Cynical Nation

You mean the way the right did?

Actually, Z: yes.

I suggest you go back and read the breast-beating of the Republicans in congress who bitterly condemned the previous 'theft' and then compare and contrast with what, no doubt in my mind, will be a silence - both from the Dems in congress as well as the MSM that loves and protects them but simply not reporrting on unpleasant matters.

Which newspaper was it that first investigated (and published on page one) the Whitewater story?

I don't recall much vigourous breast beating at all, more like vigourous backpedaling and vigorous tap dancing.

Z.. you're thinking about another party. Senators Roberts and Chambliss did some serious breast beating the same night that Orin Hatch was shaking on top of a table with the lampshade on his head.

Absolutely correct, PE.

Again, has anyone heard from either the MSM or nay congressional Dems about this?

Think Simon and Garfunkle. First song title.

And that was exactly what Barry was alluding to in his 'subtle' way.

As poor old Bob Dole might say: "Where is the outrage?"

Another example of why we laugh out loud when told there is no liberal bias in the MSM and no double standard applied by them.

What was I correct about? (I thought I made up that part about Orin Hatch but you never know..)

My error, PE. I saw that you mentioned Hatch's name but didn't bother to note that it was done in derision.

I won't make that mistake again.

Try this from a 5/7/04 conservative blog for openers. I'll give you more tmw.:

"Hatch's recent role in Memogate, coming at the sad end of his chairmanship, shows how the bullies he calls friends have been emboldened over the years. Specter, it is feared, will make Hatch look like a winner.

For three years, Hatch repeatedly warned Americans that Democrats were in the pocket of liberal special interest groups in their unprecedented obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees. Hatch's alarm was so compelling that a National Review cover displayed Leahy sitting as chairman -- connected to puppet strings hanging above him.

Last year, Senate Republicans led by Santorum argued that Miguel Estrada, the first judicial nominee ever filibustered, was being blocked by Democrats for no other reason than that he was Hispanic.

On the day that Estrada withdrew, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) made the case with surgical precision. Democrats, he said, were intent on preventing Bush from having a qualified Hispanic serving on an appellate court that the president could elevate to the Supreme Court, should a vacancy arise.

How can one then understand the surrender of Senate Republicans in the Memogate affair? When presented with proof that liberal special interest groups were so much in control of Senate Democrats that they actually cast votes on what judicial nominee should get a hearing and who should be rejected, who could have imagined that Hatch would lead the charge to surrender?

When presented with Democrat memos stating that Estrada was blocked "because ... he is Latino" (Democrats did not want to repeat their mistake in confirming Clarence Thomas to a lower court, thus setting him up for the U.S. Supreme Court), who could imagine that Republicans would not only retreat but burn their crops as they went?"

Hatch, in fact, was furious over this and played into the Dems hands. The revelations in the memos were, in fact, repugnant and showed the cynicism involved in the nominee process.

But Hatch, with his sense of fairness, believed it to be wrong and said so. Given his position as chairman, it was a home run for the Dems who called the memos 'thoughts, not policies' which was, as we both know, a crock.

Yes, please, never assume the best again!

Seriously, I have always respected Hatch for his sense of fair play. He comes from the old school where United States Senators consider themselves almost part of a club and there is a certain sense of decorum regarding other members of the club regardless of affiliation. Hatch can be quite partisan at times, but he can turn it off when graciousness is in order. (I agreed with Hatch that George Bush could have learned some things if he was Hatch's Vice President, but alas.. )

As far as "memogate" is concerned, I have always found it to be much ado about nothing, both regarding the content of the memos and how they were discovered. I pretty much ignored it at the time because, as far as I know, the memos were discovered by Republicans almost through inadvertance rather than serious hacking. That also seems to be the case in 1996 as well. Because inadequate protections were in place, casual browsers could find files not meant for them to see.

That said, it seems that many conservative groups attacked Hatch for doing what was proper, which was to investigate whether there was laws that were breached. If someone had been hired to "hack" his/her way into forbidden files, purposely trying to break through security, then a crime may have been committed.

Yes, Ted Kennedy went over the top in his criticism of the affair, likening it to Watergate. I also found that many of the conservative blogs went over the top in their shock and outrage that the Democrats could be playing politics in their opposition of judicial opponents and the like. Minority parties do often obstruct for political purposes. Phil Gramm openly admitted that in 1993-1994 that the Republican minority tried to keep the Democrats from achievements that they could run on. Obstruction based on purely political motives is not a good thing, but it is not illegal. Unless laws were broken, punishment should be left to the voters rather than the prosecuters.

In any case, I couldn't find that much coverage of last year's "scandal" in the dreaded MSM. Rather it seemed to be a story for the politically obsessed, showing up on blogs or internet magazines such as "Slate". Also, it seems that Hatch's stand was contrasted with other GOP senators, such as Chambliss, who did act in outrage over the contents of the memos with little regard over how they were obtained.

Still, I think that "memogate" was a story for political junkies. I hardly paid attention to it, didn't remember it much really, and, other than the observation that they need better IT people setting up the Congressional computers, don't think that much of this scandal either way right now.

Here are a few that i collected in a 5 minute search on Google. I have saved the links if you care to read the entire articles:

1) Meanwhile, controversy continues to surround Judiciary Committee Chairman Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. Conservatives have criticized Hatch for being too deferential to the Democrats in this scandal. The criticism has become so intense that The Hill newspaper reports that three Senate Republicans warned conservatives to lay off Hatch. And the senators asked the conservatives to "suspend their strong statements on behalf of Miranda."

2) Grumbling in the Senate Republican cloakroom began well before that. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's carefully constructed plan to block Bush's judges has stymied Frist, who fired the aide who discovered Democratic memos revealing the grand design.

3) Republican committee Chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah condemned the actions of the staff members, who no longer work for the Senate.

"I am mortified that this improper, unethical and simply unacceptable breach of confidential files occurred," Hatch said Thursday as he released the report. "There is no excuse that can justify these improper actions."

4) Democrats, Hatch and several Republican senators have criticized Miranda and an unidentified Republican staffer who accessed the documents. Hatch said Thursday he was mortified and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said someone should be fired.

MBC
So you have Hatch, Frist and Graham who either spoke out or acted along with several other senators. I do not try to portay that all GOP senators were outraged as they were not.

Still, can you tell me where the WSJ story has grown legs and where there have been similar statements from any Dems in the senate?

Well, senators and their staff should be allowed to privately correspond to each other. So a degree of outrage is in order, as well as the firing of staff involved. Hatch, by attacking the principle of reading other senators' mail and memos, is protecting his private mail from being read and/or made public in the future.

As far as this being a story for MSM, one difference between the two events is that one is eight years old, the other difference is that in the earlier case the Democrats did not seem to make the discovered documents public (and therefore more of a unfolding drama for MSM.) Again, I don't personally think that "memogate" proved that Democrats or Republicans are better people, just that there should be some privacy in correspondance. Were the IT people or staff people involved in the prior instance repremended? In any case, the matter seemed to have been discussed and dealt with between the Democrat Hamilton and the Republican Gilman, among others.

Indeed, when Gilman wrote to Hamilton..

"You and I have maintained a collegial relationship over the years, notwithstanding the political environment in which we work. The facts outlined above are inconsistent with that collegial spirit."

It seemed that the matter was discovered privately and dealt with privately. As far as I know, the WSJ doesn't know the exact contents of the documents that were read. So if the Democrats never made the memos public, it makes sense that the Republicans didn't make the investigation public either. So it doesn't seem to be that hot of a story despite whatever hypocrisy or irony was involved.

PE, I applaud your comments but must admit that while we shared views on another board, I don't recall you seeing fit to say them when certain liberals were going to town on the issue. If I missed them, I apologize.

My original purpose in posting on this subject was in response to "Z" whose silence has been deafening since I trotted out sources showing that there was indeed negative reaction from a number of GOP senators despite his blithe obeservation to the contrary.

While you present some interesting observations on the matter, they still don't really answer the questions Barry implied and I laid out:

1) Where are the legs of this story with the MSM
(Answer: none. Not ONE mention that I can see or have heard. Doesn't that strike you, even given your ackowledged differences, as just a little odd?)

2) Where has been ANY reaction from any Democrat on this, regardless of length of time elapsed?
(Answer: none again.)

The broader point is this, my friend: lest you ever wonder why we from the right feel there is a double standard employed by the MSM, you need not search further than this relatively small story.

1) The story seems to be in the beginning stages. There has been a followup story on "the hill" which seems to try to be a "non-partisan" site devoted to Congress.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/012605/memo.html

2) On that site, Senator Leahy's spokesman claims that he only became aware of the 1996 "snooping" this week. What is interesting is that the prior incident wasn't brought forth by the Republicans before now. If not, it hardly seems like it was common knowledge or else I am sure someone would have brought it up before.

As far as there being bias in the MSM, of course there is. There is bias at the Times, at WSJ, at the Post, at CBS, and at Fox. Wherever there are human beings, there is bias. Many well to the left of me believe that the New York Times has a conservative bias. Surely, in local matters, the New York Times has a bias towards defending their real estate interests. That's why anyone who really wants to know what is going on should seek a number of sources and then weigh the best they can the biases of each source.

That said, I believe that the MSM consists of many streams of information, not all of which are biased against conservatives. WSJ, in my view, is part of the MSM and, if they push this story and this story indeed has interest to many people, it will get out there. I read both the WSJ and the NYT. I happen to think that there are some very good reporters working for both, some of which I feel try to give an accurate depiction of events as they see them. Still, even in that process of seeing, there is bias. One can argue for fairness, but even determining what is fair is a matter of debate in which bias comes to play.

Good God, you Republicans have virtual control of all three branches of government. You think that you would be happy making policy in which your side has a controlling majority. However, no, you have to spend your time crying about the minority party daring to play politics. George Bush is appointing conservative judges, the Senate is for the most part approving those choices, and the judiciary is steadily changing as a result. Yet, you can't be happy as long as the New York Times continues to appeal to their largely liberal public by being, well, liberal in their outlook.

The New York Times is liberal! Stop the presses!