Oh my goodness Tommy..take your meds and chill out. Bottom line is that your butt-buddy got outed by a fellow dem. That’s what gets your panties all knotted up? Nothing brings more joy than watching you libtards devour each other over petty jealousy. Get in your little circle..ready..aim…

Tommy, is it fair to say journalists (as a group) tend to relish, covet and support “leaks” under the guise of” the publics right to know” until it embarasses one of their own?

And to answer the headline “Who screwed Dave Weigel” I’d say it’s pretty obvious he screwed himself.

Tommy are you outing yourself as a secret member of JournoList?

“Ialso took a look at the excerpted emails that caused all the fuss, and I can’t find anything there that diverges significantly from things I have heard said in private by other journalists…”

Let’s see Weigel emailed the Journolist group that it was “vital” to make it appear that Coakley lost to Scott Brown because she was a bad candidate, and not about Obamacare or the Democrats.

This appears to show that Liberal reporters were using Journolist to co-ordinate “talking points” and spin on behalf of a Liberal, not Libertarian, agenda.

“And to answer the headline “Who screwed Dave Weigel” I’d say it’s pretty obvious he screwed himself.”

I agree.

If you are covering a group you don’t attack them. Why didn’t Washington Post hire a conservative to cover Obama and the Liberals?

Gosh, a leak from the liberal journolist took down Weigel — kind of him screwing himself, imho.

Tommy, where is your outrage on the RS article. The Pentagon is stating that McChrystal team claimed the comments were “off the record”. I would think you might be equally pissed off that the RS reporter violated the “journalistic ethics” associated with an “off the record” conversation.

T.C.
I am reading your take on this story… mouth agape. Everybody knows…or should know that NOTHING is secret online. Nothing. You can’t be that naive. From what I have read there were hundreds of people involved in Journolist. People who make a living from leaks of all sorts. How in the world could you believe anything there would be kept secret? Was it some secret society where you had special handshakes and coded words when you met in public?
What strikes me most is your utter disdain for the leaker. You folks gleefully post and write about private emails from all sorts of people….from entertainers to politicians and you think it’s ok because they are public people and nothing is really private. Well guess what, T.C. …you are also a public person and so is everyone in the press. The same rules apply to you guys.
I have often wondered what would happen if a celeb with very deep pockets came after members of the press in the same manner in which some go after them….hiring their own photographers and reporters…. peaking in your windows….investigating your most private moments. Your reaction…and the reaction of some of your peers to the Weigel kerfuffle gives me a clue as to how you guys would handle this invasion.

“Dave Weigel is guilty of being fair to the right. I’ve noted it several times here, and Keith Olbermann underscored the point on last night’s Countdown.”

HAHAHAHAHAA…oh yeah Keith Olbermann is who every Conservative agrees with on what Conservatism is about.

Hey Tommy, would you like some cheese to go with that whine!!? Can you honestly tell me that if this were Glenn Beck who got caught with his pants down and lost his job, that you wouldn’t be dancing in the steet with your bong right now?

Tommy were YOU part of the 400 in Journolist?

That would be an interesting reply – yes or no?

Isn’t the moral of the story that reporters (or at least sizable minority of them) are completely untrustworthy? Compare this with the McChrystal story this week. It’s starting to look like the Rolling Stone reporter lied to the General and his staff about the rules of engagement (i.e., what was on the record/deep background/off the record, etc.) and then the Rolling Stone “fact checkers” failed to “fact check” the most explosive parts of the story before it was published. That is fine in the sense that McChrsytal didn’t deny what was said, but the problem is that when it first broke the Rolling Stone people said they had fact-checked the juicy stuff. It made it look like McChrystal was being brazen in his criticism when, in reality, he was hoodwinked and lied.

For the record, I’m not saying McChrystal didn’t get what he deserved (in fact, Obama handled the whole thing perfectly), but I am saying that there were two stories this week that send the same message: never trust a reporter.

Welcome back finch, you make a very good point ” two stories this week that send the same message: never trust a reporter.”

That would appear to be the lesson here, none of them can be trusted.

“Who Screwed Dave Weigel?”

It was me, I was the one who sent the quotes to Fishbowl DC. I can’t give you my real name, but it is well-known. Hint: I am a columnist for the New York Times.

Anything, ANYTHING you write online, in email, on a blog, even in usenet under an alias, can be assumed to be public knowledge at some point. That’s why, as a news journalist, you keep your political opinion to yourself. Be pissed off all you like, Tommy, but Weigel’s own lack of professional ethics is what screwed him.

Let me ask you this, knowing what you know about Weigel and his lack of objectivity, do you think it would be proper for the Post to have kept him on? Do you believe it’s possible for Weigel to objectively report on a group he so obviously loathed? Would you be so incredulous if say, a reporter covering the congressional black caucus was outed as an Idaho neo-Nazi?

Finch is back? Finch is back! Welcome back AnonymousFinch. We’ve tried to clean up the joint a bit in hopes of the return of the prodigal son. Hope you stick around.

TC, no one screwed Weigel anymore than anyone else is the media would screw someone else with a leaked email. In your industry you rely on information like this – it would be published in a heartbeat by any reporter if Weigel was a Senator or an athlete or a celebrity. Fact is blogs have made members of the media part of the action as well…hell, you work for a site with “Media” in the title. Weigel was fair game and he should have realized there is no special rules that put him ahead of anyone he covers.

And WaPo was right to fire him (accept his resignation, whatever). How could anyone read his beat reports and not think of his known biases? Although most realize that the reporters they read have the same opinion as Weigel, its nice to at least keep the allusion of fair reporting. He can successfully write as an opinion writer now, but he’s lost his fair standing as a reporter.

Weigel screwed himself

Weasels of a feather whining together.

I don’t know who released the emails and maybe it’s pure happenstance that Tucker Carlson’s site posted them within a couple of weeks of him getting rejected.

Of course, it could’ve been one of his friends or maybe somebody who knew that he had been rejected, but in the whole scheme of things, the loss of a mailing list between reporters isn’t really the most important thing and in the cutthroat competition of a downsizing media, one shouldn’t be surprised that a tool was used.

a loss for conservatives??? you are a liar…. Weigel is and was a liberal…. read the friggin posts you idiot…

and if you are really are almost brain dead….

the greatest evidence that Weigel was a liberal left wing dolt is the fact that he was a valued member of your friggin left wing liberal Jounolist.

Do you really believe that some college coed found information on Sarah Palin in the dumpster?

Tommy, my question to you is: How difficult was it to keep a straight face while writing this piece? And you mean to sit there and tell us that you can’t find a single whiff of evidence of bias or collusion in those emails? Seriously? ARE YOU FUCKING HIGH?

The problem is not the mole who outed Weigel and Journolist. The problem is that anything like this listserv EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. And the fact that you seem far more concerned with the former speaks volumes. If you can’t see any problem with that, you may want to step back and seriously consider what business you have calling yourself a journalist.

Tommy I agree with much of what you said (I have said much worse things about Buchanan on public posts on my blog). As a member of two conservative blogger/ journalist lists similar to JournoList I can tell you that the members of each list has a strict understanding of “omerta,” what’s said on the list stays on the list. So who ever outed him not only broke the trust of Weigel, but of the entire list and it is the “leaker” who should be outed.

Journalists are quick to take advantage of leaks and snoop around for stories hidden from view. But when someone does it to them, they scream and rant in a manner so hypocritical that it almost beggars belief. Face it, Weigel made some very stupid comments, but if he thought he could post them on a Internet forum and have them stay secret, he was even stupider. He has only himself to blame.

Who screwed Dave Weigel? Dave Weigel

That’s the question I’ve been stewing over all day. Who is the gutless piece of crap who leaked Dave Weigel’s Journolist emails to FishbowlDC and The Daily Caller? While I don’t know that person’s identity, I have a feeling it was someone a good deal less talented, and a great deal less honest, than Weigel.”

Tommy, why didn’t you cry over the Rollingstone article, you hypocrite!

Weigel was a jerk-and yes the equal of Oberman-

When is a “journalist”‘s thoughts private?. Most of these whores sell themselves out to every media John with a $- MSNBC-Daiily Kos-Huffington Post-Washington Post- who exactly do they work for? Why does WP allow all their reporters to go on MSNBC and delude their paper news. Is this one of reasons newspapers are going downhill?

Weigel was a smug jerk-now he is a gone jerk-probably to return in some other life-but still a smug jerk-

The Washington Post or any other credible news organization simply cannot – can not – have a reporter covering people or a beat where it’s revealed that he has absolute contempt for some of those individuals. They can’t.

Once these private comments were revealed, the ability of Weigel to continue to cover the conservative movement was ended. Not only does it – fairly or unfairly – raise the question of his objectivity, it completely destroys whatever bridges he built to the conservative/right. No resonsible conservative is going to “work with” Weigel after these revelations. They just aren’t. Again, fairly or not.

From my readings of Weigel’s coverage, he came across as quite fair if not a bit too often willing to grab hold of some rightwing nut and amplify their nuttiness. Let’s face it, both sides have their extreme elements and it’s quite easy to grab one of them and say, “See? This is who they are!”.

Anyway, Weigel really has no one to blame for this but himself.

I’m outraged. How dare a blogger have an opinion contrary to the Tea Party mission.

This goes against the Pravda mandate.

I’m going to wade back in here for a moment to make a few points.

1) The Post’s coverage of the firing says that the emails predate his time at their paper. I don’t know how that coincides with the list being “leakier than a summer camper with his hand in a bowl of warm water”, but if the date thing is true, they were certainly before he had obtained such a high-profile position.

2) As a commenter wisely said to another blog yesterday; “A secret can be shared by one. A secret known to 400 is common knowledge.” So this whole nonsense about “private emails” really should end.

3) And though it’s beside the point, I’ve personally found a bit of amusement that this mailing list had 400 members, which reminds me of Halperin’s old “Gang of 500″ whom he claimed to mine for his public posts at “The Note”.

4) The whole mailing list shows a blogger/networking/incestuous mentality and though I won’t fault the Klein kid for starting it, it really didn’t need to exist and based on his own rationality, it clearly put its members at a competitive advantage.

5) Weigel shouldn’t have quit. I don’t know about the rest, but that was a mistake.

pirate1303 says:
June 26, 2010 at 1:51 pm pirate1303 (Quote)

Weigel was a jerk-and yes the equal of Oberman-

When is a “journalist”’s thoughts private?. Most of these whores sell themselves out to every media John with a $- MSNBC-Daiily Kos-Huffington Post-Washington Post- who exactly do they work for? Why does WP allow all their reporters to go on MSNBC and delude their paper news. Is this one of reasons newspapers are going downhill?

Weigel was a smug jerk-now he is a gone jerk-probably to return in some other life-but still a smug jerk-
===============================

I think pirate ^ screwed him–
I just had a psychic vision(“;*)

Stick a fork in it…
Build a bridge…
Dead horse , stop..
Take a chill pill..

No journalist should be allowed to have an opinion or share his thoughts with friends.

In fact, I think we should just set up cameras in the homes of every liberal and conservative blogger and journalist.

This is really the best way that we can keep track of them. We also might want to look into some kind of technology to monitor their thoughts.

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?… The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

- George Orwell, 1984

“Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death.”

- George Orwell

Journalists can express their opinions whenever they want. But if the opinions of the people they cover is so harsh and indicative of contempt, the ability of those reporters to cover them is compromised.

If you wish for the deaths of the people you cover or hold them in such low regard, dont’ be surprised if, y’know, they don’t answer your phone calls.

@SteveMG: But if he doesn’t like Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge or Newt Gingrich and if he doesn’t think they add to the conversation, then why would he call them? Not to mention the obvious question, as to why those four individuals are assumed to represent the whole of the conservative movement.

But if he doesn’t like Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge or Newt Gingrich and if he doesn’t think they add to the conversation, then why would he call them?

Because those are the people (among others) he is assigned to cover. Rightly or not, they are figures in the conservative/right movement. We can debate how much influence they have and whether it’s “good” that they do. But no one can deny they aren’t influential figures on the right.

Anyway, it’s not what he thinks about them. It’s about what conservatives think about them.

The question is, after these revelations, will they answer his calls? Answer: nope. He’s burned alot of bridges/contacts/connections with the conservative movement when these were published.

No one is going to respond to a reporter that holds them in such contempt. Conservatives, liberals, baseball players, golfers, clog dancers, pet owners, whatever the beat. If the people you’re covering think you’re not going to be fair or that he thinks you’re pond scum, they simply are not going to “work” with you. Understandably so.

Jeffrey Dunetz said:
…I can tell you that the members of each list has a strict understanding of “omerta,” what’s said on the list stays on the list.

What a steaming pile. How often have we read some journalist gleefully quoting an anonymous source who’s betraying the trust of his or her employer? How often do investigative journalists depend on snitches? To see the author of this column whine and bitch about stuff that journalists do to other people without batting an eye is hilarious!

But no one can deny they aren’t influential figures on the right.

No one can deny that they are.

Trapped by my own double negative.

“The public’s right to know” – isn’t that the press’s mantra? Doesn’t matter how private the deed is. Doesn’t matter if it is not related to public behavior. I say it is time we saw the private behavior of public scolds revealed, and the devil take the hindmost.

T.C.
OK..I went back and reread your piece….and this stands out….it is bothersome….you say…

“This mysterious leaker, whoever he is, had better hope that a whole lot of people are better than he is at keeping a secret.”

That almost sounds like a threat. Journalists, for the most part, are protected against prosecution for not revealing sources and yet when it is “you” who suffers the leak, you feel that threats are the way to go?
It is truly troublesome….it is even more so because you don’t seem to get it.

@SteveMG: So as a liberal, I’m not allowed to crack wise about Dennis Kucinich and my comments disparaging the influence of Daily Kos, Code Pink and other fringe groups not only make me less of a liberal, but it means that anything I post to my political blog or about politics to any other site should be dismissed?

And back in ’08, because I self-identify as a liberal/progressive/new age libertarian, everything that I wrote offering advice to McCain or defending the Alaska earmarks weren’t worth spit?

I don’t think the list should’ve existed and I don’t think the fellow should’ve quit. I really didn’t read him enough to declare him any kind of favorite, but from the comments on this board about Olbermann’s guest list, I understood it to be fairly well-known, where Weigel’s politics lie.

So as a liberal, I’m not allowed to crack wise about Dennis Kucinich and my comments disparaging the influence of Daily Kos, Code Pink and other fringe groups not only make me less of a liberal, but it means that anything I post to my political blog or about politics to any other site should be dismissed?

This is about a reporter and his beat not a private citizen making critical remarks.

If you’re covering people/groups for a news organization and it’s publicly revealed that you loathe them, don’t be surprised if you get shut out of information from them. That may be unfair but it’s reality.

Which means, for that news organization, you’re basically worthless. They need to assign you to another beat.

SteveMG,

Dave was not ever an A-1 hard news reporter for the Washington Post.

He was mostly read online at his blog. He is allowed to have an opinion, the same way David Brooks is allowed to have his.

“What a steaming pile. How often have we read some journalist gleefully quoting an anonymous source who’s betraying the trust of his or her employer? How often do investigative journalists depend on snitches? To see the author of this column whine and bitch about stuff that journalists do to other people without batting an eye is hilarious!”

Dear lanquiche. Please join us here in 2010.

NY Times, LA Times and USA Today have all banned anonymous source reporting.

Can’t say the same for “World Net Daily.”

Dave was not ever an A-1 hard news reporter for the Washington Post.

He was hired to cover and report on the conservative movement. That’s what his blog was about. Sure, it was a subjective enterprise and he was allowed to give his interpretation and analysis of the conservative movement and figures. No one (I think) expected him to be a straight down the middle reporter. The job entailed analysis and judgment.

Fine.

But once it was revealed that he had some, let’s say, rather harsh things to say about the people he was covering, his ability to report on that movement was compromised. Calling people you cover “ratfu*****” and hoping that they died (even if made in jest) simply isn’t the way to develop a relationship.

He compromised himself with those comments.

Dave also took shots at Democrats often. He was hardly a liberal.

First and foremost, he was a very good writer. He called it as he saw it, both in his private life and on his blog.

Why can’t a reporter, or a doctor, or a pilot or a gas station cashier call a Democrat or a Republican a “ratfucker” in a private email?

Who cares!

I don’t care if Gretta Van Sustren calls Pelosi a cunt in an email to her Mom, or in an email to her boss at Fox.

I really don’t.

Had this been her, an example of a “balanced” reporter according to Murdoch, there would be no outrage.

Zero.

You conservatives really are crybabies.

Just the truth.

@shootfromthehip: Right. My understanding is that Weigel may have been a reporter at previous publications, but that he moved into oinion at Reason and he was a blogger at the Washington Post. Now if you read today’s Kurtz and/or the Ombudsman column, you’ll find that there may have been some confusion as to the role of blogger’s at that paper, but it looks to me that he served opinion-based based reporting.

@SteveMG: Perhaps a blogger at a respected newspaper should be held to a somewhat higher standard, but though Tommy (and others) may want to argue, but to me a blogger is a blogger.

Uh… missing letters and an errant apostrophe, which I would fix, if I could.

But I agree with you that he did compromise himself via emailing the comments in a semi-public forum.

And evidently Dave did as well, because he quit.

Why can’t a reporter, or a doctor, or a pilot or a gas station cashier call a Democrat or a Republican a “ratfucker” in a private email?

Who says they can’t?

Just don’t be surprised if the reporter doesn’t get his or her phone calls answered when he needs a quote or is reporting on them. You think a Drudge or a Limbaugh et al. will answer Weigel’s calls?

If you spit on the people you’re covering, they’ll spit back at you.

PS) SteveMG: OK, if you’d like to take it from the personal…

Alex Pareene was the editor at Wonkette for a long while, then he moved to become the political blogger on Gawker and now he’s at Salon. I like Pareene and I mean nothing against his work, but he’s one of the higher-profile bloggers who hasn’t worked a newspaper or television site.

Throughout his career, he has taken swipes at people on both sides of the aisle, perhaps a few more at conservatives and Republicans, but he’s been fairly liberal toward expressing his opinion about pretty much everyone and often with colorful language. I’m sure after all these years, there are still those who will return his phone calls and he’s often cited on other blogs, though again, he’s taken swings across the political spectrum and most people know what they’re going to get.

Perhaps the Post would’ve have needed to change the blog description if Weigel hadn’t have resigned, but way up top, Tommy rhetorically asked if anyone would defend Pat Buchanan as a leader and thus far, you have come the closest. And though the link has now timed-out so I won’t offer it, but back around December, there were quotes coming from Tea Party-affiliated Republican candidates which spoke poorly of Mr. Gingrich’s contribution… were those candidates non-conservative or somehow less Republican?

Nothing amazes me more than the conservative attitude that only conservatives are allowed to comment or criticize on ANYONE or ANYTHING, there is a BIZARRO WORLD belief that only conservatives are allowed to comment on liberals and conservatives and that no one else is to be tolerated or allowed.

BTW: for those of you who claim that anything other than a private conservative posting site is to be DESTROYED AND NOT ALLOWED….well thats a IF YOU DARE TO HAVE OTHER THAN APPROVED CONSERVATIVE POVs YOU WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW ideal that has no place in America, but you ONLY MY THOUGHTS ARE VALID CROWD do not see that do you?

Or if I may take it in another direction…

One of this blog’s stated missions is to cover the news media. In the course of expressing their opinions, they have taken some pretty solid shots at all three cable news networks; Should no one return their calls?

there were quotes coming from Tea Party-affiliated Republican candidates which spoke poorly of Mr. Gingrich’s contribution… were those candidates non-conservative or somehow less Republican?

Sorry, I don’t get the question at all. We’re a long way from the Weigle controversy.

There are all kinds of splits and divisions on both the left and right where people accuse others of apostasy or not being sufficiently conservative or liberal or libertarian. I’m not the keeper of the conservative or liberal or libertarian tablets and think the whole discussion as to who is purer or more faithful to the ideology almost entirely silly.

Second, I’ve never “defended” Buchanan as a leader on the political right. I just stated a fact. He’s a figure on the right obviously. But his influence on the conservative/right is minimal to non-existent. He was against the Iraq War and is a strong critic of Israel. Those two views alone make him a marginal figure on much of the right.

My own view is that Buchanan is a crank and has no ideas worthy of consideration.

they have taken some pretty solid shots at all three cable news networks; Should no one return their calls?

If one of the writers here calls, let’s say, Anderson Cooper, a “ratfuc***” and hopes he dies, yeah, Cooper isn’t going to return the call.

Would you?

@SteveMG: Whether or not Mr. Cooper would choose to return this site’s calls would certainly be his prerogative, but would it mean that whomever called him the name would have to resign?

And let’s say that Mr. Weigel had made a disparaging comment about a liberal politician — we don’t know because those weren’t released — but let’s say that sometime in the past, he emailed a Ted Kennedy joke; Would that be acceptable because his blog was labeled “conservative” and Sen Kennedy was decidedly, not?

@shootfromthehip: As I said in one of my previous comments, I don’t think he should’ve resigned and perhaps at any other publication, his resignation wouldn’t have been accepted. But because of this controversy and his relationship with the Olbermann show, I’m sure the fellow will land on his feet and wherever he goes, they’ll probably enjoy a spike in traffic for at least the near term.

Thomas G Williams said:
Nothing amazes me more than the conservative attitude that only conservatives are allowed to comment or criticize on ANYONE or ANYTHING…

Wow, what a dumb ass. People like Maddow and Olbermann dump on conservatives, and conservatives think that they’re douchebags. People like Beck and Hannity dump on liberals, and liberals think that they’re douchebags. Where the hell are you coming from?

Whether or not Mr. Cooper would choose to return this site’s calls would certainly be his prerogative, but would it mean that whomever called him the name would have to resign?

Let’s face it: He wouldn’t return your calls. Nor should he. And your ability to cover CNN and Cooper would be severely damaged.

And you’d have to resign because calling people such names is completely unprofessional and just cannot be tolerated at a major business. This isn’t just about Weigel; this is about the Washington Post as a credible and professional news organization.

He’s a 28-year old adult calling people “ratfu***” and hoping they die? What is this, lunch time at a junior high school?

@SteveMG: But again, though not specifically mentioning the rat-thing, the Kurtz piece says that Mr. Weigel assures them that the emails pre-date his hiring by the Washington Post, so are we to assume that if anyone ever wants to work at major publication, they should censor themselves at birth?

And if they did pre-date the WaPo, it means that they were during his stint at Reason, so are they not allowed to hire him back? Can he go to work at Gawker? What if Tucker Carlson offers him a position at the Daily Caller? Is there any way to erase his past or will he simply never again be allowed to cover “conservative” issues because those were the damaging emails that were released?

Whoops! The Kurtz piece says that the emails pre-date his hiring at the POst, but that to be true, it must refer specifically to those published by The Daily Caller because in his apology for that which was published by MediaBistro (the “Drudge” and “Paultard” things), he says that they were sent last week.

(And again, I don’t follow the guy with any regularity, but my understanding is that he’s taken some hits for covering Rand Paul, so I’ll take him at his word that the “Paultard” wasn’t really a slam against Dr. Paul. After all, it reads to be more about Fox News)

lanquihue says:
June 26, 2010 at 6:44 pm

The liberals never say CONSERVATIVES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO EXPRESS AN OPINION, in fact both of the liberals you HATE have said conservatives have a right to their opinion even when its factually wrong or even when it is just partisan.

Now is that true of CONSERVATIVES? More than a few have attacked the messenger and not the FACTS and they have on more than one occasion PLAYED the HOW DARE A LIBERAL OR ANY NON-CONSERVATIVE comment about a CONSERVATIVE card THAT’S FOR ONLY CONSERVATIVES TO DO, cases in point the groups who released this and claim they have A RIGHT TO DO IT THAT IMPLIES NO ONE ELSE HAS THOSE RIGHTS and a number of posters on this board who are attacking anything and everything that does not fit their ideal of the ordering of the world as they dictate.

Only they dont get the goose and the gander thing, they are CONSERVATIVE and reject everything that shows the hypocrisy they practice all the time.

MORE PROOF? see how NOTSABRITE and MICHELLEF conduct themselves, their concept of facts are whatever they can make up and when they cant get away with that they go all OH YEA WELL YOUR A ……. and start raising off topic partisan garbage that has nothing valid and nothing to contribute.

When they even try to support a failed position they rely on OPINIONS of others and not FACTUALLY based information.
You do not win an argument or a point by saying your opinion is based on the facts that you agree with the opinion of the opinion of the opinion of others who were giving an opinion.

Thomas G Williams said:
lanquihue says:
June 26, 2010 at 6:44 pm

The liberals never say CONSERVATIVES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO EXPRESS AN OPINION…

Liberals / progressives are the ones behind the resurgence of the “Fairness Doctrine”, which is suppression of free speech. Conservatives do not advocate suppression of free speech. Seriously dude, you’re a dumb ass.

Dave was not ever an A-1 hard news reporter for the Washington Post.

You might want to tell him that. He seems to think he was.

Anyway, what would conservatives do without concerned citizens like Tommy Christopher looking out for them? It seems odd to me that the further to the left somebody is, the more upset they are about WaPo losing their “inside man” in the conservative movement. Since when do we have a shortage of media figures telling us how nutty those teabaggers are?

lanquihue says:
June 26, 2010 at 7:56 pm lanquihue(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

Thomas G Williams said:
lanquihue says:
June 26, 2010 at 6:44 pm

Liberals / progressives are the ones behind the resurgence of the “Fairness Doctrine”, which is suppression of free speech. Conservatives do not advocate suppression of free speech. Seriously dude, you’re a dumb ass.

You prove you no nothing of the FAIRNESS doctrine, look it up and tell me what is wrong with it, IF A PERSON GETS ATTACKED OR IS SUBJECTED TO WHAT THEY BELIEVE WAS A PERSONAL ATTACK THEY HAD A RIGHT TO DEMAND TIME TO RESPOND TO THE ATTACK OR WHATEVER ON THE SAME SHOW THAT DID THEM AN INJUSTICE OR ATTACKED THEM, all the conservative media is against giving someone an even chance to defend themselves for their actions or words, and they say that means they will have to give them the same time to do it as they used to do it in the first place, are you against being FAIR and HONEST cause a lot of fairness complaints were shot down because an ACCURATE examination of the facts showed most did not violate it, but the few and mostly conservative violated it all the time and they HOWLED WHEN THEY WERE PROVEN WRONG OR SHOWN TO BE ADVANCING LIES AND DISTORTIONS OVER TRUTH.

so again what in the real “fairness doctrine” is so bad, being held to a standard of truth and honesty only hurts those who are not fair and honest, so why are so many conservatives terrified about truth and fairness?

come on show me why fair and honest is wrong.

@Jim Treacher: Of course Tommy can defend himself, but before he goes into the bit about it being a “loss for the Washington Post and for the conservative movement”, he mentions that he considers Weigel a friend and just a glance around Twitter and the blogosphere shows that there are others in the same boat.

And while he, nor anyone else that I’ve seen has come out and said it, but one has to imagine that there could be a sense of “there for the grace of god” because if such a high-profile, respected personality can be taken out by a few emails, then pretty much anyone could be fair game.

There really should be an “also”, a “become” and a few more words in that final paragraph;

<edit7gt;

And while he, nor anyone else that I’ve seen has come out and said it, but one has to imagine that there also could be a sense of “there for the grace of god” because if such a high-profile, respected personality can be taken out by a few emails, then pretty much anyone could become fair game at any point in their future career.

</edit7gt;

Thomas G Williams said:
You prove you no nothing of the FAIRNESS doctrine, look it up and tell me what is wrong with it….

(note: it’s kind of funny that conservatives get under your skin so much.)

I tried reading your comment, but didn’t get far. A few observations, 1) You must have failed English, which means you’re dumb, 2) you don’t know how to turn your caps off, which means you’re dumb, and 3) you read talking points instead of legislation, which means you’re dumb.

Summary: You’re a dumb ass.

well Show where I PARROTED some one else s talking points and WHAT LEGISLATION, WHOSE? and you lost another point and what did you do , YOU MADE PERSONALLY DISPARAGING REMARKS, just like any standard loser, you can disparage effectively and in context or you can do what you did. you made baseless and false accusations and so you get on my NOT WORTH IT list.

you had a clear chance to make valid points and failed and as for caps it is known as SHOUTING AT AN IDIOT, and your assertion is not valid as my posts do show the CAPS COME ON and the caps go off.

Sad how you are so focused on your hate and POV you make childish tantrums your norm.

me1ranger said:
Oh my goodness Tommy..take your meds and chill out. Bottom line is that your butt-buddy got outed by a fellow dem. That’s what gets your panties all knotted up? Nothing brings more joy than watching you libtards devour each other over petty jealousy. Get in your little circle..ready..aim…

Amen. I had to chuckle when I read this. The Author’s pal is a Moonbat who convinced the Post he could keep his Moonbattery in check. Such wasn’t the case. I love how Liberals assign the notion of “fact” as being the de facto Lib view of any issue. Why? Because they reside in the “Reality Based Community.” So Mr. Weigel had to nuance his bias in print and let it rip in those emails. I guess the take away from all of it is……..we’re on to you, so is the rest of the country. Good luck with those ad sales going forward.

Thomas G Williams said:
well Show where I PARROTED some one else s talking points and WHAT LEGISLATION, WHOSE? and you lost another point and what did you do , YOU MADE PERSONALLY DISPARAGING REMARKS, just like any standard loser, you can disparage effectively and in context or you can do what you did. you made baseless and false accusations and so you get on my NOT WORTH IT list.

Homes, the sad part is that you don’t even realize what a ridiculous dude your are. Even the liberals here are thinking, “shut the fuck up!” It’s okay, I know that you’re just some jackoff in his mom’s basement, so I don’t think things about the liberal community because of what you say.

Here’s a funny one, I said to my wife, hey Teri, check out out this dude. The first thing she said was, “what’s up with the caps?

Magister said:
And while he, nor anyone else that I’ve seen has come out and said it, but one has to imagine that there could be a sense of “there for the grace of god” because if such a high-profile, respected personality can be taken out by a few emails, then pretty much anyone could be fair game.

Anybody who sends stuff like that to hundreds of people, anyway.

Whoa Tommy…you nancy, you sound really scary in the last paragraph! Dry your eyes, the creep was a phoney…your pal was a phoney. The guy you admired was a phoney. So much for your investigatlive abilities huh Tommy.

Tommy usually sticks around to defend himself. I guess even he realized how ridiculous he sounds here. Of maybe he’s just in his bed crying!

Of maybe he’s writing a piece on being ditched by The One.

Obama blows off White House press corps at G-8/G-20 summits

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/27/obama-blows-off-white-house-press-corps-at-g-8g-20-summits/

Who’s to blame??? Dave Weigel… it’s that simple.

The responsibility of reporters is not to be “impartial”, their responsibility is to tell the truth. Should reporters have been unmoved by the fact that that Bush was torturing people? Should that not bother them as people? Should they be unmoved by the fact that Obama is still torturing people? Should they be unmoved by the fact that Bush sold a war based on lies, and millions of people were displaced, killed and injured as a result?

Is that we want? Sociopaths who have no personal opinions?

I thought you libs loved whistelblowers? What happened?

Come on Tommy, stop your whining. Dave was not a conservative; you know it, and I know it.

I’m somewhat surprised that you never posted this from Weigel as his response from a Breitbart source.

http://biggovernment.com/dweigel/2010/06/28/hubris-and-humility-david-weigel-comes-clean-on-washington-post-the-d-c-bubble-the-journolist/

Just saying…

That post is all over the Net and has been for a while today.

Funny when one tries to find out who leaked these e-mails conservatives seem to throw detractions to try to block the view.

If Weigel is really the one who is 100% at fault, then why can’t the person who leaked the e-mails come forward with a clear conscience ?

Find the leak and you have a big scoop!

Actually, the person that leaked the e-mails was on a ListServ specific to “liberal ” leaning and by invitation only. That’s why the ListServ was shut down.

Tommy, I can’t believe that you are so unaware that you can seriously say this here:

“Let’s not forget that the genesis of this entire mess was a feudlet between Weigel and Drudge over an out-of-context headline.”

“Out of context headlines” and Mediaite go together like ham and eggs or bread and butter.