You may not like what Palast has to say but the facts are on his side.
This was in a comment by David Jacobs left yesterday. Now, Mr. Jacobs is a frequent commentator on this blog, and I sincerely appreciate the dialogue. But, to argue that Mr. Palast has facts on his side is a bit of a stretch. Granted, Mr. Palast can spin the facts with the best of them, and like our own Joe Monahan, he pretends to be reporting the facts in an unbiased investigative manner, but nothing could be further from the truth.
It may surprise some people to know that I actually own one of Mr. Palast’s book, The Best Money Democracy Can Buy. However, it was a New York Times best seller on politics, and I am always curious what the other side is putting out there.
Here is what I discovered… If you are removed from the facts (i.e. don’t have first hand knowledge), then Mr. Palast’s “investigative reporting” is very believable. However, if you are living what he is reporting, then it quickly becomes clear for what it is… Democratic Spin.
Case in point can be found in this exchange from the David Iglesias segment on Democracy NOW:
AMY GOODMAN: And Healther Wilson, of course, also called, and Heather Wilson at the time in an extremely close race for her political life as a congress member from New Mexico.
GREG PALAST: Well, in fact, from my investigation, she didn’t win. There was voter fraud, and that the majority of the votes went to the Democrats.
Do you hear that sound? It is the sound of the last of Mr. Palast’s credibility going down the drain. Anyone who is going to go on record stating that Republicans are in a position to steal an election in the NM’s 1st CD is either a fool or the ultimate spinmeister. Since I don’t think fools can write a NYT best seller, I’m going to acknowledge Mr. Palast’s tremendous spin abilities.
One of my very first posts as a political blogger pointed out the absurdity of claims that Republicans could steal elections in New Mexico, and in the 2006 elections in the Land of Enchantment the same reality existed as in 2004. The same powerful Democrats were in all of the same election controlling positions, so the absurdity of the premise remains the same.