OK, but if it is false, was that letter out of line? If someone is saying something false about you or your organization, we can agree that you would want to put a stop to it? If what they say is true, then I believe they have the right to say it as often as they like.

Governor Dean had no such conversation with Governor Sebelius, ever.

No, Motherbelt, I don't assume that the information is false.  From the above statement, it sounds like the two governors might well have had a conversation, though they may not have discussed all of the topics referenced.  But if the offending post got just one conversation item wrong - for example, Dean may have brought up Katrina but not Iraq - the above statement by the DNC would still be accurate.

When a statement is made about you or someone on your team, you need to carefully evaluate whether it's worthwhile going on the offensive about it.  Yes, candidates and elected officials have ocassionally gotten in trouble by not immediately responding to stuff thrown at them.  But the other danger is you give a lot more publicity to a negative statement than if it had died a natural death from lack of attention.

We are no longer going to play by the rules you put out for us,.... i.e. we reveal all our tactics, sources and give the advantage to your side which never reveals anything on purpose, and will lie, cheat and steal as long as it means you win in the end.

No, we're going to keep a few secrets and our spies safe so we can begin to unravel your sides grotesque hold on our nation via lies, deceit and sophistry.

The hope is that the more we expose the filth that is the Liberal subculture in this country, the faster we'll defeat your sorry asses and hand them back to you on a platter.

____________________________________________________

"Democracy is the most vile form of government ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." ~ James Madison

Wow. A response.

You wrote that I am "actually quite antipathetic towards facts" because "liberal blogs make false allegations about people virtually every second of every day." That's quite a bold statement, and I assume it's responsive to something, just not anything I wrote. I didn't claim that liberal blogs don't engage in this kind of behavior. I wrote that if a liberal blog made a "similar allegation" -- say, as a hypothetical example, about a false connection between Mel Martinez and Sonny Perdue -- and refused to retract it, the righty blogosphere would go nuts.

And you wrote that FR didn't do anything wrong because they simply reported what was stated on the radio. Does that absolve them from a responsibility to correct or retract their report? When Fox News reported Insight Magazine's claims about Obama attending a Madrassa, they issued a correction, even thought they were simply reporting what others had stated. You made sure to point out that Newsbusters updated their original post -- shouldn't you hold FR to the same standard?

You also wrote: "With that in mind, we're not standing behind the allegations at all." I didn't say you were. I said you seemed proud that FR is, and at the fact that Powerline is rallying to FR's defense.

Thanks for responding.

Dee, my facts are right there in the original post. Take a closer look.

Fact: FR's allegation was proven false.

Fact: FR has not corrected or retracted their original post.

Fact: Powerline is standing by FR, even though what they wrote isn't true.

From those facts, I expressed my opinion that it's sad to see that this blog seems proud of Powerline's defense of FR, rather than urging FR to correct the record.

I'm not sure what "opinion show" your talking about, or how that fits in to what I wrote or the situation in general, so I'll let you explain that.

Thanks.

Actual malice" is a tough standard for public figures to overcome. That's why defamation claims by public figures have essentially disappeared since the Sullivan case. Under the Sullivan case, the First Amendment affords wide latitude for the discussion of public figures as well as issues of public concern.

The DNC lawyers who sent the letter out know all this. The standards set by Justice Brennan to prove defamation against public figures (and all of the individuals involved here are public figures) in Sullivan are extremely high. It was simply a bullying attempt to silence people.

And for Howard Dean - Howard friggin' Dean - to complain about being the recipient of ugly allegations really is something. Wow. This guy is a one man Walmart of mud slinging.