A Game Of Dodgeball, Anyone?
by John Weckerle
Yesterday, we published an article in counterpoint to an October 9 article by Chuck Ring at GadaboutBlogalot.com, which claimed that West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd had obtained a budget earmark for a nonexistent company. We researched the company, contacted them to confirm that they existed, and found that the company had been bought two years earlier, and had begun operating under the parent company’s name this past July – after the earmark request had been submitted. In light of the inaccuracy of the original report by Gadabout-Blogalot.com and the referenced biggovernment.com “Pork Report,” we decided to follow up on the other supposed transgressions in the “Pork Report,” and published our findings.
Apparently, we struck a nerve. An article appeared at Gadabout-Blogalot.com in response this morning. (We will note here that Mr. Ring did not directly reference our article, and referred instead to “another blogger.” This is a breach of etiquette for which we have criticized one of the local newspapers, and we hope that we will not see it again from Gadabout-Blogalot.com.) Inexplicably, Mr. Ring stated that his article had not misrepresented the situation, but by way of providing support to the argument referenced a blog post that demonstrated that his article had done just that. Specifically, the article disclosed that the company did, in fact, exist; that it was named Information Management Corporation at the time the earmark was requested; and that it changed names after Senator Byrd’s request for the earmark.
Mr. Ring did not address the other inconsistencies we found in the referenced “Pork Report.” Rather, he launched into a lengthy criticism of Mr. Byrd as a racist, former Ku Klux Klan organizer and opponent of the Civil Rights act, and made a major issue out of his use of a particularly offensive and unacceptable word in an interview conducted in 1991. It is not clear whether he then characterizes Mr. Byrd or your editor (we think it’s the latter, but it is a bit hard to be sure) as a fool in what is a rather convoluted sentence.
We are not interested in defending Mr. Byrd on this issue. Neither do we lionize him as a hero. Neither do we take issue with the characterization of him as the “king of pork,” although we note that a little research has revealed that this recognition has been variously applied to Mr. Byrd, Senator Ted Stevens, Congressman John Murtha, and Senator Daniel Inouye. We will also note that New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici, decades ago, was nicknamed “Saint Pete” for his ability to bring home the bacon. We are not particularly interested today in discussing the subject of earmarks, and which among them represents “pork,” as that was not the point of our original article. Our original article was about valid information.
We’re going to be blunt again. Whether Mr. Byrd was or currently is a racist (he certainly was at one point in his life) or whether he is a pork Olympian (he is), it does not change the fact that the Gadabout-Blogalot.com article was factually inaccurate or that it’s principal premise – that Mr. Byrd obtained an earmark for a nonexistent company – was demonstrably false. Neither does it have any relevance to our opinion that information contained in the referenced “Pork Report” was of questionable credibility, at best. We consider Gadabout-Blogalot.com’s departure into the subject of Mr. Byrd’s past inappropriate behavior – and the name-calling that seemed pointed in this direction, although again we can’t be sure – to be an attempt to divert attention from our original analysis. We at NM-Central.com decry, and will continue to decry, the substitution of opinion, emotionalism, partisan personal attacks, and histrionics for fact and rational discussion.