I understand that blogs-especially blogs that try to generate income-need traffic. But it is problematic when blogs-even partisan ones-go into the histrionic whine when events do not go the way they want.
For instance, Ben Tribbett at NLS is unhappy that District Court Judge Henry Hudson did not dismiss the AGKen lawsuit against Obamacare. Fair enough. However, Ben goes on to characterize the judge as a “RADICAL RIGHT WING FEDERAL JUDGE“. Of course, this contention goes against the fact that Hudson is a well-respected jurist, has always avoided the partisan political wars, and when over the years he was mentioned as a candidate for the GOP nod for AG one of the knocks against him was that he wasn’t conservative enough. But now he is a “radical right-wing” judge.
Truth be told is that this was a motion to dismiss, not a motion on the merits at trial. As such the judge has to assess the facts at issue in the best light for the plaintiff.
Of course, a judge doing his job by the letter of the law and not ruling to reach a predetermined end would not satisfy the lefties-hence the whine.
At the same time, the folks at the reinvigorated Lowell Kell production Blue Virginia are unhappy about the WaPo Magazine feature on Ken Cuccinelli. I read the piece myself, and agree it was a softball piece.
However, it was also an article in the Washington Post Magazine, which has never, ever run a hard hitting piece. But of course, Lowell and the BVa folks measure all WaPo articles against the wildly one-sided hit pieces said magazine launched against George Allen in 2006. By that measure, I can see why he would be…whining.
At the same time, Lowell pens a paean of praise to David Stockman, the original Reagan OMB Director, for criticizing the current GOP for moving away from the old time religion of balanced budgets. Of course, he scarcely devotes time to noting that Stockman as OMB director embraced supply side economics, budget deficits, and the like. Lowell talks like Stockman is the walking embodiment of Robert Taft, Jr., or Harry Byrd, Sr…and were it not for the Obama administration (which BVa wholeheartedly supports) pushing fiscal plans that are leading to massive debts themselves, his piece would seem a little less like…whining.
What strikes me about these pieces is the degree of self blinding they indulge in. Ben Tribbett knows that the wall to dismiss a lawsuit is very high, but offers no reason beyond “Ben wants it to happen” why the case should have been dismissed-and compounds the ugliness with unnecessary and unwarranted name calling. BVa knows the WaPo mag deals in soft soap articles, but seems to think that any article that falls short of being so unbalanced that it requires an ombudsman to apologize for it (as the WaPo ombudsman did in 2006) is somehow wrong. Lowell knows that Stockman sold fiscal kool-aid back in the day, but purports to hold him up as an advocate for fiscal sanity at the same time that the Obama administration rolls up deficits.
Why are they doing this? Perhaps because they see how bad things can be for the Dems in November, and they are desperately railing against the wind to make things different. But their failure to adopt the true and fair standard they seem to demand of others is just a simple attempt to try to hash facts into a form that can hold democrat majorities in November.
You see, they think they these articles constitute part of a winning effort. Unfortunately, what they put out actually represents a slightly different word-and not one that is going to help them in November.
UPDATE: BVa had decided nothing goes better with a good whine than…another good whine. And, just as NLS, BVa offers a high level of ad hominem dreck and no legal reasoning.
What is telling is that none of the erstwhile Obamacare supporters has said that they think the law will pass constitutional muster-they simply rail because Hudson did not toss the case.