Comments on: Vetting

By: JohnLopresti

JohnLopresti — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:09:50 +0000

I found a reference from the Chemerinsky affair intended @13, another alternative moderator, fair minded law prof, Trina Jones from Duke.

By: MadDog

MadDog — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:04:27 +0000

Yup, note to self: only Villagers are allowed to correct other Villagers. Non-residents need not apply.

By: Teddy Partridge

Teddy Partridge — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:38:17 +0000

TradMed will publish a correction if something is caught by other TradMed. If truth is exposed by bloggers, or citizens, the likelihood is that the offending sentence will simply be obliterated.

By: Teddy Partridge

Teddy Partridge — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:36:53 +0000

Ifill is blind to her own conflicts. She has no problem covering Condi Rice, with whom she shares a close friendship. I don’t expect she sees this as a conflict at all.

And Villagers love Gwen. They will be appalled if the McCain campaign manages to work the refs (presumably the Debate Commish) to get Ifill disqualified.

Fun times.

By: Boston1775

Boston1775 — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:32:00 +0000

Right is right.

By: MadDog

MadDog — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:03:41 +0000

In spite of my howling at the moon, I’m not actually totally around the bend. *g*

It’s just for some reason, the false portrayal of this appointment as that of a “Special Prosecutor”, really gets my goat!

That and the fact that it has gained traction. Particularly with folks I respect like CREW and Amy Goodman; folks who generally fact-check far more thoroughly than they’ve done here.

I’ve emailed AP wrt their reporter, Mark Sherman who wrote the false article and who was linked to by CREW, to insist on both a correction and an explanation. We’ll see if any response is forthcoming.

And interesting to note, Mark Sherman of AP, re-wrote the very same article and to my mind, rather conspicuously “doctored” the article to unapologetically remove the falsehood.

Cute! The MSM doesn’t “correct” things so much as it tries to “re-write” history thereby avoiding a required mea culpa.

By: FrankProbst

FrankProbst — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:34:50 +0000

Okay, yes, this is Team McCain’s fault for not catching this. But seriously, does ANYONE think it’s a good idea to have someone moderate a debate when she has a clear financial interest in who wins? Ifill herself should have had the sense to say, “You know, I don’t think this would look too good.”

By: Boston1775

Boston1775 — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:31:01 +0000

I know.
I know.

And it’s a good interview to send to people who are just learning now.

By: MadDog

MadDog — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:17:12 +0000

Oh Amy, Amy, Amy!

IT’S NOT A FRIGGIN’ SPECIAL PROSECUTOR!!!

By: JohnLopresti

JohnLopresti — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:15:11 +0000

I thought of two interesting surrogates if the Republican machine operatives guiding McCain’s flagging campaign want designated hitters, though I am not sure either prof is available on 24-hour notice, one is from the midwest, one a noted ethnologist and law historian from the west. Each is interested in fairness; links are from the mid September2007 timeframe when UC Irvine had problems settling on a founding dean for its new law faculty, which is why the links point to articles of that epoch two summers ago.