Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Senate offices and bloggers
Posted by: Jon Henke on Thursday, October 11, 2007

Following up on the SCHIP drama, we've also got significant portions of the Leftosphere shrieking that a Senate staffer had the temerity to send an email about the story, despite the fact that it was, at that point, unsubstantiated. (Disclosure: I previously worked in the Senate office]

Because, you know, that's just not the sort of thing Lefty bloggers and Democrats would tolerate....
...the ACLU is taking an aggressive approach: passing on what it freely concedes are rumors concerning what's in the bill in order to pressure Senators against violating civil-libertarian red-lines. ... Early this morning, ACLU spokeswoman Liz Rose heard from Senate sources that an unreleased draft of the bill contains provisions granting amnesty to telecommunications companies... [...] So she sent out an email to a list of concerned bloggers warning them of what she heard. She gave permission to one of them, Christy Hardin Smith of Fire Dog Lake, to publish a version of her email. Hardin Smith wrote a post earlier today quoting Rose's email...
…the Senate bill (Committee draft) does contain immunity/amnesty for the telecom companies…Including retroactive immunity for anything they’ve done wrong in cooperating in illegal domestic spying for the past six years.

... I contacted Rose to ask her what she had heard. In full candor, she said, "We have not actually seen the bill. We're completely running on rumor."
Oh, and it turns out "there isn't any "draft" of the bill yet."

To recap here:

  • A Senate office spreads the rumor to the ACLU that the Draft bill contains immunity.

  • The ACLU passed that rumor to bloggers as fact.

  • Lefty bloggers repeated it. As fact.

  • A Senate Office acknowledges that it was not quite a "fact".

  • Lefty bloggers fail to be outraged over the Senate, ACLU and blogger participation in passing around rumors as facts.

Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

An exercise for the readers:

what’s missing from the "recap" that makes this story considerably different than the Senate staffer story?

hint - it has to do with honesty, oddly enough.
Written By: mario
URL: http://
"Lefty bloggers fail to be outraged over the Senate, ACLU and blogger participation in passing around rumors as facts."

Umm so what is new here?

Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Do tell.
Written By: Jon Henke
what’s missing from the "recap" that makes this story considerably different than the Senate staffer story?

I’m going to guess it’s that the left and lefty bloggers are good guys, while the right and righty bloggers are bad guys. Mario, can you confirm?
Written By: Wulf
They left out the image of Bush twirling his snidley whiplash mustache evily while tying the 12 year old Frost kid to the train tracks?
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I get it. Mario’s comment is performance art. It’s just supposed to make us think. Well, I did think... and I came to the same conclusions I originally had. Thanks much for the valuable exercise, Mario.
Written By: Wulf
I note "Libby" opened her mouth, and spake thus:

once again showing her concern for her fellow man. (think about it)

I swear I’m worried about McQ. I’ve always thought of him as a sort of rational voice for his side of the fence but talk about grasping at straws. His attempt to paint the left’s response to Bush having trotted out the 9 year old prodigy to sell his failed Social Security plan as equivalent to the vitriolic horde that descended on the Frost family is far removed from what I would have expected of him.
I mean, does he honestly believe there’s equivalence between young Frost making a what, five minute statement, about how a program already in place has helped him and this?

Noah will travel to a handful of states ahead of visits by the president and will go on radio programs, answer trivia questions and say a few words about Social Security. Though he is obviously not an expert (and not really a lobbyist, either), officials say the effort is a lighthearted way to underline Mr. Bush’s message.

“What I want to tell people about Social Security is to not be afraid of the new plan,” Noah said. “It may be a change, but it’s a good change.”
This is a kid Bush turned into a traveling freak show in order to sell a radical change in the largest and oldest safety net in our society. And I’m sure that the named parties can defend their own posts but to take a few words out context of a couple of parody posts, cite a couple of other low traffic bloggers and one other post critical of the president and the two other bloggers who pointed to it and claim this is the equivalent of what happened to the Frost family doesn’t suggest a frim grip on critical thinking.

If anybody digs up the posts where we posted the family’s contact information, their workplaces, their financial history and photos of their home and vehicles, along with Noah’s school records let me know.
Well, Libby, I have to tell you that I have some bad news for you. The reason that nobody did that, in that case, was not some misguided morality or other. The Democrats have never shown a propensity for doing that, rather being driven by a morality which states that anything that keeps them in power is moral. Let’s face it, given what we’ve seen in the last eight years, if there was any chance whatsoever of the Democrats gaining anything out of that exposure of that family, they would have done so. The fact of the matter is that the reason they did not so expose that family, was because they wouldn’t have gained anything from it, and the situation was precisely as the White House projected it as being.

Unlike what the Democrats did with the Frost family.

I will say this is again… let there be no mistake.

If in fact the Frosts are emblematic of the type of family the Democrats think are deserving of healthcare paid for with MY money, we as a nation have bigger problems than we’re going to be able to solve by throwing your money and mine at it. We have a problem centering on honesty and responsibility.

We also have a problem with a political party willing to toss aside those concepts. Think about it; Democrats willing to toss aside honesty and responsibility. Does the concept shock you? Me, neither.

Any questions, Libby?

PS: Oh, by the way… do you actually read who writes things, over there?

That’s not McQ… it’s Henke you’re on about. While Henke and I have had stout disagreements in the past… this ain’t one of ‘em.
Written By: Bithead
Oops... the link to the original post:(link)

My bad, sorry.
Written By: Bithead

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks