Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

You shall know them by their work

A few weeks ago, there was a targeted leak of old Journolist threads meant to humiliate and harm David Weigel. That was an awful experience for all involved. Now we're getting the inevitable dregs of that story: right-wing reporters crawling through all of the thousands and thousands of threads from the e-mail list in order to juice the excerpts for a couple more hits. The first round of this was a tragedy. The second is a farce.

Yesterday's dispatch attempted to detail a conspiracy to bury the Reverend Wright story, or maybe respond to it by calling conservatives racist, or maybe just stick to the policy questions. It was hard to say, because rather than an actual media conspiracy, the Daily Caller had a handful of avowedly liberal columnists arguing with one another about Jeremiah Wright. I didn't participate in that thread, and the next day, wrote this post, which argued that Wright's comments would be a big deal even if he'd been white and the candidate had been John Kerry. This did not make lefties happy. Some conspiracy.

The other piece of evidence in yesterday's story was a public letter signed by 41 members of Journolist protesting ABC News's conduct during one of the presidential primary debate. You may remember this one. Greg Mitchell, of Editor and Publisher (and not a member of Journolist), called it a "shameful night for US media." On Journolist, Tom Schaller, a professor of political science at the University of Maryland, wrote an angry letter and asked people if they'd like to sign it. Then the letter was posted in public. You can read it here. Some conspiracy.

There's a piece of that story, incidentally, that the Daily Caller -- and their Journolist beat reporter, Jonathan Strong -- knew but did not report. After the letter came out, I thought a lot about whether it was appropriate for a listserv including journalists to be used in that way. I decided it wasn't. I banned further letters from being circulated on the list. The Daily Caller had e-mails of me doing this, and of shutting down future attempts, but they declined to publish them, or even mention my policy. So the one actual attempt at coordination -- lame and earnest as it was -- led to a policy against future attempts at coordination. But the Daily Caller didn't report this. Didn't fit the narrative, I guess.

Which brings us to the Daily Caller. There might be some interesting stories to write about a trove of 25,000+ e-mails -- though, in reality, most of them would say something like "lots of people have lots of different opinions" -- but their approach has been to cherrypick the few snippets that support the most sensational headlines, and then attribute them to "Journolist," or "journalists," as opposed to whichever specific person is being quoted.

Today's headline, for instance, is "FOX HUNT: Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News." This, uh, never happened.

Here's what did happen. On March 12, there was a thread about a column Howell Raines (not a Jlist member, I should note) wrote for The Washington Post about Fox's form of advocacy journalism. In the thread, Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, asked, "is there any reason why the FCC couldn't simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?" Michael Scherer, an actual journalist at Time magazine, reacted with incredulity. "You really want political parties/white houses picking and choosing which news organizations to favor?" He replied.

And that's ... it. No one mentioned Zasloff's FCC comment again. The thread moved into broader questions about Fox. The Caller goes on to misrepresent a John Judis post that it says agreed with Zasloff, but what Judis actually said was "Fox, like the business/GOP thinktanks that began in the '70s, are taking advantage of an older Progressive era concept of disinterestedness and objectivity to peddle partisan coverage. It may be that it's counter-productive for the White House to out them, but it would not be unprincipled for the O adm to give precedence to the other networks, and to newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post that try to adhere to, rather than exploit, the older standard." That isn't even a controversial opinion, and it's certainly not about "shutting down" Fox News.

Moreover, the actual evidence of conspiracy -- public writings on using the FCC to attack Fox -- doesn't exist, at least so far as I know. And yet this story has been leading the Daily Caller's web page -- huge type, huge picture of Obama -- all day.

So let's recap: The Daily Caller's story is wrong. "Journalists" did not suggest shutting Fox News down. A law professor wondered whether the FCC could do it. The journalists in the thread ignored or opposed the idea (which is of course proper; it's absurd to think that the FCC would, or should, pull the plug on Fox), and then there was a long conversation over whether Fox was a news organization or an activist organization.

But the Daily Caller's story made sense for the Daily Caller. Tucker Carlson, the site's editor, previewed this story on Sean Hannity's show last night. Presumably he'll go on Fox News to talk about it today. For the Daily Caller, a young organization in need of hits and publicity, it makes sense to feed Fox a story about, well, Fox, and how embattled conservatives are in the face of the mighty liberal media conspiracy, which in this case boils down to a question asked by a law professor in California.

Ironically, this sort of thing was exactly what the Fox News thread was about: How do you handle organizations like the Daily Caller that sell themselves as news outlets but "are taking advantage of an older Progressive era concept of disinterestedness and objectivity to peddle partisan coverage?"

It's a hard question. A better example -- and one much less related to me -- was Andrew Breitbart's decision to pump a partial video clip of an Agriculture Department official explaining how, two decades ago, her association with two white farmers taught her to stop focusing solely on the inequalities of racism and see the struggles that even white people were fighting. But Breitbart's clip omitted the beginning and the end of the story, and focused only on Shirley Sherrod's explanation of the beliefs she had to overcome in herself. In doing, it made her sound racist.

And it worked. The Sherrod tape was treated as news, not a political ad that actual news reporters might want to follow up on. The Daily Caller pitched in happily: "As you look in vain for this in the newspapers and on the nightly news, imagine if Shirley Sherrod was a white person in a position of power and was talking about a poor black person," wrote Jim Treacher. "You wouldn’t be able to walk around in any newsroom in the country, what with all the drool on the floor."

Sherrod was fired from her position before the rest of the video -- and the white couple in question, who surfaced yesterday to explain their long friendship and deep gratitude toward Sherrod -- could make its way into the story. As my mother used to say, a lie can make it halfway across the world while the truth is still lacing up its boots.

It's safe to say that the Daily Caller will continue pumping the Journolist story. There are tens of thousands of e-mails in that trove, a lot of people speaking unguardedly, unwisely and impolitically. That's a lot of grist you can use for various attention-grabbing headlines, and stories full of quotes out of context. There's not a lot to be done about it, and I won't be trying to answer every story, or explain every thread. I actually expect this to be my final public comment on the subject.

What even the Daily Caller's cherrypicked articles have shown is that Journolist was a long-running argument between people who had different views and different interests. In another wrinkle they haven't mentioned, Journolist included Gautham Nagesh, a Daily Caller reporter (he's since moved to The Hill). He frequently disagreed with other members of the list. It also included almost 400-some other people, including grad students, low-level editors, midwestern academics, and many others I'd never met or known of before they joined. If I had thought there was some deep and dark conspiracy to protect, I can guarantee you I would've been a bit more selective.

But there wasn't. Though the Daily Caller's headlines suggests the listserv of 400 spoke with one voice, their own reporting, and their own reporters, show that the reality was very different. It just doesn't fit their agenda to say so.

And as for the obvious question -- why don't I just release all the e-mails? -- the answer is that I still believe people have the right to assume privacy when they send e-mails to an off-the-record list. They should be careful about what they write, but that's a different question.

By Ezra Klein  |  July 21, 2010; 9:55 AM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wonkbook: Jobless aid advances; Kagan wins committee vote; energy bill uncertain
Next: A deficit-neutral jobs program


Klein! Rufen Sie mich nicht rassistisch an!

Posted by: DemoKraut | July 21, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Very well said Ezra.

Posted by: MosBen | July 21, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

DemoKraut, wow, you got to Godwin's Law in your NAME! Congrats.

Posted by: MosBen | July 21, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Is this really what it's like to be a blogger in Washington? I used to be involved in something similar, but it kind of faded my senior year, when I left the cross country team and started thinking more seriously about college.

Posted by: jwellington1 | July 21, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Danke, MosBen. Ich finde ihn leistungsfähig!

Posted by: DemoKraut | July 21, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

There you go again, trying to deny what we are seeing with our own eyes. Just like the Wright story, ACORN, Black Panther, and now this.

Your (and your colleagues) problem is that you think you are smarter than the general public. You think that just because YOU think something is unimportant, that we also will.

My advice to you: get down there and re-evaluate whether your crap really stinks or not. Find out for sure- and then take a look at your place in the world. I'm sorry to tell you, but people make their own individual decisions, and the American people know when something isn't right, and when someone is lying. You may get away with over the short term, but you can only fool the American people for so long.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... guess what?

Posted by: adamjw2 | July 21, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

I'll reiterate my previous point: nothing on the Journolist, to a conservative, should be surprising or particularly revelatory.

There is no great conspiracy, just like-minded people sharing their like-minded (and, to most conservatives, I would think largely wrong-headed) ideas. Speaking of which . . .

"which in this case boils down to a question asked by a law professor in California"

A professor of *American* law? Was asking if it was a good idea for the government to be yanking FCC licenses from news organization? That's the head-shaker for me, not that liberals on a largely left-leaning list were discussing liberals things the way like-minded people usually discuss issues, with many disagreements but a general common understanding that conservatives are Others and Others are Bad. ;)

I understand the conservative argument that there was something bad about how there was an attempt to shape the narrative--but that exists everywhere, in every news room, around every table where more than one journalist gets together for lunch or coffee. And it happens with conservative journalists, and conservadem type journalists, and squishy-conservative journalists, and so on.

"I actually expect this to be my final public comment on the subject."

I don't think it will be. And it probably shouldn't be--it's a great opportunity to get face time on the networks, and you should take it. Otherwise, the Daily Caller and the conservative blogs will be the one's setting the tone and writing the history on this one. And you probably don't want that.

I would suggest you get permission from some of your members to blanket reproduce their posts, and be able to provide more context for cherry-picked arguments.

Saying that detractors "cherry-picked" quotes works very, very well when they--like Andrew Brietbart--clearly did either cherry-pick quotes, or was fed a cherry-picked video--where the lack of context actually distorted the meaning of the quotes 180 degrees. However, if you never provide the larger context for inspection, then the "cherry-picked quotes" argument rings hollow.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 21, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Klein:

What about Mr. Ackerman suggesting that your bunch change the subject of Rev. Wright by calling Fred Barnes and Karl Rove racists?

Funny how no "Journolist" thought that tactic was ethically wrong, only impolitic.

Posted by: ElmerStoup | July 21, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse


ignore the idiots.

Like anything else I expect Ezra proves here that liberalism (like conservatism) is a spectrum "disorder". Ezra's seemingly on the center of the spectrum. Spencer Ackerman, meanwhile appears on the far left (along with his buddies at FDL).

I do give Ezra credit for not trying to bury this as he could have although I don't think conservatives would have let him. They'll milk this as long as they can (just as liberals would if the shoe was on the other foot.)

Posted by: visionbrkr | July 21, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

BTW, if you're going all Biblical on us, I think the quote for warning others of false prophets is: "You shall know them by their fruits."

Which could have multiple meanings in this context.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 21, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Your mom was Mark Twain? Talk about burying the lede.

Posted by: _SP_ | July 21, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Earlier today, a commenter asked rhetorically "Does anything that has leaked out of Journolist actually surprise anybody?" while another noted that "all this crap is bound to happen when you blur the lines of true journalism and opinion journalism."

Both comments are true. It's also true that the JournoList members have the right to pursue their little agenda and grind their axes. And it's true that we all have to be a skeptical of what we read.

Back on June 25, 2010, Klein defended his JournoList project by stating that "At the beginning, I set two rules for the membership. The first was the easy one: No one who worked for the government in any capacity could join."

Yesterday, a source noted that "Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office" overtly participated in what, at least on the surface, appears to be a concerted attempt to libel random citizens holding views differing from that of the "in-crowd." On the surface, it also appears that some members of government -- some folks paid by taxpayers and using electronic resources funded by taxpayers -- may have participated in the less-than-fully-honorable activities.

Again, this sort of deceptive, two-faced, less-than-fully-honorable behavior is to be expected: it's easier to sell hogwash -- to proliferate propaganda -- when you're perceived as an "honest friend" of an unsuspecting public. The real problem comes when, as reported by the Post yesterday at, "The FCC ... has also suggested that only one provider in a geographic area receive grants." Is the nation's top economist going to help find scientific support proving the grants do the most good when directed solely to those supporting the administration's positions? What happens when the only "news" comes from Ezra Klein and his admittedly biased JournoList buddies?

In short, the same people who thought JournoList was a good idea thought the PPACA was a good idea... and published scientific proof.

Caveat emptor.

Posted by: rmgregory | July 21, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

There's actually a really interesting angle to these stories not being covered because the paranoid whack-jobs quivering under their beds are somewhat successfully hijacking the narrative.

This is a cool 'new media' story.

Under the city bosses of early last century, the people connected with the city boss had a hangout. If you wanted to write a story about something regarding that city boss, you'd go to that bar and ask around. Just as even today there are cop bars, city hall bars, state capital bars, etc.

Basically, the list seems like it was a 'policy nerd bar' capitalizing on email and the internet to bring people together.

Posted by: ThomasEN | July 21, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

"I didn't participate in that thread, and the next day, wrote this post, which argued that Wright's comments would be a big deal even if he'd been white and the candidate had been John Kerry. This did not make lefties happy. Some conspiracy."

Back to the race card issue, Ezra was exactly right, and if folks who actually believe that conservatives (and any other opposition to liberals) are all hyper-motivated by race, I would recommend a thought experiment: imagine Harry Reid was president, and had done the bailout and healthcare reform and shoveled money to Wall Street and Chrysler and GM while appointing more czars than in the history of the country and so on and so forth . . . you really think the Tea Partiers would be sitting around going, "What the--? Oh, wait, he's white. So it's okay."

Reverend Wright's comments would have been a huge deal if it had been Pat Robertson (not exactly a stretch, either) and the candidate had been Newt Gingrich. Or Kerry. Or John Edwards. Because they are inflammatory (and logically flawed), and make great grist to fling against a presidential candidate who can be plausibly associated with them. It wouldn't have been hands off if both participants had been white, it would have been just as aggressive. Because it would be about ideology, and political defeat.

Kudos to Ezra for his clear thinking on the issue. And, while I'm not expecting Ezra to admit to an inflammatory slip before it leaked, one has to notice that the things leaking are from law professors and Nation journalists and Guardian "journalists" and so on. In reality, Ezra is kind of the big fish here, and it would be a huge score for Tucker Carlson to have caught him with his foot in his mouth. So I'm prone to think that if there was a smoking gun, we'd have seen it.

As such, it's remarkably trollish of these people I've never seen posting here before (and even some I have) to post flame-bait suggesting that Ezra said this things, or advocated specific positions, just because he was the owner of the list.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 21, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Thanks Ezra for addressing this.

There is no doubt though that your credibility would be greatly enhanced by a voluntary release of the email database.

As bad as you feel about David Weigel losing his job(sounds like he is doing okay) it cannot outweigh the need for the truth here.

I think your fear is unfounded since the only consequence that any hard news reporters revealed to be closet avowed supporters of manipulating the public into accepting Obama's Marxist policies would only result in THAT reporter getting a much better higher paying gig working for George Soros.

The truth is you are a journalist who is sitting on information regarding how 400 journalists handled their duties during one of the most polarizing campaigns in US history and its avoid this disclosure is journalistic malpractice.

You are not as transparent as you would like our government to be.

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | July 21, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

I apologize if my questioning as to whether or not Ezra Klein received any compensation from Terry McAuliffe or George Soros was threatening to anyones sensibilities, but I honestly think it is a reasonable question when someone has organized a covert forum for 400 "journalists" who seem to be discussing strategy for achieving a political result.

Does anyone think that George Soros writes huge six figure checks to David Brock at Media Matters for any other reason than an effort to achieve those very same political results?

If Ezra wanted to collect a check from Mr. Soros, the option was (and most likely still is) there.

The only obstacle would be Ezra's own conscience.

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | July 21, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse


harry reid as president really scares me in so many ways. And actually Nancy Pelosi scares me 100x more than Harry and 1000x more than President Obama. Kind of like how I think liberals get scared of Sarah Palin if she ever (gasp) ran and won.

Posted by: visionbrkr | July 21, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse


You're cherry-picking and spinning. An example: The Daily Caller reports,

"Scherer seemed alarmed. 'So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?'

"John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. 'Pre-Fox,' he wrote, 'I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.'"

You also conveniently overlook the administration's attacks on FOX.

And as for the Sherrod story, you overlook a crucial question, which is why did the Obama administration toss her under the bus? If she is pure as the wind-driven snow, this shows the administration's incompetence, and that is far more serious than anything Breitbart has or can do.

Posted by: george39 | July 21, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Hopefully, this IS your final public comment on the subject (since you've admitted you didn't keep an archive copy of Journolist), now the Daily Caller can make up anything they want or, at least, deny your unsupported assertion that they knew about your subsequent ban on "open letters" (BTW: I'm sure you were very upset that 40 people SIGNED THEIR NAMES and exposed the vast left-wing conspiracy you were trying to build). The rest of us will laugh about every leaked e-mail. Could not have happened to a nicer person.

Posted by: clawrence12 | July 21, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

and didn't the administration during last summer I believe threaten to (or actually do I forget which) throw Fox out of the pool reporters for the White House?

I've gotta admit that when you see these Journolist conspiracies coming up AND then put the real events in their place it sure seems fishy. Maybe its just a coincidence???

Posted by: visionbrkr | July 21, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Ezra - if you deleted your archive and don't have a copy, how can you be so sure about your recollection?

The human mind has a way of trying to put a good face on sinister behavior when its recounted much later.

Or is it possible that you do have a copy and only lied to the public about deleting it in order to ease the pressure on you to be transparent?

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | July 21, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Rmgregory, where is the conflict RE Jared Bernstein? The list excluded government officials, and when he was a member of the list he was an economist at an advocacy organization (the EPI).

Posted by: WarrenTerra | July 21, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I was out of town recently, and when I went to use the hotel's gym, I found that Fox "News" was blaring from the teevee. I looked around for at least a few seconds and couldn't find the remote to turn television off. So, I had to unplug it from the wall.

That is all.

Posted by: slag | July 21, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

visionbrkr, I wonder if you would also give Mark Peterson "credit" for not trying to bury his crime against Laci and his unborn son? The USDA is also considering reinstating Sherrod, but SHE is saying that she is not sure she wants to go back:

Posted by: clawrence12 | July 21, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Someone above said that Ezra thinks he is smarter than the american people. That is damning him with faint praise.

Only 33% of Americans realize that TARP started in the Bush Administration. 50% or more believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. And so on..........

Posted by: lmclaughlin1216 | July 21, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

lmclaughlin1216, only the TERRORISTS know for sure if Saddam was involved. As for TARP, I seem to remember that Bush/Paulson deferred to Senator and then PRESIDENT-ELECT Obama quite a bit, and so on. What were the actual poll questions to get 33% and 50%?

Posted by: clawrence12 | July 21, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse


seriously? Mark Peterson? I think he should fall somewhere between life imprisonment and burning in hell. Nice pull out of left field though.

Posted by: visionbrkr | July 21, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

One time I was watching Chris Matthews on Hardball tell me that Bill Ayers never said I wished I bombed more....I thought he was wrong so I pulled up his interview with the NY Times published on 9-11-2001 and there was a quote attributed to him " I do not regret bombing. I wished I bombed more".

Checking Barack Obama's bio I found that at that time he was working side by side with Bill Ayers in his last private sector job working with Bill Ayers at Bill Ayers' choice as a team in charge of handing out million dollar grants to political activist groups.

I found Chris Matthews horrible misstatement of truth very disturbing and I have utilized the blocking setting on my cable box to prevent even accidental viewing of MSNBC.

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | July 21, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Call the Waah-mbulance.

Face it, the Journolist people got caught trying to pull a Dan Rather.

Posted by: steve_tsouloufis | July 21, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

RE: How do you handle organizations like the Daily Caller that sell themselves as news outlets but "are taking advantage of an older Progressive era concept of disinterestedness and objectivity to peddle partisan coverage?"

--- Hmmmm .... You mean, like the Washington Post?

By the way Ezra, it's funny that you get all bent out of shape when people do to you and your "friends" what you get paid to do on a daily basis. Also, the biggest story SO FAR is that none of the 400 "journalists" thought it was wrong to smear good people as "racists." For that, you and everyone on this list should be ashamed.

Posted by: mwmillertime | July 21, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Ezra Klein is a damn LIAR. The Journolist is nothing short of a Journalism Star Chamber. A secret place to meet and to plot how to skew the news, or to make false accusations, in order to further an illegitimate leftist agenda, that if the public knew of its details would be calling for the Juornolist members to be hanged for treason. This article is just Ezra Klein, the founder of this evil and racist organization, to attempt to give himself a free pass. Ezra, the time is coming where you and your friends will have no place to hide. We shall seek you out and drag your evil ideas into the square where the people can see what you are. I can only hope that before that day, something terrible happens to you and to your loved ones.

Posted by: PACIFICENV | July 21, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

"Now we're getting the inevitable dregs of that story: right-wing reporters crawling through all of the thousands and thousands of threads from the e-mail list in order to juice the excerpts for a couple more hits."

Has Tucker Carlson / Daily Caller confirmed they have all of the threads? Didn't you just recently have dinner with Tucker? And, why aren't you "targeting" the LIBERAL leaker? Dave Weigel says he knows who that is.

Posted by: clawrence12 | July 21, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

By the way, for those who do not know, Bill Ayers was a member of a radical group called the Weather Underground who espoused a plan to take over the USA by force and send resistors to re-eductaion camps and killing up to 27 million who may not be capable of re-education.

Bill Ayers was indicted for conspiring to plant bombs but got off on a technicality. In his own words, "free as a bird and guilty as hell".

Most reporters thought it would have an undesired effect on the public if such details were reported.

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | July 21, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

They won't stop until you hit them where it hurts - their money! The writers have a copyright on their emails. Those were obviously private, the access was secured with a password, and so this wasn't public information. And the Caller doesn't have any license to publish them, an obvious violation of the DMCA. Sue them for damages, and go after all the additional profits they made from this. Only way they may think twice about further publications.

Posted by: Gray62 | July 21, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

visionbrkr, just checking (Mark Peterson didn't "bury" the bodies, he sent them to the bottom of the bay).

Posted by: clawrence12 | July 21, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Who cares.

I know this is a big deal for the individuals involved, but it's not really news. Or all that interesting.

I comment as a proxy for people who aren't inside the beltway. I follow this blog and I still don't care. Sorry it stunk for you Ezra.

Posted by: BHeffernan1 | July 21, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

@steve_tsouloufis: "Face it, the Journolist people got caught trying to pull a Dan Rather."

Dan Rather (and his support staff) promoted a clearly fraudulent story that demonstrated outright duplicity or amazing incompetence--in a manner that perhaps helped permanently torpedo the hallowed halls of Cronkite and Murrow. I'm not saying there's nothing like that on Journolist, but there's nothing like that that has come out.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 21, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

clawrence12 - Don't know the exact questions for the polls but but you seem to be included in both counts.

See Henry Paulson's "On the Brink" for the details on TARP. Bear Stearns was No 1 and it was well before Obama's election.

Saddam and 9/11 - Only the terrorists know? I guess that is correct because SH is no longer with us and there seems to be no evidence of same.

Posted by: lmclaughlin1216 | July 21, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"Dave Weigel says he knows who that is."
Has it ever occured to anybody that Weigel himself may be the involuntary source? He may have given a right winger he falsely trusted access, only to see this being used against himself. And that would explain why he knows the leaker. Makes some sense, or not?

Posted by: Gray62 | July 21, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Kevin, I agree that Wright would have been a big *story* no matter who the candidate was, but I still don't think it would have been a big deal deserving of the attention it got. The things Wright said were extremely inflamatory no matter what race he or the candidate is, but a few horrible things said by someone over the course of decades just isn't worth the amount of coverage it got. For teapartiers, I think there would have been grassroots conservative opposition to the legislative agenda of a Democratic president no matter who he/she was, but the arguments used against the president would be very very different. If Hillary Clinton were president we'd have all kinds of not so veiled sexist comments from people. We'd probably even get a few calling her a b-i-t-c-h (thanks Post swear screening for making me sound like a 9-year old!) or something like that.

Even if opposition would have been there, that doesn't mean some things used in opposition to President Obama specifically haven't been racist or that some opposition isn't motivated in part by race.

Posted by: MosBen | July 21, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Chase buying Bear Stearns was not part of TARP (which was signed on October 3, 2008 -- not that long before the election).

Posted by: clawrence12 | July 21, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Ah, the educated class, so erudite, what a delight it must be to be so wonderfully more intelligent than other people. What a pity that historically the left has come down on the wrong side of almost every single issue about which they have ever given an opinion.

How unfair that so many millions of people died in Europe and then Vietnam and Cambodia. After all, everyone is entitled to an occasional mistake now and then. And what's a few million people here and there? It wouldn't be fair to hold all of those millions of deaths against those brainy elitists who caused them with their perennially misguided and confused understanding about how to combat tyranny.

And their intrusion into our educational system? Oh well, another massive failure. But it isn't fair to point out the once excellent standards in so many states, now ruined by the liberal idea to replace learning facts and critical analysis with multiculturalism and other politically correct nonsense.

And the illegitimacy rate, abortion rate, and divorce rate have skyrocketed thanks to the liberal insistence on sex education for any aged child provided he or she is out of diapers, free (and frequent) “love”, and an abundance of sexually explicit movies and television shows.

And what of America's inner cities that continue to resemble bombed out postwar Europe? Perhaps 50 years of continuous welfare and the consequent backbreaking taxes for the middle class (all those stay at home moms of all races had to go to work) to pay for the left's "Great Society" and the exclusively Democratic rule in those cities isn't an adequate test period to see if welfare and the destruction of character is truly the best answer for “helping” Black American families.

And journalism. The unity and single voice of liberalism with which the media speak (after all, 91% of them brilliantly voted for Obama), certainly, that has nothing to do with the bankruptcies that are plaguing the industry. No, it must be something else.

Posted by: SameOldTiredThinking | July 21, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

KevinWillis: So, in your world, knowingly making up claims of racism so as to protect Obama is not the same as Rather making up the Guard story? What planet are you on? It was far worse than Rather.

Posted by: PACIFICENV | July 21, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Gray62, if that's the case, then Weigel has no one to blame but himself.

Posted by: clawrence12 | July 21, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

"people SIGNED THEIR NAMES and exposed the vast left-wing conspiracy you were trying to build). The rest of us will laugh about every leaked e-mail. Could not have happened to a nicer person."

exactly why would a secret conspiracy publish a letter and sign it? Doesn't that defeat the secret and conspiracy part? Just askin...

I think this is my favorite:

"If she is pure as the wind-driven snow, this shows the administration's incompetence, and that is far more serious than anything Breitbart has or can do."

So, Breibart publishing a heavily edited video, WITHOUT CONFIRMING THE STORY WITH ANY OF THE PRINCIPALS, EITHER THE NAACP OR THE PERSON SPEAKING AS TO THE VIDEO'S ACCURACY, OR THE SUBJECTS OF THE STORY (WHO REFUTE THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE USDA WORKER) with the expressed intent of injecting a (totally false, it turns out) charge of racism on a govt employee is not the important story here. I guess Breibart does this so often it is taken for granted in conservative circles.

But it is the failure of people at the NAACP and the Obama Administration to catch the fraud for several hours that is the scandal, not THE POSTING OF INTENTIONALLY FALSE VIDEO that is the serious problem here.

Runner up: This article is just Ezra Klein, the founder of this evil and racist organization.

How does a listserv (does the poster even know what this is or ever participated in one?) become an organization?

honorable mention:I honestly think it is a reasonable question when someone has organized a covert forum for 400 "journalists" who seem to be discussing strategy for achieving a political result.

There was nothing covert about Journolist. Its existence and its purpose has been known by anyone paying attention for at least 2 years. And there were lots of professors, advocates, etc that didn't make any claim to being anything else but advocates, so I am not suprised that some advocacy about issues was on the site.

Just as a thought exercise, choose your favorite poster from the archives on this blog and selectively quote them to make them look first like Gandhi and then like hitler. Its very easy if you adopt the Daily Caller's standards for editing...

I just hope all the trolls vent on this thread about their imaginary conspiracies and perceived "liberal" bias in the news and stay away from other substantive posts.

Posted by: srw3 | July 21, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

You're right Ezra. There's nothing wrong with journalists conspiring to call Karl Rove a racist in order to get the Reverend Wright story to go away.

Heil Obama.

Posted by: peterg73 | July 21, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"Even if opposition would have been there, that doesn't mean some things used in opposition to President Obama specifically haven't been racist or that some opposition isn't motivated in part by race."

And that's true, but you've got fringe elements who always think "by any means necessary" in an ideological battle. Black Republicans get racist attacks, female Republicans get the blunt end of sexist attacks. Etc.

There is an effort to characterize partisan opposition as sexist or racist in order to invalidate their political and ideological positions that are unrelated to sex or race--thus, playing the "race" or "victim" card. Which is not an argument about the amount of coverage Rev. Wright got (I think he got the amount of coverage ratings warranted), just that I think accusations of racism and sexism are mostly either cynical manipulation or shallow partisanship.

@PACIFICENV: "KevinWillis: So, in your world, knowingly making up claims of racism so as to protect Obama is not the same as Rather making up the Guard story? What planet are you on? It was far worse than Rather."

Well, I don't agree with your premise that they are "making up" claims of racism, as much as presuming they are going to be true, because they believe all conservatives and Republicans are racists of some degree or another, and proceeding from that presumption. But, more to the point, the discussion on Journolist was one of using clever rhetoric to reframe the argument. And it was in the abstract, and on a private list, about the kind of questions that might plant doubt in the minds of the seven viewers who still watch MSNBC and CNN.

Dan Rather aggressively promoted fraudulent documents, documents where the experts who they brought in to verify them explicitly stated could not, in any way, be verified as legitimate, and ignored that input and then claimed the experts verified them as authentic, when they had not. Then the CBS news production team re-created what was written in the documents for display as graphics, essentially making them look more "authentic", and excused the fakery as "artistic" license.

One guy--Spencer Ackerman, a reporter for Wired and The New Republic--suggested, on a private email list, that reporters should be reframing the question to imply all the worry over Rev. Wright was racism, rather than a legitimate concern over Wright's anti-American, quasi-armchair-fascist rhetoric.

Had Ackerman forged documents and then distributed them to the list so that it looked like Hillary and McCain had said racist things that, in fact, had never been said, that would have been one thing. Talking about using rhetoric to frame an argument, and actually using almost certain to be fake documents that no one can authenticate, and then say on national television that they are almost definitely real, and experts have examined them (leaving out the part where those same experts said that there is no way they can vouch for their authenticity) . . . Rather wins.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 21, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

A smarmy whitewash by a thoroughly dishonest operator.

Every equivocation and mocking retort here sounds defensive and nervous -- like the protestations from the guy in the room who stole the money or betrayed the team and is now being accused. "That's nuts!" he warbles, sweating profusely. "Don't you guys know how nuts this all sounds?"

Well, Ezra, since you didn't have the courage of your convictions to keep the adolescent, left-wing gossip-fest that was journolist going once the most embarrassing commentary got out, you're hardly in a position to declare it all innocent and its most indefensible and appalling content no big deal. If so, what's the problem?

You said in your post about the shut-down that you weren't killing it "because Journolist was a bad idea, or anyone on it did anything wrong. It was a wonderful, chaotic, educational discussion. I’m proud of having started it, grateful to have participated in it..." Very admirable. And it's true that you weren't responsible for every dumb thing people said.

But it was not a free-for-all. It was an exclusive list, populated by people of like minds on the left, many of whose actions and ideas bordered on the creepy authoritarianism that's okay by you and your ilk when it's in service of progressive ideals.

That's the thrust of these revelations -- not that there was a grand conspiracy (though you're happy to focus on the salacious teasers to that effect that news organizations such as Fox News, the Washington Post, and the American Prospect use every day to juice viewership), but that a group of influential and supposedly intellectually honest people in journalism, academia, and policy advocacy stooped to the absolute lowest forms of name-calling and issue suppression. As Matt Lewis noted on AOL News, "Journolisters weren't above comparing conservative Tea Party activists to Nazis:

'You know, at the risk of violating Godwin's law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?' asked Bloomberg's Ryan Donmoyer. 'Esp. Now that it's getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.'"

Your self-defense on the Jeremiah Wright issue is case in point. As usual, you said nothing about the disgraceful Wright rantings, and nothing about the disingenuous disavowals of any knowledge of the man's tendencies by then-candidate Obama. You concerned yourself mildly with the technical and "who cares" question concocted on the whining left as to whether the story would matter if all involved were white. "Perhaps so," you sniffed.

Here's the real news: no one gives a damn about your self-justification. You are a voice in the world of ideas, and you're blinded by ideology. It weakens your arguments and your credibility. I'm interested to see what happens in November, because I know you'll have an excuse for why Obamaism hasn't worked out as planned.

Posted by: Imperfections | July 21, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

@peterg: "There's nothing wrong with journalists conspiring to call Karl Rove a racist in order to get the Reverend Wright story to go away."

One journalist--Spencer Ackerman--advocated that position, as far as I know. I think it's a stretch to suggest it was a conspiracy of journalists to make the story go away by calling Rove a racist.

"Heil Obama."

Really? Really? I voted for McCain--by which, I mean I voted against Obama. I will vote against Obama in 2012. I'm going to vote a straight Republican ticket in 2010. That being said, I think you could do with a little 1930-1940 German history and a thorough review of WWII (I suggest TTC's World War II: A Military and Social History by Thomas Childers). There are some great comparisons between Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter. There's no comparison between Barack Obama and Adolph Hitler, and it really discredits any argument you can make against the Democrats or their policies.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 21, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis: So, you think that a presumption of racism by conservatives is accurate? Ok, little history lesson about the Dems. Answer the Question. Party of: Slavery, Jim Crow, Dred Scot, Segregation, Internment by race, Lynching, KKK, Separate but equal, White Only, Standing in the Schoolhouse door, Race Identity Politics?
Answer: Democrat Party!!!! All of it.

Posted by: PACIFICENV | July 21, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

@PACIFICENV: "So, you think that a presumption of racism by conservatives is accurate?"

Um, no. I'm pretty sure I said the opposite of that. BTW, you left out the Democrat's long standing party slogan, now mostly redacted in true Ministry of Truth style fashion from the history books: "The White Man's Party".

However, as is often pointed out, where the Democrats were 100 years ago is hardly a reflection of where they are today.

As I have repeatedly stated, I think accusations of racism and sexism are either (a) cynical manipulations or (b) examples of shallow partisanship.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 21, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse


"Talking about using rhetoric to frame an argument, and actually using almost certain to be fake documents that no one can authenticate, and then say on national television that they are almost definitely real, and experts have examined them (leaving out the part where those same experts said that there is no way they can vouch for their authenticity) . . . Rather wins."

Au contraire. Ackerman knows that just saying conservatives are racist is enough for the leftist MSM to report that it is true. He doesn't need to doctor anything. That makes what he would do, all under the guise of "freedom of the press", more insidious than what Rather did. Don't believe me?

The NAACP is claiming those at the Tea Party rally in Washington were racists, and putting through a resolution that implies it, because race-baiting Democrats said they were spat upon and had racial epithets said to them, all without proof. The MSM covered it extensively as true, again without proof.

Last week, Jesse Jackson, Sr. said the owner of the Cavaliers was racist by acting like a "slave owner" against LeBron James; except that the "slave owner" had signed the supposed "slave" in 2006 to a 4-year contract worth $60 million. This is the kind of thing Jackson has done for decades to remain relevant, and leftists are happy to have him remain relevant.

In a way, the Journolist creeps are worse than Dan Rather. And like Dan Rather, they stick to their "boo-hoo" story than admit they were wrong.

Posted by: steve_tsouloufis | July 21, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

KevinWillis: Many of the items I pointed out occurred during my lifetime, not 100 years ago. Some, (Identity Race Politics) is occurring today.

Posted by: PACIFICENV | July 21, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

@PACIFICENV : many of whose actions and ideas bordered on the creepy authoritarianism

What actions exactly can you attribute to a listserv? Do you know what a listserv is?

" little history lesson about the Dems."

Really, can't you come up with something better than this...

How about most dixiecrats in the south moved to the republican party after the civil rights bills passed, like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, etc.

As Johnson said, passing civil rights lost the democrats the south for for a generation...Seems like he was right.

I would note that almost all of the former confederate states are represented by republicans in the senate today. In fact, that is the only region of the country where republicans dominate the political landscape...coincidence?

Posted by: srw3 | July 21, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

This piece is libtard obliviousness at its worst. Am I to believe that WaPo, like the rest of the libtard media, doesn't conform its coverage to fit their narrative? Am I to believe that WaPo, like its libtard counterparts, still hew to a Progressive-era ideal of objectivity?

Posted by: kbarker302 | July 21, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Release the posts Ezra! Transparency, Ezra! Show us how you and the other domestic terrorists colluded to replace the news with Obama/DemoKKKratic propaganda! Show us how you "impartial journalists" lied to help Obama steal the election!

You and the other "journalists" are no different than Goebbels

Posted by: TruthWins | July 21, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised that you and other members of JournoList couldn't see that the echo chamber in which you participated would have corrosive effects on journalistic integrity. I read the thread linked in your article and what I saw was a closed group, incurious and dismissive of contravening views. You behave as an elite class simultaneously condemning or lamenting as ignorant those who view you as elitists. Oh Ezra, how I wish I was as smart and informed as you. I hope the "people speaking unguardedly, unwisely and impolitically" will continue to be exposed.

Posted by: kalojohn | July 21, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse


One journalist--Spencer Ackerman--advocated that position, as far as I know. I think it's a stretch to suggest it was a conspiracy of journalists to make the story go away by calling Rove a racist.
Apparently you just crawled out of a cave and haven't noticed that any group that opposes what Obama is doing has been ruthlessly slandered as racists in the media.

Posted by: peterg73 | July 21, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Ezra Klein-question? Why should any reader believe what you write on any subject. You should resign and find another profession-wait, your lying would be a firing offense anywhere but in journalism.

Posted by: hstad | July 21, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

The fact that YOU are still employed by the WashPost shows that they have NO ethics, intregrity or scruples.

The released emails and posting show that this group of the left's supposed "brightest" are really little more than a bunch of raging lunatics with mental disorders. That they are employed by the MSM show that the quicker these leftist affirmative action outfits close shop the better off America will be.

Mr. Klein was it YOUR IDEA to random choose any conservative to tar as racist regardless of character to distract from the fact that YOU were backing a man for President who as a member of a known racist organization, Jeremiah Wright's Black Liberation Church?

Mr. Klein knows that Black Liberation Theory is nothing but the Chrisian version of Louis Farrakhan's vile Nation of Islam. And Barry Obama baptized his children into this 60's marxists project to fool minorities into adopting their agenda by veneering it in religion with a heaping of hating whitey and Jews thrown in?

IF YOU WERE A MAN of integrity you would release the entire list-serv and the list of leftists who participated in this fraud so that American could see for themselves the utter contempible nature of the supposed best the Left has to offer.

You are a disgrace.

Posted by: LogicalSC | July 21, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Kevin, here's where we may part ways. While I'm sure you're right about Black Republicans and female Republicans getting nasty things flung in their direction by fringe elements on the Left, I think the "fringe elements" on the conservative end of the spectrum are much less "fringe" and, sometimes, quite mainstream. Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. That's not to somebody like Olberman hasn't said something offensive about a Republican (though I do think his comments tend to be less offensive and/or he apologizes when he goes over the line), but I don't think there's usually, or at least not nearly as often, a racial or gender component to it.

I do think you go too far when you say that liberals (and I don't know if you mean liberals generally or Journolisters) assume conservatives are racist to some degree. Like we've said, there are fringe folks on both sides, and I'm sure there are fringe lefties that jump to the race card at a moment's notice. But most arguments I see from people, as you say, above 4th tier commentators who make arguments about race because they genuinely think there's a race issue in play in a given situation. People talk about race problems with the tea parties not because they think tea partiers would be all for a white Obama, but because they think there's a racial commonent to the things the tea partiers say and do that goes beyond the baseline of opposition to liberal policies. Mark Williams has let a few doozies out. And again, Beck. Always Beck.

All that said, your posts today have been thoughtful and a great reprieve from the influx of trolls.

Posted by: MosBen | July 21, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

What Klein did, in organizing and presiding over Journolist, does indeed, as the above poster said, harm journalism. And individuals, too. Not just Dave Weigel! Others -- and I think, mostly the less well known and famous, are having their (admittedly) foolish statements aired, along with their names, formerly not known to the public. The one who put this all together seems to have emerged unscathed -- so far. But some of the fallout will be good. The public will be more skeptical of charges of racism, it will be a little more difficult to hurl these charges at any opponent. The whole thing reflects discredit on the younger generation of journalists. Those are the ones who said the most intemperate things (throwing chairs -- Tomasky; watching Rush have a heart attack -- Spitz; and so on.) There is a public expectation that journalists have temperaments in accord with their expected neutrality and fairness. This kind of juvenile boosterism and rage at the opposing team has come as a surprise.

Posted by: truck1 | July 21, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse


Countdown until WaPo gets rid of ALL these baby bloggers.

Straight from their loony college seminars to pontificating about society and politics on the pages of The Washington Post.

What's going on?

Posted by: happyacres | July 21, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

MosBen - Here is my challenge to you....listen and/or watch one week of Glenn Beck and tell me what he says that is offensive?

George Soros spends an enormous amount of money to liberal bloggers to tell people like you DON'T EVER WATCH/LISTEN TO GLENN BECK.....but it is the truth he is shielding you from, not offensiveness.

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | July 21, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse


You assert there's been an "influx of trolls" on this thread.

Please define "troll." Surely you don't mean anyone who disagrees with you.

Posted by: ElmerStoup | July 21, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Fox News commands more than twice the ratings of any other network because it very honestly, transparently, and straight forwardly tries to influence Americans with its editorial content while informing them with their hard news content.

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | July 21, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I particularly like the JOURNO_LIST idea that conservatives faces should be shoved into plate glass windows and photographed in order to send to every conservative as Christmas cards to showed what would happen to them if they spoke up and opposed the JOURNO_LIST agenda.

Because "conservatives should live in a constant state of fear", right Mr. Klein?

That was the general opinion of your list that the threat of violence should be thrust toward 40% of Americans who opposed you and your mental lunatics. That sounds strangely similar to Obama's political friend, William Ayers, who admitted that his organization would have to send millions to "re-education camps" in Arizona if they did not submit to the Weather Underground?

Scratch a Leftist and you will expose a totalitarian?

Posted by: LogicalSC | July 21, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Release the e-mails, Ezra!! How many other lies have you told to protect Obama?

If there was an e-mail list where Limbaugh, Hannity, Krauthhammer and Beck thought of ways to lie and slant the news to favor the GOP you'd be foaming at the mouth with rage. You'd be fantasizing about finding "a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card". You'd imagine them having heart attacks and standing by idle and "Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out" as they die. You'd try to get Fox News banned. You'd falsely accuse them of racism. Wait- you Journolist posters have already said these things!!!!

I encourage all Americans to read the journolist postings, except anywhere they mention Fox News, Limbaugh, Tea Party, or any conservative person/entity just substitute the word "Jew". You'd swear you were reading Hitler's own twisted hate-filled screeds. Nowhere in the world is there more pure, vile, irrational hate than what the Journolist posters have for anyone and everyone who is to their political right.

Posted by: TruthWins | July 21, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"is it possible that you do have a copy and only lied to the public about deleting it in order to ease the pressure on you to be transparent?"

Is it possible that FastEddieO007 has an fetish for looking through people's underwear drawers that has translated into the digital world? Until we can discount the possibility that his house is full of pilfered underwear, who can say?

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | July 21, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

With new FinReg LAW, Obama has just obtained the power he needs to shut down Fox News.

He has authorized the use of drones to kill anyone who he deems a threat to our national security.

With Healthcare law, he now has the authority to deny medical services to any American.

Liberals have just converted our democracy into a socialist dictatorship.

Did you know the freely elected leader of Venezuela enacted an agenda that mirrors this and now refuses to step down. He has just indicted his Rupert Murdoch who for now is a refugee in the USA.

Looks like he may need to find a new home soon.

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | July 21, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse


If you haven't done so already, why not talk to a good copyright lawyer about these issues?

I'm not an expert, but at least on its face, it would seem that as the manager of the PRIVATE list-serv you are the effective copy-right holder of these unpublished emails. A person publishing them without YOUR consent is likely violating your copy-right rules.

This would seem to be parallel to a situation involving private correspondence in a private library. If an academic wants to get access to those unpublished documents the person needs to get permission from the library.

There is no "freedom of information act" involving private correspondence between private individuals.

There may be an issue involving publication for a message that is effectively broadcast over a list-serv, still the fact that it was password protected might increase the strength of your claims.

Posted by: JPRS | July 21, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"Kevin, here's where we may part ways. While I'm sure you're right about Black Republicans and female Republicans getting nasty things flung in their direction by fringe elements on the Left, I think the 'fringe elements' on the conservative end of the spectrum are much less 'fringe' and, sometimes, quite mainstream. Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc."

I can't speak directly to anything Beck or Hannity may have said, having only listened to them in passing (although never having heard anything racist or sexist in those samplings), but I've listened enough to Rush to know that, in context, the things he's said are no more racist that anything that's come from the left. But I think we can just agree to disagree.

"I do think you go too far when you say that liberals (and I don't know if you mean liberals generally or Journolisters) assume conservatives are racist to some degree."

Actually, I believe you could chart it. The further left you go, the more likely you are to believe that conservatives are racist-bigot-homophobes, until you are at the radical left, where you believe that the only thing that animates conservatives is their racism/sexism/homophobia.

Which is not to say there aren't any conservatives who say some of the most boneheadedly racist are sexist things, because there are. The implication that sexism or racism is a driving force of the conservative movement, or the motivation behind the policy positions of the GOP, or anything like that, is what I object to, broadly.

"Mark Williams has let a few doozies out"

Mark Williams is an idiot. He promptly got ostracized. While I will have to take your word for it on Beck's doozies (I just don't watch him that much--and by much, I mean about 5 minutes every three months), Mark Williams was properly ostracized for his (at the most forgiving best) cluelessly tone-deaf racial invective.

"All that said, your posts today have been thoughtful and a great reprieve from the influx of trolls."

Back at you. I'm no fan of trolls, from whatever side of the aisle. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 21, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Such a ywn, the Daily Caller. Wonder what Carlson will do when he's finished flushing Mommy's money down the internets?

Posted by: misterjrthed | July 21, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse


The "disgrace" here is the fact that you seem to believe that private correspondence between private individuals should be public information.

I'd love to see you apply the same standard to the numerous private right-wing list-servs (including one that the RNC uses with conservative pundits).

Posted by: JPRS | July 21, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

BTW, one thing I have gleaned from Beck (other than that the Democrats are totally like Nazis) is that everything that happening is an elaborate conspiracy. While I enjoy the conspiracy theorizing of the much more accomplished former MTV VJ Adam Curry (check out the No Agenda podcast sometime), I find a deep religious belief in conspiracy theories to be problematic. I actually used to listen to Rush Limbaugh regularly, but the endless assertion that Obama is on a Socialist mission to intentionally destroy America is so tedious, and so logically flawed, just turns me off.

Which, frankly, is another issue with "the race card". I find Glen Beck's paranoid conspiracy theories, and comparison of all things he dislikes with Nazi Germany, a much bigger issue than anything I've heard from him on the issue of race. Same with Rush: It's one thing to believe that Obama got elected because he's black (I guess that's racist, in a way) and would not have, if he was white. But it's quite another to suggest that the president is part of an Alinsky-ite cabal bent on destroying the country so they can remake it as a liberal utopia.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 21, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I don't mean to pick nits (and maybe I'm wrong), but shouldn't you note when you've updated a post? I'm pretty sure this last part was not there for at least the first hour or so this post was up:

"And as for the obvious question -- why don't I just release all the e-mails? -- the answer is that I still believe people have the right to assume privacy when they send e-mails to an off-the-record list. They should be careful about what they write, but that's a different question."

The addition of which makes me right that your first, un-revised post, would not be the last thing you said on the subject. ;)

I agree with your rationale for not releasing the list, but you might want to get permission from some participants to provide context for cherry-picked sentences that purposely distort the intent of the conversation.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 21, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Scratch a Leftist and you will expose a totalitarian?

I do not believe Ezra Klein is a totaltarian. I can see his soul in his writings.

He is just thoughtless, by overlooking the value of specifically limited federal government----that the consolidation of powers in DC today will ultimately build a dictator. If not Obama, than another down the road. The only protection against that is to follow our founding father's legacy and keep power down at the low level, and preserve the freedom to keep it there.

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | July 21, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"private correspondence between private individuals"

Not surprised that another leftist moron doesn't understand that these 400 "journalist" were deciding behind the scenes how to attack opponents of the Democrats.

I doubt you would have the same belief concerning the Republican emails on Watergate or the company emails which Obama confiscated from BP, so go back to the lunatics at MSNBC for your news, they have a cast who ALL WERE MEMBERS OF JOURNO-LIST.

Ezra Klein has been proved to be a lying hack for the Democrat Party and should be fired by the WashPost.

Posted by: LogicalSC | July 21, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

@JPRS: "I'd love to see you apply the same standard to the numerous private right-wing list-servs (including one that the RNC uses with conservative pundits)."

You mean the one that the RNC used to ignore and dismiss conservative pundits and poo-poo the conservative blogosphere, and otherwise treat the rank-and-file as redheaded step-children? That email list?

I'd love to see the sort of stuff that was going on on that list.

That being said, there was nothing like Journolist on the right, as there aren't enough conservative journalists to populate one (the WaPo couldn't even find one conservative journalist to cover the conservative movement, that's how hard they are to find) and most of the conservative discussion remains public (the argument that a discussion Ezra had with Joe Klein improved once it moved to private email apparently isn't a compelling one to conservatives). You want to see the conservative version of Journolist, go to NRO and read "The Corner". There ya go.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 21, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

LOL. I love seeing Klein waste has day churning out paragraphs of lame explanations for the unethical members of his partisan blog. Who knows, he might even believe them.

Keep them coming Ezra. We are truly enjoying watching you spin and shuffle. LOL

Posted by: bobmoses | July 21, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Ezra, you need to re-read the Caller's article. The word "conspiracy" is never mentioned. And yes, all the claims made in the article are correct and factual. Try being less defensive, and you'll see clearer what's wrong with contemporary liberal journalism.

Posted by: soma_king | July 21, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: clawrence12 | July 21, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

soma_king, others (including Big Journalism) have used the word "conspiracy" because that's exactly what it was.

Posted by: clawrence12 | July 21, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

truck1, any belief that past generations of journolists were temperate and neutral in their private lives and public works is naive, at best.

ElmerStoup, not at all, there are conservative regulars around here with whom I've had great conversations and disagreements. Kevin Willis and visionbrkr are the ones I end up talking to most often, but there are certainly others. No, trolls are commentors who don't contribute anything substantive to a conversation other than some inflamatory statement. I'd also include people that just spout the same talking points without really engaging in a conversation. We get that here sometimes from regulars, but more often it on days like today when we have a million people that don't hang out here regularly and are just running over from their usual haunt to spam Ezra's comments section.

Posted by: MosBen | July 21, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

WaPo refuses comment:

Posted by: clawrence12 | July 21, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse


The FNC in-house distribution list is probably several orders of magnitude larger than Journolist. The only difference being that it probably doesn't involve discussion about non-work related social events, sports, etc.

As an example of message coordination too, when you have GOP politicians, right-wing radio, and Fox all using the same language about the BP "shake-down" fund the morning that Rep. Barton stuck his foot in his mouth, you can be assured that there is some coordination going on.

You're probably right in the sense that there is likely no parallel between Journolist and private conservative list-servs (e.g. involving low-level reporters discussing topics ranging from politics to sports to popular culture); the conservative movement is structured much more hierarchically. Instead of a conversation it's likely more message dissemination.

Even having said that I would be surprised if there wasn't a de facto private email list between NRO members and fellow-travelers (and friends) involving their own discussions about topics of the day. This strikes me as pretty typical communication in the age of email. Communication between friends is sometimes effectively broadcast between other friends rather than one-on-one exchanges.

Posted by: JPRS | July 21, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

And today we learn that Ezra simply morphed the list by purging unwanted members into another secret organ...CABALIST.

Sorry for the apologist but Ezra does not own the emails or postings, the Washington Post owns them because Ezra used company equipment in the commission of this fraud.

Posted by: LogicalSC | July 21, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Ezra " Barbrady" Klein : "nothing to see here folks , just move on."

You really have to be part of the Borg Collective to read the Journolist comments and see nothing. Who we gonna believe, Mr Klein or your lying eyes ?

Note how Mr Klein spends most of his article changing the subject rather than addressing the issues ?

Posted by: devluddite | July 21, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse


1. Last time I checked, the Nixon White House did not use email.

2. Correspondence between government officials acting in an official capacity are potentially a subject of FOIA requests, because those documents are viewed effectively as public property. Private correspondence between private citizens doesn't fall under that rubric. There's a separate issue here involving "publication" -- a private list-serv raises some interesting legal questions in this regard.

As far as your conspiratorial interpretation goes, you have apparently broken the code! The liberal-leftist world-conquest conspiracy involving journalists, pundits, and the like who probably have a combined networth that's about one-one-thousandths the Walton family, or one-one hundredths of uber-conservative sugar daddies the Koch's has been smashed open by the Daily Caller. The world will soon know exactly what kind of arugula liberals prefer!

Posted by: JPRS | July 21, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Oh, snap!

Andrew Sullivan really attacks Journolist--saying that's it's no different than Fox News!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 21, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

@JPRS: "the conservative movement is structured much more hierarchically. Instead of a conversation it's likely more message dissemination."

Maybe, but I haven't seen much evidence of it. I see a lot of like-minded people who often like what other people like them have to say about issues, and then say similar things.

"The only difference being that it probably doesn't involve discussion"

Stop right there, and I'll bet that you're right. And I'm sure it's comforting and self-affirming to think of grass-roots conservatives and conservative pundits and bloggers as mindless zombies regurgitating their talking points, but most of them are actually kind of spunky ad independent-minded (and off-the-hook and obnoxious, sometimes) and the success of a broadcast spamming of GOP talking points would be minimally effective (see Dan Riehl).

The point being, something like Journolist is not a bad vehicle for talking about issues, but the GOP and the RNC aren't quite savvy enough to understand that, yet.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 21, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Kevin, saying you could chart it is pretty vague. If you're saying that people on the fringes are crazy, then I think I'm with you, though I'd say that people on the fringes tend to be crazy about more than just race. They're crazy about everything. The people in the normal range of political beliefs are, I think to much of a mess to chart. I think you'd get a much better correlation grouping people regionally than anything else, but it really depends on how you define the question.

Also, I agree that Ezra broke a bit of minor internet protocol by just editing his post. I don't remember seeing that either when it originally went up. Not as bad as changing content from an original post, but still...

LogicalSC, of course, Watergate was a crime and involved government officials. There may be a crime with the BP spill depending on what the company knew or did regarding safety, and company emails regarding same would certainly be relevant to an investigation.

These emails were private conversations between friends and collegues and are no more our business than if they had been made in a bar or a birthday party. And as I said above, if you think these sorts of comments were invented on Journolist, then you're more than a little bit naive in your thinking about journalism.

Posted by: MosBen | July 21, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

If I were counsel to a publiication whose employee expressed the kind of animus and bias i see throughout these archives, I'd be concerned about defending a defamation or discrimination suit. It seems to me you and your friends (what's the name of the new list, Cabalist?) make any conservative plaintiff's case .

You want to shove a fellow pundit's (Ledeen's) face through a windshield? You want to stand by and do nothing when another is dying of a heart attack? A law professor at UCLA wants fox's broadcast license removed? A professor at the Univ of Chicago's hospital thinks that the eldery poor black woman will noe be treated there--ignoring that Michelle was paid $318k a year by Axelrod's firm working for the Univ of Chic. hospital to keep poor blacks away.

You people are as crazy as you are repulsive.

Posted by: clarice2 | July 21, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

**that the elderly poor black woman will now be**

Posted by: clarice2 | July 21, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

@MosBen: "These emails were private conversations between friends and collegues and are no more our business than if they had been made in a bar or a birthday party."

That seems pretty straightforward to me. I suppose there's a "whistleblower" clause that protects the leaker, but should a website be able to willy-nilly leak out bits and pieces as befits their traffic? Why hasn't anyone tried to do something regarding the leaks? I would think there was something--if nothing else, using somebody else's intellectual property for profit. If I can't legally loan a copy of a DVD to my friend, how can the Daily Caller take what other people wrote and make money off it?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 21, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse


there is one worthwhile point of information in these comments deserving attention:

Apparently Adam Curry is now insane. This was news to me.

Posted by: ThomasEN | July 21, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Conspiring to manipulate a federal election is also a crime.

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 21, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse


"Sorry for the apologist but Ezra does not own the emails or postings, the Washington Post owns them because Ezra used company equipment in the commission of this fraud."

This actually raises some interesting legal questions. I would be surprised if the list-serv was actually housed on WaPo servers. However, if the Washington Post does hold the copy-right to these emails, then the Daily Caller needs to get a release from the Washington Post in order to publish these materials. I'd guess it's more likely that the correspondence was done using private email accounts viewed using browser based apps -- in other words the emails aren't on company hard-drives and aren't owned by the Washington Post. The question of ownership is a potentially interesting legal question. I'd be surprised though if TC [Tucker Carlson] had legal claim to these unless there's some understanding that an email send through a private, password protected group is akin to a public broadcast, or publication of the information.

At a minimum, if Carlson is profiting off the venture -- and he almost certainly is -- Ezra and other members of the List-Serv may be entitled to some financial compensation (not necessarily for damages, but as authors of work published on the DC site). It may be that this is somewhat akin to the distribution of the Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson sex tapes -- albeit much less entertaining and much less profitable (e.g. no recourse for blocking distribution, but financial percentage of publication rights). This is probably the route that I'd look at. Let Tucker misrepresent the comments and publish the excerpts as he sees fit, but make sure that he pays a nice fee to members of the private list-serv anytime he attempts to profit off the publication of these private emails. At a minimum that would be a bit of poetic justice. Whenever TC went to the press, he'd need to pay a fee for the use of the materials. That would be absolutely beautiful.


Good points.

Posted by: JPRS | July 21, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse


"Conspiring to manipulate a federal election is also a crime."

Of course it is. However, "manipulation" of public opinion during an election whether it is done by media, politicians, or political advocacy groups is not a crime -- it's what's known as "free speech" a Constitutionally protected right the last time I checked.

Tampering with a ballot box is a different story. Is that what you're alleging?

Posted by: JPRS | July 21, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse


In the U.S. we have this concept of privacy and free speech. Both those issues are at stake here. If a person effectively raids another persons private correspondence and finds that the person says mean things about them, the thief won't have defamation recourse -- especially if he or she is a public figure. More likely the thief will be sent to prison for robbing a person's private correspondence. The person who has been robbed will have recourse through civil litigation against the thief.

In the U.S. we also have a very high bar for proving defamation against public figures (e.g. actual malice). What you're describing isn't defamation based on any mainstream, American, understanding of the term.

You essentially seem to be arguing that we should criminalize private opinions.

Posted by: JPRS | July 21, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Google owns the servers. A conspiracy to defraud voters is not protected "free speech" (see e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 371 1 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973). There will, indeed, be many interesting legal issues to sort out once the GOP takes over.

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 21, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

When you are posting to 400 people you have no expectation of privacy.It's like shouting out something in the public square and then complaining if someone quotes you. Free speech and privacy rights are very important..except to journolisters who publicly announce they want to maim their opposition or yank their broadcast rights.

Posted by: clarice2 | July 21, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse


Do you feel the same about that kid who hacked Gov. Palin's e-mail?

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 21, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Keep up the good work Ezra. Considering the number of trolls who have come on to bash you today you must have hit a nerve. It appears that to them, truth has a liberal bias.

Posted by: mwamp | July 21, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

@ThomasEN: "Apparently Adam Curry is now insane."

Crazy . . . like a fox! You'll wish you had listened, once the Bilderberg's with their one world currency finally finish building their weather and earthquake machines, like the ones that caused Katrina and the Haiti earthquake, and destroy us all . . . in the name of nefariousness!

I just can't listen to No Agenda, even though the conspiracy theories are awesome, because the shows are so darn long.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 21, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

I am a lifetime Democrat, Ezra.

You're done. You and all the other manipulators on your secret list.

Oh, you'll keep a small circle of like-minded excuse-makers in a small, insignificant circle supporting you, but you'll have no influence outside that small circle, because you no longer have any credibility, and you've done it to yourself.

Americans will look elsewhere, outside your "secret" list, for journalists with integrity.

That's the bottom line.

You've destroyed your own reputation, at a very young age, in your elitist arrogance.

Life lessons, Ezra.

No one is listening anymore.

Posted by: auntmo9990 | July 21, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse


The existence of Journolist has no bearing on "election fraud". Election fraud would pertain to issues like tampering with ballots and ballot boxes -- that is fraud. Essentially, you are arguing that free speech should not be protected in a political context, or that privately expressed opinions are somehow tantamount to "fraud". That kind of view is unorthodox to say the least (although it probably would be a fine legal doctrine if you attempted to prosecute the case in Iran).

With respect to Palin, if anything her case drives home the point. The person who hacked her account was charged and convicted on two counts earlier this year (one felony and one misdemeanor). I don't think these two cases are entirely analogous, but they are probably within the same family of misdeeds. My views on this are consistent -- I have no problem with what Palin did in seeking a legal remedy. Do you?

The owner of the server -- if it is in fact Google -- might have a claim if this was done through Google and their terms of service indicate that they hold the publication rights of private emails. My sense is that this is probably not the case. The Palin case involved a Yahoo account and her emails were by definition housed on servers owned by Yahoo! Yet even in light of those facts the criminal charges pertained to a violation of Palin's rights -- not those of Yahoo!

Posted by: JPRS | July 21, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Ezra, I've been going thru a list of known journolisters and find that a rather identical slander was published by a number of them who had expressed online to each other extreme animus to a family member of this person.

Be prepared..reckless disregard and animus are already clearly established IMO.The best part is we are working so far with only the teensiest bit of archival information.

Posted by: clarice2 | July 21, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

From Breitbart to the Journolist leak to whatever is next, it is total war by the conservatives. No ethical boundary exists that will stop them.

So the only answer is, like with McCarthy a couple generations ago, is to expose them at every turn and hope that in time the public will see how depraved and immoral the tactics of the right are.

Posted by: RalfW | July 21, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Palin did not sue that kid (did she?). The criminal conviction, at least, was in the name of the State. As for "JournoList" it was maintained as a Google group. Not having seen all of the e-mail, I can't say for certain if any laws were broken. Hopefully, some brave US Attorney looks into that. It looks like clarice2 is all over that as well. My point was simply that an otherwise illegal conspiracy is NOT protected "free speech" just because the members were so-called journalists.


I've cited to laws that may have been broken by you liberals. Care to do the same as to your allegations against us conservatives?

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 21, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

auntmo9990, I'd wager that Ezra's site has a spike in traffic every time one of these "stories" comes out. I'd also wager that he won't appear on MSNBC any less than he already does. Actually, that's the only network that I've seen him on. Anyone know if he's been invited to other networks?

clarice2, there are different types of expectations of privacy. Not every conversation is either a whispered conversation between two people in the basement of one of their homes or an exchange shouted across a public square filled with people.

JakeD2, first, we need to clear up that he "hacked" her email account by guessing simple passwords and got lucky. It just irks me that either because it sounds more sensational to say "hacked" or because most people don't know anything about computers (probably both) we keep using "hacked" when we really mean, "got a lucky guess on a password that was waaaaay to simple."

Anyway, no, it's not ok to access someone's private email, whether I like them or not. And frankly I don't care what things Palin emails to her friends, even if they convince her to say crazy things in public. I care when she says the crazy things in public on nationally broadcast tv.

Posted by: MosBen | July 21, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

@ auntmo9990:

I feel like I'm in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

Xyzzy, that's all I've got to say to you. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 21, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Follow the Atlantic »

Journo-List And The Daily Caller
21 Jul 2010 11:51 am

Ezra Klein addresses the controversy over his list-serv for the last time. It's telling to me that he sets up a straw-man. There was no "conspiracy" on Journolist, so far as I can tell, and I haven't claimed there was. There was a cozy, self-satisfied network of writers, bloggers, and journalists who shared a broad progressive position and supported the Democratic party (but often disagreed as well). The valid criticism is not that this is a conspiracy, but a clique, a clique that at times (but not always) fostered the notion of coordination, media management, and even petitions. That's what the neocon right does; and what the theocon right does. I think it's helped kill off conservative thinking and fostered groupthink, ideological policing, and media manipulation. I can see why some liberals wanted to fight fire with fire. But what's burning is the polity and free discourse.

Still, the list is over with now. Good riddance.

Permalink :: Sphere It! :: Share This

Posted by: SueR1 | July 21, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Again, reasonable Americans everywhere need to stand up against FoxNews. Fox news and their minions are going too far, this is nothing short of defamation of character and slander by a so called “fair and balanced” right wing fringe news organization. People are getting hurt,our country is already hurting, they are instigating a race war. Fox and these right wing conservative hypocritical scoundrels need to be stopped and put in their place. They need to be held accountable for the outcome of the adulterated “news” stories they put out. People have already been hurt and many more will if this hateful, divisive and blatantly disturbing news channel is stopped or is held to the same standards as other news organizations. Fact checking before reporting is essential. The fact that they ran with a clip posted on a radical tea party ultra conservative website with a bone to pick should have automatically been a red flag. Shame on Fox and anyone else who knowingly went along with this piece of defamatory and crap.

Posted by: v4real | July 21, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse


As soma-king pointed out, Daily Caller didn't use the word "conspiracy" either. That doesn't mean there wasn't one.

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 21, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Sue, the list is not over. It's just been made smaller and renamed "Cabalist". It's interesting to read your fantasies about theo and neo cons . Perhaps you'd share your secret evidence of that.

This was a cabal of journalists AND academics. Like the East Anglia CRU they set out , not to debate their opponents, but to destroy them personally with charges like "racism", to shut them up --smash their heads into windshields and take photos of that to show the others and scare them into compliance--and even to shut down competing sources of information (that from a UCLA law professor, no less).

Each of these people have brought their employers into litigation peril; each has betrayed the institutions which engaged them in the belief they would be honorably performing their duties instead of capturing slots from which to terrorize and slander all who disagree with them on the issues.

Posted by: clarice2 | July 21, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

In defense of wingnuts, they truly seem unable to distinguish between what was said and their interpretation of it, not even when the distinction is explained.

This in no way excuses their habit of spinning others' words only in the direction that sustains their admitted political beliefs

Ezra rightly faults their double standard, a far worse offense against common sense and decency than the hypocrisy they allege to be the "crime" of the Left.

Posted by: jhbyer | July 21, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse


42 U.S.C. § 1973, "Denial or abridgement of right to vote on account of race or color through voting qualifications or prerequisites" is a non-sequitor citation.

The only people likely to be prosecuted under those grounds are voting registrars, poll workers, etc. Come on man!

Application of 18 U.S.C. § 371 1 might involve a government contractor who made misrepresentations on a government contract. That's the kind of fraud that the statute deals with.

Neither of the citations that you provide have any relevance. You would be laughed out of Court on the way to your disbarment if you tried prosecuting people in this instance on that basis. Not even the most loyal of the Bushies at the DOJ would risk the damage to their careers and reputations in applying those statutes in the way that your are suggesting.

Posted by: JPRS | July 21, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

18 USC 371 (Ann.) is the federal conspiracy statute. I'm not sure where the extra "1" came from (darn iPhone, I blame Steve Jobs ; )

I was also looking at 42 USC 1973c.

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 21, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

You and your cheesy propagandists are characters out of Orwell. You've been electronically lynched with your own well-worn rope. You're finished, you schmucks.

Posted by: leahlipschultz | July 21, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Specifically the "purpose or effect of diminishing the ability of citizens to elect their preferred candidates". You are forgetting that I don't believe Mr. Klein when he says that no government officials were members of JournoList. There might be other laws violated too, once we see all of the e-mail.

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 21, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse


It's the same difference. The statute deals primarily with financial crimes (e.g. a government contractor who conspired with someone else to charge the government for hours that he or she did not actually work). That would be an instance of how the law might actually be used.

Expressing a private opinion about a political question has absolutely no bearing on the statute. Those kind of questions deal with free speech. Even if a person said: "Let's write about these stories" or "let's send this open letter to so-and-so" -- all of those are clearly protected forms of speech. They would only be viewed as the acts of a criminal conspiracy in an authoritarian state without strong first amendment rights.

Same story with 42 USC 1973c. The law might apply to registrars or other election officials. It has no application to a private list-serv.

Simply expressing a negative opinion about a candidate and hoping that a candidate loses an election is an expression of fundamental rights -- it is not a form of election tampering, or conspiracy, under any reasonable understanding of those terms. This is true regardless of whether the opinions are expressed privately or publicly.

Here's another clue that the list-serv was innocuous: Carlson has had unfettered access to these emails now for at least a month. If there was ANYTHING in the emails that potentially warranted criminal sanctions Carlson's actions in publicly releasing the information could jeopardize an investigation. The fact that he sat on the materials too without turning them over to the Feds or the state AG could make him an accomplice. The last thing that a person with any sense of intelligence would do is try simply to make money off the use of the property (especially if its stolen property).

Posted by: JPRS | July 21, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Klein, you obviously have a vested interest in objecting to the Daily Caller's posts.

Your objections may or may not be factual. You are, essentially, objecting to being treated the way liberals treat conservatives.

Publically release the archives and let people make up their own minds as to whether the Daily Caller's reporting is fair. Without that, it's just a case of he said/ she said, and the only people you're likely to convince are the people who already agree with you.

Posted by: malclave | July 21, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Look, JPRS, I am not the prosecuting attorney (although my son is). We'll see who is prosecuted for what later. Once the GOP takes over, I already said that there will be MANY interesting legal issues to sort out. Go Rep. Issa (R-CA)!

BTW: where did you hear that Carlson got all of the archive over a month ago?

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 21, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

you are right.
you shall know them by their works.

they lurk in the shadows.
they steal into private universes, and correspondences, leaking and blackmailing in a shadow-world,
with the intent of inflicting maximum harm and casualty.

using large sums of money to inflict maximum harm, to young journalists, innocent women.....
the means to an end, the damage in their wake,
makes no difference.

this is not about seeking truth.
this is about deranged resentment, vengeance,
a jealousy
of talent, hard work, belongingness, friendship, youthfulness, success,brilliance.
it is their own disease.

stay in the light, where they cannot go.
they can bark like the rabid hounds from hell, but only from the shadows.

you shall know them by their brokenness.

Posted by: jkaren | July 21, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse


It is about seeking truth for me (I was not the one who started a secret e-mail list ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 21, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

BTW, Ezra, Vanderleun is right..this chart of yours deserves the drool cup award.

Posted by: clarice2 | July 21, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse


I visit your blog to gain insight into public policy issues, as I value both your presentation and perspective.

Posted by: ChrisBrown11 | July 21, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Ezra Klein, for creating "Journolist" and proving what we already know about your colleagues in the main stream media.

I hope you do us all a favor and resign.

I know, in this job market it would be tough to find new work, but I hear they are hiring at Pravda- that might be a better place where you can showcase your talents anyway.

I'll help you pack for Moscow...

Posted by: barneyfrankstein | July 21, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

"It is about seeking truth for me"

My conclusion remains: The Daily Caller's article is weak. And I'm inclined to think the material in the Journolist archive is pretty mild stuff.

~~~~~ann althouse

Posted by: jkaren | July 21, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

This is more fun than a carnival shooting gallery.

Here's Ezra last year talking about JournoList:

Is it an ornate temple where liberals get together to work out "talking points?" Of course not. Half the membership would instantly quit if anything like that emerged.

-and this from Jeffrey Goldberg earlier today:
Blogosphere, please join me in celebrating the birth of Cabalist, the wittily-named successor to Ezra Klein's infamous Journolist....Cabalist, which unlike Journolist, has only 173 members, rather than 400, other ways resembles Journolist....The 173 members are mainly veterans of Journolist, and don't ask me what happened to the other 227; perhaps they were purged after being judged splitters in secret on-line show trials.

___Well perhaps they looked around and saw they really were in an "ornate temple" working out talking points...

Posted by: clarice2 | July 21, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

"It is about seeking truth for me (I was not the one who started a secret e-mail list ; )"

a "secret" email list?
i have a secret e-mail list....and i share private thoughts with a number of people...mostly kindred spirits...we share similar views on things, but that does not take away my ability to think independently, to disagree with them, or to be influenced by them. but they are the people who i choose to communicate with, and whose opinions i respect.

and why use the "nefarious" word, "secret?"
it is a private list, that does not need to be open to everyone.
nor should it need to be. no matter, whether you are a journalist, a poet, a nanny, a scientist, or anything else.
unless you are divulging classified information, or legally private information, what is the problem?
i am not threatened by exchanges of ideas, even among people who think similarly.

i trust that educated and intelligent adults are capable of thinking for themselves, even if they share points of view.
no decent person has the right to be ransacking through your private thoughts...and how offensive, and ludicrous, to imagine that intelligent people dont have the ability to think for themselves. they think similarly on many things, different on others....
what is wrong with people who think similarly, sharing their thoughts, their sarcasms, their anger, their humor?
i think only the most paranoid individuals would feel threatened by this.
jaked2, i hope that you have secrets in your life.
whether they are private thoughts that you share with a select few about colleagues, friends, family members, political convictions and emotional matter who you are, no matter what you do.
i hope that we always live in a society where we can make the choice, who we want to share our thoughts with, and not have thought police monitoring our private worlds, our emails, our listservs or our bedrooms.

and i hope that no-one offers 100,000 dollars for someone to hack into your musings, and expose them to the world, or accuse you of not having enough independent spirit to think for yourself.
i would hope that if they found videos of you, they would not twist them around for cruel and self-serving purposes, or print things with the intent of harming you, or anyone else.
i dont feel threatened by groups of highly intelligent people exchanging ideas. especially when i respect their intelligence, and feel that they can think for themselves.
i also think it is unethical/criminal, to be hacking into people's personal information, under any circumstances, or bribing people with huge sums of money to blackmail others, or editing and distorting their personal information, if one would be the kind of human being that would do those things.

Posted by: jkaren | July 21, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

When you are posting to 400 people you have no expectation of privacy.It's like shouting out something in the public square and then complaining if someone quotes you.

Posted by: clarice2

Clarice is totally on point. When dealing with privacy cases, the courts generally (but not always) ask 2 very important questions: 1. What was the location or forum in which the conversations took place? 2. How many people had access to this forum/information? The higher the number of folks with access, the lower the expectation of privacy. While the Journolist site in and of itself may have been password protected, the big question will be how difficult was it/is it to get a password/join up? If someone could write Mr. Klein and ask: "Hey Ezra, I'm a FLAMING LIBERAL can I join Journolist?" and if that were all it took to gain access to the site, then the expectation of privacy diminishes.

If a Klein colleague, say, George Will had wanted to join, would he have been barred?

The other thing of note here is that no one has stated how Tucker Carlson and/or the Daily Caller obtained this info in the first place. Someone alleged that this is on par with the hacking of Sarah Palin's email account. The two are not even close. What happen to Palin is that HER PRIVATE EMAIL ACCOUNT WAS HACKED (or as somebody else tried to put it that the person "guessed good"). A person attempted to access her private emails without her consent. Unless there is an allegation that Carlson or someone from the Daily Caller hacked into the Journolist site, then there is no case.

If someone, let's say "Mr X," told Carlson what was going on on the site and if Mr. X allowed Carlson to access the site in order to obtain proof to back up Mr X's assertions, then the fault lies with Mr. X, not with Carlson or the Daily Caller. They would merely be using a whistle blower as a source for a story.

The bottom line, good luck trying to get money out of Carlson. I won't happen.

I must admit as a relatively disinterested party in all of this that the irony is as thick as it gets. True newspapermen have in the past used: the unintentional utterings OF CHILDREN, little old men and ladies that the newsman duped so as to gain trust and a quote, angry spouses in the heat of the moment, and all other sorts of reprehensible means of obtaining sources for a story.

Here a bunch of "Journolists" have the proverbial tables turned upon themselves and they start howling at the moon louder than werewolves in a Twilight movie. HEEELARIOUS! :)

Posted by: TheN01skinsfan | July 21, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

The 41 members of Journolist that protested ABC asking tough questions showed they are not journalists. Real journalists are supposed to ask tough questions. And it is funny that you attack Fox because you claim they are biased but defend these 41 for being biased the other way. How come they don't complain about the biased MSNBC?

Posted by: tech1959 | July 21, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

I do believe that calling one law professor "Liberal journalists" is the sort of error one can only make if one has reckless disregard for the truth.

A possible course of action would be for the journalist founder of journolist (don't pretend you don't know who I mean Ezra) to demand an attraction and apology and threaten to sue if the reckless falsehood is not corrected.

I am sure that this won't happen. Suing for libel is unjournalistic conduct (personally I would make at least a vague hint of a threat, but I'm not a journalist).

Daily Caller Take Note

The comments below reflect the views of Robert Waldmann alone. They are not necessarily the views of the Washington Post or Ezra Klein.

Like Jonathan Zaslof, I am *not* a journalist. Don't print another reckless falsehood. If you claim that liberal journalists are suggesting you be sued, I will check the thread, and, if I don't find a journalist sue you for libelously writing that I am a journalist which I am not.

You have been warned. Don't use this comment to support the claim that liberal jouralists want to sue you for libel or I will sue you for libel.

That was fun.

Posted by: rjw88 | July 21, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse


I'm basing my view on when he first started reporting the issue with respect to Weigel. Undoubtedly he's had the information longer.

IF the GOP wins back the House I have no doubt that they will spend the better part of the next few years investigating trumped up charges on any number of topics. I would be very surprised though if they made an issue out of imprisoning members of the press. Perhaps you have a more cynical view of the GOP than even I do.

Posted by: JPRS | July 21, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Who cares about criminal sanctions they proved they are not journalists. They get mad if anyone dares ask Obama even a slightly tough question. They are not reporters they are cheerleaders. They want everyone to clikk their heels and say Obama Obama. Next time you read something they wrote remember they only want to put Obama talking points.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 21, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Do you defend the person that posted on Journolist that 'we can just say Fred Barnes is a racist'?

Posted by: tech1959 | July 21, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

How dohandle organizations that sell themselves as news outlets but post on the internet hey lets make up racism charges on Fred Barnes or Karl Rove?
Why are there no complains about MSNBC? Did you ever read the Released GE email (GE owns MSNBC) where GE bragged about they will make billions off Cap And Trade? Why not point that out whenever MSNBC pushes Cap and Trade?

Posted by: tech1959 | July 21, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse


Fred Barnes is a racist. That's not news. So are a lot of other conservative commentators. The entire modern conservative movement was built upon a racist Southern strategy that exploited racial grievances and reconfigured party alignments in the south. Fox News itself is run by an ad man who used racial prejudices in devising the loaded Willie Horton ad. Fox itself trumps up racially charged narratives in stories about ACORN (a minority, innercity based organization -- read "scary black people") -- the recent issue involving Sherrod at the Department of Agriculture is yet another example. There's an entire genre at Fox that plays right into the prejudices of its older almost exclusively white audience.

Someone like Barnes may not don a hood and go to KKK rallies or provide money to neo-confederate groups, but he definitely has backed politicians who have attempted to reverse gains from the civil rights movement.

Posted by: JPRS | July 21, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

@jprs the Democrats had a Southern strategy for over 100 years. The Democratic control of the south included Jim Crow and lynching blacks. Dem Senator Robert Byrd who just died was a leader in the KKK. Even Bill Clinton defend Byrd joining the KKK because Byrd was trying to get Southern Democratic votes.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 21, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

@JPRS the Willie Horton ad was started by Al Gore. The man the Democrats wanted to be president in 2000.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 21, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse


Sure that's true. Those old Southern Democrats became Republicans after LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act. Today that white, largely male southern base make up the back-bone of the GOP. Party labels change.

People like Byrd had their own "Come to Jesus" reckoning on issues of race and his own history and became an advocate of civil rights in the later stages of his political career.

Clinton's career on civil rights speaks for itself as well.

That same kind of conversion is largely absent in the GOP.

Someone like George W. Bush had fairly advanced views on race -- and in terms of his personal views, I don't get the faintest sense that he was a bigot -- but even within his own administration, once you got beyond the most high profile positions the picture wasn't exactly reflective of America. The talent pool was almost exclusively white, and especially in areas like the DOJ the party was skimming undistinguished talent from third rate schools based largely on political litmus tests. It was almost like the GOP had installed an affirmative action program for white people with mediocre talent.

With respect to W. and racial issues, even in his case he couldn't get immigration reform passed because of the hard-wired racial animus that remains a core part of the modern Republican identity to this day.

Today's GOP is moving on a very different political track from the one Lincoln and Eisenhower occupied. The party still retains some of its allegiances to big business against organized labor, but on issues of civil rights it has almost no connection to the party of the past. On civil rights it has much more in common with the unreconstructed parts of the old Southern Democratic party.

Posted by: JPRS | July 21, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse


With respect to Gore and Willie Horton, he mentioned the Massachusetts furlough program in a debate once, but he never ran ads about the issue, or highlighted Willie Horton's race (or even mentioned Horton by name).

It would have been an interesting test case if Gore had tried to blacken the issue up like Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes did for George H.W. in the general election; the fact that he didn't probably tells you a difference about the kind of political campaigns that flew with the post-Civil Rights Act Democratic Party versus the GOP.

It's also worth noting that in the same Democratic primary Jesse Jackson pulled in 30 percent of the vote (over 6 million votes) in 1988 and beat out Al Gore who finished 3rd.

Posted by: JPRS | July 21, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

>>We'll see who is prosecuted for what later. Once the GOP takes over, I already said that there will be MANY interesting legal issues to sort out. Go Rep. Issa (R-CA)!<<

Now that conduct is more likely to be a federal crime than anything you've mentioned.

Posted by: blipper | July 22, 2010 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Ezra-Might be time to *tune up your resume.

*A little "NASCAR Retard" humor.

Posted by: markdz302 | July 22, 2010 12:10 AM | Report abuse

I pray that each and every one of you so-called journalists reap what you have sown, pressed down and shaken together and that your pathetically childish careers evaporate like the truth you were sworn to reveal for the benefit of all Americans.

Posted by: prossers7 | July 22, 2010 1:51 AM | Report abuse

@JPRS Only Strom Thurmon became a republican and that was after he denounced racism. Al Gore Sr, Robert Byrd,Lester Maddox,Talmage all stayed democrats.
And Thurmon was never made into a leader of the republicans.
After it became know Byrd was a leader of the KKK Byrd was voted the leader of the democrats in the senate. He was their leader all the way up to the mid 1990's. The Democrats had Byrd filibuster Condi Rice's nomination even though they knew she had enough votes to win. They knew the symbolism of having a former KKK leader filibuster a black woman from Mississipi who had the gall to become a republican.
As bad as Thurmon was he never in a club that lynched blacks by their necks until they were dead. Byrd was.
When the Democrats controlled the south blacks would be lynched for trying to vote.
The current Democratic President killed a schol voucher program that allowed poor blacks to go to the private school his daughter goes to. Explain how this is okay with you?
Explain how Dems throw a fit in 2010 when poor blacks get to go to good schools just like they did in 1957 when poor blacks got to go to some good schools?

Posted by: tech1959 | July 22, 2010 5:03 AM | Report abuse

@jprs Democratic Senator Friz Hollings not only stayed a Democrat but he openly called black people 'darkies'. He said “Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you'd find those potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.”
Hollings also is the person that put the Confederate flag on the South Carolina capital. He was a Democratic senator until 2005

Posted by: tech1959 | July 22, 2010 5:27 AM | Report abuse

@JRPS it is the Democrats that attack any black person that admits they are republican. Look how Obama's mentor Rev Wright openly called Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas the nword. he called them Uncle Toms. Many elected De,ocrats call Thomas an Uncle Tom. Isn't that racist? If you were a black woman would you want a former KKK leader like Dem Senator Byrd filibuster you if you were a republican?
If you watch this video you can see this Democrat declare war on any black that doesn't fall in line with the NAACP.
In this article from 1936 Dems openly admit they need blacks to be on welfare for them to get the black vote

Posted by: tech1959 | July 22, 2010 5:46 AM | Report abuse

@JRPS in this video a NAACP spokesman justifies the beating of a black man because they claim he is an uncle tom. The NAACP spokesman also called the beating victim the nword.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 22, 2010 5:53 AM | Report abuse

@JPRS you bring up Jackson. he is an admitted hater of Jewish people. He calls New York Hymetown.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 22, 2010 6:13 AM | Report abuse

Your claim that were was an older Progressives era concept of disinterestedness and objectivity. That is pure bull older progressives stuck their nose in everyone business. They are the one that pushed forced sterilization on people they claimed were defectives. They are the ones that promoted Eugenics to make a better race. Older progressives wanted total control of people in order to make a better race of people. Read one of Margaret Sanger's books and see how she wanted to combine Marxism and Eugenics to make a better world. The Nazis got their eugenics ideas from them.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 22, 2010 7:24 AM | Report abuse

@JPRS: "Those old Southern Democrats became Republicans after LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act." And, um, the great society, when the huge increase in entitlements it involved. And micromanaged us towards inevitable retreat in the Vietnam war. And a few other things.

"Today that white, largely male southern base make up the back-bone of the GOP. Party labels change."

In a May, 2009 Gallup poll, 28% of men self-identified as Republicans while 27% of women self-identified as Republicans. That's a 1% percentage difference. Given that you are correct, and that more people identify as Republicans in the southern half of the United States, it's been true in the past that as many southern women have identified as Republican as men.

The bigger difference is in identifying as independent: 40% of men verse 29% of women, almost all that difference coming from the split between 41% of women who identified as Democrats and 30% of men who identify as Democrats.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 22, 2010 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Though this story is depressing for those who believe in the importance of at least a nod at objectivity in journalism, there is some entertainment value in watching Mr. Klein do the Ashlee Simpson Hoedown.

Posted by: everysandwich | July 22, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

It seems your sorry for being found out. Shame on all the list members, colluding to smear people by the press is unacceptable. You've ruined your career and should be terminated too.

Posted by: Moe3 | July 22, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

BTW: We now learn from Journolist revelations that journalists conspired to take Sarah Palin down in a scorched-earth campaign . . . wow. Because that wasn't, like, totally obvious to any person with half-a-brain the day after her nomination. What a surprising revelation!

While I don't think Fox news should have it's license revoked (even though, it's, um, on cable, and isn't licensed by the FCC), watching all the Fox talking heads respond to this story in astonishment is . . . fascinating.

Nothing talked about or discussed on Journolist (as thus far revealed) regarding "strategies" to "take down" Palin wasn't completely and totally obvious by the ongoing behavior of the media during the campaign.

Folks want to argue that it's just wrong, every which way, to do what they did? I'll agree with that. But anyone who wants to suggest that it's some sort of major revelation, when it was clear what was going on . . . that just mystifies me. And these Fox folks are supposedly in the media.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 22, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

That's just need to explain it better so we, ignorant masses, are put back in our place. No matter that our faith in journalism is shattered by the prejudice of those who would claim Obama opponents are racist. No matter the cabal began with was "a tageted leak meant to humiliate and harm".

Posted by: BluePelican | July 22, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Is it possible that JournoList was formed, or directed, to the purpose of getting Obama elected and then, once in office, protecting him? Mr. Klein has fared fabulously well under this administration, enjoying a level of access to the highest levels of the administration -- much of it before he came to the WaPo -- an access unusual for writers at TAP. Who there could have gotten the phone number of Ezekiel Emanuel's Italian villa?

Posted by: truck1 | July 22, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

You don't think the Washington Post and the New York Times has partisan coverage? The WP was started by Democratic Party.
And you tout the old progressive standards. The old progressives are the one that locked up Japanese Americans in internment camps because progressives feared they would be disloyal. Do you really want to follow the standards of the old progressives like Sanger, Wilson and FDR?

Posted by: tech1959 | July 22, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Klein:
Racist! You are a racist. Sorry, I'll just whip that out any time I disagree with anything or anyone. No word on law and journalism professors actually discussing punishing media outlets and those outlets losing Constitutional protections simply based on their content and views?! No word on people who should love everyone's rights under our Constitution conspiring to weaken its protections for those they disagree with? Really?
Wow, you and your ilk have come a long way from Voltaire (remember, he had a really quaint quote that millions in this country and elsewhere have fought and died for). Racist!!!!!!!! See, isn't it trivial and funny! Ha ha, I'm calling someone racist just to smear them. Good times. I guess it was a "teaching moment" for people who love our Constitution and a free press (of all views); hopefully people don't actually learn the lessons you folks are spewing.

Posted by: frankensundae | July 22, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

The pattern (ye shall know them by their work):

JournoListers say spike the Rev Wright story.
Media spikes the Rev Wright story.

Journolisters say destroy Fox News.
Media and Obama administration repeatedly attack Fox News.

Journolisters say to call Obama opponents “racists”.
Media calls Obama opponents “Racists”.

JournoListers say attack Sarah Palin.
Media attacks Sarah Palin.

Nothing to see here. Nope. Move along.

Posted by: OxyCon | July 22, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Any semi-conscious observer of the 08 primary was aware of the Left-leaning media's bias toward Obama and its all out effort to destroy Hillary Clinton. Eagerly amplifying the Obama camp's smears of both Clintons as racists was just one example of how the media handed Obama the nomination and helped this inexperienced young man on his way to the presidency.

Posted by: ichief | July 22, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Ezra Klein can you say with a straight face that if it had ben Sarah Palin that went to a racist church for 20 years and who's pastor had taught the federal government invented AIDS to murder whites and who opening used the nword against liberal blacks that the WP and the NYT wouldn't not have covered it non stop on the ist page above the fold? Would your 41 friends who got mad becase ABC asked Obama some tough questions have gotten upset if Mccain or Palin was asked tough questions?
You are the partisan one. You are just as bised as Fox News if not more so. How many of the people on your journolist attacked Palin's baby? How many claimed her baby wasn't even hers?
Did you fire a letter with 41 people backing you complaining about the unfair attacks on Palin's baby? Yet you get upset if a grown man running for high office is asked a simple question.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 22, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Klein your hero Obama is the one that fired Sherrod without even giving her a chance to explain her side. Obama saw the same video as FoxNews saw and Obama fired her before Fox News even showed the video. If Obama thought the video was bad enough to fire her why do you blame Fox News? Both saw the same video. Even the NAACP wanted her fired the 1st day. And the NAACP had the whole video. And many people in the NAACP were there when she spoke.
But you blame Fox News and not Obama or the NACP.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 22, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Thou dost protest too much.

Posted by: ctmom | July 22, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Klein (aka "Mr. Racist" because I disagree with you, you must be racist, right?):

What that list/group and its recommendations and actions represent is so disturbing on so many levels. The Constitution and its protection trump all, and yet you and your smarmy group don't seem to mind trimming a little off it here and there and slandering those people you disagree with with completely baseless attacks.

There are people of all political stripes who have served this Nation in so many different roles. During our Nation's history, people of all colors, religions, and political beliefs have enjoyed its protection and often made tremendous sacrifices (including giving their lives) to ensure its relevance and continuation. The sacrifices are going on now, just to let you know in case you missed it. For you and your smug crew to think that you can just play around with it and those you disagree with it because you apparently know what's best (for you? for us? for your "occupation"?) smacks of so much arrogance and peril that you really should be fired. Travel the world, live a little (or alot), mingle with people who love America, its people, and laws (with its warts and all), experience something beyond your blogs and campaigns. Then come back and maybe you'll appreciate how ridiculous you and your "crew" really are (but I doubt it).

Posted by: frankensundae | July 22, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Klein, people can read your pooh-poohing of the Daily Caller exposes. Then they can read the Caller themselves, at, and see. I don't think you and your 399 buddies are gonna come out smelling like roses. (Free advice: when someone proposes to falsely accuse people of racism, wishes they could watch conservatives die a painful death, or talks about tossing people through stained glass windows, you ought to oppose it AT THE TIME and/or SHUT DOWN THE LIST at the time. Eh?)

Posted by: yourstruly1991 | July 22, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

What are you trying to hide Ezra?

If you don't release all the e-mails Ezra then you're a racist! We already know the JournoList posters are sexist because of their hatred for Palin. We already know how violent they are from their desire to smash people's faces through glass and put a photograph of the bloody mess on their Christmas cards.

JournoList poster=Josef Goebbels

Posted by: TruthWins | July 22, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Klein .... so because Tucker Carlson and others have not fully exposed, excuse me, revealed all emails in their entirety and some of them MIGHT be relatively benign that means that the deliberate and planned trashing of Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, and Fred Barnes should not be reported or holds no importance?

Who are you to declare what is and is not news? Oh, wait, that's right, the founder of this despicable little elitist group of mock journalists that used their power of the press to get an unqualified, inexperienced man elected President.

Posted by: vpierce10252 | July 22, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Guess what, Ezra:
Everyone knew you were dragged over from the Prospect, a forum for liberal ideas, of course. You wouldn't work there unless you were captivated by liberal ideas.
So when the Post hired you, that merely affirmed the perception of liberal, um, er, FEELINGS in yet another name writer at the WAPO. And those able to perceive such a thing run your stuff through that filter.
And yes, while you made changes after the Ackerman affair, the simple fact remains that there were those members who found such conduct acceptable. We know who they are, not surprisingly writers for Jones and Nation, but not the Standard or Review. Gee, imagine that.
I would firmly suggest that in the interest of having the reader public get a fuller understanding of the fourth estate and how it really functions, at least in some circles, you come clean.
First, a list of those on Journolist. Don't make us civilians work to get it. Second, disclosure. If you want to try privacy, you are going to have to have all your members yay or nay, the nays will be on record as nays; while the yay originators have their stuff posted to an open archive.
I really would like to know the biases on either side of those who present me with information.

Posted by: daskinner | July 22, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Best quote on the page you linked regarding Obama from Kevin Drum:

"After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?"

I feel badly for you being stuck in the middle of this, but I think you were somewhat naive setting this list up given the prevailing conceit that the media is unbiased. It should have been clear from the tone of the comments that this was a ticking time bomb in the Internet age of forwarded E-mails and no gatekeepers.

Posted by: jnc4p | July 22, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"The pattern (ye shall know them by their work):"

Journolisters note sky is blue
Media reports that "Views differ on sky".

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | July 22, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I cannot wait to see the emais from JournoListers on they could aid and abet Obama & Pelosi's plans to ram socialized miedicne down our throats, starting with admissions that even without the Public Option private sector medical services are finished given the federal powers to turn every single private insurance offering into their little finger puppet thru rigid controls on rates, payouts, and denial of coverage.

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | July 22, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't David Weigel fired by the WP? They must have thought he did something wrong. If he was unfairly fired why are you attacking Fox News and not the people that fired him? Wasn't he humiliating conservatives behind their back while at the same time pretending to be fairly covering them?
The WP won Pulitzer prizes because they published targeted leaks during Watergate. You should go tell your bosses the WP will never publish any targeted leaks ever again. And you should give those awards back. Wasn't your friends planning on your site attacks meant to humiliate and harm Sarah Palin and Fred Barnes? Yet you let it go on and didn't warn Pailn.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 22, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"I actually expect this to be my final public comment on the subject."

Too bad for you that this is unlikely to be the last you'll hear on the topic. Watching all the squirming and weaselish self-justification is just too much fun and I expect to see a good deal more of it as your colleagues are outed one by one.

Funniest of all is all these self-proclaimed 'best and brightest' who forgot the first rule of secret societies -- the likelihood of being revealed doubles with every person who knows the secret. Thinking that a secret ListServ with 400 members would stay secret? That's just pricelessly naive.

Finally, unless *you* gave the archives to Daily Caller, how do you know whether they have the whole works? How do you know what they know and don't know? So far as I know they haven't said what they have. Oh wait.. You couldn't have given the archives to Daily Caller because you don't have them. But you can give extensive full quotes of what people said, and remember exactly what was said and not said among 400 posters. That's one amazing memory you've got there.

Posted by: SwenSwenson | July 22, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Since you claimed the older Progressive era was objective I will post a letter from Progressive hero Margaret Sanger. Look how open minded and loving she is is according to you.

65 Sierra Vista Drive

October 27, 1950

Mrs. Stanley McCormick
407 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts.

Dear Mrs. McCormick:
It is good to have yours of the 19th and to know that your interest in Birth Control is still active. I was not able, in fact I am not allowed by my doctors here, to go East at this time of year and so I missed attending the Annual Luncheon on the 25th. My son, Grant Sanger of Mount Kisco, accepted the Lasker Award for me. It was quite wonderful to have it because I know that the Laskers give the Award only for years of accomplishment.

As to your questions: A. Where the present need of financial support is most needed, and B. What the present prospects are in contraceptive research. I will answer B. first because I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.

read the rest here

Posted by: tech1959 | July 22, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

This is the progressive era you you claim is open.

Progressivism was infested with the most repugnant strains of racism. But was there something more, something inherent in Progressivism itself that facilitated the era’s harsh treatment of blacks? According to Southern, who repeatedly maintains that racism derailed “the great promise” of Progressivism, the answer is no. “The ideas of race and color were powerful, controlling elements in progressive social and political thinking,” he argues. “And this fixation on race explains how democratic reform and racism went hand-in-hand.”

That is surely correct, but is it the whole story? As the legal scholar Richard Epstein has noted, “the sad but simple truth is that the Jim Crow resegregation of America depended on a conception of constitutional law that gave property rights short shrift, and showed broad deference to state action under the police power.” Progressivism itself, in other words, granted the state vast new authority to manage all walks of American life while at the same time weakening traditional checks on government power, including property rights and liberty of contract. Such a mixture was ripe for the racist abuse that occurred.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 22, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

One of the most famous older progressive era spokesmen HG wells wrote this
Perhaps in years to come our descendants will look with intelligence
over their pedigree, and if there is a probability of recessive
genius in a family and no reason to suspect a grave recessive taint
they will deliberately encourage inbreeding. A rather grim Utopia
might be devised in which for some generations [...] inbreeding
would be made compulsory, with a prompt resort to the lethal chamber
for any undesirable results. A grim Utopia, no doubt, but in that
manner our race might be purged of its evil recessives for ever.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 22, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse


All of your arguments stem from the same reasoning error -- conflation. Labels change over time.

Early 20th century "progressivism" has about as much in common with "progressive" politics in the early 21st century as Eisenhower Republicanism has with Bush Republicanism today.

Southern Democrats didn't continue voting for the Democratic party after LBJ passed Civil Rights. The overwhelming majority of the white ones became Republicans.

Based on your line of reasoning a person should expect the Democratic party to have its strongest presence in the southeastern part of the United States where it was THE dominant political party in the early 20th century -- especially amongst white voters who viewed Lincoln and the party of Lincoln with tremendous resentment for decades after the Civil War through Re-Construction. Yet, in order to believe the contrary -- that there is no discontinuity -- you would have to be completely ignorant of contemporary facts (e.g. distribution of party votes and so on since the passage of the Civil Rights Act).

Many Democrats today may share Teddy Roosevelt's views on breaking up monopolies and environmental protection, but you'd have be a complete ignoramus if you believed that the Democratic platform today encompasses Roosevelt's views on issues like Social Darwinism and the colonial expansion.

Posted by: JPRS | July 22, 2010 11:40 PM | Report abuse


"The pattern (ye shall know them by their work):"

Amen to that.

Fox news spent MONTHS on the Reverend Wright story. It spent MONTHS on ACORN. It's now spent WEEKS on an organization -- the Black Panther Party -- which has something like 350 members. It was the first to run with the Sherrod story.

It's no accident that the guy who devised the Willie Horton ad is the guy in charge of Fox these days, or that his almost entirely white and older audience eats that crap right up every night. In keeping with the times they also make sure to get their fair share of stories bashing Mexicans and Latinos too.

Posted by: JPRS | July 22, 2010 11:59 PM | Report abuse

A higher percent of republicans voted for the civil rights act than democrats. In fact wP hero Democratic Senator Robert Byrd led an 88 Demcratic filibuster of the 1964 civil rights bill.
Bill Clinton rewarded segregationist Dem senator William Fulbright the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award. He was was on of the worse segregationists and Dems give him a medal.
After it became known Byrd was a former leader in the KKK the Democrats voted him their leader in the senate.

Most of the voters in the south now were either not born during Jim Crow,were too young to be responsible for it or were from the north.
Republicans try and treat all races the same and are called racists for that. Even to this day Dems openly call black repubilcans the nword and uncle toms. The NAACP had a press conference about a week ago where the spokesman defended liberals beating a black man at a tea party even because he was an uncle tom.
Dems used to roll Oreos on the floor when Michele Steele spoke claiming he was black on the outside and white on the inside.
Obama's pastor openly called Condi Rice the nword.
it is Klein that is praising the old progressives.
Margaret Sanger is still a hero the the left Planned parenthood gives out a Sanger award every year and people like Obama praise her.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 12:30 AM | Report abuse

The left spent months attacking Palin's baby.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse


Right and who provided those votes AGAINST civil rights? It was SOUTHERN Democrats. Within two electoral cycles the overwhelming majority became Republicans.

LBJ was absolutely right -- civil rights cost the Democratic party the south for at least two generations (he might have been off by another 20 years). The change took place to such a degree that the white Southern Democratic core IS the back-bone of today's GOP (e.g. the GOP's political base is far and away strongest in the South).

And yes, the south may have changed, and will continue to change -- especially post integration. But there's still a large bloc of white voters who lived in the segregated south, and whose attitudes reflect the experience of growing up in a segregated south. They might not even be as openly or overtly racist as their own parents, and they probably don't even see themselves as racist, but they still harbor prejudices that Republicans and right-wing media play like a fiddle (e.g. in their view most blacks are lazy and irresponsible, government intervention is always a problem, etc, etc). For anyone who's half-awake there's a consistent narrative being pushed that fits within that narrative. Same story with Jesse Helm's "Black Hands" ad and the Willie Horton ad in 1988. It's no accident either that Helms was elected running as a REPUBLICAN in 1973 within a decade of the passage of the Civil Rights Act (you might recall that he was a Democrat until 1970).

The difference between a guy like Helms and a guy like Robert Byrd is that Robert Byrd's actions and voting record actually changed over the course of decades. Helms's didn't even though his political label and affiliation changed.

What matters isn't where a party or person was in their beliefs and actions 30 or 40 years ago -- what matters is what those beliefs and actions are TODAY.

Posted by: JPRS | July 23, 2010 3:14 AM | Report abuse

Republicans started winning in the south but there were many reasons for that. People from the north started moving to the sunbelt. Democrats could no longer cheated as much as they did before. In two election cycles republicans was 1972 and Nixon won all over the country. Not just the south. In 1976 the dems won the south with carter. He drove the country into the ditch and this helped Reagan win in the south after that.
The next two election cycles the democrats picked ultra lib candidates Mondale and Dukakis, this made it easy for republicans to win in the south after that. It had zero to do with race. it had to do with no one wanted to vote for extreme leftists.
And republicans did not pass Jim Crow laws. They did not lynch people that wanted to vote. Life was far better for everyone in the south that the progressive era of total control of the south by democrats was over.
Many of the racist Democrats were elected for decades as Democrats. Byrd, Fritz Hollings and William Fulbright are just a few examples.
Byrd still used the nword on nationwide tv all the way up to 2003 or so. Dems loved him.
Bill Clinton claimed it was okay for Byrd to be a leader in the KKK as long as he got votes out of it. Democrat Hollins put the confederate flag on the SC capital. And as a Democratic Senator in the 19900's still called blacks 'darkees'. Dems loved him too.
Civil rights laws had to be passed because of Democrats. Republicans elected black senators as early as 1870.
In the 1968 Democratic convention the convention decided not to let blacks from Mississippi sit with white people.
Over at the Republican convention they had republican black senator who was allowed to sit with whites.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 5:01 AM | Report abuse

in the 2004 election Al Sharpton ran as a democrat for president. he was so racist he insisted that seven white men be put in prison with no trial and even without the so called victim talking to the police. He claimed the white men all kidnapped raped a black teen. He destroyed these men's lives for a time before it turned out it was all a scam. A racist democratic power play. But it was too late for one of the accused men he had committed suicide because he whole life was turned inside out. Sharpton had just picked out white men he wanted to destroy and cried rape.
It turned out the teen really just stayed the night with her boyfriend and sharpton saw a chance to make up false racism and destroy some white people he hated.
In spite of Sharpton doing all of that. And causing the death of an innocent man becauase a Dem hated his race Dems thought it was okay for him to run as president of their party.
Look at this naacp press conference where the naacp defends beating a black conservative because they claim he is an uncle tom. Notice the naacp calls the black conservative the nword too.

Watch this one where this speaker in front of the NAACP calls for war against any black that doesn't follow the naacp. And the naacp cheers as threats are made against conservative blacks.
The racial hate is on the left not the right. Look at Obama's church. Conservative blacks are called the nword and called uncle toms by the pastor who is Obama's mentor.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 5:24 AM | Report abuse

Democrats still love FDR. He was so extreme he even sent Japanese American babies into interment camps. The Progressives were all about race and all about control of everything you did.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 5:35 AM | Report abuse

Here is the naacp where treats are made against conservative blacks

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 5:43 AM | Report abuse

Explain why one of the first things Obama did was to kill the DC voucher program that allowed poor blacks to go to school with his daughter?
Watch this

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 6:11 AM | Report abuse

Look what Obama did to blacks in Chicago

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 6:12 AM | Report abuse

What have Democratic polices done for blacks? It is Democrats that insist poor blacks only be allowed to go to rotten public schools.
it is strange that Republicans are called racist when they start a program that allows poor blacks to choose private schools even the private school Obama's kids go to. And Democrats are called heros when they kill private schools choice for poor blacks.
It was Democratic policy that pushed black fathers to leave their families because if they did the government would pay them welfare.
Byrd never did change. He filibustered Condi Rice as Sec of State even though she had enough votes to win. He filibustered just long enough so she wouldn't be sec of state until after Bush's state of the union speech.
Has he ever filibuster a white sec of state nominee?
in 2005 or so Byrd wrote his autobiography in it he says he was proud of the day one of the highest leaders of the KKK asked him to run for office. He even wrote that was the day he knew he was somebody. A KKK leader saw leadership in him.In 2005 he still thought proudly of the day he first ran for office when the klan asked him to run.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 6:28 AM | Report abuse

Look here to see the love and tolerance of the left

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 6:32 AM | Report abuse

Interesting that Klein insists the j-list included grad students and some low-level working journalists, many of whom he did not know personally.
That's his business, who was let in. But if the bar was low enough for grad students, why were legitimate working press excluded? Tucker Carlson could not get in? But random grad students could? How did they pass thru these gates - avow to liberal values? Offer a fresh diss of Sarah Palin?
The bar was low? Or it was high enough to keep out national media who did not tow the line? Was this a list of like minded people or a clique with pledges in line for training?

Posted by: FloridaChick | July 23, 2010 7:23 AM | Report abuse

This quote shows the totalitarian mindset of progressives.
"How do you handle organizations like the Daily Caller that sell themselves as news outlets but "are taking advantage of an older Progressive era concept of disinterestedness and objectivity to peddle partisan coverage?"

How is covering the news as Fox sees it taking advantage of Progressives? That is implying progressives control everything and anyone that see things different are only allowed because of the 'Progressive era concept of disinterestedness and objectivity '.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

I think those outside the Beltway/NYC super-secret club would be interested in a graphic depiction of the Journolist issue and thorough investigation. Perhaps The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other outlets that either fail to cover or minimize the Journolist issue/problem could create the graphs (or perhaps someone else could) to prove or disprove how important Journolist was/is (along with any other such lists created afterwards).

Now if these media outlets can reveal national security information without any hesitation, surely they can investigate the media itself because that wouldn't threaten people's lives and/or our defense, right? After all, when a writer at Time (in an apparent defense of his actions) and others apparently took ideas and posts and then transferred them to their own publications or used them as talking points, there are problems because: 1) he is not paid to take other people's work, but is paid for his efforts (at least I thought so); and 2) shouldn't Journolist members owe their allegiance to their own specific employers without working on ideas among themselves without their employers' knowledge to basically help get a candidate elected (as well as tolerating and/or endorsing all the other posts regarding curtailing the Freedom of the Press, violence, etc.)?

The relevant graphs follow: 1) the number of members of Journolist and the number of their postings over time vs. the number of negative articles and blog entries regarding Republicans, conservatives, independents, Tea Parties, etc. in major newspapers and channels that employ/employed Journolist members (I'm guessing it's a very high positive correlation); 2) declining readership in major newspapers (choose any, I'll leave it to The Washington Post to choose) over time vs. membership numbers in Journolist (I think it might be a high inverse correlation); 3) the number of viewers of channels that express conservative/non-liberal ideas vs. the number of readers of The Washington Post over time (I'm guessing high inverse correlation).

Now if Journolist was so innocuous, then surely there should be a very low correlation between ideas discussed in the forum and the actual articles and other ideas that follow by its members (especially regarding specific words and phrases, not just ideas).

Posted by: frankensundae | July 23, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse


You're positing a monumentally stupid standard.

1. In the United States money is power. The opinions of a multi-billionaire and a schmuck on the dole do not carry the same weight in the Halls of Congress or anywhere in the power centers of the United States. Money is power.

2. The combined net-worth of every member of Journolist doesn't even equal the wealth of one Rupert Murdoch. It's a fraction of the Koch families fortune (big money players in conservative politics -- ones who bank-roll Con think tanks). It's an even smaller fraction than the Walton fortune.

In this case GOP PR-media firms are "investigating" this issue -- many of which are bankrolled by said GOP sugar-daddies -- just like they "investigated" a worker for the Dept. of Agriculture who was "discriminating" against white people.

PROFESSIONAL journalists look at news value here. Aside from the wingnut audience which feeds itself on conspiracy whether half-baked or fully-baked; does the population at large really care what the private opinions of a left and left-of-center pundits are? Do the private opinions of left of center and left pundits shift policy debates anymore than their public ones?

Posted by: JPRS | July 23, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse


Republicans started winning big-time in the South after 1964, but you're saying it had "many" reasons other than the passage of the Civil Rights Act?

And Strom Thurmond's departure from the Democratic Party in 1964 for the GOP wasn't primarily about Civil Rights legislation? (Even though he engaged in a high-profile filibuster of the measure, he didn't "really" care about the issue).

The departure of him, Jesse Helms and any number of Southern Democrats for the GOP wasn't "really" or even primarily about Civil Rights?

And Nixon's Southern Strategy had no racial component too it as well, I suppose.

That's historical revisionism in the extreme.

If it makes you feel better though, I guess that's the nature of rationalization and shame. The truth is clearly a little too close to home for you.

Posted by: JPRS | July 23, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

@JPRS Nixon won in 1968 because he promised to end the Vietnam war with honor. He was helped because he ran not against one Democrat but two. He ran against both Humphrey and Wallace. The Democratic vote was spilt. In 1972 Nixon won almost every state because the Dems ran a real left winger.
Even if you claim Nixon had a southern strategy it did not involve lynching blacks, it did not involve Jim Crow. Nixon in fact was liberal on social issues. He increased LBJ's spending on the war on poverty for example.
The Dems southern strategy involved murder by the hundreds for a hundred years. In involved JIm Crow for 100 years. Much worse than any republican ever did.
Dem Senator Robert Byrd may not have personally lynched a black person but he was friends with the leaders of the KKK who did order the murder of blacks. Who really knows if Byrd put the nose around a black mans head. He could have. Or one of the 235 men he brags that he recruited for the KKK probably did murder some blacks.
The KKK also hated Jews and Catholics. My dad is Catholic and I have a common Catholic name. At one time Byrd could have threatened my relatives with his hate fill rants. Or even me because he might have thought I was a Catholic. Am I supposed to cheer that the leader of the Democrats in the senate might go after me if I happened to be in his state because of what he thinks my religion is?

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

'Ironically, this sort of thing was exactly what the Fox News thread was about: How do you handle organizations like the Daily Caller that sell themselves as news outlets but "are taking advantage of an older Progressive era concept of disinterestedness and objectivity to peddle partisan coverage?"'

What a revealing comment! The real irony is that E.K. can write something like this with a straight face. Projection? Naah.

Posted by: binkless | July 23, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Some southern strategy from Nixon

Until recently, many scholars and journalists have credited Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson with initiating affirmative action. Yet it was a Republican president who first sanctioned formal goals and time frames to raze barriers to minority employment. Nixon, recalled civil rights leader James Farmer, was the strongest president on affirmative action--up to that point."(2)

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

But in the most far-reaching federal expansion of affirmative action, the "goals and timetables" plan was revived by President Nixon and Labor Secretary George Shultz in 1969. In issuing the so-called "Philadelphia Order," Assistant Secretary Arthur Fletcher said:

Equal employment opportunity in these [construction] trades in the Philadelphia area is still far from a reality. The unions in these trades still have only about 1.6 percent minority group membership and they continue to engage in practices, including the granting of referral priorities to union members and to persons who have work experience under union contracts, which result in few negroes being referred for employment. We find, therefore, that special measures are required to provide equal employment opportunity in these seven trades. (5)

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse
Nixon’s administration instituted so-called “set aside” policies to reserve a certain percentage of jobs for minorities on federally funded construction projects—the first “affirmative action” program. Although Nixon opposed school busing and delayed taking action on desegregation until federal court orders...

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse


And Wallace won throughout the Deep South in the 1968 general election campaign precisely because he campaigned against de-segregation.

While the rest of the nation focused on Vietnam, large numbers of white voters in the South prioritized Wallace's racists appeals above all else.

The 1972 campaign represented the first national race in which the GOP openly courted white voters on the basis of racial prejudices and fears (e.g. the "Southern strategy").

The history is what it is.

The history remains so hard-wired and present in the CURRENT GOP that you can have a guy like Rush Limbaugh calling health care reform "reparations," which you, I, and everyone know is a not so thinly-veiled code for "hand-outs to black people". Never mind that the overwhelming majority of the beneficiaries of health care reform will be white folks who are too rich to qualify for Medicaid, too young to qualify for Medicare, but not rich enough to be able to afford individual or small group plans in the private insurance market.

All this "states rights" and "nullification" nonsense over issues like health care reform too is also straight out of the Segregationist, Neo-Confederate vocabulary. It's no surprise that these kind of claims have gained the greatest traction in the Old South.

Posted by: JPRS | July 23, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

In this 1936 article Democrats admitt they want blacks to be on relief (welfare) so emocrats would get their votes.
This is why Dems wants blacks to be poor and uneducated.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

@jprs did you know Bill Clinton make Robert E Lee day a stae holiday in Arkansas? He did this the same day MLK day because law. Did you know Clinton worked for Segregationist Senator William Fulgright back when Fulbright was still an outspoken racist?
I ask you again why did the Democrats have to stop the DC voucher program that allowed poor blacks to go to private school?
If Obama's daughters can go to Sidwell Friends why do democrats get mad if a poor black kid goes there?

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse
B]ack on May 5, 1993, in what the Washington Post characterized as a ". . . moving 88th birthday ceremony for former senator William Fulbright, President Clinton last night bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom on the man he described as a visionary humanitarian, a steadfast supporter of the values of education, and 'my mentor.'" Clinton added, "It doesn't take long to live a life. He made the best of his, and helped us to have a better chance to make the best of ours. . . . The American political system produced this remarkable man, and my state did, and I'm real proud of it."

Even if we ignore completely what Clinton said, how do you ignore what he did? He gave the nation's highest civilian award — the Presidential Medal of Freedom — to a man who spent the vast majority of his public career and life as a proud segregationist. Mr. Beinart sees a substantive and, therefore, moral distinction between Lott's comment and Clinton's action. I doubt he would cling to this position if, say, Strom Thurmond had been awarded the Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush — a medal that neither Fulbright nor Thurmond deserve.

Having blithely dismissed this embarrassingly obvious example of selective moral outrage, Mr. Beinart then asserts a second point in trying to distinguish the Lott-Clinton comparison: "Clinton doesn't have a record of segregationist comments and actions."

Let me encumber Mr. Beinart with some disturbing historical facts.

1. Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67, when Fulbright was still a segregationist.

Later same website
. In April 1985, Governor Bill Clinton signed Act 985 into law, making the birthdates of Martin Luther King Jr. (the preeminent leader of the civil-rights movement) and Robert E. Lee (the general who led the Confederate army) state holidays on the same day. Of course, the word "segregation" never passed Clinton's considerable lips, but the (uncoded) message he was sending to certain of his white constituents could not have be clearer. His support for the Lee day seems as bad — if not worse — than a gaffe at an old man's birthday party and Lott's opposition to an MLK day.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse


Of course, if you deny people the right to vote, send them to separate schools with less funding, and shut them out of jobs, etc, etc, you create an even greater dependency and destitution. The legacy of those policies doesn't disappear over night -- especially if the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws is gutted whenever a member of the GOP gets into the White House.

Just because you've changed your party affiliation, it doesn't mean that you've changed a rotten heart, or a racist agenda. One-time Democrats-turned Republican leaders Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Richard Shelby, etc, etc, are cases in point.

With respect to Clinton, he like so many white southern Democrats embraced policies that were racist in his early political career. Unlike the ones who became Republicans though, someone like Clinton actually ended up changing his actions over time with respect to civil rights policy.

Posted by: JPRS | July 23, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Washing DC schools spends about twice as much per child as Sidwell Friends spends. it is not school spending. Most big cities have been totlay controlled by democrats since forever. yet the schools are still rotten.
Oakland is completely Democratic controlled and about 10 years ago wanted to teach blacks not in English but wanted to teach them Ebonics. yeh they will be able to get a job after 12 years of not learning English.Trent Lott and Shelby were not even in office during the civil rights era of the 1960's. You can't blame them for what the Democrats did back then.
it is Ezra Kein that twice in his own article mentioned the old progressive era and praised it. He praised the era when Progressives called for Eugenics. Called for death chambers for defectives (their word not mine), called for the interment of Japanese American babies.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Clinton was President of the USA when he give a presidential Medal of freedom to a segregationist. He had tears in his eyes when he recalled Byrd being in the KKK and claimed it was okay because he got more votes.

Posted by: tech1959 | July 23, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse


The non-partisan NCES puts DC's per student at about $13K; Sidwell Friends runs about $24K (I realize that the Koch Industries funded Cato Institute puts the DC public school numbers higher).

Putting per student spending aside, there are more factors that go into educational performance than just dollars spent.

Regardless of whether you are black, white, yellow, or any shade in between, if you go to Sidwell Friends, odds are you're not only going to get great teachers, you're also going to get the social support networks that come from one of the most connected private schools in the U.S.

(e.g. children of Harvard grads from stable homes who can afford private tutoring and who know the Deans at top colleges are going to have advantages over less privileged kids from single-parent homes where the parent may have a high school degree or less).

If you compare inner-city school performance to predominantly white rural schools in the south, I suspect you wouldn't find a heck of a lot of difference in terms of educational outcomes. It's worth adding that cost of living is substantially higher in the urban centers than it is in the rural south -- so if you're going to compare apples to apples you have to take those factors into account when it comes to per student spending.

Regardless of where a person is born, if a person comes from a family where the parents have advanced degrees and strong income, odds are their kids will receive the benefit of those accidents of birth.

As far as Lott and Shelby go, I'm not blaming them for what Southern Democrats did during the Civil Rights era. I'm holding them accountable for actions that they've undertaken as Republicans (in terms of racial issues, I'll cut Shelby a lot more slack than Lott -- Lott's political career in Washington and his party switch happened within a decade of the passage of the Civil Rights Act).

The past actions of reformed bigots -- or at a minimum politicians who pander to racial prejudice -- doesn't excuse the present day racism of unreformed bigots. The substance of your argument seems to be the exact opposite.

e.g. we should excuse the fact that Jesse Helms ran a campaign in 1990 pandering to racial prejudice, because Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK in the 1940s.

That's a pretty silly line of argument.

Posted by: JPRS | July 24, 2010 1:05 AM | Report abuse
The headmaster of the private school where President Obama sends his children pleaded with lawmakers yesterday to continue the government program that allows underprivileged students in the city to attend the exclusive school.

Read more:

Posted by: tech1959 | July 24, 2010 4:45 AM | Report abuse

A quote from the little trouble maker Ezra Klein

“Our best shot at increasing employment and output is to reduce business taxes and the cost of creating new start-up companies. Don’t subsidize them; just reduce their taxes even as they become larger; also reduce any unnecessary impediments to their foundation.”

YOU THINK Klein that maybe you should have considered that before you interfered with the recent presidential election. I mean in hindsight undermining the election process resulting in a tax raising socialist to be elected doesn’t seem like such a good idea now does it, fool. You wanted healthcare and you got it, now you’re complaining about taxes and unnecessary impediments, HUH!

You’re a wannabe journalist WTF do you know about Governing!

You single handedly screwed millions of your peers for the next forty-five years.

I think if anybody in this country needs healthcare you of all people will when people learn what you have done. I wouldn’t be surprised if the ass whipping begins and I mean that metaphorically of course.

Posted by: RexRedbone | July 25, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company