Drudge Report Slams Gingrich for Romney; Censored Ads on Obama’s Communist Mentor

American Survival

“Conservative” Drudge Also Censored Ads about Obama’s Communist Mentor (see below)

The Drudge Distort

Matt Barber*


You’re being manipulated. A well-respected, highly influential news source has cast aside all journalistic integrity to shill for the liberal, GOP-establishment candidate in this presidential race.

The New York Times, you say? MSNBC? The Washington Post? No. We all gave up on those “progressive” rags a long time ago.

Regrettably, the latest media outlet to assume a decidedly yellow hue during this heated primary cycle is the Drudge Report. It pains me to even write this. Drudge has always been both my first and last Internet news stops of the day.

It’s often said, “Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.” Well, Drudge deals in pixels instead of ink, but the same principle applies.

Still, this is a fight worth having.

In past years, Matt Drudge has done a fair job of playing it down the middle during presidential primaries. Not this time. In the game of “Washington insider hold ’em,” the Drudge Report is “all in” for Willard Mitt Romney. It’s not even subtle.

As the Politico reports: “Newt Gingrich better hope voters who lapped up his delicious hits on the ‘elite media’ and liberals don’t read the Drudge Report this morning … If they do, Gingrich comes off looking like a dangerous, anti-Reagan, Clintonian fraud.”

This, of course, is utter pablum. Gingrich is the last Reagan conservative standing in this race; or, as the venerable Nancy Reagan said of “the distinguished speaker, Newt Gingrich” in 1995: “The dramatic [conservative] movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.”

To this day, Newt Gingrich is keeping that conservative dream alive and that Reagan torch aflame. America is beginning to get this, and it has the “Republican in Name Only” (RINO) establishment tied in knots.

Politico summarizes Drudge’s hit job on Gingrich: “The overnight Drudge Report banner: ‘Insider: Gingrich repeatedly insulted Reagan.’ The headline linked to a devastating takedown by Elliott Abrams in the National Review, who wrote, among other things, that Gingrich had a long record of criticizing and undermining Reagan’s most transformative policies.”

Baloney. Sorry, Matt Drudge, but Mrs. Reagan’s vote of confidence carries considerably more weight than your shameless smear on behalf of the Massachusetts moderate.

Cherry-picked quotes, biased headlines and hyperlinks to Newt-hating op-eds in order to patch together an ugly and distorted mosaic of the former House speaker is not journalism. It’s mercenary-style political prostitution.

At the top of Thursday’s Drudge was linked an opinion piece by another Romney surrogate, Ann Coulter, headlined “Re-elect Obama: Vote Newt!” In it, she skewers Mr. Gingrich and claims, “Romney is the most electable candidate.”

Odd when you consider that, less than one year ago, Coulter told a packed house at CPAC the exact opposite: “If you don’t run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee and we’ll lose,” she said. “By the way, I warned you about McCain.” (I don’t know, maybe Ann’s now angling for a gig as Romney’s Secretary of Snark. Look for her next book: “Moderate: An Autobiography.”)

But Coulter’s exactly right about that whole McCain thing. He recently endorsed Romney too. So did Bob Dole. Interesting. And they’re both vehemently opposed to a Gingrich nomination as well.

See where this is going? What do Bob Dole and John McCain have in common? Is this really who we think is going to unseat Barack Obama? Mitt Romney: the ideo-political love child – figuratively speaking — of Bob Dole and John McCain?

The RINO is a slow, lumbering beast. It is foolishly and predictably drawn, over and again, toward that “moderate” watering hole. There, it hopes to attract that equally perplexing animal, the “independent.” From this liaison, it is believed a bevy of voting offspring will be produced.

Never happens. In fact, the mushy middle is exactly where that fierce predator — The Democrat — wants its Republican prey corralled. Ever seen Wild Kingdom? Not pretty.

RINO Republicans and liberal Democrats have something in common: they both mistakenly assert that conservative candidates are unelectable. Ronald Reagan proved them wrong and so will Newt Gingrich.

No, I’ve got news for Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter and the rest of the establishment GOP: As 2010 proved and as I believe 2012 will show again, conservatives don’t shine to being told who our nominee is going to be.

We’ll pick him ourselves, thank you very much.

*Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law, and author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War.” He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action. This column is printed with permission.


Source: at conservativetreehouse.com

FLASHBACK FROM 2008: CONSERVATIVES IN TANK FOR OBAMA?: Matt Drudge appears to top the ListOn top of the Drudge Report’s censorship of his ads about an Obama-communism link, conservative journalist Cliff Kincaid revealed today that other “conservative” websites and papers are balking at running ads or stories drawing public attention to Drudge’s censorship.“It looks like some of the ‘conservative media’ are in the tank for Drudge, who is in the tank for Obama,” Kincaid said. Kincaid runs the America’s Survival public policy group and is editor of Accuracy in Media. He and veteran anti-communist investigator Herbert Romerstein wrote and released two lengthy and well-documented reports on Barack Obama’s communist connections. They are available at www.usasurvival.org, which is also where the censored ads can be viewed.

Censored ad

“Power has gone to Drudge’s head,” Kincaid said, “and it appears he is going to use this power to benefit Obama.”

Drudge rejected Kincaid’s ads as “too controversial,” even though Drudge developed a reputation for controversial scoops under the Clinton Administration. However, several observers and experts say the evidence shows that Drudge has been part of a pro-Obama media trend that tends to ignore or play down any scandals involving the candidate. A recent article in Politico said that Matt Drudge has been “trumpeting Obama’s victories and shrugging at his scandals.”

“The rejection of my ads is proof of Drudge’s emerging pro-Obama bias,” Kincaid declared. “But it wasn’t expected that leading ‘conservative’ websites and newspapers would join the censorship campaign.”

The Kincaid-Romerstein reports, as well as the censored ads, focus attention on Obama’s relationship with a Communist Party member named Frank Marshall Davis during his years in Hawaii.

The face in the proposed ads was that of Frank Marshall Davis, identified member of the Communist Party USA and mentor for a young Obama in Hawaii, and also featured a communist hammer and sickle. The ad asked, “Who is this man?” and urged viewers to click on the ad and “meet the mysterious Red mentor” and go to the reports.

How Matt Drudge Censors the News

By Cliff Kincaid

At America’s Survival, Inc., we are continuing our public education campaign on the threats posed by communism and the United Nations. We expected opposition from the liberal media. But we are also running into a brick wall in the “conservative” media. The latest scandal is that both the daily and weekly editions of the Washington Times have killed our advertising drawing public attention to Matt Drudge’s censorship of our ads. That is, they refused to run our ads about the censored ads. Can it get any worse than this?

Our intention was to publicize information about Frank Marshall Davis, the Communist, and his associates, who included Barack Obama. Davis was a key member of a communist network in Hawaii that influenced Obama. One of our reports examined the communist network in Hawaii. The other report examined the communist and socialist network in Chicago. The lengthy reports are heavily documented, with exhibits from congressional hearings and testimony, and haven’t been challenged on factual grounds.

Can you believe censorship of this magnitude is happening in a constitutional republic with a “free press” in which the people are supposed to be informed and educated? When my group can’t even pay to get our information into the Washington Times and on the Drudge Report?

I had wanted to advertise our new reports on communism in Hawaii and Chicago on the Drudge Report.  But our $5000.00 ad buy was rejected by Drudge himself.  This appears to be part of a leftward drift on the part of Drudge, who has a rather idiosyncratic background and links to the homosexual community and Hollywood. One of Drudge’s apparent motives is to curry favor with Obama so that he can receive “scoops” from the campaign.  Drudge, who is sometimes described as liberal or “libertarian” on some issues, may also personally favor Obama’s election.

I have posted copies of the Internet ads that were rejected.

Drudge’s rejection of the ads, on the grounds that they were “too controversial,” is laughable. He made his name and “reputation” on the basis of “controversial” scoops about Bill Clinton. The rejection of my ads is the latest evidence that Drudge, who is viewed by some as the most powerful journalist in America today, is moving into the liberal camp.

The Politico reported on June 3 that, “Matt Drudge has upended the conventional wisdom that he and his powerful online vehicle are stalwarts of the conservative message machine.” It said that he has been “trumpeting Obama’s victories and shrugging at his scandals.” The rejection of my ads is proof of the latter.

In terms of his coverage of the Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton battle, a senior aide to Clinton was quoted as saying, “It’s clear to us that Barack Obama has won the Drudge Primary, and it’s one of the most important primaries in this process.” In other words, Drudge favored Obama over Hillary and his selection of the “news,” as if he functions as a national assignment editor for the media, affected the outcome. The staffer said that “Drudge’s treatment of Obama could make the Illinois senator more electable in November.”

This appears to be what is happening. We, of course, don’t take a stand for or against a candidate; we only try to assure that fair and accurate information is presented about their stands on public policy issues. We have also published an analysis of media coverage of Senator John McCain’s positions, highlighting his objectionable preference for involvement in international alliances and U.N.-supported causes.

But as a result of Drudge censoring our ads, we prepared to take out ads drawing attention to what had happened.

What I didn’t anticipate is the resistance I would get from “conservative” Internet sites and papers. First, a popular “conservative” Internet news site killed a story about Drudge’s censorship of my ads. Then, the weekly and daily editions of the Washington Times insisted that I omit any direct personal reference to Matt Drudge in my submitted ads. They said they didn’t object to my references to the Drudge Report, only “Matt Drudge.” Of course, the Drudge Report is Matt Drudge, and his advertising representative personally informed me in a telephone conversion and an email that “the publisher” – that is, Drudge – had not accepted my ads. So the case is clear-cut. The decision was made by Drudge, not by underlings or the advertising agency.

But the Washington Times insisted that my factual reporting about Matt Drudge’s role in rejecting the truthful ads was somehow inappropriate. By insisting on changing the ad — using the term “Drudge Report” rather than the name of Matt Drudge – the Times had hoped it could collect my ad money while avoiding any perceived slight to Drudge.

Some might say that I should have compromised and eliminated the reference to Drudge personally. But the reference was truthful and I didn’t want to back down.

The Washington Times’ killing of my ads demonstrates that there is a desire by some in the “conservative” media not to offend Drudge because of the power he is perceived to hold and wield and because the Drudge Report maintains links to these sites and papers, generating traffic and profits for them. This seems to be an open secret. They want to please Drudge; otherwise, he may not highlight or even link to their stories and outlets.

“Drudge holds a grudge,” one advertising representative confided to me. This is the tip-off that running an ad critical of Drudge could backfire on a media company. So much for journalistic “independence” and the pursuit of truth.

The conclusion has to be, in an ominous development, that Drudge, who is now emerging as a key pro-Obama media voice, is dictating coverage and advertising policies by some influential “conservative” media outlets. This is terribly worrisome and a clear threat to freedom of speech.

I told the Times that I had documentary proof that Drudge personally rejected the ads and that they were acting rather silly. Their advertising representatives knew their bosses look silly. But they are prepared to look silly so they can maintain a friendly relationship with Drudge.

However, it goes beyond silliness to censoring information the American people have a right to know about.

Drudge’s censorship is already backfiring, as we are having more success, certainly on the talk shows, in highlighting his bias and our issues. Indeed, his rejection of my ads may have been a blessing in disguise. It helps us draw more attention to our communism reports and the failure by Drudge, the Washington Times, and others to report on them.

The other good news is that our information on Frank Marshall Davis and related matters has been provided to authors with books coming out on coverage of the political candidates and the campaign. I anticipate they will use and credit our material. Plus, Andrew Walden has just written an extensive article on the popular American Thinker site, featuring links to our communism reports. It is about the influence of the Communist Party USA.

At the same time, we have to draw attention to the continuing leftward drift of Fox News.  Fox News sent a camera crew to our May 22 news briefing in Washington, D.C., where we released our two reports. But not one word has appeared on the channel about what we uncovered.

We have been very disappointed by the failure of Fox News personalities such as Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly to examine the Obama-Davis connection. What are they afraid of? Or are they ignoring the story out of deference to their boss, News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch, who seems to be, like Drudge, coming into Obama’s camp?

On January 31, Murdoch’s media property, the New York Post, endorsed Obama in the Democratic Party primaries, saying, “Obama represents a fresh start.” Asked if had been behind the Obama endorsement by the Post, Murdoch replied, “Yeah,” and explained, “We’re on the verge of a complete phenomenon. Politicians are at an all-time low and are despised by 80% of the public, and then you’ve got a candidate trying to put himself out above it all. He’s become a rock star. It’s fantastic.” Murdoch, speaking at a technology conference, heaped praise on Obama, saying he was a “highly intelligent man with a great record at Harvard.” The publication said that Murdoch stopped short of a full personal endorsement because he wanted “to meet him personally.”

Murdoch’s comments suggest another motive on the part of those “conservatives” jumping on the candidate’s bandwagon. Simply stated, they may think he is the inevitable winner and so they want to be on the winning side.

We at America’s Survival, Inc. don’t take sides, except the side of truth. Thanks to www.newswithviews.com and other honest Internet sites and radio programs, we are getting the information out to more and more people.

Please take a moment to examine some of the most popular “conservative” Internet sites and see if they have covered this controversy. If they haven’t, you will know that they are in the tank for Drudge, who is in the tank for Obama.


Cliff Kincaid is Accuracy in Media’s Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and may be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org. Mr. Kincaid also administrates the site, America’s Survival, where he further documents the warfare brought upon our nation by the powerful and subversive Marxist/globalist axis.



  1. This may all be true, and I’m confident it is. That said, DRUGE was just about the only high profile site that ran a story on the 1/15/12 Georgia eligibility hearing. Precious few relatively mainstream types did so. Just thought you should know.

  2. Don’t worry, Cliff. WE ALL have noticed that Drudge has gone off the deep end here. I just cannot believe that he has done this, lol, and, thinks, like the rest of the LSM that WE are paying him any mind at all. They are all laughable this time around. Have you watched any of faux “reporting” lately? They’ve turned into Comedy Central, and, TMZ all in one.
    Great article…many of WTP are, indeed, awake..

  3. KingDariusOfPersia says

    I swear these conservative media outlets get abducted and get brainwashed by the liberal progressives. Before operation Desert Storm, CNN appeared somewhat neutral. Then they went totally liberal. In the early days, Bill O’Reilly seemed to be somewhat rational but then took a sudden turn to the left a few years ago. Now Drudge. WTF?

  4. For more, see:
    Exposed: A Drudge-Romney Connection?

  5. Hi! I’m at work browsing your blog from my new iphone! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Keep up the outstanding work!

Speak Your Mind