Good one, Brad. But you left out some of the good stuff. You are, after all, something of a guest star in this little sitcom. Here's what Harris had to say about you:

John F. Harris: I said I was not going to return much to the Froomkin matter today, but I'm going to take this one because it bothers me. Also because many other questions I'm not posting are on a similar theme.

I did refuse to answer questions posed by a blogger named Brad Delong asking whether I knew that one of the people on record complaining about the confusion over White House Briefing was affiliated with Republicans.

As a journalist, I hate not answering questions, even from (in this case) someone who clearly was coming from a point of view quite hostile to me. But I had jointly decided with colleagues that I had responded enough to the blogosphere, so I took a pass.

I'll address the matter here...

Again with the obfuscatory sourcing nomenclature. Brad's not "fomer senior official in the Clinton Treasury department.." or "UC Berkeley academic.." he's simply a blogger. One who's clearly "quite hostile to me." Feel the love! Is Harris ignorant? Intentionally trying to mislead? Or what? Poor guy. He clearly has no clue at all that 90% of the people reading the Live Online thing are news junkies who know quite well who Brad is. It's been a bad month for the print divsion at the Post.

Posted at December 22, 2005 1:06 PM in response to Washington Post Agonistes

I thought this bit from the Bangor News story was interesting:

McGee and Raymond pleaded guilty earlier this year to one count each of conspiracy in the phone-jamming operation. McGee, who now lives in Manchester, N.H., was released shortly before Thanksgiving after serving seven months in a maximum-security prison in Brooklyn, N.Y. His sentence included a $2,000 fine and 200 hours of community service.

Maximum security. In New York City. No wonder McGee looked miserable on the stand. For a podgy white guy from New England, that must have been a very long seven months. Tobin's looking at up to 19 years. You gotta wonder how much trust he has in his RNC-paid lawyers at this point.

Posted at December 8, 2005 1:03 PM in response to Happenins' at the Tobin Trial

Poor Al. He just can't win - or ever be allowed to win.

I read the same article, or a similar one, earlier this week, and found myself immediately thinking: screw them. We built it with our own money. You want an Internet? Build your own.

Seriously, what makes these countries think the US would have any interest at all in ceding control over something that was originally designed and built as a national security resource.

The more pressing question, though, is where's Bolton? Shouldn't he be making implicit threats to bomb Brazilia if they don't stop using OUR servers to collect THEIR taxes? Or is the administration going to go along with this clear case of US defense forces being put under foreign command?

Posted at October 6, 2005 2:48 PM in response to The Truth

Larry,

I just saw over on DCMediagirl that the Freeper loons are now threatening your life. Lovely. Thanks for standing up to these very ugly people.

Posted at July 27, 2005 4:01 PM in response to More Lies From the Right

And what the heck is up with this sentence in this morning's Times piece:

"In the week after Mr. Wilson's article appeared, Mr. Bolton attended a conference in Australia."

Why would the reporters include this tidbit in their piece? Seems to come from out of nowhere and have no bearing at all on the larger story. Weird.

Posted at July 22, 2005 10:37 AM in response to Problem for Bolton?

Here's Froomkin on a brief photo op/press opp with the president this morning:


At an Oval Office photo-op with the president of Singapore this morning, Bush took questions from two reporters -- one American, and one from Singapore. The Singaporean reporter asked about trade. Fair enough.

But instead of asking about Rove, Deb Riechmann of the Associated Press asked Bush how close he was to a Supreme Court nomination. She used a follow-up to ask his reaction to a comment about the nomination by the first lady.


When Bush shut the event down, other reporters spoke up -- but their White House wranglers yelled them down. I heard one reporter shout "Will you fire him?" but Bush just grinned. What a missed opportunity.

Yep, that's the DC press corps we all know and love - toothless and clueless.

Posted at July 12, 2005 11:00 AM in response to Ooo! Questions!

I'm wondering if Rove kind of blew a gasket here. Is this his usual m.o.? His actions have always been evil, but during his press appearances he seems to try to strike a tone of "well ahm just trying to be a reasonable guy..." The ones I've seen anyway. Josh seems to think it was a premeditated stab to keep the debate polarized, and maybe it was. But would he be saying these kinds of things if Bush's poll numbers were in the 60s? I doubt it. Seems like there's genuine worry behind the curtain.

Posted at June 23, 2005 9:11 AM in response to A Confession

Ed,

Do we know the extent of Norquist's exposure on this yet? Has there been any testimony/evidence that he could be on the wrong side of the law?

Posted at June 22, 2005 3:58 PM in response to Gimme Five (Million)

M by Peter Robb. It's a biography of Caravaggio, so not strictly history. But the detailed recounting of day to day life, church politics and social structure in late 16th / early 17th century Italy is remarkable.

Posted at June 10, 2005 10:17 AM in response to More History Books