That's right....it's always the "liberal media". You guys sound like parrots most of the time with that squawk.

You also forgot to mention that Powerline and Malkin were also wrong and should post a retraction.

Malkin wrote: "I suspect that no one at the Post or ABC News still believes the amateurish, unsigned, misspelled memo was circulated by Republican Party leaders..... "

Powerline wrote: "there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the memo originated with the Republicans, and considerable reason to think it may be a Democratic dirty trick...."

I think Power Line was right - there was no reason to believe it originated with Republicans. I don't see that needing much of a retraction. And Malkin seems to be merely stating what she suspects is going through the Post's mind. Perhaps her suspicion was wrong, but that doesn't mean she falsely reported something as fact.

Well, bonddad, one could still say that this doesn't represent having the memo "circulated by Republican leaders."

On the other hand, Joshua, there is more than a little dishonesty in taking the line that Martinez was sloppy but the real bad guys here are the libral media. You and Malkin and others worked hard to get us to infer that the memo, if it existed at all, was probably created by a Democrat, intent on maligning the Republicans.

A little less huffing over ABC and little more contrition would be honest. All along, the media you are decrying continued to maintain accurately that their source was unimpeachable and that the memo had been given to the source by a Republican. Which was true. I accept that some of those same media misrepresented the document's trail of tears but not its provenance.

That's outrageous. There was *every* reason to say it came from Republicans! When pressed to divulge their source, ABC declined because they were under zero obligation to do so but said they stood by the story of the document's source.

It's clear you are going into full moral relatiism mode here. It wasn't so bad, just a flesh wound. No reason to apologize, nothing to see here, move on.

I feel I've offered the proper amount of contrition, if that's what it should be called. The Post explicitly stated that the memo was "distributed to Republican senators by party leaders," and that is apparently not true at all. Even if Martinez himself wrote this - which seems unlikely given it's numerous inaccuracies - that's a far cry from a leadership memo. I recommend Power Line's most recent post on the subject.

ABC was wrong then and they are still wrong. That is a fact. All we have now is to add Sen. Martinez's foolishness to the mix as well. Now both deserve criticism.

How about some authority for your statement that they were wrong?

They SAID the document came from a Republican. (TRUE)

They said it was given to the source on the floor of the Senate (TRUE, it would seem)

Between them and the Post's errant web posting about it being passed out amongst Republican leadership, they screwed up here, yes. But recall, that the Post's own site had it right, and it was only the previous feed from them to Reuters et al. that had it wrong.

Do you see how you are being morally relativistic in this?

They said it came from "Republican party leaders." (FALSE)

They said it came from "Republican officials." (FALSE)

They said it was "distributed to Republican senators." (FALSE)

These errors were then distributed to the wire reports, and subsequently used in countless editorials and blog postings. ABC News was also airing criticisms of "Republican Senators" consulting the memo. All of these things are false.

People are STILL trying to cling to the myth that this is somehow a liberal MSM - Democrat conspiracy and it shows in your headline. This should be an article laying out the facts and providing clarity, but the headline ends with a question mark, implying that somehow there is yet another level of mystery to be plumbed, more of the onion to peel.

Why can't anyone just come out and say "Sorry, we were wrong to argue this was the work of Democrat dirty-tricksters"? No, no, that can't be done. Now critics point to the finer points of how the memo was distributed, the plausible deniability factors: "See, it was just and aide of a FRESHMAN Senator! He's too dumb to know what he was doing! He accidentally handed it to a Demicrat! He never even read it! He just had it right there in his pocket for no reason! Some Liberal must have put it there!" Yes, this is how silly all further protests will sound, so please stop now.

Let's keep something else in mind about the senator in question: Martinez is a freshman senator who was secretary of housing and urban development for most of President Bush's first term. He's not some unknown guy who suddenly sprung up from the grassroots, but a GOP veteran and inside player.

This seems to be the truth scorecard, then:

They said the document came from a Republican. (still true)

They said it was given to the source on the floor of the Senate (still true)

They said it came from "Republican party leaders." (true, since Mel Martinez is patently a GOP leader)

They said it came from "Republican officials." (true, unless you're making the rather frivolous argument that because his staffer wrote it, and not Martinez himself, it doesn't count as originating from Martinez. By that standard, of course, almost no legislator has ever actually written any legislation.)

They said it was "distributed to Republican senators." (unknown at this time, but highly likely to be true - you think the guy just made up the memo not to have it distributed?)

Also, keep in mind that it's not just the one memo but that memo in the context of the Schiavo shenanigans and indeed a rather long track record of political opportunism that 'discredit the entire Republican party'. It's one piece in a larger, and rather disgusting, pattern.

If I'm not mistaken, Sen. Martinez is one person, so all of this plural business - Republican party leaders - remains false. Further, I think any sensible person would read those intiial MSM reports and conclude this was a memo originating from multiple, major party leaders. Such is not reality.

On the other hand, I think you'd have to live in a dream world not to admit that politics played some role in the Schiavo affair. Every issue in Washington is based on politics. But it takes a truly stupid person to craft such an inept "memo" and distribute it on the Senate floor.

The objections here overlook an obvious fact: these were not "GOP Talking Points." For starters, you generally stand behind your talking points, as they are the primary ideas you want to present to the media. In this case, the GOP does not stand behind them, and the guy responsible for them is out of a job because of them. So even at its most basic level, the ABC original story is wildly incorrect.

Good lord, are we fighting over the plurals now? Your side alleged a rather radically insidious plot on the part of the Democrats, and you feel that you can just shrug off those earlier allegations with barely a shrug -- but the MSM is beyond the pale because they used a plural noun? And note that at least one key phrase here is "Republican leadership", which is nicely abstract enough to allow for one or more actors.

I'll grant that the memo was ineptly written -- from all evidence it was actually a draft of a memo -- but it does seem to be authentic nonetheless. And it turns out to be false that the memo was meant to be distributed on the Senate floor, but that seems to me a rather trivial matter. Also, for that matter, it's worth noting that the official print version of the WaPo stories nothing anything about the memo with regard to either party leaders or the floor of the senate; are you sure you're not conflating the MSM with what is merely standard-issue blogospheric scandal-inflation?

Finally, you're kidding yourself if you think that the Schiavo case was about anything but political exploitation, where the inside-the-beltway GOP is concerned. It's not like the staffer got fired for writing the memo -- he got fired for letting it get into public circulation.

The WaPo doesn't seem to use the phrase "talking points" at all with regard to the memo; I just haven't seen any of the ABC stuff (it's late so my apologies if I'm missing an obvious link that's available further up on the page). But I agree with Mick: whatever these things were, they weren't talking points.

Good lord, are we fighting over the plurals now?

The difference is rather important, so yes I'll challenge your use of plurals.

Your side alleged a rather radically insidious plot on the part of the Democrats, and you feel that you can just shrug off those earlier allegations with barely a shrug

I think it's unfair to label me shrugging anything. I previously laid out a rather long retraction on my allegations. My retraction was then read live on nationally televised CNN. That's hardly a shrug, and I reject that characterization.

Er, wait, assuming that this is the real thing
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/4/7/0825/82781#readmore
then I have to take back my previous agreement with Mick. (I hadn't seen the whole page before, and I agree that the bits that actually talk about the politics aren't talking points -- but many other parts of it are, indeed, talking points.)

Ack, JC, I'm sorry! All I know about your views & statements are what I see here at ITA, and between the "ABC Talking Points Memo" post and this post, I didn't see much in the way of retraction or apology. So I thought -- mistakenly, it seems! -- that you were just kinda digging in. Perhaps you might give us a link to your retraction statement?

(And I still don't think the plurals thing is worth any fuss.)

Click here.

I'm just sorry I wasted so much time reading articles blaming democrats for setting this whole thing up.

It was a stupid republican. Not a scandal. Nuff said.

There was *every* reason to say it came from Republicans!

Bingo. The only reason it looked "scandalous" was that it showed politicians thinking about politics. But one would have to be terminally naive to think that many of the senators honestly and deeply cared about much more than publicity (they evidently cared so much about her that her name was mispronounced).

The way-over-the-top reaction in the conservative blogosphere really seemed to point to a some Mr. Smith Goes to Washington view of government. This is all the more strange given conservatives' alleged suspicion of government the motives of those governing.

My favorite part of this whole thing has been the way that conservatives once more brandished the slogan "fake but accurate." As if it would defend them, as if two wrongs somehow made only their wrong a right--and made the liberal media's wrong all the more wrong.

Well, I'm glad that's over, anyway.

After reading today's WaPo piece by Mike Allen, I have to say it stinks to high heaven of there being multiple Republicans involved in this, leadership or not. (And I fully agree that to consider former Cabinet member, now Sen. Martinez a mere underling is a dodge.)

"Harkin said in an interview that Martinez handed him the memo on the Senate floor, in hopes of gaining his support for the bill giving federal courts jurisdiction in the Florida case in an effort to restore the brain-damaged Florida woman's feeding tube. "He said these were talking points -- something that we're working on here," Harkin said."

" The document was provided to ABC News on March 18 and to The Post on March 19 and was included in news reports about congressional intervention in the Schiavo case."

At the time, ***other Senate Republican aides claimed to be familiar with the memo*** but declined to discuss it on the record and gave no information about its origin. "

So, it *was* passed between different Republicans aides, it was passed between at least one of these aides and to Republican Sen. Martinez and it was passed by Sen. Martinez to Sen. Harkin. You can moan all you want about the plural being used incorrectly--but as with Rather's own memogate, that the underlying facts of the story indeed point at Republican misbehavior as reported means it is justified to followup on questions of exactly how many *other* Republicans were involved in this.

"Martinez said [in a statement] "Unbeknownst to me, instead of my one page on the bill, I had given him a copy of the now infamous memo that at some point along the way came into my possession," the statement said."

In light of the attempt by you and others to say this was a fake memo ala Dan Rather, it is entirely appropriate to here assume that Martinez is being untruthful about having no idea how he came to have that memo.

Blaming the liberal media for this is a dodge, Joshua, and diminishes you. This is your own Memogate, in reverse.
The "crime" is now less the memo, than the continuing cover-up by you and others. This one isn't going away until the other Republicans involved are outed.

Blaming the liberal media for this is a dodge, Joshua, and diminishes you.

I have never used the phrase "liberal media," either in relation to this story or any other. I don't buy into the line that all media is liberal so don't suggest I do.

Here is my point in short:

Joshua says: "The Post explicitly stated that the memo was "distributed to Republican senators by party leaders," and that is apparently not true at all"

There is now every reason to suggest that the Post's claim is absolutely true and to dig into which other Republican Senators and staffers were involved in this memogate. Just as with proportional fonts and their ilk, this one stinks.

You are correct that you don't use that phrase, and I apologize for the mischaracterization.

I agree that there may in fact be more Republicans involved, but it will take evidence to solidly prove it. The "memo" is horribly inept - it has numerous flaws and looks like it's the work of a high school freshman. I'd be surprised if GOP leadership had anything to do with it.

That seems like a reasonable stance and a good place to leave this until further information comes up.

(btw, I am a Hoosier myself, so that is why I was first drawn to your blog. The quality of the blog is what has kept me here.)

Does "inept but accurate" exonerate anyone these days? I hate to play hardball about this, but the trashing that certain blogs, including this one, gave the mainstream media over this issue was really an overreach.

Far more at fault than ITA though is Powerline; Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings takes them to task here, and rightfully so.

"The Post now believes none of that is true."

Huh??? Source that contention, please? That is certainly not in the Post article you are citing.

I appreciate your having removed the ad hominems that briefly appeared here as written by someone else and also take that as a reminder to moderate my own speech.

"The Post now believes none of that is true."

I spoke with reporters at both the Post and ABC repeatedly over the course of about a week. During that time those organizations went from saying the memo originated from leadership, to saying it came from Republicans, and finally took the position that it was only seen on the Senate floor. The organizations' story evolved and changed over time. They no longer believed the memo came from leadership, which prompted me to write "The Post now believes none of that is true."

The MSM goofed, but more importantly Sen. Martinez goofed. In spite of the error from MSM, I was too hard on MSM which is why I agree with Jason that the trashing of MSM was an overreach.

You really should change the title of this entry to "Mystery Solved!" instead of with a question mark. I know it's so hard to believe that Republicans act and feel this way. Win at any cost. It's more impotant than serving "We the People"!

I hope you will not be offended, Joshua, if I say that invoking private unsourced conversations with "reporters at both the Post and ABC" proves nothing.

When ABC and the Post walk all the way back publicly, that will mean something to me. It remains to be seen whether other Republican Senators ever saw the memo. You believe not, I believe it's likely. I have as much right to accuse Republican Senators of likely having been involved in this without proof as you have assumed in disparaging Senator Reid and others of forging the document for political gain.

(Remember one other little fact--that a second, corrected version of the memo floated to the surface shortly after the first. That alone continues to pique my interest. Some "other" Republicans felt it needed to be cleaned up before it went out?

One other thing:

"During that time those organizations went from saying the memo originated from leadership, to saying it came from Republicans, and finally took the position that it was only seen on the Senate floor."

With unimportant quibbles, I agree with your analysis.

"The organizations' story evolved and changed over time."

Again, apparently true, except that you are invoking private privalege in some of this analysis. Mere citizens go by the public record. I think WaPo's public explanation of the errant version that went out to news services vs. the more cautious version that they went with themselves is plausible, if still ripe for criticism.

" They no longer believed the memo came from leadership, which prompted me to write "The Post now believes none of that is true."

Obviously, you would admit that your claim was hyperbole--only the first of the three contentions has now been claimed false by sourced press accounts.

This really cracks me up and pretty much puts all the "right wing" agenda into a nutshell for me.
You get lied to by a Republican and you stare off into space, if you are even tried to be spun by a Democrat it is a conspiracy.

PBFFFFT

Here's 1 more update; if you'd like a brief summation of the career of the long-term GOP staffer who is taking the fall for writing the memo (long-term meaning things like visiting Elian Gonzalez for the GOP, working the 2000 recount, lobbying for Enron, working as a counsel for Senator Bob Smith) I'd suggest you click through here.

Here's a thought; this guy is obviously a long-term GOP guy who has worked for a couple different Senators and for a lobbying group. If the memo is as inept and poorly done as Josh has alleged, then why the heck is this guy still finding work? He's been hired by 2 GOP senators and still doesn't know how to make certain he puts the correct bill number on his talking points?

Josh:

All your huffing about "this was not 'party leaders'" is just more Gorilla dust from you.

The person in question -- Brian Darling -- was Martinez's Chief of Staff and Brian was part of the Alexander Strategy Group, started by Delay's former Chief of Staff.

No connection to party leaders? Utter B.S.

Plus, every utterance of the Repubs after the memo came out parroted those talking points from teh memo.

Apologies Josh? Not likely.

um, you do realize that Josh Marshall was making fun of right-wing blogs in his mock criticism of the Washington Post?

I think Martinez is a leader within the party, but not a party leader as commonly understood. A party leader would be one who is instrumental in building coalitions, moving legislation, counting votes, representing the party's position to the media, etc. Martinez doesn't currently fit that latter description.

Please pay attention closely--
(1) Republicans say they have nothing to do with the memo. You believe it.
(2) Martinez spokesperson denies having anything to do with the memo despite the fact that parts of it are lifted directly from his website. You believe it.
(3) The Powerline boys, without any factual basis whatsoever, declare the memo a Democratic "dirty trick." You believe it.
(4) Martinez then admits that the memo came from his staff and that he got it "unbeknownst to me" and personally pulled it out of his jacket pocket, never ever having read it, and then hands it over to one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate. You believe it.
(6) The Powerline boys declare that the memo wasn't distributed by Republican leaders or Senators, despite the fact that a Republican Senator admitted to handing it over to Harkin. You believe it.
(7) Martinez did this four or five times during the Republican Senate Primary and the general election. Martinez would be tied to slimy hit-politics and then some "rouge staffer" or an ad company guy or someone else would be "responsible." Its called lying, ladies and gentlemen. You believe it.
(8) You still think it wasn't a crass attempt to capitalize on a family's suffering. I don't believe it.

By the way, Josh Marshall was being sarcastic.

Rob W said it really well. I'll add this.

"I think Power Line was right - there was no reason to believe it originated with Republicans. I don't see that needing much of a retraction."

Hinderaker stated flatly that the memo was fake. Is this something you see as not "needing much of a retraction?"

"Even if Martinez himself wrote this ... that's a far cry from a leadership memo"

All the pretending that Martinez is a nobody ignores the obvious fact that he was the sponsor of this bill. So at least with regard to this bill, it's entirely fair to call him a "party leader." An attempt to claim otherwise is desperate ex post facto hair-splitting.

"I recommend Power Line's most recent post on the subject."

Hinderaker is still making a big deal about the typos, and can't bring himself to even mention the simple and obvious explanation: the three corrections are exactly the errors that Word is able to find. Darling apparently ran the thing through Word but then somehow both versions (pre-correction and post-correction) ended up circulating. Not hard to imagine how he could make a mistake like this, especially given all the other sloppy mistakes he made.

Since you "recommend" the post, I wonder if you care to explain why Hinderaker insists on ignoring a parsimonious explanation, and still insists on looking for a complex, sinister explanation.

I also wonder if you think it's appropriate for Hinderaker to refer to Darling as "an obscure ... staffer," when Martinez himself referred to Darling as "a senior member of my staff." Have we decided that "senior" and "obscure" are interchangeable in this context?

"Joshua Marshall gets it right"

As a couple others here pointed out, I think you are missing his sarcasm.

"I think you'd have to live in a dream world not to admit that politics played some role in the Schiavo affair."

Then I guess DeLay lives in a dream world, since he was aghast: "I don't know where those talking points come from, and I think they're disgusting."