues
"that is still upset with Trachtenberg because she introduced the gender identity nondiscrimination bill that passed with a unanimous vote in the County Council. The CRG tried to mount a referendum effort to overturn the law but failed. And they're still mad about that."
actually, they're really mad that she sent her notorious aide out to intimidate those who allowed petitioners on their property and the aide was later found guilty of ethics violations in the matter but the victims of Beyer were not redressed
the legalistic games they played to invalidate petition signatures is now being replicated against other petitions, as an editorial in the Washington Post decried this weekend
just another negative effect of the gay agenda
a system that used to work fine is now screwed up
"The CRG's campaign was fear-mongering of the worst kind."
that's the worst?
fear-mongering must not be that scary
are you fear-mongering about fear-mongering?
"They argued that if County residents lost the right to discriminate on the basis of gender identity, it would become legal for male predators to hang around women's shower-rooms, in a man's body."
it would be a little difficult to stop now- they can just say they are trans
"It was an embarrassingly hateful scenario designed to amplify people's fear and misunderstanding of their transgender neighbors, the worst kind of prejudice."
they didn't say transgenders would do it, just that you wouldn't be able to differentiate between those who actually had gender confusion mental disease and those who didn't
"It is worth noting at this point that the new law has not resulted in any incidents of this sort."
also worth noting that no one has violated this law
there was never any need for it
"Even if Trachtenberg screwed up as treasurer of Maryland NOW just how is that a "serious allegation?" This shady document alleges that she did not provide accounting records to Maryland NOW upon her resignation in 2008"
actually, there are also allegations that she used organization funds for personal items
"Maryland Politics Watch should have made it clear to their readers that CRG is a radical group"
"radical" means drastic change
CRG was trying to prevent change
Duchy is a radical, who would like to overturn thousands of years of civilized norms
I completely agree with Bloomberg
"(Sept. 8) -- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is defending the Rev. Terry Jones' right to burn copies of the Quran on Saturday, in what the controversial pastor has deemed "International Burn-a-Quran Day."
"In a strange way, I'm here to defend his right to do that. I happen to think that it is distasteful. I don't think he would like it if somebody burnt a book that in his religion he thinks is holy," Bloomberg said Tuesday at a news conference about the status of the World Trade Center site, according to The Wall Street Journal.
"But the First Amendment protects everybody," Bloomberg continued. "And you can't say that we're going to apply the First Amendment to only those cases where we are in agreement.""
people are acting like this little protest against Islam is the equivalent of Nazi book-burnings but these guys aren't the government and aren't seeking to round up every Koran and destroy it
they are simply expressing their disagreement with Islam
not really doing that in a wise way but the reaction to it is ridiculous and if Muslims riot in the streets about it, it says more about them than us
you don't riots anywhere in the Judeo-Christian world about the treatment our holy books get in the Islamic world
CRG's one issue is opposition to queer people.
Anonymous, on the other hand, has engaged several issues: opposition to queer people, liberals, muslims, Obama....
you a supporter of Islam, Robert?
"MCRG has anonymously received an unsettling document which purports to be a summary of a November 9, 2009, NOW Grievance Committee Decision against Trachtenberg. The grievance allegedly cites Suntrust Bank records for NOW's checking account and claims that Trachtenberg misused NOW's ATM card to make unauthorized cash withdrawals; make purchases at retail stores like Lord & Taylor, Victoria's Secret, and Filenes Basement; and write numerous checks to herself and her husband."
And paid it all back.
But, if the accounting records are incomplete, is there any proof of that?
Also, doesn't the Gazzette imply that the matter was dropped because of threats of defamation?
Could it be that the threat of litigation and the lack of evidence convinced NOW to drop the whole matter rather than any exonerating evidence?
If she charged personal expenses to contributory accounts, is there proof she paid it back and was it proper to do that to begin with?
If she does think that was proper, is she doing that with taxpayer money now?
Seems Duchy is obligated to address these issues. If not, she should pay a price at the ballot box.
btw, I encountered a campaign worker for Dana this weekend who said he knew nothing about Dana and he had been imported from another campaign to walk around for Dana.
I told him all about Dana and he was shocked.
Ethics violations.. and you don't even warn your workers.
tut-tut...
There is proof of that this private issue has been satisfactorily resolved from two officers of NOW who were quoted in the Gazette:
"Beth Corbin, president of NOW's Maryland chapter, said the grievance was an "internal Maryland NOW matter that's been dealt with."
Corbin would not discuss it further, but said that it had been "resolved."
Sandy Bell, action vice president for the Maryland chapter of NOW, said the organization "did not want this to be public." "
The unsigned November 9, 2009 "document" the CRG is pushing is the complaint that has been resolved as noted in the January 2010 Gazette piece. The CRG's document is old news and has been privately resolved. Why does the CRG think it's necessary to present these private resolved matters as if they were public unresolved issues? Can't you CRG types mind your own business?
Oh that's right, there's an election coming up so it's time for you CRGers who imagine yourselves to be pure and devout to fling poo and hope some sticks.
It sticks all right, it sticks to you.
Oh yes, how are the pro-repeal 23-07 candidates doing in Montgomery County this time around?
Will one get elected this year?
"There is proof of that this private issue has been satisfactorily resolved from two officers of NOW who were quoted in the Gazette:
"Beth Corbin, president of NOW's Maryland chapter, said the grievance was an "internal Maryland NOW matter that's been dealt with."
Corbin would not discuss it further, but said that it had been "resolved."
Sandy Bell, action vice president for the Maryland chapter of NOW, said the organization "did not want this to be public." ""
proof that NOW doesn't want to discuss the matter publicly?
obviously, they wouldn't want contributors to know if they lack adequate internal controls to prevent an officer from using these funds for personal expenses
but if Duchy, ahem, misplaced the records, would there be any way to prove what was used and what was paid back?
"The unsigned November 9, 2009 "document" the CRG is pushing is the complaint that has been resolved as noted in the January 2010 Gazette piece. The CRG's document is old news and has been privately resolved."
NOW is not a private organization
it receives tax deductible contributions and is required to file information returns describing their activities with the IRS that are made publicly available
taxpayers, generally, and their contributors, especially, are entitled to know the details
so are the voters of Montgomery County
"Why does the CRG think it's necessary to present these private resolved matters as if they were public unresolved issues? Can't you CRG types mind your own business?"
whether a county councilman misused funds at a charity she used to run is not the voters' business?
if Duchy won't address, she needs to resign
Will one get elected this year?
"misplaced the records"
In the digital age, the banking records still exist because the banks themselve keep every record of every charge made, every check paid, and every deposit credited, and they have for years. MD NOW's President and Vice President have publicly stated the issue has been resolved.
It's funny that you have this sudden interest in public disclosure of internal records. I don't recall any Anons being concerned about records being lost when the Bush White House deliberately ignored warnings that they could lose internal White House emails, records federal law required the White House to keep.
http://www.federaljack.com/?p=16870
"Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington might not really be composed of superheroes but many agree that — through the years — CREW has done a kickass job exposing corruption by both Democrats and Republicans, despite often being derided as partisan.
“Top aides to President George W. Bush seemed unconcerned amid multiple warnings as early as 2002 that the White House risked losing millions of e-mails that federal law required them to preserve, according to an extensive review of records set for release Monday,” Ed O’Keefe reported for The Washington Post Sunday night.
The review, conducted by the nonprofit watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, follows a settlement reached last December between President Obama’s administration, CREW and the National Security Archive, a George Washington University research institute. The groups sued the Bush White House in 2007, alleging it violated federal law by not preserving millions of e-mails sent between 2003 and 2005.
The settlement resulted in the restoration of 94 days worth of e-mail and the release of documents detailing when the Bush White House learned of the missing e-mails and how it responded. The restored e-mails are part of the National Archives and Records Administration’s historic record of the Bush administration, but presidential historians and others seeking information in the coming decades about the major decisions of Bush’s presidency likely will be starved of key details, including messages sent between White House officials and drafts of final policy decisions, according to CREW.
“The net effect of this is we’ve probably lost some truly valuable records that would have provided insight” into the administration’s decision-making process on several policy issues, said CREW Chief Counsel Anne L. Weismann, who led the review."
Post a Comment
<< Home