We’ve got this regular thing going on with SCouRGe: We write a piece explaining the facts about something that touches on them in any way, they write a wildly overheated response that argues with things we didn’t say. We tell them their response doesn’t address the actual piece we ran. Then, the routine goes one of two ways: They can take the hint and give us a letter that does respond to what we had published (they did that last time), or they can say they don’t want it changed — in which case we ditch it and move on to something relevant.
In either case, they will send out the original, absurd version to whip up their base. That’s sort of the point of the game. Getting us to help them make their case is a fringe benefit, if achievable. If not, they gripe to their base about us not publishing their fantasies. Win-win. (And I see it’s already up on their site. Oh, I love this touch: "CENSORED BY THE STATE … AGAIN!" Let’s see… I told them I’d put it on my blog, and here it is. And they got it up on their site before I did. So, how exactly are they being "censored"? Somebody get a dictionary.)
It really wasn’t achievable with the latest piece they sent us, purportedly a response to this piece by Cindi (she seems to be in the news on this blog today, probably because she’s the main writer on most of the state primary races).
First, their piece, unedited. I will discuss it in the next post:
The State’s Propaganda Machine in High Gear
By Randy Page
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, followed two primary rules when brainwashing the German public. The first was to tell a big lie loud enough and long enough so that people would eventually start to believe it. The second rule was to always accuse your enemy of your own worst crime.
I was reminded of this when reading Cindi Scoppe’s most recent pathetic rant against school choice and limited government supporters. Ms. Scoppe clearly has learned Goebbels’ methods well. She used both of them in this diatribe with a shameless disregard for the facts or the truth.
Ms. Scoppe recklessly labels South Carolinians for Responsible Government and other groups’ activities as “white collar crime.” She knows very well that allegations against us were nothing more than political maneuvers and that we have not been charged with any crime. She also knows that the one issue currently active has broad Constitutional free speech implications and that we are looking for clarity through the federal judicial system.
But that doesn’t matter to Ms. Scoppe. She throws mud and then hides behind her “press credentials.” She uses her free speech rights to attempt to deny us and any other group she opposes that very right. That’s the height of hypocrisy.
For all her screaming and high-pitched assaults, Ms. Scoppe wants to hide the fact that she is a partisan, liberal Democrat working for an out-of-state corporation that has engaged in repeated efforts to influence the outcome of elections while reporting to no one. “We are the press and cannot be regulated,” she will scream. And we would agree.
But if she and her comrades are free to act in such a manner, why does she have such a problem with an in-state non-profit organization discussing issues that may or may not affect the outcome of political debate while complying with all applicable laws?
Simple. She attacks us because we advocate for less government, more individual freedom, lower taxes, greater personal property rights, parental choice in education, and an end to the controlled political environment that has kept hundreds of thousands of South Carolinians out of the process. She opposes all these things – as do most of the major candidates they back.
It is a fair question to ask why she and the State newspaper editorial page would attack us and other conservative groups so intensely. The answer is they want to silence us. They want to tarnish our good name so that when we engage in debate or issue discussion our words are deemed suspect. She is engaging in pure character assassination. And, she is doing it to advance liberal political candidates and causes.
This, of course, was another of Mr. Goebbels’ methods – whenever possible, destroy your opponents’ credibility through lies and distortions. Yes, Ms. Scoppe has learned her lessons well. And that’s too bad for the reputation of the State as well as the people subjected to her sleazy, unethical tactics.
Luckily for groups such as ours, her opinion and that of the State newspaper is absolutely insignificant. The most recent election results are a testament to that fact.Randy Page is President of SCRG, a statewide non-profit grassroots organization that advocates limited government and education reform through school choice on behalf of its 200,000 supporters across the state.
Don’t miss Actual Reality, coming to a blog near you, right after this post.
Related Posts
So what’s the problem with this piece, other than the Goebbels references which are a little over the top (but only a little when referring to Cindi), and maybe that we don’t actually know Cindi’s partisan affiliation?
Most of the piece is right on target, especially this part:
“She attacks us because we advocate for less government, more individual freedom, lower taxes, greater personal property rights, parental choice in education, and an end to the controlled political environment that has kept hundreds of thousands of South Carolinians out of the process.”
It’s probably not coincidental that SCRG’s Randy Page is so familiar with Nazi propaganda techniques.
Actually, Lexwolf, nothing in that paragraph is “right on target” in terms of what she has written about SCRG.
That’s a classic self-aggrandizing statement on their part: “Look at all the wonderful things we are (as long as we’re very careful in how we describe them), she must hate us for being so fine and noble.”
But nothing in that series of statements would be a reason why she would “attack” them, as they put it. So it is not “on target” at all.
I’m not sure that anything that “SCouRG” [cute!] says can compare to this.
I’m incredulous as to why The State wouldn’t have published this particular piece.
I think it’s exactly on point. Cindi really went over the top in labeling them as criminals.
Brad,
you are of course entitled to your opinion but unfortunately that’s all it is: your opinion. You have provided absolutely no support for that opinion.
I, for one, would be highly interested in anything you could cite where you, Cindi, or The State, advocated for “less government, more individual freedom, lower taxes, greater personal property rights, parental choice in education, and an end to the controlled political environment”. In my 11-year experience with your newspaper I can’t remember a single time for any of those.
How about it? You have Lexis/Nexis – surely you could find a few articles in each area. If not, I’m afraid you’ll have to concede that you’re guilty as charged. Denial is not a river in Africa.
If the public school advocates had some good ideas for reform, and genuine criticism of the ideas from outside the government community, they would offer that, instead of this constant smear campaign against every individual and group with an idea for real change.
LexWolf, you obviously never studied logic. SCRG is purely defending itself on grounds that they are not being critiqued for, so it is a lazy defense – it is called the straw man argument because they are literally building a person to debate rather than get down with what was actually said.
I would also like to point out I support putting criminals in prison, saving the environment, stopping global warfare and helping the poor, all things I have no evidence that you support. You are quite clearly an evil person. I am standing here openly admitting to my love of these things which you quite openly hate because you have said nothing about it.
Ho hum. Straw man arguments may convince the incredibly stupid, but I see through Randy Page’s obnoxious assault on intelligence with ease.
Aaron, you use personal invective to dismiss LexWolfe’s arguments almost as liberally as Cindi Scoppe uses smears to avoid facing any alternative to government schools. You don’t have to respond to a “clearly evil person”. Life is so easy.
“Aaron, you use personal invective to dismiss LexWolfe’s arguments almost as liberally as Cindi Scoppe uses smears to avoid facing any alternative to government schools. You don’t have to respond to a “clearly evil person”. Life is so easy.”
I see irony and example is completely bloody lost on you.
But I am glad you realized I jokingly used a straw man and ad hominem attack, EXACTLY in the manner of SCRG. You must logically therefore agree with me that SCRG are illogical and offensive.
*sigh*
Aaron, don’t try to make a living with logic, unless someone else is providing you a template to follow.
It was Cindi Scoppe who engaged in insults, and SCRG responded by noting that she was a mediocre immitation of other propagandists.