Posted on 07/17/2010 2:01:26 PM PDT by jonascord
I'm not going to post any of the body of the text, since I don't know if the Wapo likes getting it's nose rubbed in it.
The article is a really, REALLY, weak self-serving excuse of why it has taken a year plus to mention the New Black Pathers voter intimidation case.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The money quote is that the Wapo didn’t have the staffing to spare to investigate what they considered to be a rumor...
HAHAHAHAHA.
ROTFLMAO.
What a freakin joke. This is the most most obvious self serving lie I have ever heard from the MSM and there have been thousands of them over the last few years. For an employee of the Washington Post to actually write that shows they have total contempt for the intelligence of their readers.
A video of the intimidation tactics is a “rumor” to the WaPo?
Fear not: WaPo claims “If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed.”
I’m sure they already have a 21st century Woodward/Bernstein duo leaving no stone unturned in pursuit of the truth. Indeed, this scandal could go to the very top: don’t you think WaPo would be proud to have contributed to the downfall of 2 presidents in less than 40 years?
What a bunch of BS. Not enough staffing and heavy volume of other news. They do not even believe that story.
ROFLMAO!
Thanks for the chuckle!
...read the comments below the WaPo article....most of them sound like Freepers writing in...things are changing in this country...whites are no longer afraid to criticize officials for overlooking bad black behavior...Obama will be remembered as the president whose behavior set guilt ridden whites free.
No, those 274 Macaca stories against George Allen were completely neutral and totally straight down the middle.
WAPO lies.
They’ve been passing out the blue pills for over a year at the Wa. Post.
Uh huh. Sure. Yeah. That's the ticket: too busy. I am surprised he didn't blame Bush.
The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology...
Back to the "how stupid do they think we are?" stuff.
Former Justice Department Lawyer Accuses Holder of Dropping New Black Panther Case for Racial Reasons"The Obama administration won a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panthers didn't appear in court to fight the charges. But the administration moved to dismiss the charges in May 2009."
Is this video a rumor?
"Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly (Youtube video)
There is a rumor that the Washington Post is a credible news source. So far no evidence to substantiate that has surfaced.
“For an employee of the Washington Post to actually write that shows they have total contempt for the intelligence of their readers. “
I’m thinking they accidentally left the back door open and some homeless dude wandered in to check his email and decided to have a little fun on the PC.
“...right-wing bloggers...”
I would like to ask the ombudsman if the national bird has two wings and if not, is that why it is always falling on it’s
ass every time the left is in control?
The idea of the WaPo leaving a back door open and some derelict wandering in and using a computer keyboard PROBABLY isn’t all that far-fetched.... And they wonder why Foxnews has so many viewers while their readership is WAY down-!
The comments really are good!
My response to the WP ombudsman’s freak piece:
In spite of what appears to be an even-handed, calm review of the Black Panther issue, here, it appears even more to be a wait-and-see effort that hopes to find some “right-wing” evidence sufficient to water down or neutralize the fundamental activity of the Black Panthers and thus make the absence of reporting somehow valid.
It doesn’t matter who is pushing this story. What matters is what we can see and hear on the video at the polling place. That alone is worthy of reporting. If the DOJ has also encouraged repression of black intimidation, that is yet another story that should be investigated.
The sad thing is that the Post and other outlets are overly choosy about what they define as “partisan.” Those pursuing a left-wing agenda seem never to be partisan for some strange reason.
The term is reserved for anything other than the Post’s or the administration’s agenda. The same is true for the terms “controversial.” Are there no controversial Democrats — like Gore and a host of others? And how often, if ever, is some Democrat described as “left-wing”?
The Post’s starting point is far different from mainstream America’s. Perhaps that is why the Post can no longer afford sufficient staffing. It claims it can’t pursue legitimate stories because of “limited staffing.” Plenty of “staffing” for stories besmirching or challenging the right, but too few reporters for stories that might be less than complimentary about the left?
There is always plenty of staffing for nonsensical claims, such as in Florida in 2000 (”I saw a big dog a block away from the poll,” and “There was a police car cruising down the street when I went to vote”)which, by the way, resulted in the Civil Rights Commission holding hearings in FL that resulted in —nothing.
Plenty of print space for fraudulent claims that even on the surface are laughable, but ACTUAL evidence of intimidation on tape? No, no. Can’t waste resources on that.
The WAPO would never even suggest a DOJ whistleblower was a liberal activist even if that person had not testified under oath. There are two other affidavits too which reinforce what Adams said. Holder is not allowing others to testify.
Floating the idea Adams is motivated by partisanship is evil. It implies truth does not exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.