Trump Punks America: 15 Broken Campaign Promises Since Election Day

Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump was in a frothing rage against what he insisted was making America a Hell hole. But for all the anxiety he caused, his post-election transformation may indicate it was all a ruse. The blustery ranting about immigrants, ObamaCare, and his despised rivals and critics, has melted into a sappy stew of acceptance.

Donald Trump Stupid

To illustrate that, Politico has put together a collection of “15 Trump Flip-Flops in 15 Days.” Some of these reversals are mind-boggling and sure to send his Deplorables into hysterics (see Politico for more details and supporting links):

On President Obama

During the campaign Trump called Obama the worst president in history and the founder of ISIS, among other things. Now he has “great respect” for him and looks forward to his counsel.

On Protesters

In overnight tweets Trump went from maligning protesters as “professionals” “incited by the media,” to loving their “passion for our great country.”

On ObamaCare

There were few more highly charged demands for Trump than his call to repeal and replace ObamaCare. Now he is cozying up to many of the provisions that define the program. For instance, mandating coverage for people with preexisting conditions and allowing children to remain on their parents’ policies.

On The Border Wall

Trump was unyielding in his insistence that an actual wall be constructed along the Southern border (paid for by Mexico). Then on 60 Minutes he conceded that he would be satisfied with a plain old fence.

On Gay Marriage

Before the election Trump told Fox News he would appoint judges who would reverse the recent decisions on marriage equality. After the election he told CBS that the matter was settled law and he was “fine with it.”

On Hillary Clinton

Who can forget Trump’s assertion that he would appoint a special prosecutor to go after Clinton and throw her in jail? Or his rallies where he led the crowd in chants to “Lock her up?” Now he’s telling the New York Times that he doesn’t want to hurt the Clintons. “I really don’t,” he said. “It’s just not something that I feel very strongly about.”

On Immigrants

Prior to election day Trump was adamant that all 11 million undocumented residents would be rounded up and deported. Post election day he is saying that his deportation force will only target a couple of million criminals (who are already being targeted by Obama’s DOJ).

On Fighting ISIS

Trump once demeaned the military and famously claimed that he knew more about ISIS than the generals. More recently he has changed his tune to tribute saying “We have some great generals.” Although he later reversed that as well, saying that they aren’t getting the job done.

On Nuclear Proliferation

This isn’t so much a reversal as it is an outright lie. During the campaign Trump advocated for countries like Japan and Saudi Arabia to defend themselves with their own nukes. After taking heat for that foolishness, he tried to pretend he never said it.

On The Electoral College

In another flip-flop-flip, Trump denounced the Electoral College as a “disaster.” Then praised it as “genius.” Then went back to saying that he was “never a fan of the electoral college.”

On Trump University

Trump steadfastly refused to settle with his former students who said they were victims of fraud. Until after the election when he settled for more than $25 million.

On Climate Change

Here is something that Trump once called a hoax created by China. And in any event it wasn’t caused by anything humans have done. Now he says that “I think there is some connectivity. Some, something.” You have to admire his articulate analysis of the science.

On The Paris Climate Agreement

In the same vein, last May Trump declared that he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement. But last Tuesday he told the New York Times that “I have an open mind to it.”

On Torture

Trump has long held that torture was an effective tool for fighting terror and that he supported waterboarding and even tactics that were “much stronger.” But he is backpedaling on that position after having met with General Mattis, a candidate for Secretary of Defense who opposes such measures.

On The New York Times

Along with many other media outlets, Trump castigated the Times as liars who were bent on destroying him. He rarely said their name without attaching the prefix “failing.” But in his meeting with them Tuesday he called them “a world jewel” for whom he has “great respect.”

Conclusion

After reviewing these stunning reversals, the inescapable conclusion is that Donald Trump has no moral core. Despite his brash rhetoric on the campaign trail, he is clearly not committed to any ideological agenda. You might expect his supporters to be disappointed upon learning that he isn’t planning on keeping his word. However, if the past is any indication, they are probably too wrapped up in hero worship to care.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

It would be interesting to know how he would have fared if he ran on retaining ObamaCare, letting undocumented residents slide, and expressing his respect for Clinton and Obama. That we will never know. But going forward it would be premature for Democrats to get excited about Trump’s policy reversals. He could just as quickly shift back to his previous positions. The only thing that can be expected from him is inconsistency, hypocrisy, and the selfish pursuit of his own best interests.

Politico Nails Donald Trump As A Lazy Old Geezer

Among the favorite insults that Donald Trumps throws around at his rivals is that they lack the vigor required to perform the job of President of the United States. He has called Jeb Bush “low-energy” and accuses Hillary Clinton of not having the necessary “strength and stamina.” However, these are adjectives that more accurately describe Trump himself.

Donald Trump

Politico published a story today that looks at “Donald Trump’s low-energy campaign.” It goes into considerable detail to prove that it is Trump who is so averse to doing any work that he makes all of the other candidates look like film on fast-forward. In the early paragraphs they report that…

“Trump, who once derided Jeb Bush for lacking energy, has done fewer campaign swings than any of his top-tier rivals — 100, versus, for example, Bush’s 172. […] He has held only 27 events in New Hampshire over the course of 22 visits to the state, according to a tally kept by New England Cable News. By comparison, Christie has held 139 Granite State events.”

So Trump is conducting a fraction of the number of events that other candidates are holding. But it’s even worse than that. The events that Trump holds are large rallies that require almost nothing of him. He flies into town on his luxurious private 757 jet, is driven to the hall in the back of a limousine, delivers a speech that he spent no time writing or rehearsing since it’s all off the top of his head (and largely repeats of previous speeches), and then is whisked back to his plane for the ride back to his Manhattan penthouse. He could literally sleep through all of that except for the speech itself (which we sleep through).

This would also explain the complete lack of substance of his campaign. He has not produced a platform other than sloganeering and hollow blathering about building walls, deporting eleven million immigrants, and bombing the hell out of ISIS. In seven months of campaigning he has not explained how he would accomplish any of those goals. He just expects his glassy-eyed disciples to believe in him and nod in agreement. Fortunately for Trump, most of them are more than ignorant and unquestioning enough to do just that.

Trump’s campaign argues that he is reaching more people with his stadium events. That’s true. However, the process of winning primaries involves reaching out to broad constituencies and persuading them to vote for you. The people attending Trump’s rallies are mainly those who are already committed to him in his capacity as a celebrity and are not necessarily voters or even residents of the community or state where the event is held. There is no evidence that he is persuading new people to support him, which would make his rallies virtually pointless. Meanwhile, his opponents are holding smaller events at restaurants and school gymnasiums where they are shaking the hands of locals and working to make converts among people who actually vote and can influence others to do so.

The Trump people also cite the ridiculous amount of media he gets (ridiculous is his word for it). But he was getting that exposure before he started having rallies. And much of his media comes from his interviews on Fox News or Morning Joe. With respect to that, it is further proof that he is a lazy candidate since he rarely appears in the studio, preferring to phone in from his penthouse, in his silk pajamas, and have his intellectually vacant conversations with equally lazy television presenters.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

This perspective reveals that the facade Trump is promoting is just more dishonesty from a candidate who is breaking all records for lying about himself and others (see the Trump Bullshitopedia). It is an old tactic of accusing your opponents of the things for which you are most guilty (projection). And it takes some real chutzpah to call Clinton or Bush lazy when you have done far less than any of the other candidates. But that’s the Trump brand that consists mainly of insulting others and bragging about himself. He’s a textbook case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and a slothful one at that.

Sunday Funnies: Recently Uncovered Video Of Donald Trump’s Childhood

Donald Trump, the media-designated front-runner for the Republican nomination for president, is said to have attained this status due to his straight talk and authentic style of connecting with GOP voters. Of course, Trump’s alleged lead is a myth that is exacerbated by shallow punditry and the media hunger for ratings.

Donald Trump

Trump has never led more than a small flock of GOP loonies, with 75-80% of poll respondents choosing other candidates. And he has consistently had the highest unfavorables of any candidate, Republican or Democratic. The only reason that Trump is ahead of his rivals now is that there are so many of them. When the roster is whittled down the remaining candidates will all be beating Trump.

As for his so-called plain speaking appeal, Jack Shafer at Politico put Trump’s rhetoric through the Flesch-Kincaid test where Trump scored at the third grade level. That’s probably still somewhat higher than most of his Tea-vangelical supporters. And despite his compulsion to repeatedly remind everyone how smart he is (something actual smart people never need to do), his public utterances invariably contradict him. This morning, for example, Chuck Todd asked Trump from whom he would get advice on the military were he president. Trump said that “I watch the shows,” referring to the Sunday morning news programs in the same way that fans of soap operas refer to their “stories.” He’s still in Reality TV mode.

Nevertheless, with so much of the media spotlight being cast on Trump, it is important to put his life in context. Particularly with regard to his early childhood development that reveals with stark clarity how he came to be the person he is today. As the son of privilege, little Donny was pampered and fawned over by his wealthy parents who set him up in business and eventually bequeathed him a couple hundred million dollars (which his poor business skills squandered). And to further flesh out Trump’s formative years, News Corpse acquired this exclusive video of a young Don expressing himself in much the same way that he does today.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

The resemblance is obvious. And it doesn’t take much effort to chart the path from Trump’s greedy Narcissism as a juvenile to the political hogwash he espouses now. What’s more, those positions – from immigration, to taxes, to Iraq/Iran, to reproductive rights, to marriage equality, to Climate Change, to guns, to health care – are completely in line with with the Republican Party that he represents. So even when he is ultimately laughed off the stage, the GOP regulars will soldier on with the same agenda, albeit somewhat less foolishly articulated (not much, but somewhat).

What Conservatives (And Politico) Still Don’t Understand About Fox News

Earlier this month Bruce Bartlett published a paper titled “How Fox News Changed American Media and Political Dynamics.” Bartlett is a veteran conservative operative who worked in both the George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan White Houses. His paper’s premise is that Fox News has had a harmful effect on the Republican Party’s electoral appeal by herding its already right-wing flock into an even fringier parish where it is shielded from differing views. Bartlett appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources this morning and said…

“I think many conservatives live in a bubble where they watch only Fox News on television, they listen only to conservative talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, many of the same people. When they go on to the Internet, they look at only conservative websites like National Review, Newsmax, World Net Daily, and so they are completely in a universe in which they are hearing the same exact ideas, the same arguments, the same limited amount of data repeated over and over and over again, and that’s brainwashing.”

Fox News Bad For GOP

Brainwashing is not too strong a word. Fox News has become the central authority in a cult-like cabal of rightist true-believers who envelope themselves in the scripture as preached by Fox. This has been proven by in-depth studies that show how conservatives have drastically constrained their news sources to a narrow collection of like-minded, far-right outlets. There’s an implicit belief that exposure to a contrary ideological creed would be a breach of faith and a mortal sin.

It is encouraging, therefore, to see a conservative with an open mind and the ability to recognize the toxic role that Fox has played in the media and in politics. Bartlett’s paper is an interesting and well-documented read. However, it took him long enough to come to these conclusions. News Corpse published an analysis of how Fox News Is Killing The Republican Party six years ago, with an update expanding on the theme last year. I wrote in part that…

Fox has corralled a stable of the most disreputable, unqualified, extremist, lunatics ever assembled, and is presenting them as experts, analysts, and leaders. These third-rate icons of idiocy are marketed by Fox like any other gag gift (i.e. pet rocks, plastic vomit, Sarah Palin, etc.) […and that…] Fox is driving the center of the Republican Party further down the rabid hole. They are reshaping the party into a more radicalized community of conspiracy nuts. So even as this helps Rupert Murdoch’s bottom line, it is making celebrities of political bottom-feeders. That can’t be good for the long-term prospects of the Republican Party.

Conservatives, of course, are appalled by the treasonous utterings of Bartlett. A good representative example of the reaction comes from Politico’s Jack Shafer who wrote a column that seeks to reveal “What Liberals Still Don’t Understand About Fox News.” However, in his attempt to rebut Bartlett he fails to even grasp the logical concepts being discussed. Nowhere is that more evident than when he writes that…

“Fox in its current incarnation is neither a help nor a hindrance. Fox News — and its Svengali Roger Ailes — aren’t the Republican kingmakers they’re made out to be. […] the network is better at employing presidential candidates than electing them.”

Let’s set aside the fact that this alleged rebuttal actually agrees with Bartlett’s core thesis that Fox is having an adverse effect on Republican politics. Where Shafer really goes off the rails is arguing that Fox’s failure to succeed in electing Republicans is not a negative for the Party. If creating a field of losers is not a hindrance, what is?

Shafer goes on to correctly note that Fox’s power is often exaggerated. What is bragged about as ratings dominance is, in reality, a rather minor victory. Shafer notes that “Fox’s most popular program, The O’Reilly Factor, pulls in about 3.3 million viewers on its best nights.” Once again, Shafer is late to the party. That is something News Corpse pointed out six years ago with some additional perspective:

“[S]uccess in the Nielsen ratings has no correlation to public opinion polling […because it is…] focused on consumers, not voters […and that…] There are many reasons people choose to watch TV shows, the most frequent being its entertainment value. So any attempt to tie ratings to partisan politics is a foolish exercise that demonstrates a grievous misunderstanding of the business of television.”

O’Reilly’s 3 million viewers is less than 1% of the American population. It’s also fewer viewers than World Wrestling Entertainment, SpongeBob SquarePants, and the CBS Evening News (the lowest rated broadcast network news program).

So what ever power Fox has is not vested in its audience. And this where Shafer, and most other conservative media pundits, fall off the wagon. Fox’s viewers were not turned into conservatives by watching Fox. They watch Fox because they are conservatives who need to have their preconceptions validated. Then, by being exposed to the bias and disinformation that makes up Fox’s programming, they become ignorant, radicalized conservatives.

The real power that Fox wields is with Republican office-holders, candidates and party strategists. They have been fooled into believing that Fox’s ratings are an indication of the nation’s political mood. Consequently, they believe that taking positions aligned with the extremist right-wingers on Fox will advance their electoral goals. That has cost the party dearly in the last two national elections. In fact, they were so befuddled by Fox that the election results, which most Americans could have predicted, were a shock to many Republicans and Fox pundits (recall Karl Rove’s tantrum on election night?).

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

All of this should make the next few weeks oodles of fun as GOP candidates seek to please the Fox-gods so that they win a spot on the debate stage. Fox announced that only the top ten candidates in an average of certain polls (that Fox will decide) will be included in the debates. Therefore, between now and then the candidates on the edge will have to take aggressive measures to appeal to the people who they think are likely to be polled.

That means more chest-beating about war with Iran, more hate-speech about gays, more talk of bigger, stronger fences on the border, more promises to slash taxes and government programs, and much more bashing of President Obama and Hillary Clinton. And that competition to become the most extreme wingnut will filter into the campaign strategies of the rest of the GOP field as they struggle to become the Fox favorite.. All of which will result in making them completely unelectable in the fall of 2016.

Politico Reporter Suspended For Telling The Truth: Romney Is More Comfortable Around White Folks

Yesterday on MSNBC’s Martin Bashir program, Politico reporter Joe Williams participated in a discussion about Mitt Romney’s tendency to restrict his public appearances to carefully choreographed events and friendly media outlets. It was noted that he has appeared on the widely reviled Fox & Friends 21 times in the last year. Fox & Friends is an avowedly right-wing mouthpiece for the GOP and a program about which even Fox reporters, producers and executives “roll their eyes” when asked about.

Williams noted that Romney’s preference for Fox & Friends, and similarly partisan settings, was interesting because it was “unscripted and it’s the only time they let Mitt off the leash.” He made the point that for Romeny to be successful he needs to broaden the range of people with whom he interacts.

Williams: Romney is very, very comfortable, it seems, with people who are like him. That’s one of the reasons why he seems so stiff and awkward in some town hall settings, why he can’t relate to people other than that. But when he comes on Fox and Friends, they’re like him, they’re white folks who are very much relaxed in their own company.

That is an objectively true statement. Fox & Friends are indeed white folks and they appear to be very relaxed with one another. It is also true that Romney does appear to be more comfortable with people like himself, and he does exhibit noticeable awkwardness when he tries to connect with average Americans. It is that discomfort that has resulted in his embarrassing himself by saying that he likes to fire people, that his friends are NASCAR team owners, that his wife drives two Cadillacs, that corporations are people, and that he’s not concerned about the poor.

Nevertheless, Politico has suspended Williams for these comments. This is another example of the media punishing people for telling the truth about conservatives. It seems that the only people that are ever held to account are those to whom conservatives object. Earlier this year I documented a list of the “10 People Fox News Should Fire, But Haven’t.” Media suspensions have been handed out liberally (so to speak) to Roland Martin, David Shuster, Mark Halperin, and many others. While right-wing malfeasance is ignored or even rewarded. People like Liz Trotta, Juan Williams, Don Imus, and Lou Dobbs, have managed to escape any repercussions from their bad behavior.

A recent incident involving a reporter from Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller illustrates this blatant unfairness perfectly. Neil Munro rudely shouted out questions in the middle of a presidential address. His inappropriate behavior was widely condemned, even by some staunch conservatives. However, rather than suspension, he was defended by Carlson and held up as an exemplary model of journalism. That’s the difference between the right and the left in the media. The right admires and rewards rudeness and dishonesty, and pays tribute to those who engage in it. The left punishes any hint of impropriety, even when there is no substance to it. All that has to happen is for some right-winger to complain.

As for Romney’s reputed comfort amongst his own people, I defy you find a person of color in this photograph taken from his website (click to enlarge), and then explain who he means by “us.”

Romney's White Folks

Sarah Palin’s Alaska Avalanche

Another week, another new low for Sarah Palin’s Alaska on The Learning Channel.


Last Sunday’s airing of “Alaska” pulled in just 2.56 million viewers. Over its run Palin’s show has steadily declined to the point where it is now struggling to reach half of what it did on its debut.

Nevertheless, much of the right-wing press is heralding the show as a success. Fox News, Politico, and others are speculating that TLC is trying to sign Palin up for another season. Perhaps so. The show is a top performer for the little-watched network. However, to put it into perspective, the History Channel’s “American Pickers” has twice as many viewers as Palin’s Alaska.

Politico’s article on Palin’s ratings was notable for its cluelessness. They cited as their source PopEater,com and and reprinted what can only be described as PR from TLC. Without bothering to check, Politico published a quote that asserted that Alaska’s numbers were “better than the numbers for Bravo’s ‘Housewives’ series or most other cable shows.” However, the Real Housewives of Atlanta did 3.22 million compared to Palin’s 2.56 million. And Palin fell more than a million viewers short of making the top 25 for cable programs last week.

The PopEater/Politico article also quoted a “friend of Palin” who said that Palin considers herself in the Jennifer Aniston league because she “knows that celebrities get millions of dollar for each episode of their shows and thinks she’s worth it too.” Right. Palin’s 2.5 million geriatric viewers on TLC are worth just as much as 20-50 million young adult viewers of Friends on NBC.

So who is more delusional, Politico or Palin?

[Update:] Another week, another decline. Sarah Palin’s Alaska drew 2.49 million viewers on December 26.

Fox Nation Has To Tell Their Idiot Readers How To Think

Fox News has built a collection of mottos that all have one thing in common: they are distorted and deceitful descriptions of the network they purport to represent (i.e. “Fair and Balanced”). So when you hear Fox say “We Report, You Decide,” you can safely dismiss it as rubbish. Anyone who who watches Fox for more than thirty seconds knows how strictly they lead their viewers around by the nose. The same is true for the Fox Nation:


Notice that these headlines editorialize the Fox Nationalist view of Politico. This appears to be a recent occurrence that began last month. Fox is apparently worried that their readers won’t assign the same bias to Politico as a news source that the Fox editors do. So they tell their readers exactly what they are supposed to believe to insure that they come away with the same authorized Fox opinion. Here some more examples of this pre-digested analysis:

Left-Wing Politico Called Sexist by Palin
Left-Wing Politico: Barack Obama’s Deals May Leave Liberals Behind
Left-Wing Politico: Stimulus Sent $140 Million to Religious Groups
Left-Wing Politico: Obama’s Arrogance
Left-Wing Politico Smears Black Republican Allen West
Left-Wing Politico: Drudge Wins

It’s interesting to note that most of these headlines aren’t even representative of anything remotely left-wing. In fact, they are actually overt expressions of right-wing thinking. That wouldn’t surprise most liberals who regard Politico as a conservative-leaning publication.

The purpose of this, of course, is to inject FoxThink into their readers minds before they even read the article. The Fox Nationalists obviously regard their audience as too stupid or incapable of forming a coherent thought on their own, so Fox helps them along by providing its own brand of bias.

This is just further evidence (as if it were necessary) that Fox, despite it’s name, is not news. Perhaps a better motto for them would be “We Tell You What To Think, You Can Go Back To Watching American Idol.”

Roger Ailes For President?

Mike Allen at Politico is reporting that:

“Friends and associates are encouraging Fox News chief Roger Ailes to jump into the political arena for real by running for president in 2012”

I am at a near loss for words. The only thing I can think of to say (when I stop laughing) is, “How can I help?”

The prospect of an Ailes candidacy would be a dream come true. Just imagining that corpulent hulk on the campaign trail sends shivers of joy through me. This is the man who gave us Richard Nixon. This is the man who produced the Rush Limbaugh show that failed miserably in TV syndication. Ailes is a creature of the media. His entire professional life has been dedicated to propaganda. He may be able to hammer together an effective media campaign from time to time, but he has never had much of a public presence and his appeal on that basis is on a par with Dick Cheney.

The ramifications of Candidate Ailes are numerous and exhilarating. Who would he choose for a running mate? Sarah Palin? Michele Bachmann? Glenn Beck? And what would his cabinet look like? A bunch of aging white men surrounded by anchor babes in short skirts? As Secretary of State, Bill O’Reilly could shout down world leaders and issue directives detailing which foreign diplomats were pinheads. Press Secretary Hannity would make certain that nothing but the right lies and innuendo emanate from the White House.

It’s interesting that this ludicrous notion is being floated just as the press is wallowing in a fabricated war between the White House and Fox News. It seems to me that having the head of Fox drafted as an opponent to the President seals the case that Fox itself is an opponent of the President and, therefore, not a credible news enterprise.

The article in Politico asserts that Ailes “has an aggessive [sic], winning personality….” That appears to be the opinion of the article’s author, Mike Allen, who cites Ailes pal Frank Luntz for confirmation. Allen also says that the talk about Ailes running is “based on more than mere speculation.” However, there is nothing but speculation in the column. There is no quote from Ailes, or anyone close to him, that affirmatively addresses the question of his running or even thinking about it.

This idea is so patently absurd that you have to wonder who’s behind it. What motives would the rest of the “friends and associates” Allen references have? And why would they want to remain anonymous? It’s not as if this is an insult to Ailes. Allen doesn’t bother to reveal his sources, but I have it on good authority that Allen was seen having lunch with Richard Heene, of Balloon Boy fame.

Is Ailes running for president? Is Politico being punked? Is that a balloon over the White House with an old fat guy hanging out of it? I think Glenn Beck is hard at work connecting dots that prove that Obama and ACORN are behind an effort to sink Ailes’ campaign before it has even begun. And the madness goes on…..

[Update] Allen is now reporting that Ailes laughed off the entreaties that he run for president.

“Ailes replied when asked about the possibility, according to the aide: ‘This country needs fair and balanced news more now than ever before, so I’m going to decline a run for the presidency.'”

If Ailes believes that the country needs fair and balanced news more now than ever before, does that mean he’s going to shut down Fox News?

Huffington Post: A Tool For The GOP?

Michael Calderone has a column at Politico that suggests a new tactical approach by Republicans to get their message out. He asserts, that the GOP is exploiting the broad reach of the Huffington Post to expand their media presence. It’s not a particularly bad idea as HuffPo is cracking 8.8 million unique visitors a month. But it is a cynical effort to advance propaganda and, to the extent that HuffPo is an accessory to it, it is shameful and counterproductive.

The insidious element to this plot is that the GOP isn’t trying to reach out to new voters or gain access to people that might not otherwise be exposed to their views. They are taking advantage of the popular web site to use as a platform from which to launch their viewpoints into more mainstream media in much the same way that conservatives have used the Drudge Report. In his column, Calderone interviewed a collection of Republican press reps who confess to this strategy.

John Hart, press secretary to Sen. Tom Coburn: [I]t’s one of a handful of sites that can have an instant impact on the national debate.

Brian Rogers, spokesman for Sen. John McCain: HuffPo and [Talking Points Memo] really are the assignment editors for many in the Washington press corps – particularly the cables.

Brad Dayspring, press secretary for Rep. Eric Cantor: The reality is that at the end of the day, like them or dislike them, sites like The Huffington Post, Plum Line, Salon, and others can drive news.

Michael Steel, press secretary for House Republican leader John Boehner: Republican aides [are] being sure to engage with liberal websites like Huffington Post – just because for no other reason than they drive a lot of cable coverage.

Alex Conant, former RNC national press secretary: When I was at the RNC, it wasn’t something that could be ignored. To the contrary, I thought the more we could work with them – recognizing they had a bias – the better off we were.

Republicans are well aware that much of the audience at HuffPo is not sympathetic to their cause. But that’s irrelevant. Part of the strategy is to drive a wedge between the Democratic establishment and its activist base. Another part is just to garner more publicity:

“Huffington Post reporter Ryan Grim, a former POLITICO staffer, said that after the House leadership released a video earlier this month questioning the White House on national security, a senior House Republican aide reached out to make sure he’d received it – that’s despite knowing how the site would probably play the story (and how commenters would react).

The piece that resulted – “House GOP Obama Ad Aims to Terrify” – likely appealed to liberal Huffington Post readers, while also drawing attention to the Republican clip, which is what the party wanted all along.

~~~

Liz Mair, former RNC online communications director: While I certainly never expected left-of-center sites to echo our message, giving them access to information or background they needed to report accurately (if not favorably) was certainly something I thought of (and think of) as useful, given that their audience is not solely comprised of Democratic activists, and given that storylines that begin on left-of-center blogs frequently find their way onto the nightly news and into other outlets where a lot of swing voters get their information.

HuffPo, for it’s part is not the least bit concerned about how they are being used. Arianna Huffington told Politico that the attention the site gets from Republicans…

“…is a reflection of our traffic, our brand, and the fact that we are increasingly seen … as an Internet newspaper, not positioned ideologically in terms of how we cover the news.”

HuffPo is, of course, a business, and it has every right to pursue a mission that furthers it’s financial interests. However, if their stock in trade is their audience, then there is something untoward about exploiting them to benefit an ideological opponent. In other words, HuffPo should not be permitted to sell us out to right-wing flacks who just want to do us harm. If it is our patronage that makes HuffPo such a valuable asset, perhaps we ought not to be so patronizing.

There is nothing wrong with providing a forum that presents diverse opinions and perspectives. But there is a limit reached when you are seen by one side as simply an avenue to advance their public profile, further their media strategy, and beat you, and your audience, over the head with your own bat. You know you’ve reached that limit when Grover Norquist says of you…

“There are fewer better places to refute the opening bid by the [Democrats] than to plant your flag in the middle of The Huffington Post.”

HuffPo would be wise to consider that, if it is their readers that make them an appealing political community, they may want to avoid alienating those readers by serving the interests of their opponents. How many HuffPo readers would continue to visit the site were it to turn into a fancier version of the Drudge Report? And once readership scales back, how many Republicans would still view it as a useful platform?

Continuing down this path would be a downward spiral for HuffPo. They should take note of this and correct course as soon as possible. The market has no need for an Internet news/community that caters to the far right. They already have Fox Nation.