Makes perfect sense to me. (The only drawback is that it is possible to put a link on a page that is not visible or functional.)

Actually, the left hand went after Gannon because of what he wrote, who he worked for, and why he was in the WH in the first place. Now whether this is unusual or noteworthy is debatable. Whether the two are comparable is a silly question, from either side of the aisle. Just because these two "events" happened in the same time period, people feel the need to compare and contrast, as if the whole Gannon thing were just the left's response to the Jordan thing (it wasn't, the left was going after Gannon before Jordan made an idiot of himself in Davos). Paul seems to think that there should be only one story, and the entire blogosphere should be covering it, and it only. Of course it's the story he's interested in, but no matter. And might I remind you that the right blogosphere went after Jordan because of what he said, yes, but never would have known had it not been for a Democratic Congressman who put him in his place.

So the right hit squad and the left hit squad both got a kill last week, and now they all want to have a pissing contest to see who's quarry is bigger. Ooh, how proud you must be.

We'd be less proud if Gannon had been the news chief at FoxNews. Instead of, Jeff Who?

It's not just why; it's how.

It seems that conservatives spread the Eason Jordan story simply by telling what happened. Bloggers aggregated links and offered background, while other bloggers (Michelle first among them, I think) went out and did reportorial legwork to try to get to the truth.

The liberals, on the other hand, went after Jeff Gannon through what I can only describe as dumpster diving. (Not my phrase; I saw somebody else use it and it seemed to fit, but I can't remember where that was now.)

Conspicuously absent from the right's treatment of Eason Jordan: embarrassingly unflattering photographs, personal information like a purported home address or phone number, or flimsy and tasteless intimations about his sexuality.

The difference between right and left isn't just in why each side pursued the story. It's in how each side pursued the story. And in that sense, the difference is striking.

(I'm crawling back into bed now to try to recover from the flu. If this comment made no sense, I'll apologize for it later.)

Since when should you be surprised about the Left playing a few rubbers of moral equivalence?

I couldn't have said it better, Paul.

I am very sad over this Jeff Gannon story. I know the guy and he always seemed to be a straight-shooter, albeit a very partisan conservative. I don't know what's true or untrue about him, but I do see a tremendous amount of viciousness.

The only thing Kos and his ilk won was the booby prize. People are still talking about CBS' Memogate. In a few weeks, Gannongate will be forgotten by all but the most whiny, desperate liberals.

I predict that in this year, right-wing blogs will bring about the downfall of more liberal MSM brass while left-wing blogs will keep picking on White House reporters because they happen to be gay.

"I am very sad over this Jeff Gannon story. I know the guy and he always seemed to be a straight-shooter"

Judging by the pictures I've seen of him, I'd say he shoots with a slight downward arch.

Judging by the pictures I've seen of him, I'd say he shoots with a slight downward arch.

It's wrong of me, but that did make me snicker.