July 21, 2005
From the desk of Jane Galt:The Clements Leak, cont.
Obviously, leaking Judge Clement's name was a way to throw the activist groups off guard. Is having a good soundbite ready to go now some sort of a civil right, that journalists should risk their professional lives to assure for the various interest groups that are mad about this? No harm was done by this leak, except obviously to the trustworthyness of the source. Lead time doesn't seem like it would really have done People for the American Way et. al. much good; the best they could come up with on Clement was that she ruled that the Hobbes Act (which, as I understand it, says that crimes which disrupt interstate commerce may be tried in federal court) does not apply to someone who robbed four convenience stores. It doesn't take an ultra-libertarian to find this eminently sensible. Why assume that they would have done a better job with Roberts?
Posted by Jane Galt at July 21, 2005 11:26 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>I suspect that you are jumping to an invalid conclusion. The media elite were probably stampeded by someone outside of the White House. Perhaps I’m too dumb to get it---but why in hell would President’s Bush’s people want to mislead the press? What is this suppose to accomplish?
Posted by: David Thomson on July 21, 2005 12:13 PMOne option is echo-location. If the White House leaked three different nominee names to suspected leaks, they would be able to work their way backwards depending on which name showed up in the news first.
It's an old trick, but amazingly effective sometimes.
Posted by: technofunk on July 21, 2005 12:45 PMOne option is echo-location. If the White House leaked three different nominee names to suspected leaks, they would be able to work their way backwards depending on which name showed up in the news first.
Good catch, I suppose we'll have to pay close attention to the next person who leaves the White House to "spend more time with their family." ;)
Posted by: Thorley Winston on July 21, 2005 3:32 PMNo harm was done by this leak, except obviously to the trustworthyness of the source.
If I were a cable news network that took myself seriously, and I'd just devoted 6 hours of airtime to discussion of the likely nomination of what then turned out to be the wrong person, I think I'd consider my own organization harmed.
Posted by: DonBoy on July 21, 2005 10:10 PMSpending six hours speculating about someone who might not be the nominee is hubris, not harm.
Posted by: Chris B on July 22, 2005 9:15 AMComments are Closed.