In response to the resignation of apparent serial plagiarist Ben Domenech from his days-old blog "Red America" at the Washington Post, the moonbats at the leftist "MyDD" website let us know that for the left, the issue was not plagiarism, but conservatism. Never forget that those on the left started their witchhunt immediately after the blog was launched; they could not stand the idea of a conservative voice being published by the Post or anywhere else.
Matt Stoller at MyDD stated the position overtly:
"...journalists should no longer listen to the right-wing."
They don't want debate. They don't want a diversity of viewpoints expressed. They don't want to have to refute challenges to their radical worldview. They want the conservative side of the political spectrum in America silenced, to be considered outside the bounds of legitimate discourse.
We ignored the story for the first few days because it looked like a simple case of leftist intolerance for any dissent, par for the course. But unfortunately (unfortunate that the wrongdoing occurred, not unfortunate it was uncovered) sometimes a witchhunt finds a witch; some left-wing bloggers did uncover what at this point appears to be some actual, serious wrongdoing on the part of Domenech. It looks like the Washington Post simply hired the wrong guy. They did the right thing securing his resignation, there's just no excuse for plagiarism. But we must not forget, that's not what motivated the left. Domenech's apparent wrongdoing does not offer any lessons about conservatism or conservatives. Hopefully, the Post will continue the experiment with a better representative of the right, (one, at a minumum, who writes his own stuff).
UPDATE: A statement from Domenech.
UPDATE 2: Via the Corner at NRO, a statement of contrition from Mr. Domenech:
I want to apologize to National Review Online, my friends and colleagues here at RedState, and to any others that have been affected over the past few days. I also want to apologize to my previous editors and writers whose work I used inappropriately and without attribution. There is no excuse for this - nor is there an excuse for any obfuscation in my earlier statement.
Well said.
Others:
Michelle Malkin
Riehl World View
Patterico
The Volokh Conspiracy
The reaction against Domenech was not a reaction against conservatism; it was a reaction against a particularly vicious, dishonest, intolerant lazy brand of extreme right wing discourse which has, sadly, come to dominate the national media.
Dissent is fine (someone should inform the President and his cheerleaders of that fact, by the way), but dissent is not what Domenech offered. Propaganda for the Bush Party Line is not dissent.
Comment by A Hermit — March 24, 2006 @ 2:22 pm March 24, 2006
But we must not forget, that’s not what motivated the left. Domenech’s apparent wrongdoing does not offer any lessons about conservatism or conservatives. Hopefully, the Post will continue the experiment with a better representative of the right, (one, at a minumum, who writes his own stuff).
And just like a typical rightwing drone, you only tell the half of the story that suits your purpose. The blogosphere called this kid to account for not telling us that he was a shill for his daddy's interests. You DO know who his daddy is don't you?
Your blog comment section sucks. Very amateurish.
Comment by dano347 — March 24, 2006 @ 2:58 pm March 24, 2006
If you spent as much time researching an issue as you do thinking about ways to distort other people's viewpoints, maybe someday, you will come up with something worth knowing about. I think you should shed a few pounds and do the horsework and get some real news.
Comment by Hispanio — March 24, 2006 @ 6:15 pm March 24, 2006
You flat out lied. You quote Matt Stoller at MyDD, as saying “…journalists should no longer listen to the right-wing.” and yet when I go to the site you linked to I find this "Journalists and editors should no longer appease the right-wing". Should not listen to and should not appease are quite different and I can't believe that you don't know that. You sir are a liar and there is no nicer way to put it.
Comment by Anthony Duval — March 24, 2006 @ 8:53 pm March 24, 2006
I love how the libs are so quick to label right-wingers as intolerant while they're blasting away with both
barrels and crying about propaganda. For crying out loud, everybody is spouting off their beliefs. It seems though that when conservatives say or write anything the left reflexsively starts with all their hysteronics.
Chill my left-leaning friends. Be kind for a change and stop with the mean stuff and name calling.
Comment by Scott Smith — March 25, 2006 @ 6:35 am March 25, 2006
Anthony,
Anyone can click the link to MyDD included in the post and read for themselves that we copied and pasted "…journalists should no longer listen to the right-wing" directly from the MyDD site.
Comment by The Editors — March 25, 2006 @ 7:34 am March 25, 2006
The world does not need this kind of childish yelling between the left and the right. America does not need it. Your children and your friends and your coworkers and your fellow churchgoers do not need it.
You all - left and right - need to ask yourself why YOU need this fake battle. Yes there are different ideas about laws and policies and how to govern. But differences are never settled by shouting. Never. So why has the debate over ideas degenerated into this useless shouting match?
Who benefits from all of this shouting? Seriously, ask yourself. What is it that isn't getting done because you all are so busy writing nastier things than the other guy?
Hmmm.
Comment by aperson — March 25, 2006 @ 5:16 pm March 25, 2006
LOL! Propaganda for the party line is not dissent? But propaganda for the *other* party line *is* dissent? Oh, wait... it's that other opinions are quite all right so long as they aren't overly unpleasant or expressed rudely. Okay, that makes more sense... dissent is allowed only if it's mild and expressed in a pleasant manner. Oh, wait! That isn't it at all. It's that opinions and dissent are only allowed from people with no connections to political parties or who have no parents.
Moreover, your comment section "sucks" you are a stay at home fat mother who ought to be doing your housework (who else is fat and does housework?), and you're a liar.
I tell ya, I just love the way liberals make fun of fat people. You learn a lot about people by who they think it's okay denigrate. Kinda like the Dem pol who had a retarded kid on some of his campaign literature.
Comment by Synova — March 25, 2006 @ 5:36 pm March 25, 2006
The more important issue is how liberals attacking Domenech plagiarized him in their attacks.
Comment by Jon Swift — March 26, 2006 @ 2:08 am March 26, 2006
I checked out the MyDD link. It contains both the "do not appease" and "do not listen" containing sentences. It says "do not appease" more often than it does "do not listen". After reading the whole thing, is seemed to me that the author was equating "do not appease" with "do not listen". Yet another example of the convolution of vocabulary usage. Scarey.
Comment by suek — March 26, 2006 @ 1:36 pm March 26, 2006
"Conservatism" should not equate with hate-filled, name-calling left-bashing any more than "left" or "liberal" should equate with "those who hate America." Anyone who subscribes to either of these equations should stop and give sober, serious, and possibly lengthy consideration to when the division of opinion in this country became so acrimonious -- as well as to whom the acrimony first emanated from (and continues seemingly unabated from). Remember that in the settling dust of the Twin Towers, as we as a nation were struggling to figure out why we would have been so targeted, that it was the right who immediately bought into President Bush's nonsensical line that it was because "they" (Al Qaeda or whoever) "hate our freedoms." This then proceeded swiftly to any questioning of this assertion or any critical look at the role of the U.S. in world affairs being equated with "hating America" -- an even more absurd assertion. I put it to you plainly: the "hate" pullulating through American society these days is the fault (and there is no kinder or more appropriate word) of rightist jingoists such as Ben Domenech. "Opinions" such as his give conservatism a bad name, and giving column inches to such "opinions" does anything but achieve balance.
Comment by Kerry Canfield — March 26, 2006 @ 5:17 pm March 26, 2006
I doubt you'll see this Kerry C, but that "nonsensical line" is supported by the published statements of Bin Laden and others. "Critical looks" at the role of the U.S. in world affairs were searches for the answer to "why do they hate us" that deliberately didn't include such things as our tolerance of gays, religious diversity, or sexual equality. Because though true, those reasons weren't acceptably *our fault*. Bin Laden's journey to extremism began when he experienced the "Western" style excesses of Lebanon. His life has been studied extensively. The Taliban forbade women from leaving their homes without escort, forbade them education, forbade them make-up or nail polish. It forbade music even within people's own homes. Gays are killed in the middle east. Girls who are unfortunate enough to be raped are stoned to death in Iran.
It's funny (well not really) that the party of social justice and compassion doesn't give a d*mn.
Comment by Synova — March 28, 2006 @ 11:29 pm March 28, 2006
Is Synova really expecting me or anyone to believe that Bin Laden and his ilk truly did such an in-depth research of American society that what they were targeting when they toppled the Twin Towers was more for "our tolerance of gays, religious diversity, or sexual equality" than U.S. policies in the Middle East, particularly U.S. support for Israel? And as for the party of social justice and compassion not giving a damn, I guess it just never occurred to me it was our heaven-mandated duty as Americans to convert the Middle East to tolerance of others by force of arms, at the cost of the rights and deaths of citizens of our own country. So sorry for my muddled thinking.
Comment by Kerry Canfield — April 2, 2006 @ 11:28 pm April 2, 2006