Well, we heard that Bush lied. Then we learned that Joe Wilson did. Who fingered Wilson? The Washington Post, not known for being part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. The news made it through the blogosphere. Check out the trackbacks to the story on Blogs for Bush. Patterico kept watch on whether the LA Times gave it the same attention as Wilson's original claims (go on, guess the answer before you click). On this blog, Justin Levine pointed you to the cream of the coverage.
How is the loyal opposition reacting. They don't believe Wilson lied. Check out the comments to this post at blogcritics.
Posted by Justene Adamec at July 14, 2004 02:48 PM | TrackBackI don't really need to know who fingered Joe Wilson--thanks.
Posted by: Christopher Cross at July 14, 2004 02:55 PM (Permalink)Notice that the Wapo article appears on page A9. "Fair and balanced" treatment would call for the same Page 1, above the fold, treatment given to the "Bush Lied" stories. The lala Times has not run a story to date according to your link to Patterico.
Posted by: Breaker at July 14, 2004 04:05 PM (Permalink)Justene lies when she writes: "How is the loryal opposition reacting. They don't believe Wilson lied."
Just off the top of my head, I would refer her to two prominent left-leaning bloggers: Kevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias.
Posted by: m.croche at July 14, 2004 06:33 PM (Permalink)Kevin Drum is not what I would term the "loyal opposition", which for me is a tongue-in-cheek term that connotates buying the party line without thinking. If all of the left were like Kevin (and all of the right), we could have across the aisle dialogue .
I don't read Yglesias. For no other reason than lack of time. I barely get to the other posts on Calblog some days.
Posted by: Justene at July 14, 2004 06:41 PM (Permalink)Justene - wouldn't it be nice if we could have dialogue between left and right? :)
Posted by: aphrael at July 14, 2004 09:51 PM (Permalink)The plain meaning of "loyal opposition" is simply anybody aligned with a party that is out of political power and not planning on overthrowing the government to regain power. No competent reader would have reason to think otherwise.
And whether or not Justene actually reads Matthew Yglesias is irrelevant. His example (and Kevin's) demonstrates that she was lying in her post.
For Christ's sake, Clod. Get past this "liar, liar" crap already. What are you going to argue next, that Justene's pants are on fire?
Better you should go hang out with Mark York for a while. At least he's in your league.
Posted by: Xrlq at July 15, 2004 07:08 PM (Permalink)