January 22, 2006

WaPo Gets A Taste Of The Left's Anger

I missed this story when it broke on Thursday (too busy trying to narrow down which Elisabeth Shue pictures to use, I guess). But when Deborah Howell wrote a column about Jack Abramoff linking Democrats to his money, the Left went absolutely nuts. She mistated only technically that Democrats in Congress received Abramoff money. No, they didn't receive it directly. It was actually laundered through various Indian Tribes first. But they got the money nonetheless.

Anyway, the Washington Post site was slammed with hateful, vulgar comments against Howell, the Post and the MSM in general. It got so bad that the Post had to shut down that portion of the website. As Howell writes:

But there is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties. Records from the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff's Indian clients contributed money to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats between 1999 and 2004. The Post also has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with his personal directions on which members were to receive what amounts.

Michael Crowley of the New Republic said in his blog that "while for all practical purposes this is indisputably a Republican scandal, the narrow liberal-blogger definition of whether any Democrats took money 'from Abramoff' -- which neatly excludes contributions he directed his clients to make -- amounts to foolish semantics.''

These facts have been reported many times in The Post and elsewhere. So why would it cause me to be called a "right-wing whore" and much worse?

Witness three printable examples:

"Yes, the WAPO needs an enema, and Howell should be the first thing that gets medicinally removed."

"You Deborah Howell, stop lying about Democrats getting money from Abramoff. Democrats do not control anything in Washington, so why would he waste money bribing them. Think and do your research, and stop being an idiot."

"This rag must be something that I pulled off a barscreen at a sewage treatment plant. Howell is simply a paid liar. How this creature endures itself is something I don't understand. What a piece of flotsam."

There is no more fervent believer in the First Amendment than I am, and I will fight for those e-mailers' right to call me a liar and Republican shill with salt for brains. But I am none of those.

My career has been a public one in journalism. You can find my biography and much of what I stand for on the Internet. You can ask anyone who worked with me in Minnesota and at Newhouse News Service what kind of journalist I am. I have spent my life working for rational reporting and passionate and reasonable opinion.

So is it the relative anonymity of the Internet that emboldens e-mailers to conduct a public stoning? Is this the increasing political polarization of our country? I don't know.

So have reached this level political discourse in this country? It reminds me of the time that a bunch of people on the Right...wait a minute. That's right, I can't think of a single time that Conservatives engaged in a "public stoning". Can you?

What Howell fails to recognize is that this isn't a problem of American politics in general. It's a problem with the angry, unhinged Left and and is born out of the frustration that comes with their political impotence. They've been reduced to acting like petulant children who aren't getting their way. No real ideas to speak of, no vision and no strategy beyond attack, attack, attack. When you think about it, isn'tt this really just the political equivalent of "your momma" and "I know you are but what am I?"

And they wonder why they keep losing.

Oh, and despite the continued one-star ratings given to Kate O'Beirne's book by Lefty kooks who've never actually read it, it's still holding strong and an average three and a half stars.

Heh.

Posted by: Gary at 09:45 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 670 words, total size 4 kb.

1 public stone throwing - don't you remember the lewinsky scandal? newt gingrich himself lost his office due to an affair. either way you look at it - 2/3 of the guilty party in this scandal are republicans. debate all you want but we'll see what the electorate decides this november

Posted by: kyle foley at January 22, 2006 02:16 PM (8Ag0m)

2 what a bunch of cheats are in your party - due to jerrymandering, although bush only won 52% of the vote, he won 59% of the congressional districts! fresh air - dec 1 jacob hacker

Posted by: kyle Foley at January 22, 2006 03:01 PM (8Ag0m)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
18kb generated in CPU 0.0166, elapsed 0.067 seconds.
114 queries taking 0.0559 seconds, 225 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.