« It's not easy feeling green... | Main | Welcome to Massachusetts: you WILL have a happy Thanksgiving -- or else »

A damned good question

Frequent Wizbang commenter Bullwinkle runs his own blog, and he does a pretty decent job. He's even been great at sucking up to me on occasion, but I've never let that color my judgment of his abilities.

This morning, though, he's got word of a story that deserves a hell of a lot more play. It turns out that a powerful member of the US Senate is flirting with serious legal problems over fund-raising irregularities. In fact, these allegations sound a hell of a lot more serious than the ones against Tom Delay -- the ones that two grand juries looked into and couldn't find grounds to legitimately indict him over.

Go check out Bullwinkle's piece, then trot over to the actual report. It's eye-opening.

And yeah, I did rip him a little in the comments for his cheap-shotting Chelsea Clinton. The one thing I have to give the Clintons credit for is that they appear to have done an OK job bringing her up, and I hate it when people take out their frustrations with parents by attacking the kids. I didn't like it with Chelsea, I don't like it with the Bush twins, and I didn't like it with Amy Carter. Leave the kids out of it. But besides that one little tossed-off mistake, it's still a hell of a good piece.

Update: Bullwinkle's replaced the Chelsea slam with another that's far, far better. If you haven't seen it, go back and look for yourself. But put down the beverages first.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A damned good question:

» The Right Nation linked with Double Standard [reloaded]

Comments (19)

I wonder if the MSM will co... (Below threshold)
edmcgon:

I wonder if the MSM will cover Hillary's indictment? Or will they just poo-poo it, saying "it's only an indictment. It's not like she was convicted of anything."

However, I doubt she'll even be indicted. The Clintons are masters at the art of coverup.

So I guess now the prospect... (Below threshold)
LJD:

So I guess now the prospects for a female on female battle for the presidency is looking slim.

On a side note, the Bush twins are hot: Barbara as a classy, beautiful woman, Jenna as a keg-party (I'd like to get drunk and roll around with her) sort-of way.
Chelsea, on the other hand, well, looks like Bill.

The AIM article seems to sp... (Below threshold)
Chris:

The AIM article seems to spend a lot more time wondering why the press isn't covering the case then actually talking about the case. And it's interesting how they kind of gloss over an important point. Maybe the reason the press isn't digging into David Rosen is because he was acquitted of all charges by a jury. You know, found not guilty? I'm sure to AIM that's just a bump in the road.

As to comparisons to DeLay, I guess one big reason for the difference in coverage is because DeLay was actually indicted. I realize the indictment of a fundraiser is much bigger news than the indictment of the House majority leader, but who can figure out the wacky priorities of the media?

There may be something to the story, but frankly I don't trust AIM, and I suspect they're cherry picking information. Just the fact that they refer to DeLay having "run-ins" with the House Ethics Committee gives you an idea of where they're coming from. DeLay's been referred to the Committee five times, and finally had to replace the members so they'd stop bothering him. AIM makes it sound like they had a dispute over a parking space.

Basically, it seems the story is a multiple felon con man is suing the Clintons. Judicial Watch, which makes its living going after the Clintons, represented the guy for a while then washed their hands of him. I'm not sure how a con man filing a lawsuit deseves the same scrutiny as a House Majority Leader being indicted.

It wouldn't surprise me in ... (Below threshold)
cat:

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Hillary Clinton had taken dirty money. But someone jog my memory please...when John McCain campaigned for the 2000 presidential nomination demanding reform of campaign financing, who was it who smeared him, playing the race card against his adopted daughter and accusing his wife of being a drug addict? Someone must remember, surely.

Isn't everyone glad that the current administration would never stoop so low. And isn't everyone glad that this administration implemented its own principled reforms?

As a father of three (19, 2... (Below threshold)

As a father of three (19, 21 and 24) I agree on leave the kids out
Except
Bush twins made a joke of themselves at RNC. That's fair game.
But underage drinking? I was 9 when I first swiped whiskey at my sister's wedding
Sin. Without. Stone. Cast

My memory is so bad, I just... (Below threshold)
cat:

My memory is so bad, I just couldn't remember the answers to my questions, so I had to resort to Google. (OK, I'm lying, I remember perfectly well.

Poor cat, everyone ignored ... (Below threshold)

Poor cat, everyone ignored you so you had to respond to yourself...

anyway, I really wanted to respond to Chris' AIM criticism. Why exactly are you surprised (or at least find it noteworthy) that a media watch group would focus on the media coverage angle of the story? Now I'm not referring to the rest of your comment, good or bad, I'm just, frankly, a little shocked that you seem shocked at their line of coverage when, frankly, any other line would be more surprising.

Yeah, taking cheap shots at... (Below threshold)
Pug:

Yeah, taking cheap shots at someone else's children because you don't like them is as low as you can go. Especially if it's about how they look and not something they have done.

Bullwinkle should post a picture of himself so we can all check out his manly good looks and compare him to Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

I don't recall saying I was... (Below threshold)
Chris:

I don't recall saying I was "shocked" at AIM concentrating on the media coverage. My point, which I admittedly didn't make very clear, is that the AIM article was not persuasive about the alleged wrongdoing, because it sort of assumed that the crime was deserving of extensive coverage, and focused on criticizing the lack of attention by the media. So it wasn't the best place to get the facts on the actual event.

And I will add that I think it's amusing that people think the media goes easy on the Clintons. During Whitewater the press dutifully regurgitated everything it was spoonfed by Starr's office, yet somehow managed to not report on the release of the Pillsbury Report, which exonerated the Clintons.

HA! I knew it! I k... (Below threshold)

HA! I knew it! I knew it as I was writing it that you were going to respond "I never used the word 'shocked'." That's why I qualified my interpretation in my comment parenthetically. You also ignored the fact that I blatantly said I wasn't commenting on your other opinions, just the part that you found their slant noteworthy. You're still avoiding that, by the way, although you nibbled at the edges to make your pro-clinton point.

Here's a crazy, crazy idea:... (Below threshold)
Geek, Esq.:

Here's a crazy, crazy idea:

Maybe the media isn't paying that much attention because the prosecutor has concluded that HRC wasn't involved in any of the wrongdoing.

But, I guess the prosecutor must also be part of the Vast Leftwing Conspiracy.

Here's a crazy idea, Geek, ... (Below threshold)

Here's a crazy idea, Geek, maybe you haven't read the AIM piece. Because if you had you should realize that the immediate, out of the gate rampage of headlines is what was lacking surrounding Clinton. All it takes is an accusation or, sweeter yet, an indictment and it's front page news for weeks if it's DeLay "or his ilk". If it's Hillary it's not even news when the same level of legal action is taken. That is the point they made (using DeLay and Clinton as well know examples), and they made it quite clearly. Like Chris before you, you want to make more of this piece than the "double-standard of the MSM" which is the gist of the article so that you can rebut it. That's fine, but, well, you're just wrong, that's all.

Hey FalzeYou're se... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Hey Falze

You're seem pretty focused on making some sort of Gotcha! point, so there you go. You got me, I guess. You said I seemed shocked and I responded that I never used the word "shocked." Man, what inconsistency. I also never said anything to indicate I was shocked, since I apparently have to spell evrything out. Is that really your triumphant moment? (I knew it!) And as for the part where you "blatantly said I wasn't commenting on your other opinions," so what? I don't even get what that means. You said I found their slant noteworthy, and my response was that I actually didn't, and I clarified my point (I can't believe I'm even going through all this.)I guess what threw you was that I added (hint: it was at the part where I said "And I will add...") a further opinion, which apparently isn't allowed when responding to your comments. You'll really have to make the ground rules clearer next time.

Now, to sum up: I understand that AIM's primary focus is the fact that there's not enough media coverage of the story. But in order to make that claim, they've got to actually establish that the story is as important as they say it is. So it's perfectly legitimate to criticize them for not making that case.

Is it your contention that the press has gone into a feeding frenzy when a Republican funbdraiser has been indicted? Because it seems like you're comparing the indictment of DeLay with the indictment of David Rosen, which you must admit are not on the same level. And as for Peter Paul's allegations, I don't think it's unreasonable for the press to hold off on going wild over accusations from someone with his lack of credibility until they're somehow substantiated.

I'm a Hildebeest hater with... (Below threshold)
JD:

I'm a Hildebeest hater with the best of them, but IMHO the AIM folks farged this up big-time.

How many times have the Clintonistas been subject to articles and press releases that say that "this could sink his/her chances for election in (fill in the year)?"

Clinton is just another name for cockroach. No matter how many times you try to get rid of them, they just keep coming back. Until they are dead. And even then the jury is still out.

The only way Hillary loses the Donk Primary is if she is caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl.

The idea that Hillary would... (Below threshold)

The idea that Hillary would be completely ignorant of all that Paul/Rosen were involved in is as plausible as someone (ohhh, just anyone) making hundreds of thousands of dollars on a discreet and isolated series of futures trades (with no prior experience) or losing the billng records for another discreet and well-defined period of legal representation.

Apply the same level of cynicism to Hillary as is applied to Delay, Chris. Tell me with a straight face that she doesn't deserve a thorough going over. Otherwise, you don't pass the "Ha-Ha Test."

It's interesting that you s... (Below threshold)
Chris:

It's interesting that you say Hillary should have been aware of what "Paul/Rosen" were up to. As the jury agreed, Rosen was not involved in any wrongdoing. So it's a little disingenuous to link Paul/Rosen as if they were one and the same. And it's entirely unclear what Paul was up to. His involvement is a bunch of allegations and a suit he filed. The guy's a convicted felon trying to cop a plea. I think the burden of proof is on him to support his allegations. As for DeLay, I think the guy's a sleazeball for the way he operates as a politician, but I'll readily admit that the burden is on Ronnie Earle to prove that he broke the law. My point remains the same (sorry if I don't pass your "test"). The indictment of a campaign finance manager, no matter who he works for, does not get the same coverage as the indictment of the Majority Leader in the House, as well as two of his aides. That's just common sense.

<a href="http://www.aim.org... (Below threshold)
-S-:

CLIFF'S NOTES (subnote to the information that bullwinkle links to) is excellent...I have long thought as it's written there that the "anti war" movement is, in fact, a pro-war effort to effect the deaths of those who oppose Islam. Look at who is funding and supporting Cindy Sheehan, for a great example of that, as with others linked and involved with her.

I agree that bullwinkle's found some excellent content there but the content itself (AIM) is superb and needs to be emphasized among conservative bloggers.

I think the Plame issue -- ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I think the Plame issue -- and Russert and Clift and now Andrea Mitchell -- is boiling down to a CIA (or, people using the CIA) running amok and not for the benefit of the United States.

And, as if by autosuggestio... (Below threshold)
-S-:

And, as if by autosuggestion, the Left dismisses each and any insight into Hillary (and Bill) Clinton's character and involvement in (whatever, to use the applicable term here) as being right-wing nonsense. They'll never accept the facts about either of them, just as many refused to do about Kerry (and still are) and refute to even the most obvious insights as being "right-wing rants" (translated in the Left to mean, "rant rants").

It's a mystery to me how people who fancy themselves so much more advanced and intelligent than others can be so blind and, basically, stupid by choice. They chose to avoid knowing that which is uncomfortable or challenging or causes them to have to reconsider some opinions and choices.

It's the failure from time beginning of some humans, that they can't perceive reality due to egoism. And thus, we have the Left, liberal ideology in the U.S. and elsewhere.

However, the stakes are very significant today and they are the very lives of many Americans in service and many individuals in the Middle East (and elsewhere). Truly a ghastly shame that the Left just cannot understand how they are being played and played so easily by nefarious interests.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy