Ah, guys, this game is old. It's called being "Dowdified" after a certain prominent columnist, and it's been around under that name since 2003...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/search/exec/htsearch.cgi?words=Dowdified&db=db&where=oj

From one of those columns:

Without a Dowd, the Lufkin Daily News will be a better paper. Dowd, as we noted Wednesday, has adopted a new journalistic technique--we call it "dowdification"--that makes strategic use of ellipses to distort the meaning of a quote. Alert reader Brad Westmoreland uses this technique on Dowd herself, dowdifying her latest column to produce this insight: "The president was . . . found . . . to do the right thing . . . all of the time. . . . Bush . . . is . . . ideal." From your ellipse to God's ears, Brad.

The original column came out May 14th, 2003, and was first covered by Taranto at

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003552

Mitch,

First, Kennedy's campaign DID do selective editing, but if the proper way to defend is to attack, they you're right on target.

Second, none of your bullets constituted taking someone elses comments and slicing them up and around to get the goal you sought. The AP story that Kennedy used was critical of him, not complimentary as he tries to present.

Third, the economy is doing well from a jobs growth standpoint, but let's remember that it had a heckuva long way to come back. Point being, just as you on the right said during Clinton, the administration, outside of fiscal policy has damned little to do with the economy. It goes down, and normally, it comes back up. Bush ran up a big debt, which is bad. If you truly believe people are inclined to share that which is handed them (trickle down), then you can argue that Bush's tax cuts were fuel, but it sure took a dang long time for this supposed fuel, and given the deficit spending, his fuel should have done a heckuva lot MORE than 3.5 growth.

Fourth, if Dowd in fact does as Scriptfox alleges (and I believe him), then shame on her, it's sloppy, lousey journalism, but I won't justify bad conduct (Kennedy's campaign) by attacking bad journalism (Dowd's or anyone elses). As you and I have discussed, comparing yourself to Satan doesn't make you a Saint.

What Kennedy has done is a piffle in the scheme of things, but it surely does point out just how hard he's having to work to appear centrist and palatable to the average Minnesotan. He's been soo far on the extreme right end that he's had to make some token votes lately so he could APPEAR to be more reasonable. Defend for me please someone NOT voting their true feelings just to make points, or are you saying you think Kennedy's duplicitous conduct, on it's own merits, is just duckey? He voted against things you supported just to make it look like he's not one of you, and you're in favor of that, is what you'd be saying. Because what it says is, he's concerned about being seen as extremist, and you're fine with him acting like he's not.

PB

PB -
First off - I don't support the "piffle" that Kennedy has engaged in. Politicians (and humans in general) are always going to present the facts that agree with their positions and ignore those that disagree. As a voter it's "caveat emptor" to the Nth degree.

The thing that does get my panties in a bunch is the "outrage" and condemnation that's spewing forth from the left over the "piffle". Simply because Kennedy has an R after his name this piffle has grown into the biggest lie and cover-up since Watergate.

The left has conveniently overlooked Hillary's recent votes and statements. They also have forgotten that Bill actually invented the political maneuver of "triangulation".

"Second, none of your bullets constituted taking someone elses comments and slicing them up and around to get the goal you sought."

No. It's even worse - slicing up reality to get the goal they seek.

"Defend for me please someone NOT voting their true feelings just to make points, or are you saying you think Kennedy's duplicitous conduct, on it's own merits, is just duckey?"

I've seen no evidence that he did. Highlighting votes you've had in common with Sat^H^H^H Democrats is not the same as voting against your conscience. I could probably find an issue or two where I'd vote along with Democrats, if I looked long enough.

Kennedy's a good Congressman. I wish I had him in MY district.

The issue isn't the editing it's the lack of linkage to orginal story.

The issue isn't the editing it's the lack of linkage to orginal story.

Is it not true that major newspapers often redact portions of AP, often with the selective results that Kennedy had?

I dont agree at all with what Mark Kennedy did, but I find it a bit hypocritical for the Star Tribune to make an issue of selective editing by a partisan, when they often do what amounts to the same thing, while claming to be objective.

283171: Hey, does anyone know where I can find a list of gas stations with low prices in my area?