The curious case of the altered headline.
A couple of days ago, the Washington Times had this headline:
Within hours, the Times had altered its headline (although the original headline was still embedded in the link):
See the difference? Alert (or as the alt-left likes to say: “woke”) RTP tipsters contacted our tip line (firstname.lastname@example.org) and pointed out the change. A couple offered some theories. RTP has a theory of its own.
First, no one believes the Washington Times is closely monitoring or covering an obscure, 3-time-loser, perennial candidate like Joe Carr. It is much more likely the story was planted by one of Carr’s two allies (Judson, check your messages). But in their haste to promote Carr, they made an amateur mistake — one that could cause the nascent Carr campaign a substantial headache.
Here’s why: If you go with the first headline, where the Times says Carr “WILL” run against Corker and using Carr’s quotes to confirm this statement, then Carr just formally announced for the Senate. That could mean under FEC rules, Carr’s T-Bone & Politics fundraiser next week could run into legal problems and/or that the proceeds could not be use by Carr for his campaign or his personal use. At a minimum. a host of reporting complications would also arise – such as requiring Carr to report on October 15th how much he has actually raised as of September 30th (which would reveal how much – or how little – Carr has raised and what he spent it on)
The Times did not alter its headline on its own. No, we think that was clearly the result of Carr or his representative hurriedly trying to cover his behind and get back to safer legal ground.
The Times article went on to highlight Carr’s 9-point defeat by Lamar Alexander in 2014, while conveniently ignoring his 32-point loss to Diane Black just last year.
For his part, Carr says he “learned his lesson from 2014” and that he will “have his ducks lined up” this time. No mention of all the “dead ducks” that floated to the top of his disastrous 2016 congressional race.
All-in-all, a rather inauspicious way to begin one’s campaign – assuming of course that it is actually a real campaign.
“Now you see it – now you don’t” might be a preview to the Joe CarrWreck for Senate campaign.