Ah, Dick, what might have been! If only your burglars had broken into Gingrich headquarters!
The pro-Democratic super PAC “American Bridge” bought the domain name http://www.NewtGingrich.com and now uses it to redirect anyone who reaches the site to various Web sites that highlight the ex-Speaker’s many failings, perceived flaws, or the attacks of critics. Among the places it hijacks users to are Freddie Mac’s Web site (a reference to Newt’s high-paid duty as “a historian”), Tiffany’s (where Newt infamously had a rather large bill, as if that has any significance whatsoever except to class-bashers), information about Greek cruises ( as Newt abandoned his campaign earlier this year for a cruise, while his staff labored away), or to the ad Gingrich filmed with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in favor of addressing climate change (because being open-minded about climate change isn’t permitted in the GOP).
The Washington Post termed the stunt “clever.” Well, I no longer expect the Post to know the difference between bad ethics and applesauce. Of course the website trick is unethical, deceiving web users and misappropriating a domain that Gingrich himself, and only Gingrich, should be able to employ. Yes, it’s legal. It is still unfair, deceptive and dishonest—wrong. When Richard Nixon’s gang used dirty tricks to upset Democratic rivals in 1968, the Post condemned the conduct as proof of “Tricky Dick’s” willingness to distort the democratic process and win by schemes rather than merit. When a Democratic group uses dirty tricks on a Republican presidential candidate, however, it’s “clever.”
The Post, as well as many of the commenters on its reporting on the faux Gingrich website, embraces the concept of ethics that holds that harmful acts performed against someone it likes is unethical, while the same act taken against someone it opposes is ethical.
There is a word for this delusion.
It’s called bias.
Ethics Alarms 
You are, in a nutshell, absolutely right. Shame on the Post for sullying its own good name.
Thanks for the concise comment, which we don’t see much in these parts, and the complimentary one, which I’m seeing even less.
I’ll forgive you for saying that I’m in a nutshell, but alas, it’s probably true.
The Post’s “good name” was sullied some time ago — it’s difficult to become re-virginized.
IMNSHO (In My Not-So-Humble Opinion).
Too late. That was gone a long time ago.
Of course its wrong. No one should be able to missapropriate someone name like that.
And I know I will catch flak for this but there isn’t a candidate in either party who is intellectually or politically worthy to kiss Nixon’s ass. For all his faults he was a brilliant politition who ended the Vietnam war and opened relations with China. Too bad he allowed himself to be swayed by the trappings of power.
True, he was a brilliant politician, like Al Capone was a brilliant criminal.
And, despite Mr. Nixon’s protests to the contrary, Mr. Nixon WAS a crook.
Well Al Capone wasnt briliant. He was violent. Myer Lanksy was brilliant.
You are too harsh. Nixon deserves his reputation as a disgrace to the office, but his legacy absent Watergate would have been pretty close to unassailable. The chasm between the degree of culpability he is held to by the public and the media and the shrugging off of Bill Clinton’s not dissimilar use of his office and staff to foil the justice system is testimony only to the value of charm. Nixon had none, never did, and thus had nothing to shield him from hatred on his foes and the dislike of his allies. Nixon never sought to enrich himself—unlike Clinton, he wasn’t indulging himself either. I think he was clinically ill, so deeply insecure and paranoid that he behaved irrationally. Even with that, however, the Al Capon comparison is grotesquely unfair. There are Presidents we have had who I believe would have political opponents killed if given the chance, including beloved, charming, JFK, but not Nixon.
And Bill is right. Nixon knew how to be President like few others. Unlike the current occupant of the White House, he was well-prepared for the job. If he had FDR’s charm, or even Obama’s, he would have been a candidate for Mount Rushmore 2 (and, of course, Watergate would never have occurred.) Nobody ever questioned Nixon’s love of country and devotion to American ideals. But he was ruthless, frightened, and unstable. A great American tragedy.
That was a well-put and fair analysis, Jack.
I dunno; maybe I am posting prematurely, before thinking enough about this case. But it seems to me that what American Bridge is doing is a waste of resources – especially their own. Never mind the waste they proliferate as a result of any “success” at deceiving mere information seekers.
If they can capture and publish irrefutable statistics that justify their method – such as, numbers of voters formerly committed to voting for Gingrich who switched to voting for someone other than Gingrich as a result of visiting NewtGingrich.com – THAT would be clever. And, it would be a way to validate the Washington Post’s (a Ms. Weiner’s) view of the ploy being “clever.”
I guess it’s just another example in support of a voters-beware exhortation. It saddens me though, because it’s a data point that makes me reconsider something I said here recently, about the newer media being “NSFT” (Not Suitable For Tyrants) – “at least, so far, it seems.” Heck, if all we’re gonna get on line is a bunch of sly, campaign-sabotaging spam-warfare, I’ll just curtail looking on line for information to help me decide who to vote for. But I probably won’t be able to go off line altogether, since we’re almost to the point where you can’t even get a trustworthy, current phone number for a campaign headquarters without going on line.
I wonder…would it be possible to prove a linkage between practices such as American Bridge’s Gingrich-related deception and voter suppression? I mean, I like the freedoms protected by the First Amendment and all. But when the “fog of war” becomes more fog than war, who can win?
Jack, I apologize for going off-subject, but didn’t know how to post a general comment. That being said:
Have you yet encountered reviews of the Dalai Lama’s latest book? It is “Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World”.
Its premise is that religious faith is not necessary to lead a compassionate, ethical and meaningful life.
I first got hooked on the Dalai Lama with his book, “The Compassionate Life”. He’s a brilliant, very readable writer.
Right now I’m in the first chapter of his experience with science: “The Universe in a Single Atom”.