| Home | About Us | Login/Register | Email News Tips |

A liberal dose of news, national and local politics, commentary, opinions and common sense conversation…

Hotline’s Blogometer and Right Wing Blogs Get it Wrong on Iraq Vote

by Pamela Leavey

Hotline’s Blogometer is making much ado about nothing today, with their claim that “Righty bloggers celebrated the defeat of Sen. John Kerry’s (D-MA) Iraq-withdrawal resolution.” Not only is Blogometer wrong on the Iraq vote that went down yesterday, so are the “Righty bloggers” who claim it was “John Kerry’s (D-MA) Iraq-withdrawal resolution.”

The spin from the rightwing nutjobs is laughable on this one, as the much of the MSM made note of the fact that Mitch McConnell lifted Kerry’s resolution and put his own name on it.

Michael Crowley on the Plank claims “…that there’s a specific reason why Mitch McConnell forced a premature Senate vote on Kerry’s Iraq-withdrawal resolution: Senate Democratic leaders, I’m reliably told, had been working on a middle-course alternative allowing their party members to oppose Kerry’s plan without implicitly seeming to support Bush’s policy (and thus without further enraging hard-core anti-war activists).”

Whoever “reliably told” Crowley that “Senate Democratic leaders,”… “had been working on a middle-course alternative” — weren’t so reliable. Obviously, Crowley missed the interchange on the Senate Floor yesterday when Harry Reid “accused Republicans of political gamesmanship and sought to curtail floor debate on the proposal.” The vote was forced and per discuss on the floor with John Kerry and Senator Warner, a vote on Kerry’s Iraq resolution was promised for next week.

Here’s what John Kerry had to say on the Senate floor following the forced vote:

MR. KERRY: MR. PRESIDENT, LET ME JUST SAY, IF I MAY, THAT EARLIER TODAY THE DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN AND MANAGER OF THIS LEGISLATION CAME TO ME AND ASKED ME IF I WAS PREPARED TO PUT MY AMENDMENT IN. AND I TOLD HIM THEN, AS HE KNOWS, THAT I SAID NO BECAUSE A NUMBER OF US SENATORS WERE TALKING AS IS THE RIGHT OF THE SENATOR WITH RESPECT TO ANY AMENDMENT FILED. AND SO THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGER WAS ON NOTICE THAT WE WERE IN FACT IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING ON THIS.

I VOTED NO ON THIS BECAUSE, MR. PRESIDENT, ANY SENATOR RESERVES THAT RIGHT, NUMBER ONE, AND NUMBER TWO, THIS IS A DEBATE I LOOK FORWARD TO.

THIS IS A DEBATE I WANT TO HAVE ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE AND IT IS A — THIS IS A DEBATE WE WILL HAVE ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE.

I RESENT THAT THE FACT THAT SOME SENATORS THINK THAT THE BUSINESS IS BETTER DONE BY CALLING UP THE WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE LANGUAGE OF THE SENATOR’S AMENDMENT AND HAVE A FIBBING FICTITIOUS VOTE ON.

WE’RE IN THE THIRD WAR. THE FIRST BEING ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN AND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, THE SECOND ABOUT AL QAEDA AND THE THIRD SECTTARIAN VIOLENCES.

I LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING A DEBATE, BUT I LOOK FORWARD ON HAVING A DEBATE ON THE AMENDMENT THAT I BRING AS A SENATOR. IT’S ALWAYS BEEN THE PREROGATIVE OF A SENATOR.

I RESPECT AND UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY WHAT THE DISTINGUISHED MINORITY LEADER DID. HE DID IT WITH CONSULTATION WITH ME AND I THINK IT WAS THE APPROPRIATE MEASURER FOR HIM TO TAKE TO PROTECT MY INTERESTS AND THE INTERESTS OF THOSE OF US ON OUR SIDE.

I THINK REALLY THE SENATE OUGHT TO GIVE A MORE APPROPRIATE KIND OF SERIOUSNESS OF PURPOSE, IF YOU WILL, TO DEBATE OF THIS KIND OF CONSEQUENCE.

THIS WILL BE THE FIRST TIME IN SOME TIME THAT WE WILL HAVE DEBATED THIS ISSUE. I SUGGEST SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES GO BACK AND REREAD THE RESOLUTION WHICH GAVE THE PRESIDENT THE AUTHORITY TO GO INTO IRAQ.

THERE’S NOTHING IN THAT RESOLUTION THAT GIVES AUTHORITY FOR WHAT WE’RE DOING TODAY.

SO IN EFFECT, THIS IS A WAR OF EVOLUTION, A WAR OF TRANSFORMATION. AND IT DESERVES THE KIND OF SERIOUS DEBATE THAT IT WILL GET NEXT WEEK IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE. I THANK THE CHAIR.

As I stated here earlier:

Contrary to Republican/Pentagon talking points and MSM distortions — “Senate Rejects Call for Iraq Withdrawal” — the Senate did not vote on any Iraq “plan” on Thursday. The “vote” was nothing more than a vote to dismiss a cheap political stunt cooked up by Mitch McConnell and his cronies, Bill Frist and John Cornyn.

My sources tell me that the Senate will have a real debate and a real vote on withdrawal next week. Period. Republicans needs to get focused on our troops, who Bush and the GOP have dropped the ball on; and on having a real, honest debate about the path forward in Iraq.

Hotline’s Blogometer has got it wrong. Michael Crowley has got it wrong on the Plank. And, likewise the rightwing nutjobs on the blogosphere have also got it wrong. The debate yesterday was not on Kerry’s Iraq resolution, there was no “lopsided defeat” as Martin Peretz also of the Plank claimed. It wasn’t Kerry’s plan – it was again, I repeat ad nauseum, for those who love to distort the facts…

McConnell and crew introduced the phony legislation lifted from directly from John Kerry on his troop withdrawal plan, and then they turned tail and immediately tried to shelve the debate on it. This was the exact same type of partisan B.S. stunt that Tom “the Hammer” DeLay and his crew pulled in the House last year when Rep. John Murtha introduced his Iraq plan, in the famed “Debacle in the House.”

We will no doubt be seeing round 2 of lies and distortions from the Righties next week. Stay tuned for the real debate on John Kerry’s Iraq resolution…

93 Responses to “Hotline’s Blogometer and Right Wing Blogs Get it Wrong on Iraq Vote”

  1. “How about that public info Pamela found?”

    Yeah, I’m sure she just happened to find it from the content of my comments. I’m sure her having access to my supposedly confidential email had nothing to do with it.

    And Dave’s ad hominem attacks are a nice touch.

    “We have a conservative who posts here on a regular basis and we all engage in conversation with him.”

    Is this the sort of “conversation” you normally engage in with conservatives?

    Q

  2. Q,

    Guess who let your latest comment out of the Mod Que? How is that for a kicker? Your comment got approved by the Katrinacrat! And your info is not from what you gave. It is from what we can get. Sorry Q, but you fail to understand the Katrinacrat.

  3. Donnie, thanks for not censoring my speech. That’s appreciated. But that doesn’t change my desire to see comment #45 deleted.

    Pamela said she’d respect my anonymity because she is not “the type that would jeopordize anyone’s job”. She then turns around and tries to out me, doing exactly the opposite of what she said.

    Donnie, you are a Marine. I come from a line of veterans and patriots. My oldest friend is a Marine and served in this war. You and I both understand that a man is only as good as his word. I ask you to urge Pamela to do the right thing.

    Q

  4. Also interesting that, although he is GOP, he did NOT vote for Bush. I will not question if he was telling the truth.
    Makes some of the other comments that much more interesting.

    “Truly. I really, really do hope that John Kerry is the Dem nom in ‘08.”

    ““One must understand his enemy before he can defeat the enemy.”

    Unless Q wants to vote for Kerry in ’08 🙄 I would hazard a guess that wanting Kerry to win the ’08 nom means from his perspective, Kerry is well enough understood to defeat.

    Based on the ’04 campaign, does that mean they have another smear campaign in the war room?

  5. Q,

    I asked you before if you wanted to play a game. Would you like me to completely bring you out in the open? Pamela keeps a tight leash on me, but I can be the Marine that I am!! I can bite back now.

  6. Q,

    I figured ad hominem attacks would make you feel right at home. They are currently known as the GOP platform and a major part of what your type currently considers “campaigning”.

  7. Q

    I surf the blogs left and right frequently and if I am not mistaken you’ve been here before and were already on pre-Mod due to comments made here in the past.

    As a matter of fact you were quite certain that your comment wouldn’t get posted last night. If my memory serves me correctly, you actually posted your blog url in the URL section of the comments form. It wasn’t hard to find you – didn’t even use your email address, just surf around a few right wing blogs until I found the correct blog that used “Q” in the name.

  8. Pamela, you ARE mistaken. I’ve never been here before. I didn’t know your site existed until I came across it via memeorandum last night. And your memory does not serve you well, as I absolutely did NOT post my blog’s URL.

    However, you DID say you wouldn’t jeopardize my job, which you have now done.

    Which right wing blog did you find mine at? I’m curious to know.

    Q

  9. Q Says:
    June 17th, 2006 at 10:53 pm

    “Donnie, you are a Marine. I come from a line of veterans and patriots. My oldest friend is a Marine and served in this war. You and I both understand that a man is only as good as his word. I ask you to urge Pamela to do the right thing.”

    Funny how you want to plead your case with this Marine now. You are no Marine, and I doubt you have ever served! If you want mercy from me, You have lost the battle. Marines never quit and never surrender! I learned that as a Republican under Reagan. This is an example of what you and your ilk sent to Iraq.

    So there is no mercy from me. My family has given at least one person every generation to this country. I will not have ChickenHawks ruin my country that my family died for. Tell your GOP boss that I am coming to dent his crown this November!

    I got a hard on for the GOP now!! I’m coming for the whole lot. I will do everything I can do to out every Republican I can.

    The GOP made me, and the Dems are gonna love me.

  10. Dave and Donnie,

    I was reading fast there. AND I THOUGHT # 47 WAS Donnie

    :LOL:

    The ranter in training is moving up 😉

    Q,

    I knew the info was public because Pamela and I were on the phone when she found it. I also knew she was going to bed so I called and left a VM to give her a heads up.

    We may give you trouble but not by cheating. And given the concern this seems to cause you about your job….

  11. Q

    If you are worried about your job you should change your profile on blogger so that people who are adept at searching on the internets and the blogosphere can’t find you.

    Silly you, you gave up more info on yourself by speaking of your email address which had nothing to do with how I found your blog which is in the Neolibertarian Network blogroll on a rightwing blog. ***EDITED TO PROTECT THE “Q”***

  12. Q Says:
    June 17th, 2006 at 11:20 pm

    “However, you DID say you wouldn’t jeopardize my job, which you have now done”

    Oh my heart bleeds for you, or not!! NO MERCY Marines like me like their job!

  13. Q

    It is possible my memory is a little fuzzy and it was anothe rposter using the name “Q:

    I wonder how many “Q’s” there are in the “Neolibertarian Network” or perhaps you are one and the same?

    It is rather peculiar that you came here to dispute what I wrote about the Hotline blurb and interestingly person who’s mane contains “Q” wrote about the Senate vote the other day. ***LINK EDITED TO PROTECT THE “Q”***

  14. OK so do you know who the Katrinacrat is now? Why do I see a tear there? I’m coming for all of you in November!

  15. Debunked and Dimissed! Next contestant please! You have been punked!

  16. Ginny, of course the info is public. That’s all well and good, but also beside the point.

    When the owner of a website specifically says she wouldn’t jeopardize the anonymity of a commenter, and then goes out of her way to do just that, I take chagrin at that. Pamela claimed that she chooses to not use such tactics like other websites do. Clearly that is not the case.

    I see that comment #45 was “***EDITED TO PROTECT THE “Q”***” Can’t say I see how, as it still contains the name of the blog and two links to it.

    This is just all so disappointing. Y’all attacked and lied to a moderate California conservative who listens to the Dixie Chicks, who voted for Kerry, isn’t a fan of Bush, espouses extremely liberal social views, criticizes the far right almost as often as the far left, who reads the New Republic, is dismayed by his party’s performance, and is open-minded to any good idea regardless of origin. I’m far, far from the liberal hating freeper types y’all so clearly see me as.

    If your goal was to blow an opportunity to bridge the partisan gap, as Ron wishes could happen more often, then you’ve verily succeeded. Well played Pamela, Donnie, and Dave. Well played.

    Q

  17. Q

    You admitted that you were a Senate staffer. I verified what you admitted here. I have no clue who you work for, there’s nothing on your blog that gives that away.

    You pose this question on your blog and I wonder what is so liberal about this?

    “Are the unborn or those at the end of life better protected on George Bush’s watch? Maybe at the margins, but he hasn’t effected major legal change.”

    You came here expressly to attack Kerry in my opinion. So what shall we do… edit out all of the not so nice things you said about the man you purportedly voted for and the public info I posted here from your blog?

    How’s that for a fair balanced solution to a sticky situation in attempts to bridge the partisan gap? No doubt your boss may not like to know who you voted for?

  18. Once again Q, I am a Marine, and I will give no quarters to the GOP. You started this with:

    “I seriously doubt you’ll leave this comment posted, because nutjobs like you hate to be shown how clearly wrong you actually are”

    Well we not only put it up, but I myself approved your comments to come through. You have been butchered and quartered. Take your place among the many others. You are GOP and you are my enemy. I Am a Marine, That is my job to uphold the laws of the land!!

    Maybe you should try to tell your GOP boss to try it!!

  19. “You are GOP and you are my enemy.”

    Calm down Donnie–not all Republicans are the enemy. You were one not long ago, so you should know that Republicans can change.

    Besides, one major problem we have now is having too much power in the hands of one party. If Democrats should take control of the government, we’ll need some Republicans around to keep them honest. Preferably more socially liberal Republicans.

  20. In my opinion there is no reason to trust Mr Q because he suddenly claims to have voted for JK after first attacking him and calling us all nutjobs. He said some rather inflammatory things about liberals right out of the gate.

    His blog is in a blogroll of Neolibertarians. I’m not easily swayed by his poor Q routine.

  21. Uhh…that unborn thing is actually what Stephen Bainbridge said. What I said immediately before that was:

    “While the pro-life stance in the following except isn’t nearly as important to me, Bainbridge hits things on the nose”

    And WHERE did I say I was a Senate staffer before you “outed” me? I admitted that? I admitted nothing of the sort. In fact, I said that Reid’s comment was made in PUBLIC. I could very well have been a Capitol police officer or a constituent or a lobbyist walking the halls or any number of things other than a Senate staffer. Don’t try to absolve yourself in retrospect by searching for reasons to justify your actions.

    As for my non-freeper “bonafides”, how about ***EDITED TO PROTECT Q***?

    Regardless, it is now clear to me that you, Donnie, and Dave have zero interest in actually conversing with me and would rather attack me. So be it; it is your website. I want to thank Ron and Ginny for mostly being interesting people with whom to discuss opposing points of view.

    As for how I started off my first comment, I’m assuming Donnie you are upset with my use of the word “nutjobs”. Fair enough, I suppose, but it was just a rhetorical tactic of mimicry. I.e., I was just using the same word that Pamela used in her original post to describe right wing bloggers whom she disagreed with.

    I’ll leave my last post here with a question for Donnie. And I ask this without any sarcasm, snark, or ulterior motive. What are your views on gays in the military? Being a Marine, I’m curious to know your thoughts.

    Can’t say it’s been much fun, but it certainly has been educational. I know now to be wary of trusting liberal bloggers and that most ardent Kerry supporters are more interested in attacking conservatives than in finding common ground. Silly me, I should have already known that. And with that, I bid you all good night. God bless you, God bless the Senate, and God bless America.

    Q

    *end foray into Kerryland*

  22. I see no great reason to either trust or mistrust Q. He may or may not have voted for Kerry. He says so here, but an item on his blog does suggest otherwise. Only he knows how he voted.

    Perhaps he followed the lead of The Economist (which Q recommended above) which endorsed voting for Kerry while being critical of him at the same time.

    Regardless of who he voted for, and even noting Q did rudely start out calling us nutjobs, he does have a point about blowing an “opportunity to bridge the partisan gap.”

    I’m not going to hold who has him in their blogrole against him. If the Republican Pary remains in the hands of the social conservatives, I suspect more and more libertarians will consider voting Democratic.

  23. Both during and after his speech, Kerry lamented the partisanship that has made Washington a more rancorous place than he has ever seen over his 21 years in the U.S. Senate.

    “I have never seen a more dysfunctional Washington, D.C., than we have now. We are all sick of the partisanship. We’ve got to get rid of it.

    From Sen. Kerry laments divisions

  24. Q

    Maybe next time you’ll choose the wording of your comments in the liberal blogosphere a little better. Whatever info I post about your blog is easily found by anyone who is web saavy and it had nothing to do with your email address.

    Sorry, but I am good at finding things on the web. I have a long history online. It sucks when people post things like a link to your blog – when you maybe don’t want people to find you. I know. With 100 Senators no one here is about to find your boss and tell them you are posting on a liberal blog.

    Common sense that you were a staffer. If and I mean a big IF you overheard Reid say what you say he said, you had to be damn close to who ever the Republican Senator is that he said it to. I doubt Reid blasted it across the hall so that even a Capital police officer could here. Again common sense in my book.

    Rarely does a conservative come here that wants to do anything more than banter opposing views or bash JK. Ron tends to catch it when they do, and some of us may be more skeptical.

    That said if you are interested in discussing topics that don’t include bashing the Senator who is high on the esteem list here with all of our regulars, come back again and you’ll probably find yourself welcomed by all.

    We are a good hearted group, but woe to anyone who comes here solely to attack Kerry. That raises hackles around here.

  25. Q
    One of the comments that still irks me:

    “Why don’t you leave analyzing insider baseball in the Senate to the pros? Otherwise you simply make yourself seem foolish by exposing how little understanding of how Congress operates you actually possess.”

    In the light of your later admission to being a Senate staffer, it was the kind of disrespectful comment that basically says the citizen/voter is not able to understand how the government works. I have a problem with that. I expect to have some limits in the finer details, but overall, I had better be able to understand – if I make a reasonable effort – what is going on behind the floor comments and actions.

    This is Pamela’s comment from #27

    “None of us here are the type that would jeopordize
    anyone’s job including yours. But you can understand with out knowing who you are we should reserve the right to doubt your off the record comments you claim Senator Reid made.

    The majority of the members of the Dem Daily feel that attacking our own is not useful in supporting the issues and concerns of the party. There’s plenty of blogs on the left that support that sort of behavior. We’re a little different by choice and our members like that.”

    This is what you hobbled together in # 49

    “None of us here are the type that would jeopordize anyone’s job including yours…There’s plenty of blogs on the left that support that sort of behavior. We’re a little different by choice and our members like that.”

    How does confirming that you are a Senate staffer and linking the information about your blog jeopardize your job? You made your comments and requested anonymity. You basically still have as much as you had – the blog does not give a name or any other identifying information. It is the content that is revealing in the context of your arguments.

    #66
    “This is just all so disappointing. Y’all attacked and lied to a moderate California conservative who listens to the Dixie Chicks, who voted for Kerry, isn’t a fan of Bush, espouses extremely liberal social views, criticizes the far right almost as often as the far left, who reads the New Republic, is dismayed by his party’s performance, and is open-minded to any good idea regardless of origin. I’m far, far from the liberal hating freeper types y’all so clearly see me as.”

    Y’all attacked and LIED? So far the closest you can come to claiming a lie is by misstating and misinterpreting Pamela’s comment (intentionally or not). Who else lied to you? I told you up front we will use anyone who attempts a flim flam as an example for visiting readers.

    Dave and Donnie are the resident ranters and sometimes there is more taunt than substance. Kind of like the comments the football linemen make to throw their opponents minds off the quarterback’s call. We don’t edit that, it’s blogging. Sorry there was no warning on that trick.

    There’s a difference in genuinely seeking to understand and a pretense to make us look like we are hypocrits.

    We debate, the visiting readers can come to their own conclusions. They may decide we were unfair. That is a chance we take, just as you took a chance on being found- by anyone reading the blog who never identifies themselves.

    I think Pamela did you a favor. It isn’t that hard for someone to figure it out with what was in your comments.
    If this could really affect your job, you should be more careful. It’s really sad that our society has gotten to the point that retired generals, senate staffers and other citizens cannot make public comments without being attacked.

  26. Q Says:
    June 17th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
    “I can’t imagine you didn’t do some volunteering for Bush being a republican staffer”[A quote from one of Pamela’s comments]

    In fact I didn’t. Nor did I contribute to or volunteer for any campaign. And in fact I did NOT vote for Bush. Seems like you need to stretch your imagination a bit.”

    Not refuting that comment – which was honest- the other comment about being too much of a professional, and the probabilities Pamela mentioned all left a fairly obvious possibility even without the admission. Anyone reading the blog could just as easily have wondered if that assumption was true and done exactly what Pamela did to find Q.

    I’m not sure how to have this kind of discussion and not be a little on the heated, doubting side. I also do want to have readers get a positive impression. In spite of the fact that O’Reilly and the rest have made their shows popular by nastiness, labels and other distractions; I don’t think we really will interest the folks who like that kind of fake debate.

    I think it comes back to the trust concept. When we have a debate or discussion with someone in person, we generally know who they are and are not as likely to make some comments that are inflammatory. Maybe one of the ways we need to adapt to internet discussions it to hold our distrust more and just let the facts bear out what we suspect.

    Bed time.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  27. I agree with “Q,” a link to his website should not have been posted publically and without his prior knowledge.

    Q, language is important, and I strongly suggest you consider how the words you chose to use affect those you say you want to communicate with… as an example, as soon as I saw the word “claptrap” in one of your posts, a flag went up and I took whatever else you were posting less seriously. Just an FYI. Because as well all know, bipartisanship is a two-way street.

  28. And Battlebob, I’m off to read your links. This self-professed peacenik loves reading the links you post re: the military pov. 4GW fascinates me in a way I’ve yet to articulate.

  29. KJ,

    I didn’t want to argue the point here, but I l also expressed my objection to Pamela for posting the web site.

    Sure, anyone who already has a blog realistically is at minimal increased risk by having the link here, but there is no need to keep it there when he specifically requested that it be removed.

  30. Ron,

    I know I am sensitive to people’s requests for on-line anonymity, especially when it comes to their desire to protect their employment (no matter how far-fetched that might seem to someone else), based on my own experience(s).

    A common rule for writing is: “When in doubt, leave it out.” Not a bad rule for packing up a household I’ve discovered, as well. 😉

  31. KJ

    It’s a anonymous website that does not state who he is, other than a random staffer. I would suggest, as Ginny pointed out that if he was so concerned about his anonymity – he should not have put the info he did in his blogger profile (which actually was precious little).

    And likewise he also shouldn’t have come here claimed to have over heard Sen. Reid saying something that he couldn’t back up with proof.

    The blogosphere can be a harsh place. People who really want to protect their anonymous identities online shouldn’t put info in their profiles. Profiles on blogger are designed to leave blank if the user desires.

    What is posted online is considered to be for public access. Posting a website or blog link is hardly harmful. I’m sensitive enough to not post any real personal info.

    Agree or disagree – as you stated here last week with something many here disagreed with – TAKE IT TO EMAIL.

    Final note on this – I could easily start an anonymous blog and call myself “P” and say I was a Senate Staffer or Bush’s maid — no one could prove otherwise. There’s no way to prove who Q is or who he works for through that link. I’m ending the conversation here. Any further objections can be emailed.

  32. Actually Pamela, I didn’t say disagreements should be taken to email, I said:

    Quoting Voltaire: “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.” Unless it gets personal, and then I’ll ask you to take it to email, PLEASE.

    And today I add: reasonable people can disagree reasonably. And I reasonably disagree with the decision to leave the link to a poster’s website on the blog after the person has requested that it be removed.

    I’ve heard your side, you’ve heard mine, and we both know it’s not my decision to make. No big deal. I’m simply offering my opinion.

  33. ps. Pam, this is the first I’ve heard that many disagreed with my quote above re: Voltaire. Quite frankly, that surprises me. I’m not sure what part of what I said they disagreed with– my quoting Voltaire, or my asking that personal remarks be taken to email. But, que sara. I’m sure if those people feel strongly enough about it, they’ll email me.

    I’m home and will be happy to reply.

  34. ALL LINKS LEADING TO Q HAVE BEEN REMOVED.

  35. KJ

    I think Pamela’s comment was not about anyone disagreeing with the Voltaire quote or even the idea that we should take some comments to email. Just that during that disagreement, you had requested people make some points by email.

    Your point was to take personal comments over the disagreement to email. And as I explained to you in my email; been there, done that, and the result was even more insensitive, destructive comments – both on the blog and by email.

    Which was a real eye opener. This blog has avoided the turf/ego wars and I am hoping we can find a way to get off this path before it does significant damage.

    First let me reiterate:

    Pamela and I were on the phone when she did her search that led to finding Q’s blog. I followed her approach and it did not involve using ANY information that she had administrative access to from his posts. The assumption that he is probably a staffer was obvious enough to anyone reading the comments, regardless of whether he failed to deny or admit it.

    Was it wrong? My analysis of right and wrong uses these distinctions – so as to learn the lesson.

    The right action for the right reasons.
    The right action for the wrong reasons.
    The wrong action for the right reasons.
    The wrong action for the wrong reasons.

    Was there anything clearly wrong.

    The information was not obtained by illegitmate means.
    The information posted did not lead to any clear identification of the individual – certainly not a phone number or email. The url could have been located by anyone who has a reasonable skill at internet sleuthing.
    The assessment was made that this did not put the individuals employment into any more jeopardy than already existed. If anything, it made the point that he was in more jeopardy than he realized.
    The anonymous blog gave further perspective on the indivdual who was posting – without his having to write it out here.
    Other discussions with conservatives, etc. started with a link to our blog from theirs and the discussions have taken place on both.

    So Q came in with the original response which turned into a liberal/conservative debate that was supposedly based on discussing issues, and agreeing or disagreeing after looking more carefully at facts, assumptions, etc.

    Why would he not link to his site? It offered no more solid information about who he is than what is here. It does give us more of an idea of where he is ‘coming from’ without his having to go into a lot of explanation here.

    Was the action a significant violation of his request for privacy due to his job security. What are the circumstances where violating that request might be appropriate? Was the recent outing of the lawyer on Kos inappropriate?

    Does anyone remember this finding that Greenwald had in his documentary on the 2000 election? The videos of the people who showed up outside the places where ballots were being recounted and were loudly protesting, revealed many of them were Republican Congressional staffers flown to Florida to carry out the protests – as though they were Florida voters.

    Left a level of caution with Republican staffers in my mind.

    Questioning Q’s credibility and searching for some way to verify his comments as legitimate, strikes me as good investigative journalism. The kind we have often pointed out the MSM repeatedly failed to do with the SBVT attacks.

    What was the effect of the action.

    The link went up in the wee hours. Q requested it be taken down. I knew Pamela had planned to go to bed and called her so she could address it. She did edit it, apparently not sufficiently for Q and others.

    After further discussion today, she intended to remove everything in that comment that linked to Q’s site. Which, it turned out, had already been done.

    As Editor and owner of the blog, the final action on that was hers and hers alone, regardless of what she had privately communicated to anyone else.

    One of the realities of writing, is being edited. There will always be differences as to what should or should not be published, how much attention should be given to a certain subject, etc.

    Owner/editors have the final say in their media. They have to respond to criticism of those decisions. Part of my deep respect for Pamela is the extent to which she does respond, in constructive and respectful language, to resolve a conflict. That takes a hell of a lot of strength and humility.

    If you write on someone else’s media, you ultimately have to accept those decisions, agree or not. Civil respect for being given a great deal of room to write, and leeway over differences, seems like a no-brainer to me.

    Tempering professional working relations with sensitivity to your coworker’s personal situations, is also pretty basic human relations.

    Overall, I see the action as something that turned out to be the wrong thing to do -because of the way it was perceived.

    The lessons that could be taken from this.

    Save the late night ideas for further reflection in the morning. I am not convinced it would have changed much in this situation. In other situations it might make a difference.
    The search she conducted could have been outlined without actually giving the results.
    She could have emailed her findings to Q privately. That would still leave an editorial decision on some way of disclosing she had found something that led her to question his comments; and letting the readers reach their own conclusions as to whether he expressed his opinions completely, so as not to mislead readers.

    I have personally weighed in here and before on the idea of being more respectful, and less accusatory or inflammatory in responding to any of the dissenters who come here. I have crossed my own lines on occasion – usually with satire – and regretted it afterwards.

    The only other idea that occurs to me as a means for helping all of us do a better job in reviewing our comments, is to have the preview option that other blogs do. This was brought up earlier. Pamela has looked at the work that needs to be done to make it possible. It is time consuming, over and above what she already spends, and expensive.

    Overall, Pamela has done a superb job with this site – improving it constantly to make it more user friendly and high quality.

    There is always room for improvement. On everyone’s part.

    I want to make one thing very clear. My personal health situation may cause me to take an extended break from blogging. It has nothing to do with this other than the health issues are not helped by stress and the logical action is to cut out stressful factors in my life. Blogging cannot be made less stressful, so I will probably ‘get out of the kitchen’ until I have those issues under better control.

  36. Ginny,
    We will miss you.
    Get well, chill out and come on back.
    Bear in mind, it is normal to track down people who “trash” the site to see if they are active elsewhere.
    Most folks use their IDs elsewhere so simple google makes them easier to find.

  37. Ginny
    We will miss you.
    Get well…chill out..and join us again soon.
    This administration is making a whole lot of folks ill.

    Bear in mind that we often search out rather nasty Q type characters to see if they are active elsewhere.

    If he is dumb enough to have a web site, he is dumb enough to give up his autonomy by having that site.

    It doesn’t say much so what is the big deal. (am paraphrasing one of his discussions).

  38. Ginny, given the amount of experience I’ve racked up from my fairly long time on-line, I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to releasing personal information of any kind, whether about myself or others, in a public place. I actual lean quite conversative on this subject.

    As for the turf/ego wars, been there, and I certainly hope we can continue to allow our unique expressions and experiences to color the community we’ve created here. We all have our strengths and I love the spirit of celebration that’s brought to everyone’s posts. Anything I can do to foster that celebration (and serious reading of the blogger’s work), I’m happy to do.

    Stress is a killer. My brain cells have been falling out by the bucketload every morning in the shower. Friday I went to get my silver hair glazed and something happened and now I have silver hair with a purple tint. (Anyone who dares to call me a bluehaired lady gets drop kicked into Freerland without a map!) So the brain cells that fall out every morning float first through a purple haze before hitting the shower floor. It’s psychodelic, man. I’ve decided to wear all blue all week and see if anyone notices I’m a color-coordinated blue liberal.

    Stress? What’s that? 😉

  39. ps. Ginny, yes, breaks are good. The “Life of Pi” and “The KiteRunner” are still my top two fiction recommends, and I’m making use of the Gilmore Girl re-runs for my own mental health. GG isn’t Northern Exposure, but it is based on characters who live and interact in a quaint (to say the least) town in Connecticut.

  40. Ginny,

    VERY sorry to hear you won’t be around much for a while, esp since it is due to health reasons. 🙁

    Please get well soon. You will be in my thoughts…

    And so not to upset you tonight. I will hold off on my goodbye post to Q.

    Had been waiting a little anyway today to cool off so I wouldn’t crash the server due to it’s length. If I do post it tomorrow it will not be a nice one though. So scroll by if you see my name. Creatures like him to me rate even lower than righty droolers and lefty droolers too. Esp after knowing what he does for a living. The hypocrisy of some of his comments is way too much. As well as his type being my least favorite. People are overly impressed with themselves, arrogant, condensing, a-holes who have proved to have no valid reason to be any of those 3 things(the a-hole is valid.) He also even successfuly channeled some of Hannity, yetch! oops, just a taste…better cut off now…blood pressure rising… 🙁

  41. KJ,

    “Anyone who dares to call me a bluehaired lady…”

    LOL! Hey cool, how long is your hair? If it’s long enough, you should style it in a big beehive. Then everyone will think you’re Marge Simpson. 🙂

  42. I didn’t intend to continue the discussion of the editings, but this comment is more for dealing with the internet in general as opposed to this particular incident.

    Ginny said “The link went up in the wee hours.” It might be assumed that taking it down the next day prevents the information from being seen. This is not necessarily the case. Search engines such as google cache items picked up in searches and it is easy to find information that was on a web site even after it was deleted.

    Long time Kerry supporters might recall this as this was instrumental in rebuilding the campaign’s official forum after it crashed. Old posts were found in the google cache and reposted.

  43. Ron,

    How weird, ususally I find “site unavailable”. Good to know.

    Dave and battlebob,

    Thanks. This is partially because I’ve never been able to avoid the truth or not to search for something that I think is necessary to understand. I end up jumping on things early – before they are far along. Due to the sleep apnea clouding the cognitive function for several years, I’ve gotten a later start than I would have normally, but nothing a consistent focus should not take care of.

    Dave,

    I really appreciate your holding off. I can never resist your rants 😆 Watch the blood pressure!