Comments on: Kurtz wades in

By: jukeboxgrad

jukeboxgrad — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:06:15 +0000

"getting ... multiple responses out of a man who's home sick"

You must be kidding. I guess you're under the impression someone held a gun to his head and insisted he answer them right away, even though his keyboard was covered with the blood he was coughing up. Since when is it someone else's problem that John Hinderaker has a cold and decides to answer his email anyway? I see you're quite impressed by the excuses he's making for himself.

"perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why I'm wrong"

I already did, here and here.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why it is that apparently no one around these parts spoke up to let Hinderaker know his own lying eyes were making a fool of him, especially given I explained all this in a post on this blog on 3/28, two days before he was finally brought to his senses via other means.

It's a mystery to me that Hinderaker would think he could get away with saying something so obviously wrong. It's an even bigger mystery to me that he did get away with it, for quite some time. The exact same crowd that pontificated endlessly on superscripts and kerning couldn't be bothered to actually read the very first word of the memo about which Hinderaker (and his Power Line pals) wrote twelve articles.

I guess the point must that when you have leaders like Hinderaker, there's really no need to think for yourself.

By: Fat Steve's Blatherings

Fat Steve's Blatherings — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:24:20 +0000

Scoop!: Solving the

World Exclusive Story! Must credit Fat Steve’s Blatherings! (Gee, I liked writing that).
On March 18th, ABC’s World News Tonite ran a story about a purported memo ‘circulated among Republican Senators’ concerning the then pending Schiavo bill. . ….

By: Mick Wright

Mick Wright — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:32:33 +0000

Balta, the referenced Powerline post is “Confusion and its Sources.”
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php#010019
Jukeboxgrad, congrats on a minor victory in pointing out a minor error, and getting what appears to have been multiple responses out of a man who’s home sick, but exactly how was the article “based on” it? I don’t think the exact number of errors fixed in the 2nd draft was of the utmost importance, but perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why I’m wrong.

By: Balta

Balta — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:44:55 +0000

Josh, um, maybe I’m doing something wrong here, but the link you gave doesn’t actually go to any real post at Powerline. When I clicked on the link, it took me to their main page. When I looked through the addresses of their permalinks, I found a #010020, 19, 17, 16, but no 010018. Did the post disappear?

By: tb

tb — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:09:30 +0000

Seems like much ado about nothing to me. Scanning Malkins article seems pretty certain this was circulated amongst Repubs, not Dems. In any case the gambit failed on the Schaivo bill and not because of any memo. They simply overstepped the law in an unfortunate case. The Republicans are pandering to the far Right base on this issue. It is definitely a cheap way to give them some face time. Its not terribly damaging to the president unless he pushes (which he simply won’t). The unfortunate side effect of course is that it helps give credence to the armed side of the right wing brigade. It will be sad when someone involved is murdered after Terri dies. If that happens the president and the right will suffer politically. The Right needs to mend its ways when playing politics with our homegrown terrorists.

By: Joshua Claybourn

Joshua Claybourn — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:48:44 +0000

And Hinderaker responds here.

By: jukeboxgrad

jukeboxgrad — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:41:18 +0000

Joshua, what you call "the best summary of events" (Hinderaker's WS article) is based on a distinct and obvious error, which I pointed out elsewhere on your blog a couple of days ago.

In the interest of minimizing cross-posting, please see my comments here, here and here.

By: CJ

CJ — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:14:15 +0000

Gary
Looks like the democrats learned something from raTHergate. Not to sign the “memo”

By: Gary Johnston

Gary Johnston — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:58:34 +0000

Well, that’s fair. I guess I’m skeptical because CBS’s scandal actually deserved the “gate” – the forger used a dead man’s identity in documents that implicated the president in a crime, and CBS didn’t check with people who could have verified whether the dead man wrote the memo. This memo was always anonymous – the same issues don’t apply.

By: Terry J. Record

Terry J. Record — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:32:36 +0000

I understand the arguments against prolonging Ms. Schaivo's life, however this has to be the most tasteless piece of "political commentary" I've ever seen.