Comments on: Moving Targets

By: Repack Rider

Repack Rider — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:04:47 +0000

The forces of good never sleep

In that case, they must be on a heckuva five year vacation.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 04:04:08 +0000

Apparently, someone on the right is working weekends

Spokesman Denies Rice Leaked Defense Info

Hat tip to AmericansForRice

The forces of good never sleep

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:04:56 +0000

FC: I thought it was interesting that the whole allegation was written so definitively, and then followed by “the lobbyist’s lawyer said Friday.”
And then
“Prosecutors disputed the claim.”
Now, it seems to me that there is no journalistic or stylistic reason the sentence couldn’t have begun, “An (or The) attorney for ______ said.”
About 10 sentences down: “Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin DiGregory also disputed Lowell’s claim, saying, ‘She never gave national defense information to Mr. Rosen.’”
Perhaps there was another reason?
I think the Headline should have been, “Attorney Lies About Sec’y Rice”.
That’s what the headline will be at CondiPundit tomorrow.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say Oliver wrote that story.
The story was dated Apr 22, 12:59 AM, about 20 hours ago.
What sort of comments from the right were you expecting?
When will you live up to your name?

By: Bill L.

Bill L. — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 02:04:12 +0000

Frank, Hewitt doesn’t have to write about Domenech, and Oliver never said he did. The point was that Hewitt seems to be running holding to a double standard where journalistic integrity is concerned. Most “lefties” already think Hewitt is a complete dolt, so I’m not sure how his not writing extensively on Ben Domenech’s ethical issues is a surprise to anyone. That aside, Oliver is free to call Hewitt on it, even if it isn’t stunningly newsworthy.

By: factcheck

factcheck — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:04:15 +0000

Strangely, I didn't find anything on the leading con blogs about Condi Rice http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/21/AR2006042101648_pf.html Lawyer: Rice Allegedly Leaked Defense Info I guess if all you read are RW sources, you miss things like this. Still, the RW echo chamber is silent. Why?

By: Bill L.

Bill L. — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 19:04:40 +0000

How does pointing out liberal misdeeds, either real or imaginary, current, or from years long past, have any bearing on Hugh Hewitt’s not-so-curious silence on Ben Domenech? Is the argument that since McKinney might be an egocentric horse’s ass with a hair trigger then OW can’t conceivably post about Hewitt’s questionable moral compass? Is the point that any Dem wrongdoing, no matter how unrelated to the topic at hand, must be brought to light to provide “balance” to any criticism of the Right? Is the idea here that McKinney’s dubious personal behavior is equivalent to Tom Delay’s ethic’s violations and trampling of Texas campaign finance laws? Could someone please provide an example of a conservative blog that hews to this standard so we can all see that opinions aren’t valid and facts aren’t facts until someone says something bad about Clinton.

Really, what is the point?

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 17:04:39 +0000

McKinney and McKinney. And Steele. Do the letters F.O. mean anything to you?

By: pgg2

pgg2 — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:04:36 +0000

Actually I ve written about McKinney, the access of Steele s tax returns...

http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php?s=McKinney+%2B+assault http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php?s=Steele+%2B+tax http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php?s=Steele+%2B+credit Liar.

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:04:55 +0000

Actually I've written about McKinney, the access of Steele's tax returns and William Jefferson. I certainly don't write about made-up controversies and made-up scandals about President Clinton, however. And there's nothing at MM about "bias". But I wouldn't expect y'all to keep up with the facts.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:04:21 +0000

If I might add, Mr. Hewitt is not obliged to write about the people you think he should write about, nor he is required to do so with the same verbosity and ferocity, as, say, you (I seem to remember you devoted an inordinate amount of space and energy [and I am being extraordinarily diplomatic] to the misadventures of Mr. Domenech).
But, then again, this is a tactic used to good effect at MM to indicate “bias”, i.e., not writing enough, or passionately enough, about an issue, is said to be an indicator that the news source is biased in favor of that issue — but, of course, that obtains only when conservatives / Republicans do it.

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:04:04 +0000

Mollohan? He still hasn’t posted anything about William Jefferson (D-LA).

Let’s give Ollie a break though. It’s not easy keeping track of the Democratic Culture of Corruption. There’s just too much to document!

By: Jay C

Jay C — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:04:00 +0000

Yes, that must be why I’m always calling out the Dems.

Do you have another blog? Really. I’m looking forward to your series of Alan Mollohan entries.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:04:55 +0000

“Yes, that must be why I m always calling out the Dems.”

Right. You call out Dems from the left. Sauce for Mr Hewitt, Sauce for Mr OW.

Dugger, Then cowboy better change your ways or with us you will ride,
Trying to catch the devil’s herd across the endless skies.

By: pgg2

pgg2 — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 04:04:58 +0000

So tell us Oliver…

How do you feel about Cynthia McKinney assualting a Capitol police officer?

You’ve been silent on that – why?

What about one of Chuck Schumer’s staffers who illegally obtained a credit report on one of your favorite targets, Michael Steele?

Another story you won’t touch – care to explain?

How come when you lump Scooter Libby and Tom DeLay in as wastes of human flesh, or shit-stains of human beings, or whatever ad hominem attack suits you in that moment, you leave out your god on Earth, Slick Willie, and his cabinet secretary Henry Cisneros, who pled guilty to the same charge for which Scooter’s under indictment?

Because they only lied about sex under oath?

See, what I notice when you point out that Hugh Hewitt wrote just one sentence about a conservative who stepped on his own weenie, is that Hugh Hewitt is just one sentence more fair than you are.

Again, transparent and full of crap – Oliver Willis, ladies and gentlemen! Give him a big hand!

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 04:04:30 +0000

It’s getting harder and harder to paint Republicans/Conservatives with that broad brush that you’re known for using, isn’t it?

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 01:04:08 +0000

Yes, that must be why I’m always calling out the Dems.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 01:04:00 +0000

Gee, is it really hard to figure out. I’ll take a wild stab. He’s conservative. Just as you studiously avoid topics damaging to liberals, conervative bloggers might do the reverse.

Dugger

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 22:04:21 +0000

Did anyone check the kerning?