A man presented as an “ordinary voter” in a New York Times article today about the impending recount in Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race has strong ties to the Republican Party and conservative causes that the article does not reveal.
In the article, “Minnesota Senate Rivals Dig In for Recount Battle,” reporter Christina Capecchi (who also writes for MinnPost), identifies Noah Rouen only as a 34-year-old who “swore off political talk on a pheasant hunt last weekend.” When he and his buddies heard of the now-legendary (and debunked) 32-ballots-in-a-car-trunk story, Capecchi writes, “They could not help but hatch a conspiracy theory.”
One reason Rouen might be given to such theories about votes favoring Democrat Al Franken is that Democrats accused him of participating in a conspiracy to distribute false campaign materials against Franken last summer. In a complaint — later dismissed — to the state Office of Administrative Hearing, DFL Party chair Brian Melendez named Rouen along with two other individuals and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace as being behind a television ad that made charges against Franken related to the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
The complaint says Rouen was a delegate to this year’s Republican National Convention (RNC) and for two years was a staff member for former U.S. Sen. Rod Grams, R-Minn. Rouen’s biography at the Web site of his current employer — a St. Paul-based media relations firm called Public Affairs Co., where he is vice president — describes his service to Grams as a staffer and press secretary. Public Affairs Co. rebranded itself as GOP Convention Strategies in a marketing push timed to the RNC.
In an interview with the Minnesota Independent, Rouen said that he worked for Grams’ campaign as well from 1999 to 2000. He said while that level of partisan activity is in his past — he called work for the “Vote Yes Minnesota” referendum campaign his most partisan activity this year — he “makes no bones” about being a Republican or having voted for U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman.
Rouen said he gave Capecchi, who found him via a Facebook group called “Looking for Coleman Ballots,” his whole background during a 30-minute interview two days ago. He said he was surprised to be identified only as a pheasant hunter in the Times article, and in fact was somewhat surprised to be included at all, given how the ballots-in-the-trunk story has since “evolved.” (On Minnesota Public Radio today, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie reiterated that the story was false, calling for those who started the rumor to speak up.)
Capecchi did not return phone messages and e-mails from the Minnesota Independent. The New York Times also has not responded to an email.
Rouen’s political background isn’t hard to trace. In 2002, he ran for the Minnesota House of Representatives in District 60A but was defeated by DFLer Margaret Anderson Kelliher, now speaker of the House. That year he also served as spokesman for the Rod Grams Minnesota Victory Club, a political action committee formed to aid candidates in local races. A frequent writer of letters on newspaper opinion pages, Rouen had a letter that ridiculed Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., the Democratic vice presidential candidate, published in the Oct. 31 edition of the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
Rouen is featured at the end of the second half of the Times article, which contains a series of quotes from political officials and commentators that are introduced by this sentence:
As the recount nears, brickbats from the candidates, their surrogates and ordinary voters are coming fast and furious.
After quotes from mainly conservative sources — itself a point of complaint by Media Matters (referenced by MnIndy on Friday) — Capecchi concludes her article with this:
Noah Rouen, 34, and his buddies swore off political talk on a pheasant hunt last weekend, but when they heard that 32 absentee ballots favoring Mr. Franken were not counted until days later, having been locked in a Minneapolis elections office, they could not help but hatch a conspiracy theory.
On Tuesday morning, Mr. Rouen logged onto Facebook and updated his status: “Noah is looking for Coleman ballots in his car.”













25 Comments »
Comment posted November 14, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
Another fabrication by the liebral New York Slimes. This time they present to us as an “ordinary” voter a Democratic operati — crap. Never mind.
Comment posted November 14, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
I think we will see her on Fox News soon.
Yeh, bring on the loofa.
Comment posted November 14, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
Since this votes-in-car dibble came out, am I the only one who reasoned that only a partisan Republican would most likely hide Franken votes instead of the other way around (if this had actually happened)? This just shows me how stressed into stupidity people must be if this isn’t the first explanation. Oh, just because it’s been debunked, this will regardless remain for all history as a true story for most people in my estimation.
Comment posted November 15, 2008 @ 1:48 am
Leave O’Rourke out of this.
Comment posted November 15, 2008 @ 11:29 am
“Christina Capecchi is an award-winning Catholic journalist from Inver Grove Heights, Mi”
http://www.cleveland.catholicnet.com/article-2-content.htm
Comment posted November 15, 2008 @ 11:56 am
Somehow, I’m not surprised that Capecchi is a Catholic journalist… Avoiding the bearing of false-witness seems to be only a theory for some many so-called Christians.
Along with that whole pesky, “Love thy neighbor” stuff.
Sigh.
Comment posted November 15, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
Hey, I’m a Catholic journalist. The question here isn’t religious affiliation but journalistic practice.
Comment posted November 15, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
After reading the NY Times article, I am not seeing the connection that is causing the uproar here. The statement about “ordinary voter” was made in the first half of a 2-page (web pages) article. Rouen was quoted at the very end of the article. The writer didn’t say “Rouen, and ordinary voter”. I think people are overreacting here.
Comment posted November 15, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
WHAT journamalstic practice? She was writing a fictionalmentary story, like so many others do in the media, these days. God forbid they should actually have to report facts and reality. It’s just not as much fun nor is it nearly as interesting.
Comment posted November 15, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
She quotes Katherine Kersten, Michael Brodkorb and Sean Hannity raising questions about the recount. Then she slips in Rouen at the end with no indication of his partisanship.
As a former newspaper reporter, I’d say that doesn’t pass the fairness test. If I quoted such an obvious partisan and gave no indication of his partisanship, I’d expect my editor to call me on it. In fact, I’d never try it in the first place. But since she’s writing this for the Times, her editor there probabably had no inkling who Rouen is.
Also: why give time to three GOP activist/pundits, but nothing to the other side? Rachel Maddow, Kos, Olbermann and others have their takes on the Minnesota recount.
Why does Hannity get to call it “fishy” — with no evidence — yet the lefty pundits are entirely left out of the story?
Comment posted November 15, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
I’m with Harrison. If you read the actual article, which is taken WAY out of context here, the reporter NEVER calls Noah an ordinary voter. Besides, it’s kind of obvious he’s partisan bc of his Facebook status. It’s not fair to assume she was deliberately hiding his party affiliations. I don’t think she needs to balance every upset Republican with the other side, tit for tat, because the Dems aren’t as upset or suspicious. The NEWS here is that Republicans are upset and suspicious.
Comment posted November 15, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
The NEWS here is that the New York Times is pimping Republican talking points. They may be upset, but they’re are raising suspician with false claims that the Times then parrots. Please try to keep up.
Comment posted November 15, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
I disagree — he’s clearly portrayed as an ordinary voter. Here’s how she introduces the last third of the article:
“But as the recount nears, brickbats from the candidates, their surrogates and ordinary voters are coming fast and furious.”
She then quotes or cites:
1. Coleman’s campaign manager
2. Franken’s lawyer
3. Mark Ritchie
4. An unnamed Coleman spokesperson
5. Katherine Kersten
6. Michael Brodkorb
7. Sean Hannity
8. Noah Rouen
So, she introduces “candidates, their surrogates and ordinary voters.” Of the 8 people that follow, seven clearly are not ordinary voters. By process of elimination, Rouen is left to fill that role.
When she brings in Rouen, he’s with “his buddies” on a pheasant hunt. By bringing in a group of buddies on a pheasant hunt, she clearly is signaling that these are the “ordinary voters” referred to in the intro to that final section.
This is not something worthy of the journalism death penalty, but it’s at least sloppy or lazy, and at most dishonest.
Comment posted November 15, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
In other words, the individual cited by the NYT as a “typical” disinterested voter is a public relations flak with contractual relationships with the Republican Party. Wow. Just wow. Looks like you caught the reporter in outright collusion with the GOP. If there is no discipline with an apology, the Times is complicit in planned deception of its readers.
BTW, I canceled my MInneapolis Star Tribune subscription yesterday. They offered to give me five days for cheaper than Sunday only if I wouldn’t cancel, so now I know what desperate straights they’re in for readership. The Strib has simply quoted Coleman’s attorney and campaign operatives, no context, research or quotes from Dems.. The “ballots in a car trunk” lie? Originated with lazy ‘reporting” by the Star Tribune. The “votes keep switching in Democratic counties” lie? Straight from the mouth of Coleman’s attorney. Disgraceful.
Comment posted November 15, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
What is it about Al Franken that seems to drive people around the bend? Surely the NY Times views him as some kind of interloper and have decided to put forward a narrative as favorable to Coleman as can be imagined. It’s hilarious to read here people’s suggestions that perhaps the reporter’s editors should have caught her concealing pertinent facts about her sources. I would submit her editors gave her a big thumbs up when she concocted it, maybe even a collegial peck on the cheek for a job well done.
Comment posted November 16, 2008 @ 8:09 am
The “New York Times” and “Strib” violations of basic journalistic standards aside, as abhorrent as they are, the behavior of the entire Coleman-GOP apparatus during the election and pending recount is reprehensible.
Comment posted November 16, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
Where is this “liberal media” I keep hearing so much about? I would like to subscribe.
Comment posted November 16, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
The article is about how people are questioning the election and the changes in ballot count. Anyone (liberal or conservative) who doesn’t think the large change in votes is, at the very least, a little odd, is in denial. However, most complaints are coming from the Republicans, so it makes sense to quote those sources. The first part of the article has many non-partisan details, and quotes from Franken himself (I don’t see a direct, new Coleman quote).
BTW, Mr Blifil, your last comment is very condescending & demeaning, considering the NY Times writer is a woman.
Comment posted November 16, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
The thing that irked me with this part of the article is that Noah is not introduced at all. He has no relevance to the issue other than a witty facebook status. His inclusion is this article is just weird and, yes, probably journalistically sloppy.
Comment posted November 16, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
Thanks for explaining this to me. I read the article in the NYT and when I got to the end, I was kind of like, WTF? Who’s this Noah guy? Just an ordinary Noah the Hunter, my ass. What lousy journalism. The Noah the Hunter part of the article seemed liike an afterthought…really a piece of shit article.
Comment posted November 16, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
We own the airwaves, they are not the personal plaything of the corporations. We should tax the heck out of the airwaves. We are giving away a limited resource for free to people who want to control our elections with their lies. They make millions on commercials and distort the news with rubbish. It is time to tax these foreign invaders.
Comment posted November 16, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
The New York Times is controlled by the same people we are currently bailing out on Wall Street. HMC Investors now controls the largest share of the Times. Who are these mysterious owners shrouded by investment companies. Our own Star Tribune was bought by one of these investment companies. Who are they and do they have an agenda? HMC Investors puts it this way.
“Since we formed our first real estate fund in 1995, we have attracted investors from many sectors, including endowments and foundations, funds of funds, family offices, pension funds, financial institutions, insurance companies and high net worth individuals.”
One of the last vestiges of free speech is being taken over by the faceless corporate entities. Could Democracy be the next loss? Pleasant dreams.
Comment posted November 16, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
CATSLAW #1 It’s always DCI and it’s always Bill Frist.
“Gary Feld, who is a Vice President overseeing DCI Group’s Research Department, joined the company in early 2007.
Prior to coming to DCI Group, Mr. Feld served as Director of Strategic Initiatives in the Office of then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. In the fall of 2006, Mr. Feld briefly left Sen. Frist’s staff to act as Research Director for Bob Corker’s victorious Senate campaign in Tennessee – the only competitive Senate race won by Republicans in 2006. Before working in the Leader’s Office, Mr. Feld was employed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee – first as Director of Statistical Analysis and then as Director of Research. During his tenure with the NRSC, Republicans won six Senate seats, taking control of the chamber in 2002 and, in 2004, defeating a party leader for the first time in half a century.:
Campaign reform now or never people. We are in deep trouble here.
Comment posted November 16, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
“Sources said this latest effort by Frist and Rove is raising money in significant sums, in the tens of millions of dollars, and are putting the funds directly towards media buys in U.S. Senate races that are “too close to call.”
Read the whole story at nashvillecitypaper.com
Comment posted November 17, 2008 @ 10:52 am
And from AP….
The Republican senators targeted by DCI began hearing from prominent constituents and financial contributors, all urging the defeat of Hagel’s bill because it might harm the housing boom. The effort generated newspaper articles and radio and TV appearances by participants against the measure.
Inside Freddie Mac headquarters in 2005, the few dozen people who knew what DCI was doing referred to the initiative as “the stealth lobbying campaign,” three people familiar with the drive said.
They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they fear retaliation if their names are disclosed.
Freddie Mac executive Hollis McLoughlin oversaw DCI’s drive, according to the three people.
“Hollis’s goal was not to have any Freddie Mac fingerprints on this project, and DCI became the hidden hand behind the effort,” one of the three people told the AP.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment