Dem smoking gun found by Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson has found yet another smoking gun on the Lib/Left/socialst/Dems: he seems to have gotten hold of some of the posts on the infamous "Journolist", in which various reporters (all of whom apparently work for the Democratic party) candidly discuss ways to avoid covering stories that would have hurt Democratic candidates or causes.

When an embarassing videotape would surface, for example, they would discuss ways to exert pressure on media outlets and less-leftist reporters to get them not to cover the vid.

Powerful stuff. Shades of the former Soviet Union's "Pravda" newspaper. (For those under 30 or so, Pravda was the main propaganda paper of the Communist Party.)

Here's one of Carlson's examples of how it worked: After the shocking video emerged before the 2008 election of Obama's pastor screaming "God damn America!", the members of J-list sprang into damage-control mode:

Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.

Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle [sic; "story"?] going.”

“Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote.

Hayes urged his colleagues...to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.

Someone asked Mr. Hayes for a response, and it's an instructive look at how deftly left/liberals rationalize this crap:

Reached by phone [yesterday], Hayes argued his words fell on deaf ears. “I can say ‘hey I don’t think you guys should cover this,’ but no one listened to me.”

Lovely. "Doesn't matter if I conspire to hide the truth from the American public, as long as I'm not successful in doing so," eh Mr. Hayes?

Why do I feel you'd explode in indignation if a conservative were to attempt the same line?

Spencer Ackerman chimed in:

I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to [Wright’s] defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost [to] the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country?

Ah, Spencer, you waste of carbon, would that be the "uniting" brought about by Obama's taking over General Motors and AIG? Or by bribing wavering Dem congresswhores to get the last vote to pass Obamacare over the objections of a strong majority of the populace?

Or perhaps it's the "uniting" achieved by having the so-called "Department of Justice" dismiss a summary-judgment win against two thugs who were intimidating voters in the doorway of a voting place last election?

Hypocritical rat bastards, all of 'em.