I’m about to go on RTE to debate discuss this with Sam Smyth and Tom McGurk - but that means the bonhomie level will be at redline. So forgive me for venting.

“Irish Independent moves the story forward” said RTE Morning Ireland this morning in its paper review. In the story, the Indo “reveals” that US political consultants are working with Irish political parties.

The headline – “US experts hired to fight the ‘dirtiest’ election ever” – of course implies that US politics is morally inferior to the bland non-politics practiced here. I will close my eyes and think of the West Wing until the rage passes.

He also, laughably, writes that Shrum is one of the most ‘feared’ consultants in American politics. Pat Leahy of the Business Post uses that word a lot in his many, many pieces on the subject before today. Pity they’re both wrong.

Shrum is something of a joke in US politics – at least on my old side of the fence – Shrum being the genius behind the campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry. The only national elections in 20 years where Shrum made an impact were in 1992 and 1996 – when the Democrats actually won.

You might hate Karl Rove, because he got Bush in twice. But Shrum is the guy who made Karl Rove – and Bush – possible.

But what has the Indo “revealed”? Hmmm…

Near as I can figure, the story that Shrum was working with Fianna Fail was first reported in the Washington Post on May 17, 2002. (I have to add links later.) It was picked up by a snippet in Business & Finance five days later, Washington Letter.

Its next mention was a year later on May 25, 2003 in a piece by Pat Leahy in the Sunday Business Post about John Deasy, the Fine Gael TD who cut his political teeth in Washington in the 90s: “Fianna Fail has already made use of the American political consultants Shrum, Devine and Donnelly during the last general election campaign.”

There’s more.

Leahy pretends to scoop himself in reporting November 30, 2003 in the Business Post – “Ahern Calls In Clinton’s Gurus”. Of course, Leahy here gets it spectacularly wrong: “The political consulting firm run by Bob Shrum, Tad Devine and Mike Donilon is one of the most highly regarded and influential in the world. Closely associated with the Clinton presidency, they were influential in both Clinton election campaigns and in Al Gore’s unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 2000.”

Shrum did give some speechwriting digouts to Clinton’s White House, but pointedly DID NOT WORK ON CLINTON’S ELECTION CAMPAIGNS IN 1992 OR 1996 – the only two elections Democrats won in a normal cycle since 1964. Joe Klein notes this in a 2002 piece on Slate.com - though you can understand why Shrum would want to be associated with the only successful Democratic campaigns in 40 years (Carter being a Watergate anomaly).

The Irish Mirror picked up Leahy’s story on December 1, under Vanessa Conneely’s byline.

Pat Leahy again, on February 15, 2004, repeats the error:

“One of Kerry’s key early victories came long before the New Hampshire primary or the Iowa caucus. Last year, he beat his rivals in what’s known in Washington as the “Shrum Primary” - the battle to secure the services of Bob Shrum, the leading Democratic political strategist.

Shrum was a key Clinton-Gore strategist and a genius at winning difficult Senate and House races.

His influence is immense - and he has one client over here, for whom he has worked in recent elections. Crowd by the name of Fianna Fail.”

In a full-page profile of Shrum on March 7, 2004, Leahy sidesteps his earlier error by clarifying that Shrum had no involvement with any actual Democratic presidential victories.

Arthur Beesley picks up the story in The Irish Times, first time for that paper. On March 24, 2004, Beesley reports that Labour accuse the Government of holding the citizenship referendum because polling research says immigration is a big issue:

“The Fianna Fail spokeswoman said: “We carry out research from time to time. This issue has not been highlighted in our research.”

She said she was absolutely certain about that.

While Fianna Fail has been a client of the US consultancy Shrum Devine & Donnelly, the spokeswoman said, the party had not engaged any US consultancy to carry out voter research for it.”

Pat Leahy follows up the story four days later in the Business Post.

December 5, 2004 – Pat Leahy reports that Stan Greenberg is coming to work for Fine Gael. So that’s more than two years ago, Sam Smyth’s story is in place. The US political consultants are such an open secret that I blog about it the following April.

More mentions in the Business Post by Pat Leahy of the Shrum-Fianna Fail relationship in 2004 – July 11, December 5, December 12. April 10, 2005. Alison O’Connor - June 19, 2005.

Sunday Independent – September 11, 2005.

Sunday Tribune – Shane Coleman reports on FG hire of “the ‘DeNiro’ of spin doctors”, September 18, 2005.

Irish Times – January 30, 2006 and again on September 30.

The Irish Independent – November 4, 2006 – “Lessons from the US on Dirty Campaigns”.

The Sunday Tribune. December 10, 2006, mentioned in Shane Coleman’s piece about the previous Sunday’s appearance by Frank Luntz on RTE Week in Politics.

So after 19 mentions in the Irish media going back to 2002 – Business & Finance, the Sunday Business Post, the Irish Mirror, The Irish Times, The Sunday Tribune, the Sunday Independent and even the Irish Independent, it’s revealed. I won’t even get into how many of the other stories use the word “reveal” – when in fact the media outlet that did the “revealing” is in fact the Washington Post.

Bottom line. The involvement of American political consultants in Irish politics is not news. It has been reported for the past five years.

So why would news outlets keep reporting this as if it’s new, over and over again? One, it’s easy. It’s entertainment for political junkies like me and fans of the West Wing. I’m a sucker. I love this stuff. But it’s also something else – a total distraction from the actual issues at hand.

Harry McGee writes about a Fine Gael ad attacking McDowell’s record on crime. The ad cites 24 hours later, what are we talking about? American political consultants and negative advertising.

As I wrote yesterday, lumping in a simple issue ad with Willie Horton under the headline “negative campaigning” or “negative advertising” is a not-too-subtle way to say that anyone who offers a substantive critique is mean-spirited and possibly racist. It’s nonsense, it insults the voters and it serves the agenda of those in power.

Not that I can talk. We the media are the handmaidens of power, whether we like it or not, whether we know it or not. Anybody telling you different is selling something.

I’m not picking up a pitchfork to bring it all down. Most of the time I don’t even mind. But let’s not pretend it’s anything else.

Fine Gael was outspent 8 to 1 in the last election – at least in the last three weeks of it, the official campaign period. Enda Kenny said it wants to double its expenditure to 3 million this time, which still won’t put FG within striking distance in the money race. So, back to the subject. In order to compete against at least a 4-to-1 disadvantage in money, they’ll have to make that money work four times as hard. Which means strong contrasts with the incumbents. Which means that they have to go ‘negative’. Which means that attacks on ‘negative campaigning’ inherently work for those in power and those with a money advantage.

Just remember that the next time you read about “revelations” about “negative campaigning”.