The Weekly Standard Walk-back
March 09, 2010 12:21 pm ET by Jamison Foser
When Weekly Standard blogger Michael Goldfarb was mocked last December for making a far-fetched claim about the White House threatening to close an Air Force base in order to secure Ben Nelson's support for health care reform, Goldfarb quickly began walking back his claim, then abruptly stopped talking about it altogether.
So when I saw Weekly Standard writer John McCormack's baseless suggestion that the White House nominated Rep. Jim Matheson's brother for a judgeship in order to win Matheson's support for health care reform, it looked like history was repeating itself.
And sure enough, McCormack promptly began walking back his claim, telling Fox News viewers the next day there "probably" wasn't an "explicit" quid pro quo. The day after that, McCormack wrote that the "most likely" scenario was that "White House officials simply hoped that if they scratched Matheson's back with the nomination, he would scratch theirs with a vote for the health care bill." Then McCormack went silent on the matter.
So, here's how this played out:
March 3: McCormack writes "Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?" and "Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother's vote?"
March 4: McCormack admits there was "probably not" an "explicit quid pro quo."
March 5: McCormack writes that the most likely explanation is that the White House simply "hoped" Matheson would vote for health care reform.
March 6 - Present: Silence.
Now, ideally, the Weekly Standard wouldn't run around peddling baseless conspiracy theories in the first place. But since they do, it's good to know they've perfected The Weekly Standard Walk-back.
And I'm willing to meet them halfway, by acknowledging that they probably don't subsidize their magazine publishing by selling intravenous drugs to six-year-olds.
But who can really know... I'd rather err on the side of caution.
This was played out a long time ago in the "Bloom County."
"Ah ha. So you admit you do not deny that you know where the body of Jimmy Hoffa is buried." The intrepid young reporter shouted at the Congressman.
The Congressman's silence was deafening.
Need more be said to prove the Congressman's involvement in the conspiracy? The reporter put down the Congressman's response as "No comment."
Who says journalism is dead; surely not the "Weekly Standard."?
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
There was no evidence that there was anything close to a quid pro quo. In fact, with a little bit of research, I was able to show that Scott Matheson was lobbying for the job back in June of last year, when there weren't any doubts that the bill would pass without any 'deals'. Orrin Hatch suggested this guy to Obama, and it'd been clear for a long time that Matheson was going to get the nomination. And, on top of that, one would be hard-pressed to find a better qualified candidate!
Imagine that? A conspiracy theory without any evidence to support it pushed by a rightwinger. Who would have imagined such a thing?
Please, further weaken any credibility any rightwinger has on this site by behaving this way. Please, don't stop digging your own grave by refraining from making ad hominem attacks.
It's also pretty silly to suggest that some random thumbs down damages the credibility of every right winger who posts here. How does that work, exactly? It seems to me that any poster's credibility can only be determined by examining his words and actions. "You right wingers have no credibility because someone I can't even identify gave me a thumbs down!!" Do you really not see how ridiculous that is? It certainly doesn't help your credibility.
I know that "personal animus" and "don't feed the trolls" are your very favorite hobby horses, and you ride 'em hard, but maybe just once you ought to stop and think about the degree to which you have earned this "personal animus" about which you go on and on and on.
Which of course would entail.... what?
I've brought this up a time or two before, as have some of the regulars around here. I simply don't have the time or the inclination to complain about it every single time it happens, even though it's annoying every time. For the most part, it's futile. Who really believes that these comments ever change anyone's mind about anything anyway (who besides Dolly, I mean)? I come to MM for information, to keep tabs on that ubiquitous conservative misinformation, and I read the comments primarily for entertainment. Sometimes, though, when I read her posts, I just think "Oh god, not this crap again," and I have to vent a little.
Dell Dolly, I generally like your take on things, but do you realize that you posted the longest response to the off-topic troll?
Some of us just have fun pointing out their failures, on-topic or off. If it bothers you so much, scroll past. You don't do yourself any favors by calling others "fools" for having a little fun with something that you allow to annoy you so much.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002190059
And, you need to get a clue.
Other posters have the right to tell me that they don't agree with my methods, JUST LIKE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY WHAT I THINK.
This is not rocket science.
But thanks for showing us all that YOU side with the trolls.
It isn't that he DISAGREES with me at all - that's ANOTHER of your bogus charges.
It's that he sides, like I said with the trolls. And you. Sorry if that hurts - I wish you wouldn't side with the trolls, since you've never made a valid argument against what I suggest doing, but that's your choice.
It's not my fault that what you and this other poster does helps the trolls. Stop pretending that you're some kind of victim. All it does is lowers YOUR credibility.
Of course you have the right to post your whiny nonsense, and of course I have the right to respond. You're annoying. You can continue to be annoying as long as you like - in fact, I'm starting to think you couldn't stop if you wanted to. For the most part, I don't bother to point it out - if I did, I'd be complaining every single day like you do. Sometimes, though, I just can't help but think "give it a rest already." I know you won't, but I don't have to like it.
DellDolly, do you realize that you're sounding exactly like Tommy/right ON when anyone quotes one of his posts? You're acting just as paranoid, and are just as unwilling to face up to what you have written before.
But hey, if you want to show us all that you side with the trolls, be my guest.
I did NOT get "all worked up". But thanks for making a baseless personal attack that I DID get all worked up.
I can't understand why anyone cares about this stupid thumbs up/thumbs down nonsense. It's meaningless.
It's not "meaningless" when someone thumbs down another's post without making a comment that explains why they did that. Numerous posters have pointed this out in the 6 months I've been here. It's irresponsible to just reflexively thumb down something. I don't care about any thumbs up or down. I do care about baseless personal attacks, which is what a drive-by thumbs down is.
It's also pretty silly to suggest that some random thumbs down damages the credibility of every right winger who posts here. How does that work, exactly? It seems to me that any poster's credibility can only be determined by examining his words and actions. "You right wingers have no credibility because someone I can't even identify gave me a thumbs down!!" Do you really not see how ridiculous that is? It certainly doesn't help your credibility.
Nope, you're wrong. Drive-by thumbs down DO diminish the power of any dissenting voice. I disagree with you. Just like the behavior of some misbehaving tea party attendees gets tagged to all attendees. This is not rocket science. But thanks for making a second baseless personal attack. It's my opinion that it does work this way.
I know that "personal animus" and "don't feed the trolls" are your very favorite hobby horses, and you ride 'em hard...
I direct personal animus accusation to those people who have clearly earned them, and not only do I aim them at those people, I then provide direct documentation of why the comments ARE evidence of that personal animus! I also explain on a regular basis why people shouldn't feed troll posts. But suggesting that it's the majority of my contributions here is ludicrous.
...but maybe just once you ought to stop and think about the degree to which you have earned this "personal animus" about which you go on and on and on.
I have "earned" the personal animus because I have derailed RightON's attempts to derail threads. I have caused him to lose the undeserved credibility he once had here, and it tees him off. Just like criminals get mad at the DA and the judge who prove them guilty and sentence them. The convicted criminal is not a victim, and neither is RightON, despite his or his buddy's protestations to the contrary.
If this be animus, make the most of it. Like many others, I'm just getting tired of your self-absorbed whining.
If I agree with a post, I don't have much to say. If I disagree with a post, I comment. The thumbs up is a useful way to reveal agreement, because agreement is too easily invisible.