Reply #137: It's not just you. I think we all agree. [View All]

[Seabiscuit]

Unfortunately, the Leopold B.S. about Rove was promoted here by Will Pitt who took partial credit at the time for the story, and who viciously attacked the doubters among us. There were the idol worshippers who attacked anyone who critized Pitt (and Leopold by the same token). The critics fought back, calling the Pitt followers "groupies". That's when things began to fall apart here over the Leopold Rove story.

Beyond the bickering, there is a fundamental point that seems to have been lost: we all prefer facts to B.S. And as a corollary, we "progressives" on the 'net must be exceedingly vigilant not to tolerate B.S. among ourselves, and have a moral obligation to call out B.S. when we see it done in our names. The journalists among us must be held to a very high and rigid standard lest we all slip into the patterns of the B.S. spouted by the MSM. That, in essence, was what the Leopold uproar was all about - the Rove stories represented the sloppiest of journalism, to the point that not only were there inherent self-contradictions and absurdities contained in the original story, the story kept changing and shifting, yet Leopold et. al. (even to this day)kept incredibly insisting that he got the story right.

We as a people on this blog can't allow ourselves to tolerate that kind of B.S. within our ranks. Too much is at stake in our fight to take our country back from the Bush fascists.

I don't think anyone here who has criticized Leopold for his Rove story takes it personally. I don't imagine anyone's ever even met the dude. He may be well intentioned, but apparently never learned the lesson he was trying to teach himself about contrition in the book he wrote, referenced above, because he still lacks the cajones to admit that his story was, if not an outright fabrication, at least completely without merit.