2/25/13 Update -- Please see a new post at the thread's end, on a new development.
2012 - See the last posts for the Rhoads confessional.
Dems going after him? Taking too much of a bite out of Libby's butt?
Who cares? It's legit info that people who might consider voting for him should know.
If we still had reporters in this state, the info would have been out there long ago.
The guy is bad news.
Well, I care. I'm curious as to who put this info out. Someone did a lot of digging. The Maine media's silence on this dude is stunning.
If the focus is put on the author, it will not be where it belongs: Cutler.
From the site Dan posted, above:
Cutler calls himself an “independent,” even claims to have once been a Republican. But a lifetime of working for big name Democrats, at a Democratic law firm and supporting and contributing to Democratic causes and candidates - including Barack Obama - shows otherwise.
"Cutler calls himself an “independent,” even claims to have once been a Republican. But a lifetime of working for big name Democrats, at a Democratic law firm and supporting and contributing to Democratic causes and candidates - including Barack Obama - shows otherwise."
Seems more like a republican...pointing out that Cutler is more like Libby than like the GOP candidate...
Can they do a site like that...without the disclaimers...and identifying themselfs...?
Yes! Free speech is still protected by the First Amendment. The site does not advocate the election or defeat of any candidate -- no disclaimer or reporting is required.
I would be glad to defend the site before the Ethics Commission if someone files a complaint.
I for one would like to know who made the site, who really is behind this one...there should be rules for disclosure on things like this. Free speech yes, but why hide behind a web page and nt have the courage of your convictions to stand tall and say you made the site....gimme a break, I smell a rat....
Has the site said anything that isn't true?
Robert: If you really believe that, you should stop posting and reading AMG. People can post here without standing behind what they have to say.
From the site:
"He brags about his time at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). But his foot-dragging and bureaucratic incompetence led to the deaths of 39 people."
IMO; Free speach or not, the claim that he lead to the deaths of 39 people should be backed up on the site. If it is I couldn't find it. If they plan on putting the proof later then wait till then to put on the charge. The rest is fair enough.
To misquote a famous line..."Me thinks he doth protest too much"...
So Dan, you support cowardice?
Our nation has a long history of political tracts published anonymously, one example being Common Sense by Thomas Paine. Personally, as many know, I oppose the use of pseudonyms at websites, blogs, and news forums, especially when those users hurl insults from behind them. But it is the nature of the internet, one that is not likely to change.
Years ago I used to post behind an alias; oddly, it is liberating when one starts to use one's own name.
But Dan is correct: why are we discussing the anonymity of the authors of the site, instead of:
The research presented;
Why the Maine news media has not done as much;
How to encourage to Maine news media to verify the research.
While i can understand your take, you pose a hypocritical commentary in some respects...you say its liberating to use your name and not hide behind an alias, i agree and as you can see I use my real and full name here...but at the same time you say its okay to hide behind the cloak of darkness and do these things secretly? While the Constitution and our nation of laws gives us the right to do such things, to me its just not sitting well in my gut. Thats all i was pointing out, and I truly would like to see the author exposed to the light of day, rather than pointing fingers at nameless individuals or groups to make them appear nefarious.
TO me, this a could be considered to be campaign materials becuase it would not exist were Mr. Cutler not running for office and as such someone would have to report the cost and who is responsible....yes, a fine line, but its no different than any other negative advertising you see on tv and radio....and in full disclosure I am NOT a supporter of Cutler, most of this I found out long ago when he first announced, thanks to this blog and other outlets.
I also noted the claim about the death of 39 people, and would like to know the background on that supposed event.
What intrigues me is the 'authors' description of themselves. If in fact there are journalists in the group, how interesting they found it necessary to expose their opinions and research here versus the 'Maine stream media'. I'll concur with Dan, this is about Cutler....
Robert: If you really believe what you write, you would not read or post at AMG. Scott allows people to hide their names and bans anyone who outs a poster. By reading and posting at AMG, you support such cowardice.
By the way, material such as that which appears on the site is often gathered secretly and fed to reporters who print it without stating the source. It happens all the time. That is not happening with Cutler because his childhood friends control 4 of Maine's 7 daily papers and other weekly papers as well.
Just sent an e-mail asking what the 39 deaths referenced, I'll post the reply if/when I get one.
Charlie - thanks for doing this - I'd be interested to see the details.
If something is THAT libelous, he can always sue the site's owners/managers. Usually though, all the anger is about something getting out that the Establishment didn't want to get out.
Politics has become such a dirty game. We currently have the "Captain" of the COOK COUNTY Machine running the federal government from the White House if you can believe it (Lord save us!!).
So sometimes it takes sites like this Cutler one to finally get the truth out.
Just got this:
The topic of an upcoming post.
The from line read:
A name familiar to anyone?
From: Charlie Neville
Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 10:57:23 AM
Subject: "...the deaths of 39 people."
To what does this refer?
GW inadvertently provides the laugh of the day:
How to encourage to Maine news media to verify the research.
I think this is the work of Dennis Bailey. He really does not like Cutler and his current client is not going anywhere. As for the substance of the allegations, the fact that Dan and Gerald both think this is really explosive stuff is interesting. As terrified as Dan and Gerald may be with the prospect of Cutler in the Gov's office, there are many others who feel the same way about LeP and/or Libby.
The press should call up Bailey and ask him if this is his work. While Dan believes the source of this information and website is not important, I doubt he would fail to explore Dennis' bias if Dennis was testifying in court against Dan's client.
Robert Reed, I take it you've never had your house vandalized, a water hose used to fill your heating oil tank, or death threats in the middle of the night for voicing your opinion? There is a thin like between realistic and cowardly.
The historical evidence indicates that early American patriots opposed attempts to require that anonymous authors reveal their identities on the grounds that forced disclosure violated the "freedom of the press."
If not for the use of pen names, our monetary system would probably be in pounds and shillings rather than dollars. The political debate that led to the American Revolution and the ratification of the United States Constitution was waged under pseudonyms, published not only in newspapers throughout the colonies, but in pamphlets that were widely circulated.
In "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution," Harvard University historian Bernard Bailyn estimates that more than four hundred pamphlets discussing America’s grievances against the Crown were published in the colonies between 1750 and 1776. Publication continued through the Revolution. By the time the War of Independence ended in 1783, the number of pamphlets had grown to fifteen hundred.
Often published under pseudonyms and circulated by hand from one patriot to the next, these pamphlets constituted a true underground medium. "It was in this form - as pamphlets - that much of the most important and characteristic writing of the American Revolution appeared," writes Bailyn.
What was the central point of these newspaper articles and pamphlets? Conspiracy theories, of course.
Just as we do here today, the Founding Fathers had a hard time getting Americans to see the big picture. Far too many of the colonists failed to connect the dots. Here and there, some particular act of the King or of Parliament might annoy or inconvenience them, but most Americans failed to see the underlying pattern or logic to these events. They failed to see that one bad law led to another, and that sooner or later liberty itself would be snatched away.
The anonymous revolutionary pamphleteers helped Americans connect the dots. They helped the average colonist see the greater plan or conspiracy that lay behind such seemingly random and unrelated legislation as the "Stamp Act," the "Tea Act," the "Massachusetts Government Act," the "Quartering Act," and so on.
There is little doubt that the Founders engaged in anonymous political writing. The essays in the Federalist Papers, published under the pseudonym of "Publius," are only the most famous example of the outpouring of anonymous political writing that occurred during the ratification of the Constitution. John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton shared the pen name when they wrote the Federalist Papers.
Alexander Hamilton wrote several newspaper essays using a variety of pen names taken from characters from ancient Rome.
Benjamin Franklin often wrote under pseudonyms, including "Silence Dogood," "the Busy-Body," "Obadiah Plainman," "Robin Good-fellow," and of course, "Poor Richard." Franklin frequently used the name "Richard Saunders," the same pseudonym as he had used when he wrote "Poor Richard's Almanack," which was first published in 1732. As Richard Saunders, Franklin was given both the freedom to express his thoughts and the freedom to do so with dramatic license.
Samuel Adams, perhaps the most effective rabble-rouser in American history, was known to incite riots with his articles, published under several pen names so that the British would think that their opposition was stronger than it really was at the time.
John Adams, our second president, often used the pseudonym "Novanglus" when he wrote, but he was published frequently by the Boston Gazette under the name "Clarendan."
John Leland, a Baptist minister and American patriot, wrote under the pseudonym of "Jack Nipps."
John Carroll, the first Bishop of our nation, used the alias "Pacificus" for his documents.
These are just a few examples. Our founding fathers, as well as others who were deeply involved in the events that led up to the American Revolution and the founding of the United States of America, used pseudonyms often, and for a variety of reasons. One significant reason was to avoid being arrested by the British.
Readers, of course, are free to give more or less credibility to anonymous postings than to those which are attributed.
Kenny Beck: I would not use "explosive" as a word to describe the site. Basic information that has been ignored by the mainstream media which is in the bag for Cutler.
As for bias, everyone who works in politics is biased. I am sure Dennis Bailey would admit he is always biased for whatever candidate or cause he is working for.
The bias of so-called reporters who have acted like Cutler's press flacks for months is the bias that should be looked at.
Cutler is a walking, talking example of everything that is wrong in this country. He has become rich by selling himself to the highest bidder and using his insider connections to advance the interests of the people paying him, even the Red Chinese.
txs Michelle for history
"I didn't know that" something you won't hear politicians or bureaucrats say.
Michelle, et al...while I respect what everyone writes as to allowing secrecy, all I have done is stated my thoughts on the subject - simply put, the only reason this was put out there is because Cutler is a candidate for governor and this could be damaging to his campaign, thus in my humble opinion, it becomes campaign related and as such should be treated no differently than ads on tv that show the negative campaigning we've come to expect from "the other side" no matter which side you're on. As a friend said one "walks like a duck, talks like a duck...yup, its a duck"...
So lets ask this, recently there were calls coming from out of state that were very unflattering to Mr. LePage and people in this very website were besides themselves asking to know who was makinn those calls...why is it suddenly different when its not the hurting the candidate you support. Sorry but the hypocracy is overwhelming at times here.
Robert: If your construction of the what is right were the law, every post about a candidate on this website or a newspaper website would have to have a discliamer and the name of the author could not be kept private.
Campaign finance reporting and disclosure generally kicks in when (1) the communication expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate (which the site does not do) and (2) certain monetary thresholds are crossed. It costs very little these days to put up a webiste. It is quite possible that the financial thresholds have not been crossed in this case. (Though I was not one who was worked up by the anti-LePage calls on the eve of the primary, those were different. The calls did expressly advocate; came the night before an election; and certainly cost enough to trigger reporting.)
Please note that AMG contains all sorts of negative information about candidates. It is often done by people who hide their identity and no campaign finance reporting is done. Why is the Cutler Files site any worse than AMG?
Robert: The hypocriscy here is overwhelming and it is coming from you.