So what?

What's the story here? Why is Matt Mosk spending so much time trying to find anything negative on Steele? It seems he must be getting desperate to find dirt if this is what he comes up with. Will Mosk spend as much time trying to smear Cardin or Mfume?

I think the story is that it is interesting that a black candidate would use the services of a consultant who obviuosly tried to appeal to racial prejudice in creating the Helms' ad.

I for one find this interesting. The Steele ad, although almost entirely substance free with no issues raised, is light and positive and presents the candidate as a nice reasonable guy. Nothing is said about any opponent. That this was produced by a traditional Republican attack shop is newsworthy. Steele is distancing himself from Bush. Now he's running away from negative campaigning. It'll be interesting to see how effective this is.

I know that's what Mosk is intending, but it's clearly not news for a few reasons. One, Castellanos didn't make the ad. Two, Castellanos has done a lot of work for GOP candidates besides the Helms campaign, and so to judge him solely on one commercial is a bit disingenuous. Three, this isn't the first time that Mosk is attempting to unfairly linke Steele to "racists." Go back a few months and you'll see that Mosk tried to say that the guy who made the Willie Horton ad threw a fundraiser for Steele even though this was completely false.

And, of course, Mosk has yet to post anything slightly derogatory about either Cardin or Mfume, and yet he goes out of his way to try and find even the smallest thing to pin on Steele. His partiality towards the Democrats is obvious.

Somebody knows somebody who worked a long time ago with somebody who made a commercial that some people consider a critique of racial profiling therefore .... Steele is an "Uncle Tom".

C'mon Wapo, transitive property of racist association doesn't work that way. Another low in faux liberal shock. Almost as bad as some of the neoconservatism at the Post.

Weak. WashPost is supposed to be a real newspaper, not the NYPost or WashTimes. Weak association and innuendo are no substitute for good reporting and hard facts.

Steele is trying hard to portray a neutral image - free of the pshycho right-wing baggage that seems to always be there in the background.

Spending all that money on "looking" independent will surely will ultimately fail because he doesn't understand the supreme rule of politics -

"It's not the crime that will get you - it's the Cover-up."

I really don't know the point of this story, but the ad is spectacular. You can really see Mike Steele connect with viewers through the camera. There will be time for hard issue ads, however as an introductory ad for Steele, this one is fabulous.

The more people learn about the sort of man that Michael Steele really is, the more they will support him. No wonder the ultra-biased Mosk hates these ads!

Steele appears to want to deceive voters into thinking he's some sort of independent.

That might work for the dumbest of the dumb, but he already has those voters locked up.

"I'll point out what's wrong in both parties." Sure you will, Mikey boy.

Maybe it would have worked better if Steele hadn't gotten caught whining about how troublesome connection with Bush was for Republican candidates. Now it's clear that he's trying to put a good face on that, even though most folks realize that he supports Bush policies, even as he laments being connected with Bush the unpopular person.

I think we all got to know Matt Mosk a little better when he ran a story about Ehrlich using the word "obviusly" and essentially smeared Ehrlich for using a word that every single politician uses. It easily could have won the award for dumbest political article of the year.

This is just Mosk being Mosk. Matt, I know you almost went to the BaltSun, but seriously you don't have to try to imitate David Nitkin at every corner.

Phyllis, is there way you can find out and tell us who Matt Mosk voted for in the previous elections. My guess, based on his constant stories slamming Steele, is he voted straight Democratic in both 2002 and 2004, but can you confirm this for us?

Thanks.

Matt is a registered independent and last i checked, there's a secret ballot in Maryland.

The day before the primary, and this is the best you can do? I wonder if the company he used to make bumper stickers also handled the Helms race? Snoooooze!

Matt Mosk, it takes an Independent to know one. I ask for your vote on November 7!

I realize there is a secret ballot, but in the interest of full disclousre, shouldn't we know who Matt Mosk voted for?

Actually, Mosk couldn't state his political preferences any louder if he posted Democrat billboard in his front lawn and volunteered for Monica's old job.

Pity that his anti-Republican fervor couldn't be replaced with a little honestly and journalistic ethics.

It should not come as a shock to read liberally biased coverage on anything in the Washington Post. Look at today's headline:

"In Oval Office speech, echoes of language, logic from five years ago cap attempt to rally public to president's policies in war on terror and Iraq."
-Dan Balz and Michael Abramowitz

"Language and logic from five years ago". Thank goodness the Post allows Dan and Mike to interpret the news for us so we don't have to use our own minds. Keep in mind this speech was made on the five year anniversary of Sept 11th. Obvously, Dan and Mike have forgotten the events of that day already.

What credible news outlet allows a political op/ed piece to be ran as a headline? But wait, that's right, it's primary day. No agenda there, I'm sure.

The only news that isn't slanted in the Wash Post is the Redskins coverage.

I see that ad and all that comes to mind is "Smarmy!!!"

Most journalists lean left--nothing new to that and no honest journalist will deny it in private conversations. Mosk doesn't like Ehrlich and by default doesn't like Steele. I don't know what he thinks of the other candidates, but c'mon, who the hell writes an article about Ehrlich using the word 'obviously' and spins it to make Ehrlich off as arrogant? That's just stupid considering every politician says 'obviously', 'clearly' and the other word Mosk mentioned.

Beyond that I'm wondering if Mosk will ever disclose the information Congressman Van Hollen's campaign gave him in 2004 that was wrong and how they got that information. I'm fairly certain Matt is aware of it, but chose not to write about it.

All that said, the WaPo still has less slanted coverage than the BaltSun (a virtual extension of the MD Dem Party)

I've seen no evidence to suggest that the Wash Post's Redskins coverage is balanced.

"Fabulous"? This commercial is hilariously ridiculous. Particularly the little close up of Steele at the end. I've yet to remain in my chair whenever it has come on the tube. It looks like a commercial for a new afternoon talk show. Wait, that's it! An afternoon talkshow is exaclty where a lightweight like Steele should be.

The fact remains that the man can't talk substantively about the issues.