Ed Brayton should issue corrections and retract his baseless statement asserting that I was "inaccurate on the minor points."

by Max Blumenthal on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:14:29 AM EST

I am posting this comment on behalf of Joe Carter. He tried to sign up to make this comment himself and ran into some technological difficulties. I may disagree with some of his conclusions, but I do think it's important that he be allowed to reply. Everything that follows is from him, not me

----------------------------------------------------------------

From Joe Carter:

You say, "Duke's involvement was known by Woody Jenkins from the very start because Duke asked him personally to hire his company." This is a hasty generalization. According to the FEC filing, Duke "recommended that [Jenkins] use the services of a computerized phone bank system run by Impact Mail." No one--until Max came along--ever accused Jenkins of knowing that Duke owned the company. Why would Duke tell Jenkins when he was trying to hide that very fact from the IRS?

Now let's take a look at Max's claims. You're probably starting to see what kind of work his "investigative journalism" entails. Max wrote, "Brayton is confused on the first point. Perkins cut checks to Duke's Impact Mail for his phone banking list, not as a fee for them to "make phone calls." Perkins bought the list so the senatorial campaign of Woody Jenkins, which he was managing at the time, could make "robo-calls" to reliably conservative voters urging them to get to the polls." Point 6 of the FEC filing says, Jenkins used "the services of a computerized phone bank system run by Impact 'Mail. Jenkins purchased several rounds of calis from Impact Mail."

You win that round.

On the next round you both get it right in some ways and both get it wrong. Max is correct that the $82,500 was the fee for paid to Impact Media. But he is wrong when he says "Perkins cut checks to Duke's Impact Mail for his phone banking list, not as a fee for them to 'make phone calls.'" The FEC filing says that Jenkins bought "several rounds of calls." (If Max knew anything about "mailing list" he would know that that 80K is way to high for a state mailing list alone.)

But you are also correct that the $82,500 was the a "civil'penalty" that the FEC chose but later reduced.

Notice that the extent of Max's investigation consists of reading the FEC filing (poorly at that) and quoting an editorial from an alternative newspaper that...also read the FEC filing.

Max is a sloppy "reporter" so we don't expect much from him. But since you are trying to get to the bottom of things I think you should note the editorial by Christopher Tidmore, a campaign staffer ( http://www.louisianaweekly.com/weekly/news/articlegate.pl?2002080 5f)

Therefore, when Woody organized the campaign in a somewhat unorthodox manner, we chalked it up as a method to maximize his conservative supporters for a run. Perkins oversaw the ground campaign. He and Daniel Duggan, the campaign coordinator, organized Jenkins's road trips, press appearances, speeches, and the other organizational grunt work of a campaign. They also managed the regional directors who passed out yard signs and signed up volunteers. The operational side of a campaign was their full bailiwick.

All media advertising purchases, production, and large scale wholesale public campaigning (TV, phone banks, and direct mail) went through the exclusive hands of media director Courtney with the aide of Jenkins friend Dan Riche. Perkins ran the retail campaign and Courtney ran the wholesale. There is a problem with this specialization. Perkins as campaign manager should have overseen it all, but he did not. Woody reserved the final decisions on all campaign operations to himself.

While Perkins may have been responsible for writing the checks, Courtney was responsible for the phone banks. That lends plausibility to Perkins claim that he wasn't aware of what was going on. It also would raise eyebrows for Jenkins to direct him to make the checks out to Courtney Communications.

by Ed Brayton on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:42:25 PM EST

Regarding Joe Carter and anyone else who is part of the religious right.  While it is fine for Ed and Max to debate the facts, it would not have been ok for Joe Carter to join the site to do so, as the TTA Statement of Purpose make very clear. Meanwhile, Ed can certainly take Carter's info into consideration if he wishes.

Talk to Action is a platform for reporting on, learning about, and analyzing and discussing the religious right -- and what to do about it. It is not a forum for discussion, dialog or debate with those who sympathize with or belong to this movement. There is an editorial framework for this site that is different than you will find on other major blog sites, so please read this carefully: We are pro-religious equality and pro-separation of church and state. We are prochoice, and we support gay and lesbian civil rights -- including marriage equality. Therefore, debates about the validity of abortion and gay rights are off topic. We understand that some people who share our general concern about the politics of the Christian Right may not agree on all of these matters. That's fine. Anyone who agrees with the purpose of this site is welcome to participate -- but bearing this in mind. It is our intention to take the conversation forward, and not let it be held back by debating what, in our view are or should be, settled matters of human, civil and constitutional rights. Similarly, religious debates are off topic, especially debates between theism and atheism. Finally, we are nonpartisan. While political discussions are welcome, -- even central to the purpose of this site -- we do not wish the site itself to be a platform that is necessarily for or opposed to any particular party.

by Frederick Clarkson on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:08:11 PM EST

Chris Tidmore, a former staffer for Woody Jenkins, is not sure whether Tony Perkins knew he was dealing with Duke. Joe Carter (via his new press secretary, Ed Brayton), only posted a portion of Tidmore's column. Here is another segment:

"If Jenkins understood that the company in question, Impact Mail Ltd. was a mere conduit for the transfer and utilitization of the Duke list, how could he keep Perkins, his campaign CEO, in the dark? After all, Jenkins had to give some kind of legitimate justification to spend that much money. Contacting motivated conservative voters (albeit of the Duke stripe) would be a definite advantage for the Jenkins effort, so why not tell?

True, Perkins might have said no, in theory, but he had to co-sign the documents. From the simple standpoint of strategy, such a disclosure seemed a necessity. No one with a conventional knowledge of the operation of political campaigns could believe otherwise.

Nevertheless, the truth is Perkins could have easily been in the dark in that campaign -- but it is a truth that does not speak well for Perkins, his current media director Bob Courtney, or any senior staffer on the Jenkins campaign -- including the author of this column."

So Perkins "could have easily been kept in the dark." Then again, he "had to co-sign the documents." Even Tidmore doesn't know what Perkins knew and when he knew it. Still, he concludes that Perkins' actions "do not speak well" of him.

Now, what does Carter have to say about Perkins raising money for the CofCC, a white supremacist group? What did Perkins say at the CofCC fundraiser? Will the Family Research Council produce a transcript of Perkins' speech? Why did the FRC's board appoint such a tainted person as president of their organization? Perhaps they didn't consider racism to be such a taint after all.

For a look at what Joe Carter has to say about racism, click here.

by Max Blumenthal on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:24:49 PM EST

The ending of the spaghetti western "El Gran Silencio" is sad. Larry Craig's decline is sad too, but in a funny way. And Ed Brayton deploying the FRC's web propagandist (who was banned from this site) to attempt to undermine my factual reporting and attack my credentials as a reporter through sarcastic asides -- that is sad too. Also, the song "Puff the Magic Dragon" always made me sad when I was a little kid. Then I got older and realized the song was really about marijuana and I feel much better now.  

by Max Blumenthal on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 11:18:00 PM EST