Lee Whitnum and the Greenwich Time
by Gabe
Given the nature of some of the subject matter of this post, it is sad, but I feel that it has become necessary to disclose that I have no relationship with the Himes campaign outside of fervently hoping that he gets elected and donating on several occasions. I have never been paid by the Himes campaign or by anyone else (although I am open to money, please call me) (note, that last bit was sarcastic) for anything that I have written.
I have no idea why the Greenwich Time is dignifying these ravings by printing them, but they are:
In a case of ‘he said, she said,’ Congressional hopeful Jim Himes is accusing fellow Democrat and Greenwich resident Lee Whitnum of calling him a Nazi on her campaign Web site and on a popular Internet blog.
First of all, this is not “a case of ‘he said, she said’.” The post by Lee Whitnum, which has been removed from her website, is still available, right here, where she posted it on My Left Nutmeg. Helpfully, it is entitled Jim Himes Nazi Connecticut, by Lee Whitnum Candidate for Congress. In it, she writes, “I went to bed a congressional candidate and I woke up to find myself in Jim Himes’ version of Nazi, Germany.” There is no “he said” here - her words have been immortalized online.
The reason for this attack? “[T]he powerful Himes has completely sown [sic] up the Internet media in my state.” Generally speaking, as a Jew, I find it insulting, and I push back on, when people accuse others of antisemitism for no discernible reason (because it robs the term of meaning in a time where antisemitism still exists), but truly, this is too stupid to even be offended by! Is that what the Nazi’s were doing? Sewing up the alternative media? (In retrospect, maybe its not too stupid to be offended by)
[Incidentally, the quote as it appears on the GT website is, “the powerful Himes has completely sewn up the Internet media in my state” - why did they clean up her spelling error? No idea.]
In the non-existent “she said” portion of the article, Whitnum (negated the “he said,” but I digress) stood by her comments (!) and admitted that they previously appeared on her website (aside, if she stands by them, why don’t they still appear on her website?), but justified them:
“At the time, I tried to defend myself against anonymous bloggers,” Whitnum said. “I felt like I had stepped in Jim Himes’ version of Nazi Connecticut - not that he’s a Nazi.”
Let’s take the two parts separately. The first part simply isn’t true - she named the bloggers she had a problem with in the linked post (which, in case you were wondering, was available to the reporter who wrote this “article” - yes, I used scare quotes to say article, sue me*). Further, even if the bloggers, named by Whitnum in her “defense” (I just can’t stop, apparently scare quotes are “addictive”), actually were anonymous (and not named by her), how does that justify what she said? Anonymous bloggers said something mean about you so the candidate who they support, you know the candidate that you accused of paying them utterly without evidence, is a Nazi? That is absurd!
The second part is just ridiculous on its face. When you write the words, “I woke up to find myself in Jim Himes’ version of Nazi, Germany” in a post entitled, “Jim Himes Nazi Connecticut,” you are calling someone a Nazi, no matter how crazy it makes you look later.
The article also, with studious fairness, documents the campaign finance foibles of the Whitnum campaign:
A check of the Federal Election Commission’s Web site showed that Whitnum’s campaign finance report for the first quarter was dated April 15, the date it was due, but was received May 12 by the agency. Her year-end report for 2007, due Jan. 31, was filed April 26 with the commission.
Whitnum said she had not received any notification that she was in violation of campaign finance rules.
“If there’s something amiss, then nobody’s telling me,” Whitnum said.
In case anyone out there is curious, and didn’t feel satisfied by the reporting in the article, the FEC generally frowns on missing a filing deadline by three months (filing more than 30 days after the deadline is so late that it is actually considered to be a non-filing, rather than a late filing).
I understand that the GT is on the Right (or Republican) side of the political spectrum - and that is their prerogative. I would do things differently, but I don’t own a newspaper (yet - I’m looking at you Mr. Murdoch). But simply owning a newspaper and not agreeing with a candidate does not justify giving a platform to anyone willing to say something bad about them - even if what they say is offensive, and a little crazy. Why is the GT giving this nonsense an uncritical airing?
*Just kidding, please don’t really sue me.
=================================================Please send your comments to GreenwichRoundup@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment