Corn would like us to think he's got material that's quite nefarious, because "McConnell and his aides considered assaulting Judd for her past struggles with depression and for her religious views." But doesn't every campaign brainstorm about everything that could possibly be used? One campaign aide said:
She's clearly, this sounds extreme, but she is emotionally unbalanced. I mean it's been documented. Jesse can go in chapter and verse from her autobiography about, you know, she's suffered some suicidal tendencies. She was hospitalized for 42 days when she had a mental breakdown in the '90s.And there's a quote of Judd's about how bright and flashy things are in America, such that when she returns home from overseas things, like "pink fuzzy socks on a rack" can make her "absolutely flip out" and she "can never anticipate what is going to push [her] over the edge." We're supposed to be offended that McConnell's people even considered using material like that? Hey, she kind of used "pink fuzzy socks" against America. Surely, the pink fuzzy socks can be used against her. No! Not the fuzzy socks!!!!
How about using religion? Well, it depends on what kind of material you have!
She says Christianity gives a God like a man, presented and discussed exclusively with male imagery, which legitimizes and seals male power, the intention to dominate even if that intention is nowhere visible.Is there something bad about a campaign thinking of using and how it would use material like that? Obviously, there's some overall theme that Judd is flaky and not in synch with mainstream Kentucky.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's re-election campaign is "working with the FBI" on how Mother Jones, a liberal magazine, obtained a recording of political aides meeting with McConnell and discussing opposition research on Ashley Judd, McConnell campaign manager Jesse Benton told CNN Tuesday....Either this kind of bugging is acceptable or it's not. I'm surprised Corn went forward with it when the material isn't even shocking. It's actually quite bland... in comparison to what I assume is batted around within all the various campaigns as they decide how to attack opponents. Can we get transcripts of all that crap? I'd love to blog it.
"Obviously a recording device of some kind was placed in Senator McConnell's campaign office without consent. By whom and how that was accomplished will presumably be the subject of a criminal investigation," Benton said in a statement.
Suddenly, I realize why Corn may believe this material is worth printing: These are attacks on a sweet and pretty lady. Corn's decision to publish is — ironically — evidence of sexism.
ADDED: There's an update at the first link that says the tape came from "a source who wishes to remain anonymous" and:
We published the article on the tape due to its obvious newsworthiness. We were not involved in the making of the tape, but it is our understanding that the tape was not the product of any kind of bugging operation. We cannot comment beyond that, except to say that under the circumstances, our publication of the article is both legal and protected by the First Amendment.Here's my question to Mother Jones: Do you want to encourage the activity that produced the tape? Do you endorse this activity as applied to all the politicians you love? You are profiting from this activity. Whether you are protected from legal action or not, your actions imply that you believe what you are doing is ethical and good journalism. That applies across the board, whether the intruded-upon politicians are ones you loathe or ones you love. Step up and endorse that, explicitly and clearly. I challenge you!