Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
71. Or to be more genteel in speech, we're dealing with Dirty Tricks from Tricky Dick's gangsters.
Thu Mar 5, 2015, 10:23 PM
Mar 2015
Dirty tricks are unethical, duplicitous, slanderous or illegal tactics employed to destroy or diminish the effectiveness of political or business opponents. The term "dirty trick" can also be used to refer to an underhanded technique to get ahead of an opponent (such as sabotage or disregarding rules of engagement).

Leaking secret information, digging into a candidate's past (opposition research) or exposing real conflicts between the image presented and the person behind the image are always subject to argument as to whether they are dirty tricks or truth-telling. When a candidate runs into trouble or roadblocks in his or her campaign that are traceable to the other side, he/she can easily charge their opponent with dirty tricks. Often, the candidate is right in this accusation, but one candidate's "dirty trick" is another's "political strategy". The distinction changes with the times. Of course imputing the discovery of a past misdemeanor to the other side can be considered a "dirty trick" in its own right.

However, manufactured, irrelevant, cruel and incorrect rumors or outright lies or falsehoods designed to damage or destroy an opponent are easily described as dirty tricks. They serve to tie up the opponent into defending against and answering false charges rather than explaining their policies and platform.


Sometimes dirty tricks are not only aimed at slandering the opponent. Dishing the dirt against your candidate's opponent can be effective at alienating voters in order to turn them off from the entire project. These tactics may reduce turnout in order to assure your candidate gains by having his/her core voters show up at the polls; thus, an operative molds the outcome by angering everyone. The effort to lower an official's or a candidate's popularity in the polls is called "driving the negatives"[citation needed].

Political speech is protected by the Constitution in the United States and it is rare that a wronged candidate sues for slander after an election season is concluded. Laws were introduced in the UK to prevent untrue statements being made about candidates—see Miranda Grell for a 2007 case.

Political candidates have been accused by their opponents of virtually every sin and crime ever described, from graft and vice to bribery and communism, polygamy, drug use, spousal abuse, fascism, pedophilia, miscegenation, adultery, stupidity, demagoguery, and support for nudism.[citation needed]


The story of dirty tricks in American politics begins with the first campaign for President of the United States, in the 1790s. Thomas Jefferson hired journalist and pamphleteer James Thomas Callender to slander his opponent, Alexander Hamilton.[citation needed] After a falling out, Callender turned on Jefferson and published attacks on his previous employer.

The Nixon Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP), a private, non-governmental campaign entity, used funds from its coffers to pay for, and later cover up, dirty tricks performed against opponents by Richard Nixon's employee, Donald Segretti. Segretti famously coined the term 'ratfucking' for recruiting conservative members to infiltrate opposition groups (and/or misrepresent them through false flag activities) in order to undermine the effectiveness of such opposition.[1]

As a result of post-Watergate reform legislation, such activities are strictly regulated, though other private entities still may practice what has become commonly referred to as questionable or unethical dirty tricks.

Recent nomenclature equates a Dirty Tricks Squad to any organized, covert attempt to besmirch the credibility or reputation of an individual or organization so as to render them ineffective...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_tricks

Note the exception for private groups in regulations. That is why the media gets away with so much. And of course it's not just DU that has sensed a problem.

It's going on at other websites, and is the mainstay of talk radio and cable television 'news' shows. The emphasis in the Wikipedia article is mine and it fits the pattern. This should be known by everyone here.

The original DU was beseiged by trolls early on. MIRT keeps expelling them.
Some have come to believe the same things the trolls do, and don't fit all the traits defining trolling.

But the terms Ratfucking and Ratfuckers were employed by the GOP referring to what they were doing to Democrats, not each other. Democrats do not do it to the GOP because it goes against our values as we want all to be informed with facts and to encourage voting. When someone says or does otherwise it gives the appearance of Dirty Tricks.

.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I'll help Hillary fans out. Find out what email system Leon Panetta, Robert Gates, TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #1
I guess the National Archivist doesn't count? He says she's fine. And he should know. nt Hekate Mar 2015 #18
No. Being technically legal doesn't explain what she did. TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #19
So you're sure she must have done *something* wrong, and any moment now the nonbiased MSM... Hekate Mar 2015 #24
I added stuff to my above post on edit that explains why I think this is trouble TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #28
I don't know if you did anything wrong, either. That is the nature of witch hunts. I look forward... Hekate Mar 2015 #29
I find it strange that insistence on public servants following good practices and protocols-- TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #34
Have you read the OP and Post#9? That is what is going on. That is what I am objecting to... Hekate Mar 2015 #35
I don't know, it seems that the Clintons really love to shoot themselves in TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #37
So it's their fault. Hekate Mar 2015 #39
Yes. It is. And the President's. Why the WH looked the other way TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #41
what makes me angry is using private email systems for public business and then trying to ND-Dem Mar 2015 #48
Too similar to typical RW talking points for my taste. riqster Mar 2015 #98
Hiding and/or deleting emails and thwarting transparency in government TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #101
Bollocks. riqster Mar 2015 #102
The ones she gave to the State Dept.? What ones DIDN'T she give to the State Dept? TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #105
Classic. riqster Mar 2015 #106
The wrongness of the situation is quite clear Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #54
You make points that have been debunked. Among others the National Archivist has cleared her. Hekate Mar 2015 #60
Nobody can "clear" what she did. It's already been done. She sequestered all her TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #72
Hey.. Don't vote for her. Your problem is solved. Adrahil Mar 2015 #85
No. My problem is not solved. zentrum Mar 2015 #92
Truth! GHWBush thought he had 4 more years..that his re-election.. misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #2
We can also thank Ross Perot for aiding Clinton's ascendancy. George II Mar 2015 #33
Very true riqster Mar 2015 #79
Actually, the scandal should be that she botched the security. jeff47 Mar 2015 #3
..and somewhere in this scandal there MUST be a hook to.. misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #6
Yeah, it's not like she had an important job jeff47 Mar 2015 #55
Or read the Emails of a crappy US gov server either. misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #62
Well, we know her server was using the factory default encryption keys jeff47 Mar 2015 #63
Ummm..jeff47 I have no post about what you are speaking of. misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #65
You made a claim. I'm asking you to back it up. jeff47 Mar 2015 #66
Good Lord jeff47. My posts was a statement as to the GOP misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #68
Yeah, the title field is like totally not part of a post. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2015 #69
Okay jeff47. Bye misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #70
Yeah, me reading what you actually wrote is me totally missing your point. jeff47 Mar 2015 #91
When did lightweight encryption protocols become violations? riqster Mar 2015 #99
Both articles now discredited. leftofcool Mar 2015 #7
Which is why you supplied a link showing they actually changed encryption keys. jeff47 Mar 2015 #53
What "scandal"? George II Mar 2015 #96
That the SoS set up an email system that allows anyone to read her email. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2015 #97
There's something else for people to think about re. Clinton Derangement Syndrome BeyondGeography Mar 2015 #4
+1 Clinton fatigue before the campaign even begins Dems to Win Mar 2015 #11
I'm feeling like Alan Arkin in Little Miss Sunshine BeyondGeography Mar 2015 #14
All of that relates to emotion instead of legality. riqster Mar 2015 #89
Email gate, or whatever it's called, is a joke BeyondGeography Mar 2015 #90
That seems backwards to me. riqster Mar 2015 #100
Thank you for this post. leftofcool Mar 2015 #5
as the song says, 'it's only just begun' spanone Mar 2015 #8
Plus a million! freshwest Mar 2015 #9
This should be pinned to the top of DU's masthead. It should be required reading here. Hekate Mar 2015 #31
Or to be more genteel in speech, we're dealing with Dirty Tricks from Tricky Dick's gangsters. freshwest Mar 2015 #71
RF -- the only thing that needs to be said about this email nonsense. betsuni Mar 2015 #40
Must explain or the post gets hidden. A DUer had one hidden as the jurors didn't know the meaning. freshwest Mar 2015 #57
Thank you -- after posting took a nap and just came back and saw this. betsuni Mar 2015 #73
Agree with freshwest--but anyone who alerts on this, after the term is explained, deserves a MADem Mar 2015 #67
Thanks! betsuni Mar 2015 #74
I've seen it happen all too often here. MADem Mar 2015 #75
I forgot where I was for a moment! betsuni Mar 2015 #76
Please make this an OP. riqster Mar 2015 #80
I see your "Plus a million!" chervilant Mar 2015 #94
Seriously. I have no plans on voting for her and I think this whole email Katashi_itto Mar 2015 #10
This. riqster Mar 2015 #81
Pretty good Katashi_itto Mar 2015 #84
Then you got the male version of Palin - Scott Walker Iliyah Mar 2015 #12
Interesting that the morning after Bibi's speech tavernier Mar 2015 #13
Boehner used bibi to hide the DHS collapse. JoePhilly Mar 2015 #15
Former Dem chairman Harpootlian claims she'll die by 1000 cuts. ErikJ Mar 2015 #16
Biden's going nowhere, though. No one takes him seriously anymore. TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #21
Harp was on Bloomberg today. Said Dem party has a lot of good alternative candidates ErikJ Mar 2015 #36
Biden huh? Good luck with that. n/t Adrahil Mar 2015 #86
thank you barbtries Mar 2015 #17
Nobody cares what BelligerentandStupid "the radical centrist" has to say? TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #20
+1. nt OnyxCollie Mar 2015 #93
Blunt and Cranky "used to think we couldn’t get any dumber than we were in the Lewinsky era" >SIGH< Hekate Mar 2015 #22
Did anyone at the AP think to do a whois search? Bob Cesca did, and the Daily Banter has it genwah Mar 2015 #23
Thanks for posting that, good article! betsuni Mar 2015 #42
No prob. Pass the link along, I don't tweet or stuff. genwah Mar 2015 #43
I don't tweet either, but I posted it on another forum, at least. betsuni Mar 2015 #77
Um....those folks claim to debunk the story by "common sense". jeff47 Mar 2015 #59
This e-mail issue is nothing! Joe Johns Mar 2015 #25
That made me laugh. Well played, sir. greatlaurel Mar 2015 #27
And she engaged in premarital matriculation! riqster Mar 2015 #83
Outstanding rant. greatlaurel Mar 2015 #26
I agree, mostly…Except... Demoiselle Mar 2015 #30
I agree, mostly…Except... Demoiselle Mar 2015 #32
Fair points all. riqster Mar 2015 #82
''We have become even dumber than we were in the 90’s.'' DeSwiss Mar 2015 #38
Kick & recommended. William769 Mar 2015 #44
Benghazi! B Calm Mar 2015 #45
follow the money quadrature Mar 2015 #46
A LOT of people showed their hands in breathlessly reporting on this story... MADem Mar 2015 #47
It is not personal for most, it is all about ratings and nothing else. This drives ratings krawhitham Mar 2015 #51
The public coverage is all about ratings, certainly.... MADem Mar 2015 #52
No rules were violated? They might want to recheck that krawhitham Mar 2015 #49
Oh please. The boss can ignore a "warning" written by another "boss." MADem Mar 2015 #61
A policy isn't a rule. Adrahil Mar 2015 #87
Indeed. Policies are often cited when budgets don't allow for rule. riqster Mar 2015 #107
whitewater has morphed into benghazi. GOP tourrettes. pansypoo53219 Mar 2015 #50
but what about Hill's Benghazi emails? Botany Mar 2015 #56
Haaa..Apparently so. Good point. nt misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #64
Word. kestrel91316 Mar 2015 #58
No. After the 90s, some of us learned not to vote for the Clintons. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #78
Vote for the candidate of you choice in the primaries... Adrahil Mar 2015 #88
Amen. WRGAS at this point. riqster Mar 2015 #95
"Vote Hillary in 2016 - technically she did nothing illegal!" tularetom Mar 2015 #103
Remove the fifth word. riqster Mar 2015 #104
"Vote Hillary" is fine. Yours sounds like a Lee Atwater creation. great white snark Mar 2015 #108
So if SoS Mitt Romney does the same it is not an issue? TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #109
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Yet Another Bulls*** Clin...»Reply #71