July 28, 2005


Durbin was source for column about Roberts (Charles Hurt, 7/27/05, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin acknowledged yesterday that he was the source for a newspaper column that reported earlier this week that Judge John G. Roberts Jr. said he could not rule in a Supreme Court case where U.S. law might conflict with Catholic teaching. [...]

When the column appeared Monday, Mr. Durbin's office clarified that "Judge Roberts said repeatedly that he would follow the rule of law."

Spokesman Joe Shoemaker also said he did not know who Mr. Turley's source was, although only a handful of people were in the room at the time.

"Whoever the source was either got it wrong or Jonathan Turley got it wrong," Mr. Shoemaker said Monday.

Yesterday, Mr. Shoemaker said the source was Mr. Durbin.

This will assuredly get the same hysterical coverage as the Palme kerfuffle, right?

I've got a book here--the outstanding new collection, Our Culture, What's Left of It : The Mandarins and the Masses, by the great Theodore Dalrymple--for the first person who can find this admission that Durbin was the source of the story he denies getting prominent play in a mainstream outlet.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 28, 2005 3:06 PM

I'm having a hard time figuring out the tort here. Please explain.

Posted by: Rick Perlstein at July 28, 2005 3:18 PM

Mr. Perlstein: You seem like a well educated man. You are well aware, I assume, that no crime was committed in the Plame affair? (If you won't take my word for it, try the lawyers for every network, newspaper, magazine, etc., involved...).

Posted by: b at July 28, 2005 3:40 PM

Durbin, intent on digging his own grave one mouthful at a time, deserves un-election based on idiocy alone. He must be hanging around Ted Kennedy too much.

I heard a great joke at the Wheaton Fourth of July parade, which Durbin and many other politicians march in every year. I overheard the guy in front of me say "Durbin wanted to be in the parade, but he had to clean Ted Kennedy's boat."

Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at July 28, 2005 3:49 PM

oj: I thought The Wife wanted you to get rid of books? You might as well offer a free book to the 1st person to send you their perpetual motion machine...

Posted by: b at July 28, 2005 3:51 PM

To clarify, Durbin pulled out of this year's parade at the last minute; coincidentally, his Guantanamo comments made big publicity just the week or two before. Wheaton is a GOP stronghold.

What are the odds?

Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at July 28, 2005 3:54 PM

Mr. Perlstein:

The 'tort', as it were, is on the media, for continuing to enable leftist Democratic politicians, who are defended even as they lie to the press (which dutifully passes said lies along to the public). Durbin's boy said for two or three days that his boss wasn't the source.

I can understand defending a political position on the op-ed page, but protecting sources who lie?

Most parents don't punish child #1 when they know child #2 lied about a problem or conflict. But the press does it every day.

Posted by: jim hamlen at July 28, 2005 4:04 PM

Wednesday's L.A. Times had an 'Editor's note' on the op-ed page (same page as Turley's Monday piece).

In the note: 'Turley, however, says it was Durbin who gave him the original information in an on-the-record conversation.'

At least the Times didn't just ignore the controversy. At the end:

'He [Turley] says that he has notes of each of those conversations, and that he stands by what he wrote.'

Posted by: old maltese at July 28, 2005 4:20 PM

Kennedy's mouth is a perpetual motion machine.

Posted by: Shelton at July 28, 2005 4:31 PM

From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

A sour source: Speaking of the Roberts nomination, an anonymous source should land legal commentator Jonathan Turley in hot water. ... But even Mr. Durbin says Mr. Turley's account was inaccurate. So, who's trying to smear John Roberts?

We know the Answer now: Sen. Durbin. Very nice.

Isn't the tort called "defamation"? I am not sure that the affirmative defense of being a public figure applies to a deliberate and malicious smear

Posted by: Kevin Bowman at July 28, 2005 5:48 PM

OJ: I think I understand the last sentence, but that puppy needs help.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 28, 2005 9:40 PM