Scrubbed
By Mitch Berg
Luke Hellier at MDE notes that Time Magazine seems to have scrubbed its’ 2006 “The Blunderer” story, in which they declared Mark Dayton one of the five worst Senators in the US:
In 2006, Mark Dayton was named one of America’s Worst Senators by Time Magazine. The story was featured in the magazine and online.
But now, the story can’t be found any where. The story can’t be found on Time.com and can’t even be found on Lexis Nexis.
One has to wonder if Time Magazine decided to pull down the article to prevent more people from reading the story.
I found a copy on an internet archive site that was linked from Dayton’s Wikipedia page.
It doesn’t seem to be available on Google anymore; about a month ago when I wrote about the story, it was top front and center.
Yet another chapter in the media’s shameful record of being in the bag for the liberal canddiate in a local election?
The text of the story:
When he was elected in 2000, Minnesota Democrat Mark Dayton seemed well prepared, having worked as an aide to Walter Mondale in the 1970s.
But he has exhibited erratic behavior since then: in October 2004 he shut down his office for almost a month, citing an unspecified terrorist threat. The 99 other Senators had access to the same intelligence and kept their offices open, even while Dayton went on television to tell his constituents not to visit the Capitol. In February Dayton, 59, made another notable blunder. The Mayo Clinic, which is in Rochester, Minn., was opposed to a South Dakota — based company’s plan to expand its railroads into Rochester because it would mean dozens of trains passing by the clinic each day. Dayton told FORTUNE magazine the Mayo Clinic is “worth a hell of a lot more than the whole state of South Dakota.” He later apologized for the remark.
Inside the Senate, Dayton has passed few bills partly because some are too liberal for the Republican-controlled body, including one that would have created a Department of Peace and Nonviolence. He has confounded his colleagues by complaining about basic facts of the job, such as his limited power in a chamber where authority derives from seniority. He announced early last year that he wouldn’t seek re-election.
August 10th, 2010 at 8:40 am
Everyone should quickly save a screenshot of the archive site, before it disappears down the memory hole!
August 10th, 2010 at 9:06 am
That took a concerted effort; this is no fluke.
Be nice if Drudge got ahold of this one…and, don’t we know someone with access to Michelle Malkin?
August 10th, 2010 at 9:18 am
I think it was Terry who had the link in your comments section yesterday.
It still works as of this morning: http://web.archive.org/web/20080527150338/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1183984,00.html
August 10th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Wow- I just read the linked Time article- Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter are listed as two of the best senators?!?! No wonder we are screwed.
August 10th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Tim, Time thinks Al Franken was funny too.
August 10th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Night, that’s the one I linked to above. It’s not on the Time site; it’s one of the wayback archive sites.
August 10th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
I found a copy on an internet archive site that was linked from Dayton’s Wikipedia page.
Funny thing about that Wikpedia page. It says: “While in the Senate, Dayton generally voted with the Democratic opinion.[5] He opposed tax cuts and the invasion of Iraq, and supported increased Medicare prescription drug coverage for seniors and use of ethanol and biodiesel fuels.”
Emphasis mine.
The majority of Democrat Senators voted for the invasion of Iraq, including presidential contenders HRC, John Kerry, and John Edwards.
Goes to show you that you can’t trust the Wikipedia!
August 10th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Google “Time Magazine”
In the ‘Search Time.com’ box enter “Mark Dayton”. Seventh Link takes you to this:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1184028,00.html
Click on Dayton’s name in the list of Senators to get here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1184028,00.html
Yet another chapter in the Mitch’s shameful record of not doing any factchecking?
August 10th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Terry:
You can trust Wikipedia as long as you know how to read. The second sentence is independent of the first, and thus, does not start with ‘For example’. So the three items in sentence two are all true of Dayton but they are not all examples of things that make sentence one true.
August 10th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Tried that earlier today, Rick. It wasn’t there. I knew what I was looking for; I’d found it not two weeks ago.
Doesn’t matter much, Rick, since most of my fact-checking time has gone into showing the world what a bunch of lying slugs the “Alliance for a Better Minnesota” are.
But I figured you’d come around trying to rationalize them eventually.
August 10th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
The Wikipedia sentence is poorly written, RickDFL. No one really voted to invade Iraq, HJR 114 authorized the president to use the military to defend the US from Iraqi threats and force Iraq to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions. The text is here:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:hj114enr.txt.pdf
The first sentence declares that as Senator, Dayton generally voted with democrat opinion. The second sentence than lists his voting positions as Senator.
If the second sentence is unrelated to the first, the writer should have made that clear. As usual with Wikipedia, you get what you pay for.
August 11th, 2010 at 4:36 am
That took a concerted effort; this is no fluke.
Yes. So concerted that they forgot to wipe the link from his Wikipedia page. Those dastardly liberal medias!
Tried that earlier today, Rick. It wasn’t there. I knew what I was looking for; I’d found it not two weeks ago.
See, this was all a liberal ploy to make Mitch look crazy. Pull the story when he goes to look for it, then when he points out it’s missing, throw it back up there! Any evidence to the contrary is just more proof of the conspiracy!
you can’t trust the Wikipedia!
Yep. Only trust Conservapedia.
August 11th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Believe it or not, Wikipedia is a wiki, DiscordianStooj.
For a wiki, fast posting and collaboration is the primary concern, security is not. That means that all the crazy crap you put in your comment is not only possible on Wikipedia, it actually happens (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_war, hehe).
Trust Wikipedia all you want, DiscordianStooj, but it’s not a credibility booster. *shrug*
August 11th, 2010 at 11:37 am
RickDFL said:
“You can trust Wikipedia as long as you know how to read”
I supposed trusting Wikipedia can only make you _more_ credible, RickDFL. It is not so for almost everyone else.
August 11th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Obviously your “edit war” link can’t be trusted.
I don’t trust Wikipedia for political articles, because of the whole edit war situation. I’ll actually click on the supporting links if I’m looking for information, and make sure it’s backed up.
Except for the Theory of Relativity article, which is clearly a liberal plot.
August 11th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Disco Stoo and Rickomintern:
Here’s how it went:
1) Two weeks ago, when I did a piece on Dayton, I found a link to “The Blunderer” from an earlier post on Shot In The Dark where it’d been used, and found the article Time.com in the same precise place it’s been for five years now. I embedded the link into a posting, after clicking through to read it. It worked. That was two weeks ago.
2) Earlier this week, after Hellier noted it’d bee scrubbed, I checked my piece from two weeks ago, where it’d worked hunky-dory. It was gone.
3) Later yesterday, it was back.
As usual, Disco, you’re chattering two steps behind the game, and Rick is wrong as always.
August 12th, 2010 at 12:13 am
So the definition of “scrubbed” is “gone for a day.” Got it.
August 12th, 2010 at 6:51 am
So the definition of “scrubbed” is “gone for a day.”
No, that’s the definition of “busted” and “chagrinned”.