Are you disputing the data or the conclusions? (Or just reacting the data and conclusions?) What in particular is shit about it?
EDIT: All right, I need to edit my response in response to the edit of your response.
A "smear" piece? I don't think so. What they write about matches closely with my experience. My father is a conservative and probably one of the smartest persons you'll ever meet. And yet, last time I met him we were in a room with all of his friends, all conservatives, and I was treated to such nuggets as: "There is not one thing that Obama accomplished these last 8 years" (lots of agreement to that in the room). My father saying "I couldn't vote for Hillary, she's dishonest." (Oh. My. God.) And later in a discussion of gun control he's citing Chicago as an example of how gun control has the opposite effect. It took me 5 minutes of reading up on the Chicago problem to be able to articulate the problem with Chicago, and I was accused of just reading liberal propaganda, to which I needed to respond that I had read a variety of sources, because to find the truth you need to look at all sides and examine all data. This fell on deaf ears -- the argument did not fit with his preconceived notions and he was unwilling to consider other data. Nope, just look at Chicago. Gun control is bad. (This is also a guy who has never owned a gun or experienced anything about guns.)
Did I mention he is one of the smartest guys I know? His conservatism makes him stupid, and I find it very sad. This article goes into detail about where this kind of mindset comes from. And yes, it backs it with DATA. It claims that conservatives will ignore this data. So if you want to just sit there and say it's a smear campaign against conservatives and ignore the data, you're fitting pretty well into the very picture they're painting. Maybe it's a trap?