The Political Chase

Milbank’s Assault on Edwards Is Packed with Lies and Incredibly Unprofessional

Dana Milbank - The Perfect Journalist

Dana Milbank has a piece on John Edwards in yesterday’s Washington Post that is without a doubt the most pedestrian, harshest, unprofessional, baseless, character assassination, I have ever read in any major news media outlet. Milbank’s lies and mudslinging have put him at a level which will require climbing several flights of stairs just to get a distant glimpse of Rush Limbaugh’s underside.

In fact, the Post pointed both barrels at Edwards today. In lockstep with Milbank, Sue Anne Pressley Montes slams Edwards, but when comparing her column to Milbank’s column of sleaze and ad hominem attacks, Montes appears to have just graduated from Jacqueline Kennedy’s Charm School. As for Milbank — the Perfect Journalist — he appears to be a Jethro Bodine Double-Naught Spy School dropout.

Neither columnist can resist perpetuating the ridiculous haircut slams. Indeed, these Heroes of Journalism are bearing witness they too can rise to the level of Hillary Clinton’s campaign staffers and deliver above-the-fold reports on candidates’ kindergarten class activities. In fairness, I should state the haircut slam was one of Montes lower points, and indeed, it was Milbank’s pinnacle. Quite fitting for the Perfect Journalist.

Milbank’s article bears no evidence of journalism, much less an attempt to rise to the level of Fourth Estate. Instead, he focuses on ad hominem slanderous attacks, and begins his column of hyperbole, deceit, slander and defamation with this attack. Why am I publishing this excerpt? It is an act of kindness and generosity; these two grafs are examples of the Perfect Journalist’s more civil “reporting.”

During his first run for the presidency four years ago, John Edwards posed a question to his audiences: “Are you in fact looking for somebody who can say the nastiest thing about the other candidate, or are you looking for someone who can lift this country up?”

This time around, Edwards is answering the question himself. Mr. Nice Guy of ‘04 has remade himself as Nasty Boy of ‘08 — a tightly wound ball of belligerence prowling for a skirmish.

Moving on to Milbank Bamboozlement:

When he thumps the lectern and speaks of the need to “end this war” in Iraq, he omits the fact that he voted to give President Bush the authority to start the war. And while it sounds good for him to say “I did not walk away from the fight” as a product-liability lawyer, he skips the part about walking away from the Senate in 2004, effectively ceding the seat to Republicans.

John Edwards did vote for the war, and he has denounced his vote, said it was wrong,  and apologized for it countless times. I have not followed Senator Edwards around the country — I don’t need to — but I have watched every single television appearance he made that was available in my market, or any market I may be in, and I have viewed numerous videos of his stumping. I cannot remember a single time where he critically invoked the war in Iraq, that he did not qualify his statements. In fact, I had heard the apology and qualification enough times to believe Edwards needed to moderate the apologies. I thought he was apologizing too much.

If Dana Milbank is a national political reporter, then he is a liar. Sorry for the harsh words Mr. Milbank,, but you worked for it, you earned it, you deserved it, and you got it.

Any national political reporter would know John Edwards’ position on the war in Iraq and could not help but be abundantly aware of the numerous times he has declared that vote the “worst mistake he made as a Senator.” Instead of providing the proper historical context with his quote above, the Perfect Journalist opts for a Zell Miller-Dick Cheney moment. He distorts the facts and intentionally leaves the less informed reader with a very wrong perception.

In essence, Milbank played the “you’re a Democrat, therefore you are a supporter of terrorist by default” Cheney bamboozlement. Milbank knowingly and willingly lied to his readers. And for what purpose did Mr. Milbank lie?

Could it have possibly been to impress a long-standing member of the Inside the Beltway Elite and consequently earn him an invitation to a holiday party he had not yet received? Maybe the Perfect Journalist supports Sen. Clinton and this was a convenient way for the Senator to levy an incredulous attack while remaining above the fray. Virtually no one knows what may have influenced Mr. Milbank, but what is known and is a demonstrable fact — in black and white print — Mr. Milbank has no professional or personal ethical standards, is amoral, and he does not come remotely close to being a journalist as evidenced by the piece of rubbish he published yesterday.

Enter the bully — the Perfect Journalist — via his quoted writings in the next paragraph. Where is there any evidence of journalism in these statements? Where does this not invoke personal attacks that have nothing to do with real issues, and instead intend to assassinate Sen. Edwards’ character? Where is there a shred of evidence that these statements serve the public good or any good? Where is there any evidence of a statement a professional journalist would make when that journalist adheres to ethical standards and principles?

Still, we know that Edwards means what he says. We know this because he says everything loudly, shouting from beginning to end as he denounces the “rigged” system in Washington. For further evidence of sincerity, he swaps his trademark smile for a pained squint when he speaks about the “disappointment” of the parents who have no money for their children’s college, and he shakes his fist when he demands removal of the “wall.”

Dana Milbank deserves an Oscar for his performance as leading bully and fake journalist in a major media outlet. And all bullies have a plethora of psychological issues, the least of which is incredibly low self-esteem. Mr. Milbank’s character assassination of Sen. Edwards is far more harmful to himself than to Sen. Edwards.

Mr. Milbank revealed who and what he is, what he stands for, and put on public display an extraordinary showcase of his personal character flaws. They’re out there for the entire world to see, and believe me they do.

More shreds of tin from Mr. Milbank’s pile of rubbish:

For all his wordiness, Edwards is mostly silent when it comes to policy details. The stump speech offers few specifics about what he would do

I do not know what Sen. Edwards said or did not say at this extravaganza, but I am hopeful that all in attendance were not remiss by neglecting to genuflect in the presence of Mr. Milbank, the Perfect Journalist.

Is it possible that Sen. Edwards had a bad night? He may have made a mistake — a concept which the Perfect Journalist could not possibly understand. Did the Perfect Journalist do his job and follow up with Sen. Edwards asking him to comment on his alleged crime against humanity? Did the Enquiring Perfect Journalist do his job to see if there may have been a plausible explanation for this heinous crime Sen. Edwards committed? Or did the Perfect Journalist just sit on his lazy fundament and immediately begin keyboarding the character assassination without looking beyond the malted beverage and whatever else may have been in front of his face?

Of course, unlike the Washington Centric Perfect Journalist, I am normally relegated to that despicable, pedestrian mode of following the candidates — television and Internet; however, my experience is that Sen. Edwards and even Sen. Obama, another candidate the Washington Post loves to attack (here and here), try to address the issues as best as humanely possible within the constraints and restrictions imposed by the environment. Based on the level of professionalism demonstrated by the Washington Centric Perfect Journalist in his public flogging of Sen. Edwards, I cannot rely upon his allegations of “few specifics” to be credible if not outright, intentional falsehoods.

One brief suggestion. If the Perfect Journalist could interrupt his character assassinations and lies for a few moments, and saunter towards his computer, he might find the very details he alleges Sen. Edwards always conveniently leaves out.

Moreover, if the Perfect Journalist is in fact the national political columnist he claims to be and a true journalist — one that rises to the level of standards and quality so patently obvious in award-winning journalists such as Charlie Savage of Boston — the Perfect Journalist would have asked Sen. Edwards to comment on his shameful performance and would have known Sen. Edwards is not null and void when it comes to the issues. The Perfect Journalist could have possibly done his readers a service and noted that although Sen. Edwards is a profound public disgrace with the capabilities somewhat equivalent to or less than a congenital idiot, they could find more information by contacting any campaign office or through the Internet.

I recognize a journalist cannot nor should not be the reference desk for every candidate, but in the fairness of reporting, the Perfect Journalist cannot blatantly lie about and with malice smear a candidate as totally incompetent, when the Perfect Journalist is reporting a single-source evaluation that just happens to be derived from the Perfect Journalist’s atrophied brain, and personal and subsidized bias.

The Editors of the Washington Post should issue a public, front-page, above-the-fold, and online (headline basis - home page) apology to Senator Edwards and the readers of the Washington Post.

Dana Milbank should be promptly dispatched to to the obituaries desk.