D

ana Milbank at the Washington Post made a curious and difficult to believe allegation the other day:  that the Secret Service was keeping reporters from interviewing attendees at Palin rallies.

My source for this story is ProPublica, the “investigative journalism” sham that is funded by the far-left (as in by Herbert and Marian Sandler of SNL fame, who exploited the poor with junk mortgages, then sold their junk-ridden S&L to Wachovia, almost single-handedly bankrupting it).  ProPublica, of course, leads with the Milbank claim, without questioning it.

Question it they should.  Why would the Secret Service ban this line of questions?  The only reason they’d keep the reporters at bay (other than they one the Secret Service provides, which I’ll get to in a minute)  is (1) if the Secret Service were non-neutral and in the pocket of the McCain campaign, which is a slam to the Service’s professionalism, and (2) the crowds at Palin rallies are so hate-laced the McCain campaign wants to keep reporters away from them.

Contrary to these assumptions, the Secret Service is only concerned with security, not politics, and takes warranted offense at comments like this.  And, obviously, the McCain campaign likes getting quotes from Palin rallies in the media because these are folks who are very strongly supportive of the ticket.

Nonetheless, Milbank swallowed these assumptions, along with any remaining dregs of professionalism he could muster, and said:

“I wasn’t at the Scranton event, but I have to say the Secret Service is in dangerous territory here. In cooperation with the Palin campaign, they’ve started preventing reporters from leaving the press section to interview people in the crowd. This is a serious violation of their duty — protecting the protectee — and gets into assisting with the political aspirations of the candidate. It also often makes it impossible for reporters to get into the crowd to question the people who say vulgar things. So they prevent reporters from getting near the people doing the shouting, then claim it’s unfounded because the reporters can’t get close enough to identify the person.” (Emphasis added.)

Of course, there were no people shouting “Kill him” at the Scranton event, so Milbank is guilty of faulty reporting and faulty assumptions.  The Secret Service agrees:

“It’s not a function of the Secret Service to prevent or limit reporters from interviewing the people at events,” said Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan. “We’ve never been asked by any campaign to do that.”

Donovan said that at rallies for all the candidates, the Secret Service sometimes separates the press corps that is credentialed to cover the event—known as the pool—from the general public. That is for logistical and security reasons, he said.

“Being in a press pool gives them special access,” said Donovan. “But the other side is that they have to stay together. You keep national press away from the local press for the same reason.”

Any journalist can get around these restrictions simply by attending the rally as a member of the public rather than a part of the press pool, he said.

If Milbank knows anything, he knows that presidential campaigns work on tight schedules.  It is the Secret Services responsibility to account for eveyrone traveling with the candidate, and to make sure they leave on schedule for the next leg of the day’s travel.  This is so elementary it would take a paranoid or a politico to miscast it as a conspiracy.

Oh.

No Comments yet »

Obama’s Big Three-Year Ayres Lie

S

o we know Obama and Ayres worked together and knew each other, yet Obama continues to slither away from big negatives from the association. In fact, if we’re to believe the MSM, the Obama/Ayres meme may actually have hurt McCain among some voters who merely see it as “negative campaigning” – or who may actually like the idea of having a president who likes hanging out with terrorists.

But there are two ways to tell this story that McCain hasn’t pursued. One he’s had a long time to develop – that Obama and Ayres share a radical approach to education that should raise fears with any parent. And two, a story that’s still developing, the depth of lying Obama has foisted in order to minimize his friendship with the unrepentant domestic terrorist.

The lying meme got a big boost recently from Verum Serum, which tracked down documentation that the two shared an office for three years – a level of familiarity far beyond Obama’s “guy in the neighborhood” lie.

Bill Ayers and Barack Obama shared an office. Ayers’ Small Schools Workshop, the one Obama directed all that money to is located at 115 S. Sangamon Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607 [Note the link is to a year 2000 version of their website]. Here’s a screen grab from the website’s footer:

In 1998, the address for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where Obama presumably worked, was 115 S. Sangamon Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. Here’s a copy of their 1998 tax return with that address:

The CAC moved to a new address sometime in 1999 or 2000, but the shared office probably persisted for at least three years. I can’t say for sure because 1998 is the earliest tax information available online. [Correction: I can say for sure that they shared the same building for the years 1995-1998. Here is a 1995 progress report from the CAC with the same address.] …

I’m going to suggest that two guys working in the same building for a period of years probably crossed paths pretty often. For all we know, they had lunch together on a daily basis. Maybe, in an effort at conservation, they were even carpool buddies. After all, Ayers is a guy from Obama’s neighborhood.

The message here is simple and devastating: You just can’t trust what comes out of Obama’s mouth.

hat-tip: What Bubba Knows Continue Reading »

1 Comment »

I

‘m just a little shell-shocked here, so bear with me. I just can’t believe that MSNBC – MSNBC! – put together and aired this sympathetic and extremely positive little profile of Sarah Palin – Sarah Palin!!

[Can't load the clip; view it here]

I actually teared up a bit. Of course the hate-mongering maniacs of the Left saw it differently; check out this comment from the LAT’s Top of the Ticket blog item on the clip:

Sarah Palin is shameless, even dragging a young infant around as she campaigns, standing before crowds holding the child as if she were running for the new mother-of-god image, dragging a young daughter out on hockey rink ice in the midst of screaming and booing. While I’m making a leap here, let me tell you a person whose morals permit this behavior is not a person of vice-president caliber, let alone a potential president.

Sigh. Isn’t it weird that the same people that don’t recognize evil in the world can’t recognize the good in it either?

hat-tip: Jim

1 Comment »

T

oday in the Chicago Sun-Times, Andrew Greely has a comment recommended by 11 nitwits that is not dissimilar to yesterday’s rant in the Boston Glob (not a typo) by Derrick Jackson. You know, the Republicans are poisoning the campaign because one guy stood up at one Palin rally and shouted “Kill him!” Here’s Greely:

She can stir up crowds to shout “Kill him!” at the mention of the presidential candidate of the other party a couple of weeks before the national election.

Greely is lying of course, as is the wont of the wags on the Left. Palin was not speaking of Obama at the time; she was speaking of Ayres. The “kill him” was directed at an unrepentant domestic terrorist, not a Dem candidate for president. [Update:  Actually, there was no "Kill him!" yell.] That doesn’t make the sentiment right, but it certainly doesn’t justify this:

It is all part of a plan cooked up by John McCain to turn the major issue in the election from the economy to the character [as you'll see, he means "race"] of the Democratic candidate. … Playing the race card explicitly merely guarantees what I have thought from the beginning — racism in this country precludes the possibility of a sepia-colored man becoming president. However, the last-ditch attack on him guarantees that McCain and Palin will be blamed as the candidates who were content to hear crowds calling for the death of Obama.

There’s that lie again. But it’s hardly the big lie. The few decorum-breakers on the right, who are frightened by the prospect of a hard left, even socialist, president being elected, can’t hold a candle to the hatred of the left, which even Greely espouses.

He calls Palin “an All-American girl as racist, this time a racist with her eye on the White House.” He makes no effort to prove her a racist beyond the one person shouting “kill him.” And if these numbskulls are going to insist that “hockey mom” is racist, isn’t “All-American girl” just as racist as “hockey mom?” It certainly is dismissive and misogynistic, ignoring Palin’s accomplishments and passing her off as some bimbo white chick.

Worse, he calls McCain “an angry, befuddled cancer survivor,” and says he is “troubled and distracted.” Greely is an ageist, holding McCain’s age against him and mischaracterizing this very robust and sharp individual who just happens to be 73 as an Alzheimer’s sufferer unable to function.

But Greely is a cupcake. A stupid, biased cupcake that can’t see the reality before him because he is steeping in his own ugly biases against conservatives, Christians and Republican women, but still a cupcake when compared to what the pillars of the left are now offering up.

Wake Up America found the picture I was looking for. I’m going to put a page break in here to protect any kiddies that might be hanging around while you read this. Plant them in front of the TV and then click the “continue reading” header. Continue Reading »

No Comments yet »

Global Warming Update

W

e haven’t been hearing much about global warming lately – economic reality vs. bogeyman theories, you know – so I thought it a good time to provide an update on just how the nasty warming of our planet is going:

Big snow flakes fell early Friday evening, turning Downtown Boise into a giant snow globe for people on their way home from work. The snow caught many people off guard, including this bicyclist heading down Idaho Street between 8th and 9th around 5:45 p.m. Across the Treasure Valley, tree branches heavy with wet, snow-covered leaves fell on power lines, causing scattered power outages.

This is the earliest measurable snowfall in Boise since recordkeeping began in 1898, according to the National Weather Service. At 10 p.m., the Weather Service said 1.7 inches of snow had fallen. The previous earliest recorded snowfall was Oct. 12, 1969, when a little more than an inch fell.

Pesky reality, dropping like thick, wet snow all over their lovely computer models.

Hat-tip: Jim

Continue Reading »

2 Comments »

UPDATED

W

hen in doubt, go to the source, so off I went to the Anchorage Daily News to see what was being written there about yesterday’s ethics finding in the Troopergate affair. The report led off with what we’ve heard elsewhere:

“Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired,” concluded investigator Steve Branchflower [right] in his report made public Friday.

The governor let her husband, Todd, use the governor’s office and its resources, “including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired,” Branchflower wrote.

Much has has been made of this. Much hay has not been made of the fact that Barack Obama acted unethically or perhaps illegally when he funneled Annenberg money to ACORN while he was serving as Illinois state counsel to the radical community organizers. And precious little is being written about Obama’s $800,000 payment to ACORN this election cycle.

Further down the story, we begin to see another side to the investigation:

Sen. Gene Therriault, R-North Pole [gotta love that!], said the report is flawed because Branchflower didn’t take into account statements and other materials submitted earlier this week by Todd Palin and administration employees who earlier had resisted subpoenas.

Therriault said Todd Palin’s written response indicates that Gov. Palin, at some point, urged her husband to drop his efforts against Wooten. That information goes to the heart of Branchflower’s conclusion that the governor violated the ethics law, Therriault said.

Therriault said Branchflower was unable to consider those late-arriving materials “because we had this artificial deadline today.”

“Why?” he continued. “Because we’re in a political season.”

Anyone who doesn’t get that – the release of the report in the final month of the campaign as an indication of how politically motivated the report is – is simply choosing to ignore reality.

Note that Branchflower was appointed by a committee led by State Sen. Hollis French, of whom Palin said last July:

“The project manager, Sen. French, already elevated this by publicly suggesting ‘impeachment’ before the Senate laid out any rules or an investigator was named. Publicly elevating this to ‘impeachment’ raises doubts as to how fair a process some senators may intend for this to be.”

Indeed. The same article describes Branchflower as a colleague of French; the two worked together as prosecutors. And Branchflower’s wife, a police detective, held the other party in the investigation, Police Superintendent Monegan, in high regard:

Monegan is a respected supervisor because he listens to his employees and isn’t afraid to change course if something isn’t working out, said detective Linda Branchflower. ‘A lot of us see that as more courageous,’ she said.

All in all, Branchflower’s report was more critical of Todd Palin than his wife – but who’s to say a wife has the power to control everything a husband does, whether she’s governor or not. After all, officer Michael Wooten was married to his sister. The Anchorage Daily News provides that defense:

Two other lawmakers said the Palins’ actions were understandable.

“Who is going to blame Todd Palin for protecting his family?” said Rep. John Coghill, R-North Pole. ” Not me.”

Another member of the Legislative Council, Rep. Bob Lynn, R-Anchorage, said he thinks Branchflower’s findings are wrong, and that Palin didn’t violate the ethics act. “She and Todd Palin were trying to defend their family,” Lynn said. “I think any normal person would do the same.”

In the end, we learn that even Branchflower admits Palins’ ethics isn’t the real problem. Reverting to his former role as victims rights watchdog, he got to the nub of the problem – the state:

Branchflower also recommends the Legislature change the way complaints against peace officers such as troopers are handled. He says lawmakers should consider making it possible for people who file such complaints to get feedback about the status of their complaint and whatever action was taken about it.

The initial complaint against Wooten was filed by Gov. Palin’s father, Chuck Heath, before she was elected governor in 2006. Branchflower says the inability of the family to get information about what was happening with the complaint was frustrating to them.

“I believe their frustration was real as was their skepticism about whether their complaints were being zealously investigated,” Branchflower’s report says. “The irony is that the complaints were taken very seriously, and a thorough investigation was underway. However, the law prevented the Troopers from giving them any feedback whatsoever.”

The state failed the Palins during the Wooten investigation, and it failed them again yesterday in rushing out a flawed ethics report so that it could be exploited in the final month of the campaign.

UPDATE - Guest-blogging at Hugh Hewitt, Beldar writes:

Please understand this, if you take nothing else away from reading this post: The Branchflower Report is a series of guesses and insupportable conclusions drawn by exactly one guy, and it hasn’t been approved or adopted or endorsed by so much as a single sub-committee of the Alaska Legislature, much less any kind of commission, court, jury, or other proper adjudicatory body. It contains no new bombshells in terms of factual revelations. Rather, it’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion — after being hired and directed by one of Gov. Palin’s most vocal opponents and one of Alaska’s staunchest Obama supporters — that he thinks Gov. Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both (a) the complete right to perform and (b) other very good reasons to perform. …

Here’s a note to Mr. Branchflower, who clearly is verbose, but obviously none too keen a scholar of logic: Gov. Palin’s so-called “firing” of Monegan (it wasn’t a firing, it was a re-assignment to other government duties that he resigned rather than accept) can’t simultaneously be a violation of the Ethics Act and “a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority.” This, gentle readers, is a 263-page piece of political circus that actually explicitly refutes itself on its single most key page!

Read the whole thing.

1 Comment »

T

oday, the Obama campaign will roll out its most aggressive attack strategy against McCain – and it’s got a lot of potential and momentum behind it, so watch out.

According to Politico, the new “multimedia” effort – read TV, Internet and talking heads – will focus on events from long, long ago, the Keating Five S&L scandal from 1989-1991. The intent is to blame the current financial crisis on McCain and his S&L buddies, which is political dirty work at its dirtiest.

McCain was the least dirty of the five, which came very close to being called the Keating Four; last minute machinations alone lumped McCain with the others. His involvement in support of constituent Charles Keating was brief, shallow and ineffective. His repenting has gone on for the 17 years since, with his refusal to play the political games favored by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank.

But explaining all that will be difficult for McCain, whose messaging this far in the campaign has been about as effective as a three-legged thoroughbred. McCain does have a message strategy available to him that will work for him – comparing himself to Obama; something like:

I’ve been open about this and have said a thousand times that I regret that I signed my name to one letter for Charlie Keating. I regretted it when I did it and I still do today. It was the worst mistake of my career, but from that moment on, I turned against political favoritism and earmarking. Keating went to jail, and I’m glad he did.

I’m comfortable admitting all this because it changed me into a better man, a crusader against corruption. My opponent admits nothing about relationship with Tony Rezko, who took bribes and wielded influence, or about Bill Ayres, who says he wishes he had planted more bombs in his efforts to destroy America. My opponent took over $100,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in just three years, and has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from companies like Lehman and Goldman Sachs.

Why won’t Obama talk about all that? Could it be because he hasn’t changed? That he’s just an old-school politician in a nice new suit?

Meanwhile, the McCain camp is stepping up its character messaging on Obama, with Palin’s comments over the weekend accusing him of “palling around with terrorists” like Bill Ayres. She told Bill Kristol:

Palin also made clear that she was eager for the McCain-Palin campaign to be more aggressive in helping the American people understand “who the real Barack Obama is.” Part of who Obama is, she said, has to do with his past associations, such as with the former bomber Bill Ayers. Palin had raised the topic of Ayers Saturday on the campaign trail, and she maintained to me that Obama, who’s minimized his relationship with Ayers, “hasn’t been wholly truthful” about this.

I pointed out that Obama surely had a closer connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than to Ayers — and so, I asked, if Ayers is a legitimate issue, what about Reverend Wright?

She didn’t hesitate: “To tell you the truth, Bill, I don’t know why that association isn’t discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that — with, I don’t know, a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn’t get up and leave — to me, that does say something about character. But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up.”

That’s well and good, but it shouldn’t stop with Ayres and Wright. Rezko, the New Party and other radical and racist fellow travelers should all be brought up: A litany of what makes Obama “not like the rest of us.”

The GOP campaign has got to start putting its attacks in context, to disallow the racists at AP and elsewhere in the MSM from mischaracterizing legitimate challenges to Obama’s judgment and associations with racial attacks. Words are important; “palling around” does not accurately characterize the Obama/Ayres association, and it should be replaced with “long friendship” or even “birds of a feather.”

So the GOP needs to step up and improve its campaign about Obama’s radical associations by clearly making it about his character and judgment, and nothing to do with his race. But more important, they have to begin talking about Obama’s financial ties to corruption and greed on Wall Street, and his failure to do anything more than write one letter.

After all, all McCain did for Charlie Keating was write one letter, and that’s all Obama has done to call out the culture of destructive greed on Wall Street.

3 Comments »

T

he radical left has found its answer to Rev. Wright’s ranting, anti-American, anti-Jew sermons, the sermons Obama listened to for twenty years, but denies ever hearing. (Did he sleep in the pews or did he lie?)

The morally trashed left lucked out because their video shows Sarah Palin being prayed for, so we know she was there; no question about it. And to the leftists, the prayer of the guest speaker at her former Wasilla Community Church, Kenyan pastor Thomas Muthee, sounds just as threatening as Wright’s sounded to us:

He wants grace and favor for Sarah Palin. He wants God’s presence felt in politics, in education, in government. He wants the 10 Commandments to be taught in school again, rather than Buddhism and Islam. The horror! He wants politicians who love God to be elected to office. The shame! He wants government officials, even presidents and Secretaries of State, to be believers. Secularist apostasy!

And he prays all this in the name of Jesus, as Palin’s pastors have their hands on her shoulders. It’s funky charismatic Christianity on display, ripe for hip, metro ridicule.

Here’s the long version of the prayer with the warm-up and handy subtexts decrying the foulness of it all:

And here’s a shorter version, which starts with the hands-on prayer, after the warm-up. It’s called “Sarah Palin, Thomas Muthee and witchcraft.”

What you’re seeing here may not happen in a Methodist or Episcopalian church every Sunday – heck, it doesn’t happen in most evangelical churches every Sunday. This was a visiting pastor from Kenya, where there is a very robust and charismatic Christianity, a type of Christianity lived by millions of Christians around the world, including our own charismatics, like my very good lifetime friend Peter.  Outside our Eurocentric, refined Christianity, the faith often takes on a more spirited application with prayers against evil spirits – because on the other side there are witch doctors and shamen who work to summon those spirits up.

One would think the rules of political correctness would protect these folks, representative as they are of an older society, more pure and primitive. Think again.

Muthee, at the end of his prayer, prays for protection for Sarah Palin against witchcraft. The actual words are garbled, but it immediately follows a prayer for protection from “the enemy,” Satan, so it is a biblical prayer of protection against those – the radical American Left comes to mind – who would work actively to stymie the work of God, whether it’s done in the name of Satan or enlightened secularism. But it’s that mention of witchcraft that gives the Left it’s hook.

You all remember Mark Morford, author of an entry in this year’s Most Ridiculous Story competition, Is Obama an Enlightened Being? In that story, Morford is very comfortable with tying spirituality to the president … as long as it’s his kind of spirituality.

Barack Obama isn’t really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway.

This is what I find myself offering up more and more in response to the whiners and the frowners and to those with broken or sadly dysfunctional karmic antennae – or no antennae at all – to all those who just don’t understand and maybe even actively recoil against all this chatter about Obama’s aura and feel and MLK/JFK-like vibe.

To them I say, all right, you want to know what it is? The appeal, the pull, the ethereal and magical thing that seems to enthrall millions of people from all over the world, that keeps opening up and firing into new channels of the culture normally completely unaffected by politics?

No, it’s not merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric. It is not fresh ideas or cool charisma or the fact that a black president will be historic and revolutionary in about a thousand different ways. It is something more. …

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare.

So it’s OK to have Lightworkers in politics, but it is definitely not OK to have God in politics. That’s Worford’s new beef, as expressed in his column yesterday, Witches Begone! Sarah Palin was de-witched by nutball pastor? What a shame.

Did you see the infamous grainy YouTube video? Did you read the disquieting little sidebar story about Muthee and his now-infamous witch huntin’ treks down to Kenya, like that time he stormed into a village and formed an angry mob to drive out an old woman by the name of “Mama Jane” who was supposedly causing illness and traffic accidents and really crappy Wi-Fi connections at the local Starbucks? Charming.

Have you read, furthermore, about Palin’s adorable Pentecostal church where Muthee preached, where they like to speak in tongues and lick the skins of serpents and watch NASCAR while shooting moose from the backs of animatronic dinosaurs adorned with “Jesus is My Co-Pilot” bumper stickers? (Note: possible slight exaggeration. But not by much.) It’s all sorts of Disney-on-acid fun. [Hey, Morford, just for fun, why do you try to write this kind of demeaning "possible slight exaggeration" about what goes on in your local mosque. C'mon, Morf! I dare you!]

As for Palin, turns out Muthee laid on some hands, delivered a garbled serpents n’ brimstone prayer designed not merely to help her leap from Mayor of Nowheresville to perky gubernatorial fireplug, only to later become, thanks to McCain’s appalling judgment, the most insulting caricature of female empowerment in modern history who, as the VP debate painfully revealed, still knows not a single substantive thing about American domestic or foreign policy, but also to protect her from that same silly/terrifying witchcraft I imagined in my youth.

This is what passes for witticism in San Francisco. Attack religion, unless it’s your hip, New Age religion. Attack any woman who strays from the narrow path of feminist orthodoxy, and do it all in a sneering tone that ridicules all the rest of America.

Morford’s a punk, a little man in a dirty city, easy to dismiss as meaningless. Then there’s Keith Olbermann, who views the video clip and pronounces, “This is starting to sound startling enough to be terrifying.” He also says of Muthee, “He makes Father Flannigan of Boy’s Town look like Jeremiah Wright.” Here’s the clip, which ridicules a lot of standard evangelical beliefs, and which Olbermann tries mightily to make Muthee into a modern-day Salem-creator and spiritual good buddy of Palin:

Mock, mock, mock. Maybe we Christians look silly when we pray against evil. But does Olbermann mock the death penalty foes when they’re praying outside the prison for God to stop the execution? Of course not! Those are his Christians, to be praised. Does he mock the anti-war Christians who pray at the munitions plants and Army induction centers? Of course not; they are above reproach.

But when the same belief in prayer is applied to a Republican, oh my! We see the vile hypocrisy of the American Left in all it’s glory.

By the way, even as Olbermann dresses it up, Muthee’s witch-hunting is hardly the stuff of Salem legend. He offered the spiritualist an out: leave town, or we’ll pray against you. She stayed. They prayed. Then the police – not the church – raided her shop and shot a snake – not her – and she left town.

Let us pray. God, save us from them and all they would do to our country.

Hat-tip: Marshall

6 Comments »

W

ho won the debate? That’s an easy one: Joe Biden beat Barack Obama. The contrast between Biden’s command of issues and willingness to speak his mind and Obama’s cool mutterings underscored that the man at the top of the ticket does not have the experience to be president.

Beyond that, Palin stood up well enough – although I was screaming messages she was missing at the screen (same goes for McCain).  And with her good performance, the campaign can move on.

3 Comments »

A

s Winner & Associates’ Ethan Winner admits that he was behind an anonymous, lying, unethical Palin-bashing ad his firm attempted to make go viral, it looks like they’re going to be losing business.

A comment from “Mark” posted on my post about the ethical violations of Winners’ action lays it out:

This is ad and video is really such poor form.  My family, which lives in LA and does regular business with Winner will be suspending all adds and they don’t even support the McCain Palin ticket.

Even if the firm was not behind it, Winner is employed there and this irresponsible behavior really frustrates my dad.  He won’t go out there and post his opinion, but I will.  Winner is just about to lose a good client.

This is as it should be.  Firms like Winner’s (and mine) are tasked first and foremost with protecting the reputations of their clients.  Such work shouldn’t be trusted to people who use unethical tactics to attempt to ruin the reputations of others.

No Comments yet »