Letters to the Editor

• KingFelix

  [Read the article: The Dan Gerstein sham]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Hamsher's Lieberman smear DID happen.

  Let me know the magazines and newspapers which have nobody associated with them who ever made a single inappropriate comment in the past and who never made a mistake.

  While she may not be Rush Limbaugh, there seems to be an inconsistency here in what GG says, in that, if guests on Rush and Hannity (a dreadful fascist) were subject to similar manufactured non-stories as this one directed at Clinton, then he would accept the non-story as representing what??? "Balance" an equal distribution of mud?

  To say that Jane Hamsher is not Rush Limbaugh is an absurd under-statement. Rush Limbaugh is probably the single most vicious and toxic hate-monger in the country, and has been for the last 20 years. Yet the President and Vice President regularly go on his show and heap praise on him.

  If that isn't a controversy -- and it isn't -- why would this possibly be?

  Also, by using the phrase 'extreme right-wing blogs' you imply that FDL is an extreme left-wing blog.

  That's just basically illogical. And I made clear that I think FDL is a "mainstream" blog filled with mainstream Democrats. I made that clear by saying so.

  I am not sure that's the case, but I do think it matters that the person who runs FDL has engaged in the kind of behaviour that Hamsher has, and I don't find it any more acceptable for having been done by somebody on the left. Acquainting myself with the Lieberman episode, I have to conclude that it was truly a gross error of judgment and that Hamsher is damaged goods.

  How about Daily Kos? Is Markos "damaged goods" Are any right-wing bloggers "damaged goods"? Is Rush Limbaugh? Is Sean Hannity?

  Or is there some progressive atonement process of rehabilitation that I missed? That doing good Libby coverage absolves everything?

  No - a single act that a person does which they retract and apologize ought to banish them to hell forever as a scorned and hated figure, no matter what else they do with the rest of their lives.

  But, no, instead you assert that FDL, by dint of its reputation and number of readers, is respectable. You feel obliged to repeat this fact twice, as if you don't quite believe it yourself.

  More brilliant logic. In the last week, I've said that the media was too compliant in the run-up to the war probably 15 or 20 times. So I guess, by your reasoning, that means I don't REALLY don't believe that.

  I read this blog religiously, but this post is the weakest for a long time, and I feel the reason it ties itself in knots is because you are trying to argue from a position other than your usual position of strength.

  The post is about the impropriety of Dan Gerstein as a source to attack blogs. That is the topic of the post. Do you have anything to say about that? It doesn't seem so. It seems instead that you have some animosity towards Jane Hamsher and think she's the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. That's fine. I don't agree, to put it mildly. But that point is, at most, secondary to the post. The actual point is one that you seemed to have overlooked in your desire to focus on Jane.

  Permalink Friday, April 27, 2007 08:30 AM