Patterico's Pontifications

3/24/2006

Domenech’s Explanation Doesn’t Wash

Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 8:53 pm



Having criticized Ben Domenech’s apparent plagiarism this morning, I think it’s only fair to link to his explanation, such as it is. In the post, he gives several defenses to the various charges.

I don’t find them convincing.

[UPDATE 9:03 p.m. Pacific: Via Allah in the comments, apparently Domenech himself doesn’t find it convincing either. He has a new explanation up in which he simply admits having reprinted material without attribution. And now, back to my original post, which took apart his initial quasi-denial . . .]

Domenech’s lifting of passages from a P.J. O’Rourke book is what initially got my attention, so I was especially interested in his explanation for that. Here it is:

I have been accused me of passing off P.J. O’Rourke’s writing as my own in a column for the paper. But the truth is that I had met P.J. at a Republican event and asked his permission to do a college-specific version of his classic piece on partying. He granted permission, the piece was cleared with my editors at the paper, and it ran as inspired by O’Rourke’s original.

Is that so? The link to the piece available on the Internet bears no indication that it was said to be inspired by P.J. O’Rourke. Indeed, all indications are to the contrary. The linked piece contains this editor’s note:

Editor’s note: It has been brought to the attention of The Flat Hat that Ben Domenech, a writer for The Flat Hat from 1999 to 2000, may have copied from and failed to cite sources in several articles. The Flat Hat is currently investigating these allegations.

Why would the editors have included such a note if the original version had said it was inspired by O’Rourke?

This doesn’t sound innocent, Mr. Domenech. Your story doesn’t ring true.

Plus, the Domenech article was hardly “inspired” by O’Rourke’s work. It simply lifted it, with a few very minor word changes.

Here are just a few excerpts from Domenech’s article, paired with excerpts from O’Rourke’s book. I have put the differences in bold. There aren’t many.

Here is the beginning of the article on “real parties”:

Domenech’s Article O’Rourke’s Book
A real party differs from other social events in two major ways: firstly, as much as anyone can remember, it was more fun. Secondly, no one can remember very much.

Real parties are given for pleasure only, never to mark an occasion. There can no more be a reason for a real party than there can be an excuse for what goes on after it starts.

A real party differs from other social events in two ways:

1. As much as anyone can remember, it was more fun.
2. No one can remember very much.

Real parties are given for pleasure only and never to mark an occasion. There can no more be a reason for giving a real party than there can be an excuse for what goes on after it starts.

Here are excerpts from the passages about what “real parties” share in common:

Domenech’s Article O’Rourke’s Book
Real parties vary tremendously in type and style, but I’ve noticed they all share certain things in common.

– Real parties don’t start until after midnight.
– No friendships or romantic relationships should survive a real party fully intact.
– Neither should much furniture.
– Someone should be wearing undergarments on his head by 2 a.m.
– By 3 a.m., someone should have called the police.
– Someone else should have called George Bush long distance to invite him over.
– By 5 a.m. everyone should have gotten in cars and tried to drive somewhere else and backed into each other instead.
– It’s not a real party if it doesn’t end in an orgy or a food fight.
– All your friends should still be there when you come to in the morning.

Real parties vary tremendously in type and style, but all share certain things in common.

– Real parties don’t start until after midnight.
– No friendships or romantic relationships should survive a real party fully intact.
– Neither should much furniture.
– Someone should be wearing undergarments on his head by 2 a.m.
– By 3 a.m., someone should have called the police.
– Someone else should have called George Bush long distance to invite him over.
– By 5 a.m. everyone should have gotten in cars and tried to drive someplace else and backed into each other instead.
– It’s not a real party if it doesn’t end in an orgy or a food fight.
– All your friends should still be there when you come to in the morning.

Parties that are not real parties:

Domenech’s Article O’Rourke’s Book
Most parties are not real parties. And some parties can never be real parties no matter how hard the partygoers try. Among these are:

– Christmas parties.
– Wine tasting parties.
– Book publishing parties.
– Parties with themes, such as “Las Vegas Nite” or “Waikiki Whoopee.”
– Parties at which anyone is wearing a blue velvet tuxedo jacket.
– Parties at the homes of people who don’t smoke, have subscriptions to “Commentary” or were ever in the Peace Corps.
– Parties at which more than six of the guests are related by blood.
– The Republican Party.

Most parties are not real parties. And some parties can never be real parties no matter how hard the partygoers try. Among these are:

– Christmas parties
– Winetasting parties
– Bookpublishing parties
– Parties with themes, such as “Las Vegas Nite” or “Waikiki Whoopee”
– Parties at which anyone is wearing a blue velvet tuxedo jacket
– Parties at the homes of people who don’t smoke, have subscriptions to Commentary, own china figurine collections, or were ever in the Peace Corps
– Parties at which more than six of the guests are related by blood.
– The Republican Party.

Other specifics, including whom to invite and not to invite, and tidbits about the music:

Domenech’s Article O’Rourke’s Book
There is only one rule about the place to have a real party: someone else’s place.

Small parties are very easy to plan. An old Supremes tape, a case of beer, a fifth of Stolichnaya and a pack of cigarettes make for a perfect small party without the bother and complication of guests.

Large parties require much more than a gram of cocaine and, usually, other people besides yourself.

There is only one hard-and-fast rule about the place to have a real party: someone else’s place.

Small parties are very easy to plan. An old Supremes tape, a case of beer, a fifth of Stolichnaya, and some copies of Penthouse from the 70s when it was really dirty make for a perfect small party without the bother and complication of guests.

Large parties require much more than a gram of cocaine and, usually, other people besides yourself.

Each contains the following passage, but puts them in different parts of the piece:

As a general rule, figure out how many people the room will hold comfortably and invite 10 times that many people. Fun, like the flu, is contagious through close personal contact.

One of the versions spells out the word “ten” and one uses the number. Otherwise, they are the same.

Here is the section on who to invite and not to invite, and tidbits about the music:

Domenech’s Article O’Rourke’s Book
Whom to invite:

– All neighbors within earshot.
– Everybody you’ve ever slept with (unless they insist on being accompanied by a lawyer).
– A lawyer of your own.
Sorority girls who take their clothes off at the slightest provocation.
– A Psi Upsilon to pick out the music.
– Cute people.
– Loud people.
– Popular people.
– Some insecure people who make fools of themselves when the popular people show up.
– Some famous people (they don’t have to show up, just be expected).
– People who get drunk fast.
– At least one person who will be deeply shocked by what goes on (try not to be dating this one).

Whom not to invite:

– Sam Sadler.
– Your parents.
– Pat Robertson.

Whom to invite:

– People with much more than a gram of cocaine
– All neighbors within earshot
– Everybody you’ve ever slept with (unless he or she insists on being accompanied by a lawyer)
– A lawyer of your own
– Girls who take their clothes off at the slightest provocation
– A homo to pick out the dance music
– A bunch of people who’ve all married each other’s former husbands and wives (to get the mate-swapping mood established)
– Cute people.
– Loud people.
– People who get drunk fast
– Some famous people (they don’t actually have to come, just be expected).
– Some Kennedys
– Some insecure people to make fools of themselves when the Kennedys show up
– At least one person who will be deeply shocked by what goes on (try not to be married to this one).

[Here is the passage quoted above about inviting ten times as many people as will fit in a room]

Whom not to invite:

– Andy Warhol
– Pat Robertson
– Your parents

And it goes on like that. If you thought the plagiarism might have been an accident, this should make it clear that it was not.

After giving his defense, Domenech says:

But all these specifics are beside the point. Considering that all of this happened almost eight years ago, and that there are no files or notes that I’ve kept from that brief stint, it is simply my word against the liberal blogosphere on these examples. It becomes a matter of who you believe.

I vehemently disagree that the specifics are “beside the point”; they are the point. But the specifics don’t help Domenech. Far from it. And it’s not just the liberal blogopshere taking note, so he should stop whining about how this is all about unfair partisan attacks.

It’s a good thing he resigned.

P.S. I will say this, however: many clowns throughout the blogosphere are glossing over the fact that Domenech has not been shown to have plagiarized at the Post. If that had been shown, the decision to fire him would have been a no-brainer. But when the examples all appeared to come from years ago, that fact initially made it a closer question in my mind whether he should be fired.

The people who have (deliberately) failed to make this clear are simply out to score cheap partisan points.

However, as the day has gone on, and still more examples of plagiarism have come to light that did not come from Domenech’s college days, the Post‘s decision has proved to be clearly the correct one.

27 Responses to “Domenech’s Explanation Doesn’t Wash”

  1. There’s a new explanation up. The new explanation is, he’s a plagiarist.

    Allah (4ba106)

  2. Okay, I can see that one might think they can get away with plagarizing the some podunk newspaper, but plagarizing P.J. O’Rourke? He’s a New York Times bestseller for crying out loud. Lots of people (including me) have read everyone of his books. I understand people make mistakes, but taking a high-profile writing job for the Washington Post was just asking to be caught. The longer people get away with things, the more brazen they become and the stupider they think the rest of us are.

    Lot’s of talk tonight in the right-wings blogs about a talent wasted, a career in ruins, etc. More comments about the moral superiority of the conservative blogs for quickly punishing their own. All well and good I suppose. I’ve yet to see anything about responsibility that comes with having that soapbox. This guy has hurt the cause. The MSM was finally starting to (just barely) examine their one-sided coverage of the Iraq war after being spanked by the blogs and talk radio. I’m sure the MSM will now use this to question the credibility of their detractors.

    Jeff C. (428193)

  3. Good to see the conservatives believe in moral relativism, at least when it comes to one of their own. The rest of us, however, do not deserve such consideration. Reading all those posts about his ‘talent’ (not getting caught plagiarizing for 7 years) from the holier than thou crowd is quite amusing.

    Concerned (525625)

  4. After reading Domenech’s defense and the rebuttals to it, even I can’t continue to defend him against the allegations that he is in fact a plagiarist*.

    This is no way absolves those on the right who tucked their tails and ran without having waited to hear his explanation. While not intending to suck up to the host, his approach was spot on: acknowledge the accusations and insist Domenech explain himself. Unfortunately, the right has once again demonstrated that there are enough cowards and sheep on our side that mere allegations of wrongdoing are sufficient to panic us into doing what the MSM/left wants done.

    * WFB, paraphrased.

    steve sturm (d3e296)

  5. 1. Serious allegations of plagiarism (from the Left)
    2. Evaluations of their credibility (high) and statement of the need for explanations from the accused plagiarism, or resignation
    3. More serious allegations, also unanswered.
    4. Resignation.
    5. (Predictably), lame non-explanation explanation by the plagiarist, gloating by the original accusers, a sense that resignation was the necessary outcome on the part of the rest of us.

    Barring a convincing defense by Domenech, how else was this supposed to play out? “there are enough cowards and sheep on our side that mere allegations …”–I don’t see it.

    AMac (2d112a)

  6. Chris Nolan at Spot-on has some good perspectives on the whole Domenech uproar.

    Salient quotes:

    1. “The problem with this real honest-to-God problem of plagiarism is the criticism that greeted the news of Domenech’s hiring. It was so harsh […] that it has made this new discussion seem like piling on.”

    2. “The quaint idea that some “message” has or will be sent to the great unwashed American public by firing or retaining Domenech is as archaic as the idea that the Washington Post dominates our political discussion.”

    3. “Both of those site [DailyKos and Redstate] are, to my way of thinking, biased proponents of their points of view who care not a wit for the supposed “neutrality” of the Washington Post. They want the Big Paper on their side so they can think of themselves as “winning.””

    4. “So here’s the deal from where I sit in the middle of the new, vibrantly competitive news business: If you think Domenech’ a plagiarist don’t read him. If you think he an original thinker and writer, click away to RedAmerica. [ed. – This was written before Domenech’s resignation] That’s it. And that’s how it’s supposed to be.”

    Dave in W-S (2a57fc)

  7. On the Ben Domenech resignation

    The blogosphere and the MSM were and are abuzz over the scandal involving RedState blog co-founder Ben Domenech, the conservative blogger the Washington Post chose to write for it’s conservative “Red America” blog.
    As I noted in thi…

    Sister Toldjah (3e6668)

  8. “many clowns throughout the blogosphere are glossing over the fact that Domenech has not been shown to have plagiarized at the Post”

    Maybe they’re not glossing it over as much as they see “not plagiarizing” as something that ought to be taken for granted.

    Jaybird (d23d8f)

  9. Absolution:

    OK, I made an early call for Domenech to go and didn’t wait to hear his explanations. I had a quick look at the evidence, formed my opinion, and posted it. Sharon raised the issue of when the plagiarism occurred, comment #1 in the previous thread, but I didn’t think the time or circumstances of Mr Domenech’s misdeeds was relevant, and I still don’t.

    Does that qualify me as a coward or a sheep? Am I guilty of some procedural transgression? Were “mere allegations of wrongdoing sufficient to panic” me into doing the MSM/Left’s dirty work? Poppycock.

    Knucklehaeds can defend Domenich all they want. It only undermines their own credibility. The issue here is that Conservatives won’t tolerate misbehavior, and the Left has a track record of defending the indefensible, time and again.

    Democrats lie, cover-up, ignore and excuse the most egregious crimes, but howl like jackals when they smell GOP blood. This sorry incident is typical of how the Left tries to use any excuse to attack the integrity of Republicans and Conservatives. It shows how little intellectual integrity remains among so-called, “Progressives.”

    I’m not concerned about the issue of credibility of those on the Left, they haven’t got any. Their attempts to twist this issue into a tar brush they can use to smear Republicans is proof of who they are, and what they do. It’s also instructive of why Americans won’t vote for them.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  10. Ironic that the Redstate folks were all over Bush for cronyism re: Harriet Miers.

    As far as people complaining about us lefties not caring about plagiarism on our own side, I’ll just note that The Agonist used to be a pretty big deal before he got exposed.

    Geek, Esq. (4616d5)

  11. Maybe they’re not glossing it over as much as they see “not plagiarizing” as something that ought to be taken for granted.

    I think they’re glossing over it. There has to be a statute of limitations somewhere. I stole a stick of gum at the age of five and cheated on a test in 6th grade. Does that disqualify me from blogging or from my present employment?

    I’m not comparing Domenech’s plagiarism to my childhood transgressions, only making the point that what you seem to treat as an absolute (commit act of dishonesty at any time during life = lose job today) is not really so absolute.

    Here, a 17-year old blatantly and repeatedly plagiarized a bunch of stuff. He may have also done so at an older age; there are so many examples of his plagiarism that I’m not exactly sure how old he was when it ended. I find that a lot more disturbing, and I found his dishonesty yesterday to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

    But it still would have been clearer if he had plagiarized at the Post, which a lot of clownish people on the left seem to think happened — or at least want people to *believe* happened. And that’s just not the same thing.

    Patterico (de0616)

  12. Some folks here weren’t too pleased with the nomination of Harriet Miers either, and called her an “under qualified crony.” So what?

    I’ll take notice of the Left’s crocodile tears after they denounce Bill Clinton for a few of his most notable crimes: the rape of Juanita Broaderick might be a good place to start, the cash for pardons scam is another. ChiCom cash in exchange for US rocket technology is yet another.

    I could go on, and on, and on, but I don’t really expect any takers.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  13. […] Ouch. Ben Domenech repeated his phony-baloney story about P.J. O’Rourke (debunked on this blog last night, here) to the New York Times. And O’Rourke himself has predictably denied it: Contacted at his home in New Hampshire, Mr. O’Rourke said that he had never heard of Mr. Domenech and did not recall meeting him. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » O’Rourke Denies Phony Domenech Explanation (421107)

  14. What shocks me (and I said this over on Hit&Run too), is the following statement found over there by one of the admins:

    “You’ve made your point clearly: impressing the left with our bonafides is more important than loyalty to friends.”

    As far as I’m concerned, I find the first post that he wrote a *LOT* more problematic than the whole plagiarism thing. I also find the virulent defenses of the guy to be problematic too. They attacked Michelle Malkin for saying “It looks like plagiarism, fess up to it.” by saying that she didn’t have all the facts. When more facts came out, they attacked her for judging before she had all the facts. When he apologized for plagiarizing, she was still wrong to have attacked a fellow Republican.

    It looked like he lied and lied until he couldn’t lie anymore and then apologized.

    It reminds me of the Democrats who defended Clinton to the bitter, bitter end around 1998 and on. (I said that on Hit&Run too)

    It seems to me to be yet another example of “it ain’t the crime, it’s the cover-up”. I feel bad for the people who defended, defended, and defended Ben and, whoops, it turns out that even O’Rourke is part of the conspiracy to make Ben look bad.

    I think I’m going to stop feeling bad for Ben. Instead I’m going to feel bad for the people who defended him while he was lying to their faces.

    Jaybird (d23d8f)

  15. I asked when the plagiarism originally happened because I believe that everyone can make mistakes in judgment, especially when they are quite young. What tipped me over the edge was the idea that this person was a repeat plagiarizer (is that a word?). Doing it once at 17 is one thing. Doing it multiple times when one is well past college age is another.

    Just as in the Clinton affair, I was originally willing to overlook various transgressions if the person committing them had made serious efforts to stop doing those things. The little blue dress of Monica’s proved that Clinton not only hadn’t quit his transgressions, but felt perfectly at home perjuring himself about them.

    I’m also sick of the whiny liberal claptrap by guys like Concerned. Liberals are all about moral relativism, not just about private behavior but public hypocrisy, as well.

    sharon (fecb65)

  16. It seems to me to be yet another example of “it ain’t the crime, it’s the cover-up”. I feel bad for the people who defended, defended, and defended Ben and, whoops, it turns out that even O’Rourke is part of the conspiracy to make Ben look bad.

    Exactly.

    Patterico (de0616)

  17. Re #14, Initially, I was still onboard, when Jaybird said, “It looked like he (Domenech) lied and lied until he couldn’t lie anymore and then apologized.” Although it did seem a bit over stated, as the whole event played out in rather short order over the course of only a few days.

    However, we parted company when he attempted to manufacture sympathy for Domenich’s apologists. It was better, in my mind, to let them learn a hard lesson now and perhaps not be taken in again so easily.

    But, his next jump got my attention: Jaybird equated Domenech’s apologists with Bill Clinton’s defenders: “It reminds me of the Democrats who defended Clinton to the bitter, bitter end around 1998 and on.”

    What nonsense. Wrong on at least 3 counts: the events themselves do not equate; nor does the defender’s behavior; nor can Domenech’s confession be compared to Bill Clinton’s ongoing denials.

    Nor, may I add, does the menacing visage of Ben Domenench sully the political landscape as we move toward the next presidential election. I had fully expected Slick Willie to have thoroughly disgraced himself by now in an orgy of questionable cash and vulnerable women.

    However, it seems he’s learned to keep his shenanigans out of the papers, at least until it’s too late for the voters to do anything about it.

    No, Ben Domenech’s story is sad, but ordinary. Plagiarism isn’t all that unusual, why it’s practically a commonplace in high schools and colleges. It’s not unknown at the NY Times, and has occurred more than once or twice in the MSM.

    But, there’s a new twist, there’s a new sheriff in town: computer search engines have done for the detection of plagiarism what DNA has done for the identification of crooks.

    There’s lots of scared folks out there in the nation’s faculty clubs and news rooms waiting for the next shoe to fall, and lots of folks who wish the ghost of Clinton’s crimes would lay down and die. They won’t, of course, till they receive the last rites. They must be openly acknowledged, the guilty must confess and ask for forgiveness, and appropriate penance must be completed. Otherwise, it’s just a restless open sore.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  18. Washington Post’s Resigned Conservative Blogger Calls His Former Bosses “Fools” (UPDATED)

    The Washington Post’s former conservative blogger Ben Domenech who resigned yesterday amid allegations that he plagiarized past work has ripped into his former editors, calling them “fools”.

    His fiery retort comes in a story on the …

    The Moderate Voice (fa8fba)

  19. He plagarized, he lied about it and he stood by and watched while his friends defended him. It’s pretty hard to find anything positive here. In the mean time, the credibility of the right-wing blogs takes a big hit. That is what really pisses me off. Just this week at the speech in West Virginia, the president suggested people read blogs as an alternative source of information regarding Iraq. I can imagine David Gregory is giggling like a schoolgirl and won’t hesitate to bring this up next time someone questions MSM news coverage.

    Interesting how the professional side of the blogosphere (those that make a living writing like JPod at NRO and Michele Malkin) almost immediately had this guy pegged for what he was. Some of the non-pros like Patterico also realized it, but many didn’t and now look somewhat foolish. Most of the blog writers are amateurs, albiet highly-gifted amateurs. Maybe the pros actually do learn something at J School.

    Jeff C (29f726)

  20. Jeff C–Neither JPod nor Malkin nor Patterico went to J-school. Those are people whose experiences whose instincts have been sharpened by experience, rather than had them whittled down in a classroom.

    See-Dubya (921613)

  21. It doesn’t take a genius to see the truth here, Jeff. It just takes some integrity and willingness to see past ideological blinders.

    Patterico (de0616)

  22. More whiny liberal claptrap for ya:

    I said it’s good to see conservatives agree with us about moral relativism-so since you agree, why am I the hypocrite?

    As for the “He hadn’t plagiarized at the Post” theme-how long did he work there, 15 minutes?

    At what age does a Conservative learn you’re not supposed to copy other people work? Seems to me I knew that in my teens and twenties.

    Concerned (8c2db2)

  23. Plagiarizing Ben Domenech

    Many of Domenech’s opponents are also plagiarists–of Domenech himself.

    Jon Swift (061c61)

  24. Black Jack, here’s how it reminds me of Clinton in 1998.

    Instead of saying “I did was my accusers accuse me of, my friends, please… defend my ideals, defend my philosophy, and defend my loved ones… but you no longer need to be defending me. I’ve done what I have been accused of and you could lose your credibility by saying that I didn’t do what they said I did because… well, you’ll soon have to be arguing that what I did wasn’t a big deal anyway and then, as more information comes out, you’ll have to start arguing that well, what other people did was worse. Just stop defending me now and don’t shred your credibility because of my mistake.”

    Instead he kept allowing his defenders to defend him in the face of more and more evidence that wrongdoing was done.

    How do you feel, Black Jack, knowing that NRO says that it looks like he ripped off a G-File? How do you feel, Black Jack, knowing that P.J. Himself said “I wouldn’t let anyone use my intellectual property like that.”?

    The big deal isn’t that Ben did what he did… it’s that he lied about it. He only stopped lying about it when the evidence was heaped so big that he couldn’t lie about it any more.

    And more evidence is still coming out.

    And, to be perfectly honest, the “manufactured sympathy” that Ben attempted to generate for himself puts Redstate in a much worse light than the “manufactured sympathy” that I’m throwing out there. I’m just this dude in a comment on a blog. I’m not someone allowing my so-called friends to look like fools for defending me.

    It’s good that you’re loyal, though. That’s a virtue.

    Jaybird (5843b3)

  25. It should be interesting once all these 13 year olds with embarrassing Myspace accounts grow up, take reputable jobs, goof up somehow, and all their teenage junk is splattered all over the blogosphere. Lovely times we live in.

    Wesson (c20d28)

  26. “How do you feel, Black Jack…”

    Well, since you asked so directly, I feel like my response of 3 days ago to the initial post which included links to the evidence of Domenech’s plagiarism was just about right. See #12. I’m still comfortable with those early opinions.

    Although steve objected to hasty conclusions, see #4 above. My comments at #9 are in part a reply to his accusations. If you trouble yourself to read my comments, it should become clear that far from defending Domenech, I made an early call for him to go, and perhaps took some unfair criticism for it.

    I find your latest comment, #23, incoherent. Is the unattributed quote in your first paragraph taken from someone else’s work, or did you just make it up so you could mock it? In the pantheon of journalistic sins, where does that sort of little subterfuge rank?

    And, why ask me a silly series of questions which would be better put to Domenech’s defenders. I’m not one of them.

    I am however, pointing out the hypocrisy of Liberals who’re ever so quick to get on a high horse and denounce Ben Domenech and his supporters, but who have for years and years defended much much worse when it was Bill Clinton caught red handed.

    Lefty sycophants want to escape their own past crimes, but all the phony outrage and trumped up indignation won’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Slick Willie is the poster boy for the Democrat Party, he’s the indelible trademark, the keeper of the flame of lies, incompetence, and corruption.

    Liberals have worshiped at the alter of a false god, but now want to pretend otherwise, shift the blame, make false comparisons, and attempt to assuage their quilt and shame. But, it won’t work. Their words are all on-line, ready to jump up and demand explanations. Perhaps you’ll get to be part of it.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  27. Actually, the unattributed quote that I put up was my idea of something that he could have said that would have been much better than saying what he did (e.g. “I got permission from P.J. and all the other stuff is just movie reviews anyway”).

    Imagine reading my unattributed quote (which I made up myself). Would you have said “Man! What a jerk! He lied to all of us!” or would you have said something like “Wow… maybe he did plagiarize in his youth but he cowboyed up and took responsibility for it like a man! Boy, here’s yet another difference between us and The Left.” Which would you have been more likely to say?

    I appreciate that you are taking the time to show how much Liberals are hypocrites on this exact same topic. However, it reads to me like an attempt to change the subject. I’m sure you can appreciate how someone might reach that conclusion. For what it’s worth, when someone points out how someone on “The Left” does something wrong and there’s a Kos thread about it, there are quite a few posts talking about how much Republicans are hypocrites on this exact same topic.

    Are you much impressed by those threads? Do you tend to say “wow, that’s a good point, I never knew that Bob Livingston totally did that too”?

    I suspect you don’t. I don’t, anyway. I see it as an attempt to change the subject.

    Jaybird (5843b3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0974 secs.