New Blog: Red America

We've launched Red America, a new blog by Ben Domenech that will offer a daily mix of commentary, analysis and cultural criticism.

Domenech is a co-founder of RedState, a Republican community blog, and an editor at Regnery Press. He worked previously as a speechwriter for former HHS Secretary Tommie Thompson, as chief speechwriter for Texas Sen. John Cornyn and as a contributing editor to National Revew Online.

By Hal Straus |  March 21, 2006; 4:01 PM ET  | Category:  Content
Previous: City Guide Adds Send-to-Phone Feature | Next: Publisher's Note

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Disgusting. What is he supposed to be balancing? Once again, the Post falls victim to its own infantile insistence upon false equivalence. Did you ever notice how a conservative's idea of 'balance' is one conservative and one journalist? Dan Froomkin is not a liberal commentator. Dana Milbank is not a liberal commentator. By bringing on board a writer whose brief career has been dedicated to creating the divide in this country, you engage the machinery of the Post to sustain it. I urge you not to 'bring on a liberal blogger to balance,' but rather simply to terminate this new feature. It serves as no more than a merit badge on the way to full status as the Washington Times. I'll be letting my print subscription expire.

Posted by: Ben | March 21, 2006 04:36 PM

Now that you have a thread you can answer the questions...

1. Who is this supposedly "balancing", or can we anticipate you will be hiring Kos, Stoller, or another Liberal blogger for Balance?

2. No, Froomkin doesn't count. Froomkin, while adversarial, sources his material carefully. Ben is a full bore bloviator with little to no sourcing.

3. On Froomkin. Why is his sourced column give the warning label "OPINION:", while Ben's pure bloviation blog isn't?

4. Also on Froomkin. The minute he was hit with "liberal", Lovey Howell and the WH crew launched a published attack on him. The same for Milbank, because he wore a funny outfit on TV.

Now you go out of your way to hire a right-wing bloviator. Uh...institutional balance, much?

5. As a final question, related to #1...so are you admitting the Post is liberally biased, or do you simply not give a damn about balance? Can't have it both ways, kiddies. Either you now much hire a "Blue America" blogger (see #1 for examples) for balance, or you are tacitly admitting that the Post was biased to start. Which is it gonna be?

Otherwise, you're like Howie Kurtz on CNN, pterending that a panel with Milbank, Vandehei, and a wing-nut like Ingrahm is "balanced".

Posted by: That's fab | March 21, 2006 04:44 PM

What's up with the gutless "no comments" on "Red America". I realize almost all of the Conservative blogosphere has no cojones to allow them, but why the exemption by the Post? Was it a condition he required?

In any event, yet another special allowance.

Losing credibility real fast over there. Then again, I read that the Washington Times may go under soon, so maybe you're trying to shift into their market niche.

Posted by: Oh, BTW | March 21, 2006 04:49 PM

A right-wing blog is a good idea. When will the liberal blog start?

Posted by: Beau | March 21, 2006 04:54 PM

Now I remember why we used to call the Commies Red. the new RED Blog wants to put out the same kind of propaganda. Dissent is Patriotic, and should never stifled, even if you disagree.

Posted by: Cranky | March 21, 2006 04:57 PM

And when will Blue America start? Or are you just mouthpieces for the right after all?

Your new blogger is pure opinion, who lied and said that his right-wing sicko ilk is "the political majority".

51% voted against Chimperor GeeDub in '00. That's no majority.

The real majority of Americans are polled against the Right.

Unless you're fulltime neofascist mouthpieces... start a Blue America blog STAT or end the Red America blog STAT.

Diggit?

Posted by: Taniwha | March 21, 2006 05:04 PM

I was very disappointed by the first two postings from this site. Instead of discussing positions and policies, it seems to be more focused on labels and making fun of the opposition. The whole site reminds me of someone who has fought partisan wars too long inside the Beltway and forgot what they were fighting for. I would prefer if the columnist took specific stands and defended them rather than saying he is "pro family values" or "pro gun" which are nothing more than marketing terms. Think more George Will or William F. Buckley

Posted by: Perry | March 21, 2006 05:17 PM

I've been reading the post for over 30 years. At first, I thought you were joking by hiring an arch-conservative blogger...but it's not April 1 yet, so it's a bit early for fun and games. I'm left with the realization that you laid- off a significant portion of your news-staff and yet have the money to hire an avowedly conservative blogger?

Not that your "news" reportage has been that spot on at any rate but it is very sad for me to watch a once proud journalistic institution become People Magazine for the one party state. Well, I guess you can't be accused of not knowing which side your bread is buttered on. I hope Rove gives you more access now. Pathetic. I'll not buy the Post until you become a real news organization again.

Posted by: Steven | March 21, 2006 05:24 PM

Is Domenech responsible for the no-online-comments policy for the new Red America blog, or is this policy set by editors?

It is bad enough that WaPo online has selected a long-time (but only 24 year old, or so) hyper-conservative as a blogger, and has not indicated any intention of 'balancing' this with a liberal blogger, but not to allow online comments makes Domenech completely unaccountable to the public.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | March 21, 2006 05:26 PM

Ha! Ha! Ha!

"Wolverines!"

You guys are giving The Onion a run for its money. Great satire!

Posted by: Robert | March 21, 2006 05:57 PM

This is a pre- April fool's joke right?

I mean... the Post can't be seriously running this, shredding their last of any small bit of journalistic credibility the might've had?

What's the saying? Repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth?

The right has been screaming for so long about the "liberal media" that the media believes the hype... and lean FURTHER right.

the Post, with this latest addition, is just about toast.

I'll find my own RELIABLE news sources.


.

Posted by: Soundboy_Jeff | March 21, 2006 06:25 PM

...and an editor at Regnery Press.

A real newspaper or journalism site would have wrote "...and an editor at Renery Press, a conservative publishing company." Do not do so is failing to inform your readers of the defining quality of Renery. Seriously though, do you guys even take this journalism stuff seriously any more?

The Washington Post can do better.

Posted by: Steph | March 21, 2006 06:32 PM

[From http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007960.php]

Managing perceptions is the death of good journalism, especially manufactured perceptions, and even more those manufactured for the easily cowed.

I'm embarrassed for the Post. Embarrassed by the Post.

Their explanation doesn't cut it. If they want to make a blogger Crossfire with a firebreather on the left and on the right, they should do it. It might even be interesting. But here they've just been played by bullies and played for fools.

Jump! How high?

I can think of more than a few actual journalists at the Post who must feel a bit embarrassed too.

Posted by: Stephanie | March 21, 2006 07:10 PM

There is only one explanation for this new blog....

obviously, Brady, Howell, Harris and the rest of the shreiking denizens of the increasingly extremist management of the Washington Post have become completely unhinged by their partisan rage.

Now, no doubt this post will soon be deleted, because of the above "attack".....

of course, these words appear in the first edition of "Red America",,,

"the shrieking denizens of their [the
Democrats'] increasingly extreme base"
and "the unhinged elements of their
base, motivated by partisan rage."

Posted by: paul lukasiak | March 21, 2006 07:34 PM


Unlike the other commenters, I'm with Brad DeLong, who thinks that the addition of the "the shrieking denizens of" the Right's "increasingly extreme base" like this intellectual lightweight and any other "unhinged elements of their base, motivated by partisan rage" that the Post might add, are going to make the Washington Post the laughingstock of the mainstream publishing world.

This should be great fun, and funny as all get-out.

Posted by: James | March 21, 2006 08:57 PM

Striving for balance is a noble venture, but I'm afraid that WP.com has a skewed idea of what constitutes balance. With all branches of government controlled by the GOP and the president's approval rating in the mid-30s, is it really any wonder that the bulk of commentary and reporting on the administration and GOP policies would be negative?

Adding an avowed partisan to keep the number of positive lines printed close to the number of negative lines is like ballasting the starbord side of an even-sailing ship. Don't capsize yourselves washingtonpost.com!

Posted by: pughd | March 21, 2006 08:59 PM

The idea of adding a "conservative blog" for "balance" (to what and to whom?) was, to begin with, misguided. Choosing this under-credentialed, shallow, partisan name-caller as the author makes your decision not merely bad but truly ludicrous.

Count me as another long-time print subscriber who is fed up with the Washington Post. You are but a shadow of your former self.
---

Posted by: Marylander | March 21, 2006 10:14 PM

Ooh! Well done!

Back in the 1980s, the Wall Street Journal editorial page's most effective and devastating right-wing columnist was left-wing nut-boy Alexander Cockburn: everyone (well, almost everyone) reading his columns would think, "If that's the left, I belong on the right."

Now comes the Washington Post pulling the same trick: hiring Ben Domenech--a man with no policy or analytic or reportorial qualifications save a couple years as a right-wing speechwriter, an unarmed man in a battle of wits--to be its right-wing weblogger. It's funny:

'Red America: Since the election of 1992, the extreme political left has fought a losing battle. Their views on the economy, marriage, abortion, guns, the death penalty, health care, welfare, taxes, and a dozen other major domestic policy issues have been exposed as unpopular, unmarketable and unquestioned losers at the ballot box.... [T]he mainstream media continues to treat red state Americans as pachyderms in the mist - an alien and off-kilter group of suburbanite churchgoers about which little is known, and whose natural habitat is a discomforting place for even the most hardened reporter from the New York Times.

'During the discussions about the launch of this new blog, the good folks at washingtonpost.com spent far too much time in sessions with markers and whiteboard, trying to settle on a name for the column. The suggestions were all over the map - but one suggestion provided a reminder of the sociopolitical divide in this country. "What about 'Red Dawn'?" said one helpful editor.

'"Well, only if you want to make people think it was a gun blog," I said, to puzzled faces.

'"Red Dawn? You must know it - the greatest pro-gun movie ever? I mean, they actually show the jackbooted communist thugs prying the guns from cold dead hands."

'Any red-blooded American conservative, even those who hold a dim view of Patrick Swayze's acting "talent," knows a Red Dawn reference. For all the talk of left wing cultural political correctness, the right has such things, too (DO shop at Wal-Mart, DON'T buy gas from Citgo). But in the progressive halls of the mainstream media, such things prompt little or no recognition. For the MSM, Dan Rather is just another TV anchor, France is just another country and Red Dawn is just another cheesy throwaway Sunday afternoon movie...'

Hate to break it to you, Ben, but "Red Dawn" is just another cheesy throwaway Sunday afternoon movie--and one that's not nearly as visually interesting as "Dirty Dancing." "Red Dawn" is currently #2883 with a bullet among amazon DVDs, behind such wonders of the cinematic art as "Don Knotts 4 Movie Reluctant Hero Pack (The Ghost And Mr. Chicken / The Reluctant Astronaut / The Shakiest Gun In The West / The Love God?)," "Simple Life 3 - The Interns," and "Arrested Development--Season 2."

This is going to be fun...

Posted by: Brad DeLong | March 21, 2006 10:36 PM

I assume The Post will be hiring a Blue State blogger soon. Where can I apply? What are the qualifications?

Posted by: clonecone | March 21, 2006 10:41 PM

The poster who noted the paper's undying (and, frankly, cowardly) adherence to a concept of "false equivalence" is dead on. Since when did 'accountability and transparency' require "balancing"?

Have the 'shrieking denizens' of the Right worked the referrees to the point that journalists don't even understand their (purported) job anymore? Actually, that's rather rhetorical at this point, isn't it?

I also fail to see how this is a successful business decision. What is so unique to 'Red America' that readers can't get at RedState.org? Do you honestly think you'll draw a significant, long-term number of eyeballs from the 'don'ttrusttheliberalmedia' crowd? Rather, it seems like you've just further alienated a much larger segment of your audience.

Smart.

Posted by: Adams Morgan | March 21, 2006 10:43 PM

James at yourlogohere.blogspot.com offers a few biographical details about Mr. Domenech you seem to have left out:

The question of the day is how Ben Domenech, a 24 year old with little journalistic experience who lists among his credientials being the "youngest political appointee of President George W. Bush", was hired by the Washington Post to be their conservative blogger providing balance to...I dunno, their editorial page which was gung-ho for the war in Iraq.

Here's an interesting tidbit about Ben Domenech. Turns out Ben isn't the only Bush appointee in the family. His dad, Doug Domenech, former Loudon County Republican Committee Chairman, was appointed in January, 2002, as the White House Liaison for the Department of the Interior.

How do I know this? Ben Domenech said so.

Perusing an old blog of Ben's, here's some wisdom from Ben Domenich, the college years:

* Hopefully today's military action will be the first of a long campaign, though I've always preferred drop teams to smart bombs.

* Peace Through Superior Thermonuclear Capability.[10/7/01]

* Never trust a male cheerleader. [12/12/01] (You know, Ben, Bush was a male cheerleader)

* If I was two or three years younger, I would at this very moment be emerging from the warm smells of popcorn and ju-ju bees to the air outside, fresh from the glory of the first showing of The Lord of the Rings. [12/19/01] (but wait, Ben, I thought "Red Dawn" was the greatest movie ever...)

* Post-9/11 TV Host of the Year: Jon Stewart; Ugly Old Bat of the Year: Helen Thomas; Winner of the Year (uncontested): God [1/4/02]

* “It never fails to amaze me how little respect they have for women’s capacity to understand what goes on in our bodies,” [NARAL President Kate] Michelman said. “I faced a crisis pregnancy after having three children, and I didn’t need anyone to show me a sonogram to inform me that my pregnancy would result in giving birth to a person.”

How about the fact that having an abortion would result in the death of a person, Kate? Did you need a sonogram to remember that? [2/2/02]

* Al Gore can suck it. [2/4/02]

* Antonin Scalia openly questioned the Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty today, proving once again that he is a man of deep spiritual intelligence, a modern St. Augustine of jurisprudence. [2/5/02]

* I don't know about you, but the more Colin Powell insults the French, the more I like him. [2/20/02]

* On Protest: It's totally different to protest against war before troops are sent somewhere and to protest against war after our boys are over there with guns in their hands and blood on the ground. The former, in my mind, is a totally legitimate act of political expression. The latter is horrendous and vile. [3/24/03]

* I believe this war will take longer than the pundits were saying beforehand, but I also don't think we're going to be forced into a long door-by-door campaign in Baghdad. [3/30/03]

* Al Qaeda is getting smoked out in Iraq -- and anyone who thought there was no connection better line up for their serving of crow. [3/28/03]

And here is my absolute favorite find so far:

* Claude Allen is as clearcut as a razor's edge. He's a stand-up, principled Virginian. [5/13/03]

Claude Allen, of course, was recently arrested for a felony theft scheme.

And there's much, much more. But my eyes are beginning to bleed, so I'll leave it to others to find some other golden nuggets of wisdom.

Posted by: dave | March 21, 2006 10:44 PM

BTW, I notice Mr. Domenech seems very gung-ho on the war in Iraq. Perhaps in a future post, he can fill us in on exactly why he hasn't volunteered to back up all that tough talk with action...

Posted by: dave | March 21, 2006 10:46 PM

From The Posts rules on posting: "Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive..."

Everything Domenech has posted so far is obscene and abusive. And stating that "Red America's citizens are the political majority" is an outright lie.

Posted by: clonecone | March 21, 2006 10:51 PM

Why doesn't Mr. Domenech allow comments on his blog? Oh, I guess it's because his heroes like Sully, Powerline, etc. don't either.

Posted by: Some guy | March 21, 2006 10:54 PM

Ben,

A little advice. Stay away from Charles Krauthammer. He's creepy!!

Posted by: Max Vol | March 21, 2006 10:57 PM

I am quite eager to hear Mr. Domenech's views on the chickenhawk term. It is such an unfair label. There are countless reasons why young and able-bodied war supporters are choosing to avoid the recruiting office and fight the War of Ideas here at home. I cannot wait to hear his reasons.

Posted by: clonecone | March 21, 2006 11:02 PM

Hey you guys! Leave little home-schooled Ben alone! His daddy were a Bush appointee and he were a Bush appointee too. Home-schooled Bush appointees don't have to go in the Army cuz they aren't used to being around anyone but mommy.

Besides, this little home-schooled boy is an accomplished EDITOR, like Bill Keller and Len Downie and Gail Collins! Even Bill Bradlee! And so young!

Now you leave him alone, you hear?!

Posted by: | March 21, 2006 11:16 PM

To those who wonder what Domenech is supposed to be "balanced" against, the answer is obvious. The Post's other weblogger Froomkin is a professional newsman whose blog provides honest and timely factual reporting done with journalistic integrity. Domenech was hired to provide the opposite.

Posted by: David Turover | March 21, 2006 11:16 PM

Shut up, you liberals! You can't stand that your dogma is being challenged with facts, logic and unbias! I say let's have 10 more blogs like Bens.

Posted by: Freedom | March 21, 2006 11:21 PM

Posted by: Freedom

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose, or in this case it might be the pen name of one of Ben's two sisters, his brother, his parents, or his wife coming to his rescue from you mean people.

Posted by: | March 21, 2006 11:38 PM

I am available. You appear to be looking for someone from the lefty blogosphere to balance your currently unstable political distribution. If Mr. Domenech at the ripe age of twenty-four is bringing you gravitas and meaningful political ideas I'm sure that a snake goddess at twenty-four thousand years could do the same. To keep your political boat balanced. Right now it's leaning to the right, a lot.

Posted by: Echidne of the snakes | March 21, 2006 11:38 PM

Washington Post Co. (WPO)
At 3:59PM ET: 742.25
Down 0.75 (0.10%)

Prev Close: 743.00
Open: 740.00
Last Trade: 742.25
52wk Range: 716.00 - 917.00

Posted by: OUCH! That's gotta hurt! | March 21, 2006 11:51 PM

It will be most interesting to read Mr. Domenech's take on the Abramoff scandal, seeing as his dad appears to be the Bush White House designated middle man between Abramoff and the Interior Department.

Posted by: Nota | March 22, 2006 12:02 AM

It's just a matter of time before Ben D is sucking money from Daddy's trust fund.


Posted by: Griff | March 22, 2006 12:23 AM

apropos Red Dawn -- I bet your new "blogger" loved Red Scorpion too - a flick funded by the South African Defence Force and produced by his ideological buddy Jack Abramoff. Birds of a feather like that can produce a political avian flu fatal to the rest of the world...

Posted by: Wilson46201 | March 22, 2006 12:28 AM

it'll also be fun to eventually read Ben's tortured explanation why he is playing it safe in DC while his age-cohorts are in the military fighting in Iraq ... sounds like he's another chickenhawk like Jenna and not-Jenna. Those Young Republicans are all for the war as long as somebody else has to do the fighting.

Posted by: Wilson46201 | March 22, 2006 12:32 AM

Q. What's the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times?

A. One is a rabidly right-wing piece of fishwrap stuffed to the gills with RNC talking points, and the other is owned by Rev. Moon.

(posted in the comments section at firedoglake.com)

Posted by: fedup | March 22, 2006 12:36 AM

From The Posts rules on posting: "Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive..."

Everything Domenech has posted so far is obscene and abusive. And stating that "Red America's citizens are the political majority" is an outright lie.

Posted by: clonecone | March 21, 2006 10:51 PM

Foolish person, those rules only apply to liberals.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 12:37 AM

Josh Marshal on Domenech:

"Little did I know this Ben Domenech gambit from the Post was a secret plot to create the grist for more Abramoff blogging.

You see, it turns out the Domenech family came in for a number of Bush administration appointments. Not only Ben, but Ben's dad, Doug, who was White House liaison to the Department of Interior.

Or to put it more colloquially, White House guy to make sure Jack Abramoff got what he wanted with the Indians and the Pacific Island stuff.

Wayne Smith was the point man for Indian casino policy at the Department of Interior. He ended up having kind of a rough ride over at Interior. And, according to Smith, as reported last year in the Denver Post, Domenech told him "we had to pay attention to [Jack] Abramoff, because otherwise the religious right and (Ralph) Reed are going to come up and bite us, and our whole base will go crazy. They will light up our phones, shut down our phone lines."

According to Smith, Domenech was the conduit for Abramoff operative Italia Federici. "Doug would come down and say, 'Italia called and Jack wants this' That's how it all happened internally."

Probably not the last fun quote from these quarters."

Posted by: Tecumseh | March 22, 2006 12:41 AM

"KYOKO ALTMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's another school day at the Domenech house in Purcellville, Virginia, where mom teaches 15-year-old Benjamin, 12-year-old Emily, 10-year-old Alice, and little Florence, who's almost three."

"Sum of All Stuff
Hey everybody. My brother's site (http://www.bendomenech.com) is different then mine. I won't be as political with this site."
http://elsdman.blogspot.com/2002_06_01_elsdman_archive.html#77612184

Is Ellis the crazy brother in the attic no one will talk about?!?

Posted by: Who is Ellis? | March 22, 2006 12:49 AM

Once again, the Post shows utter contempt for its readers. Get rid of this wingnut immediately.

Posted by: Semblance | March 22, 2006 12:57 AM

I have the utmost respect for the unique intellectual and journalistic achievements of Mr. Domenech, but with deep regret, and without appearing to cast any aspersions on his qualifications, I must say that Ann Coulter would have been a better choice. If Ms. Coulter was unavailable, Michelle Malkin would have sufficed.

In order to balance out the wacko liberal writings of the extreme left wing coulmnists George Will and Kurthammer, and even of Fromkin and Dana Milbank, WashingtonPost.com needs a fire breathing conservative who calls for forced conversion of all the Muslims, internment of American Citizens, death of Supreme Court judges and the bombing of the New York Times Building. Only then can the existing extreme liberal bias of the Post will be counterbalanced.

Posted by: lib | March 22, 2006 12:58 AM

You liberals just don't get it.

The Red State blog reflects the Washington Post's political and social culture. Y'all should THANK them for finally owning up to it.

Ben's blog Red State reflects the way that Deborah Howell and Jim Brady and Jim VandeHei and John Harris really think. They recruited him, they interviewed him, they hired him.

Brady et al are quite thrilled at having one of their own post the UNFILTERED TRUTH without those pesky editors making them "tone down" the truth, like poor George Will and Krauthammer have to do on the editorial page. You can bet they'd write the same way if convention didn't prevent it.

You shreiking liberal denizens, you.

Posted by: James | March 22, 2006 01:05 AM

Well, it's about time the Post tried to balance the liberal reporting we right-thinking people have had to put up with for so many years. As a good Christian, I won't read that Rev. Moon's paper, so if I want to find out what's on sale at Giant Food I have to take the Post. And I think it's wonderful the Post gave this young man an opportunity to "blog." It sounds like he's had a tough time finding a keeping a steady job, being kept out of school by his parents and all, so why not let him write for the Post.

Perhaps he can provide us some inside scoop on his Uncle Karl at the White House and Auntie Gale at the Interior Department!

And it's just great to see someone who writes for the Post tell the truth -- finally! -- about how the majority of us have the right opinion about abortion, men marrying other men, Iraq, manimals, and how the President handled that Katrina situation so well!

Thank you, Post editors -- thank you!

Posted by: Right as Rain | March 22, 2006 01:06 AM

I think Mr. Domenich should apologize. Red Dawn was not that bad a movie. Shame on him.

Posted by: right thinking american | March 22, 2006 01:10 AM

Ben Domenech, Feb 6th, 2003:

"It seems to me that there's clearly a missed story in the aftermath of Powell's detail-packed U.N. Security Council testimony -- just how stupid does this make those "still not enough proof" Senators look?"

http://www.bendomenech.com/2003_02_02_archive.html#88649025

Good to see the Washington Post has finally hired someone who isn't scared to tell their readers what they really believe.

Posted by: Steph | March 22, 2006 01:21 AM

Congratulations on the Redstate blog. Thank goodness someone is finally going to represent the views of the majority on all the issues that really affect us. I'm sure he'll be supporting working people and access to proper medical care.

"(DO shop at Wal-Mart, DON'T buy gas from Citgo)"

Stop crying about having no health care, you librul babies! The important thing is that gays aren't getting married on our watch.

Well, OK, he's a conservative. I'm sure that he'll have the sort of cultured, intellectual tastes that characterize William F. Buckley and William Safire, right?

"Red Dawn? You must know it - the greatest pro-gun movie ever?"

No, well I'm sure he anyone who can admit his love for a plodding homage to Cold War hysteria won't take himself too seriously, right?

"This is a blog for the majority of Americans."

Umm, well, OK. I guess he has enough respect for all those real Americans that he'll open his "blog" to comments, right?

"Posted by Ben Domenech | Permalink | Email a Comment"

Apparently, the majority of Americans are raving half-wits who don't have opinions worth consideration. Living in a bubble of liberal idealism you miss these things. Thanks for setting me straight.

Posted by: Cujo359 | March 22, 2006 01:33 AM

Is this the truth? You want this in your paper?

A 24 year old with little journalistic experience who lists among his credientials being the "youngest political appointee of President George W. Bush", was hired by the Washington Post to be their conservative blogger providing balance to...I dunno, their editorial page which was gung-ho for the war in Iraq.

Ben's dad, Doug Domenech, former Loudon County Republican Committee Chairman, was appointed in January, 2002, as the White House Liaison for the Department of the Interior.


Perusing an old blog of Ben's, here's some wisdom from Ben Domenech, the college years:
Hopefully today's military action will be the first of a long campaign, though I've always preferred drop teams to smart bombs.

Peace Through Superior Thermonuclear Capability.[10/7/01]

Never trust a male cheerleader. [12/12/01] (You know, Ben, Bush was a male cheerleader)

If I was two or three years younger, I would at this very moment be emerging from the warm smells of popcorn and ju-ju bees to the air outside, fresh from the glory of the first showing of The Lord of the Rings. [12/19/01]
(but wait, Ben, I thought "Red Dawn" was the greatest movie ever...)

Post-9/11 TV Host of the Year: Jon Stewart
Ugly Old Bat of the Year: Helen Thomas
Winner of the Year (uncontested): God [1/4/02]

Al Gore can suck it. [2/4/02]

Antonin Scalia openly questioned the Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty today, proving once again that he is a man of deep spiritual intelligence, a modern St. Augustine of jurisprudence. [2/5/02]

I don't know about you, but the more Colin Powell insults the French, the more I like him. [2/20/02]

On Protest: It's totally different to protest against war before troops are sent somewhere and to protest against war after our boys are over there with guns in their hands and blood on the ground. The former, in my mind, is a totally legitimate act of political expression. The latter is horrendous and vile. [3/24/03]

I believe this war will take longer than the pundits were saying beforehand, but I also don't think we're going to be forced into a long door-by-door campaign in Baghdad. [3/30/03]

Al Qaeda is getting smoked out in Iraq -- and anyone who thought there was no connection better line up for their serving of crow. [3/28/03]


And here is my absolute favorite find so far:
Claude Allen is as clearcut as a razor's edge. He's a stand-up, principled Virginian. [5/13/03]

Posted by: syolles | March 22, 2006 01:33 AM

Oh, and I'd just like to add that I'd rather sit through a Patrick Swayze film festival [even if it includes Roadhouse _and_ Red Dawn] than read another of this guy's columns.

Posted by: Cujo359 | March 22, 2006 01:36 AM

Mrs. Howell,
Just because everyone's all in a tizzy over that new kid on the block, (is he Jim VandeHei's replacement at the pool, by the way), don't even think I've forgotten all about those "copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with his personal directions on which members were to receive what amounts." Nuh uh. Ain't gonna happen, sister! You'd better get away from that Kraft Services table, put those donuts down, and work on your next column where I'm sure you'll have the sense to publish your evidence. If you need some help, call on Ben. I hear he and Jack (Abram)Off are buddies. Do this, or I'll send someone over to get you and your little dog "Jim" too.

Posted by: W.W.o.T.W. | March 22, 2006 01:41 AM

Ben Domenech on soldiers dying in the Iraq war (March 10, 2003):

This aversion to any sort of bodybag in the context of war is something my brother Ellis and I have mocked before, at length: we like to call it the "Contra 3 Syndrome." In Contra, one of the most popular arcade games ever (unrelated to the South American resistance), you play a soldier blasting away at baddies (in the 3rd installment, for the SNES, it's alien baddies) with oversized weaponry in a side-scrolling firefight. It's an entertaining game, but extremely short--Contra 3 is only 6 levels long. Besides, you really need all three of your lives to deal with the last boss--so a lot of people who play the game will restart the minute they lose their first life. Ellis and I are more likely to make it to the end with only one life left, but hey, that's the point of the game, not erasing/restarting every time anyone dies. Modern War isn't exactly like Contra, and it's a good deal longer than any 6-level game.

http://www.bendomenech.com/2002_03_10_archive.html#10610578

Posted by: Steph | March 22, 2006 01:45 AM

I'm suprised his favorite movie isn't "Ben." That was about a rat, right?

Posted by: Pool Boy | March 22, 2006 01:46 AM

I've read and reread Mr. Domenech's first blog installments. All I can say is: Huh?

Why in blazes would you select this slippery fellow to counterbalance an already in-the-pocket-of-the administration newspaper? At the least, you might seek out someone amusing. A blogger with something of interest to say. Someone more effective than an attack dog with two functioning brain cells.

I stand ready to learn. Am willing to change my mind. I'm not the only one who would appreciate a genuinely insightful blog from the "red America" contingent.

The one you chose ain't it.

Posted by: LK | March 22, 2006 02:44 AM

Why am I not at all surprised that this 24 year old is a big supporter of the war of aggression in Iraq, but he doesn't have the stones to sign up for it?

Another coward in the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney tradition.

Posted by: Gary Frazier | March 22, 2006 02:55 AM

I cannot fathom how a once proud and revered institution like the Washington Post (and now also Washington Post.Com) can denigrate itself as it has done of late. This organization is in a self-destruct mode; it is killing itself. Is there no leadership with a lick of sense? Are there no adults to be found? We have editors who are, bluntly, cowards. They don't have the guts to speak truth to power. We see fat cat "reporters" like Bob Woodward, who have no journalistic integrity left, occupying positions reeking of conflict of interest, while honest, feet-on-the ground reporters take gas. We have an ombudsman who is so far over her head that she can't even bother to get her facts straight or stand up to pressure without looking ridiculous. Worst of all, we encounter this false sense of "balanced reporting", you know, like the folks at Fox. Tell the truth--to hell with balance. As one writer said recently, sometimes the facts are biased. Get rid of this phony attempt at balance with the neophyte blogger- not journalist- and act like a real news organization. GET SOME GUTS: QUIT RUNNING SCARED AND ACTING LIKE COWARDS!. SPEAK THE TRUTH! Thomas Butch

Posted by: Thomas Butch | March 22, 2006 03:04 AM

I'm bursting with excitement! Us Patrick Swayze-loving conservatives have gone unnourished for far too long. If that first post is representative of the standard of Mr Domeneck's political musings, then we're all in for treat.

But let's not forget Jim Brady's role in all this. You sir, should take a bow. Your commitment to elevating the level of political discourse on the WaPo blog is outstanding. But why stop with Mr Domeneck? Go for a full house, Mr Brady. Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, and Mary Carey should have blogs too.

I leave it in your capable hands, Jim.

Posted by: Bentley Stanforth III | March 22, 2006 03:10 AM

(quoted by syolles @ March 22, 2006 01:33 AM)

"Al Gore can suck it. [2/4/02]"

Mr. Brady, you must be so proud. Bill Safire would be green with envy after beholding such prose. You should take out a full page ad in the Times just to gloat.

Posted by: Cujo359 | March 22, 2006 03:18 AM

Well, based on the last hundred comments, Mr. Domanech is well-loved, if nothing else.

Assuming it's all a game now, that the WaPo is going to stick with Mr. Domanech and, well, continue to go off the rails, I'm trying to think of a 24 year old lefty blogger of note and I can only think of Paul Keil at Muckeraker.

Posted by: Okay | March 22, 2006 04:08 AM

Wait, I get it, it's an Army blog, part of the Redstate enlistment program. Nice. So Mr. Domanech is going to blog his training live and then take the column to Iraq?

Posted by: Not okay | March 22, 2006 04:10 AM

LOL !

Wow. I'm glad I stopped reading the WaPo. Even though it was ONLINE. FOR FREE !

Howell and Brady's ridiculous antics did it for me.
Now they hired a sidekick.
Hush little wingnut don't say a word, GOP'll buy you a cageliner for bird.

Posted by: ch2 | March 22, 2006 05:47 AM

It's pretty obvious this guy isn't even remotely qualified so why did they hire him?

Posted by: whatever | March 22, 2006 05:52 AM

Better Dead than Red State.

Posted by: Red Dawn Aficianado | March 22, 2006 05:59 AM

questions for Brady....

1) did Ben disclose to the Post that his father was intimately and directly involved in the Abramoff scandal --- i.e. that (according to Josh Marshall see http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007962.php ) Ben's dad was the middleman between Abramoff's connections at the White House and Italia Federici, who ran Gail Norton's "astroturf" environmental organization (CREA) to which Abramoff funnelled half a million dollars?

2) If so, why did you hire a blogger with such an obvious conflict of interest involving a story that the Post supposedly is at the "forefront" of without disclosing that conflict?

3) If not, are you really corrrupt enough to keep Ben on the payroll under these circumstances?

Posted by: paul lukasiak | March 22, 2006 06:53 AM

My goodness. Is this another leap into cronyism? Unbelievable, you would hire this republican hack and try to pass him off as fair and balanced. You just fall lower and lower. Time for me to pack it in and stop reading this paper. My feeling is that you are all obsolete anyway. Going down the tubes and guess who you have to thank for that? By the way your editorial today was idiotic. Obviously you didn't watch the fool as he joked about the war, stumbling and tripping over his tongue. He makes so many of us ashamed to be Americans. That's right GW, leave it for someone else to clean up. You are all cowards, as is the so called Commander and Chief.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 07:04 AM

Smooth move WP. Whats with you people none will be satisfied untill america is destroyed.

Better get a liberal blog too.

ALMOST ALL MEDIA FORMS ARE RIGHT WING NO MATTER HOW YOU SAY IT OR HOW MANY TIMES YOU SAY IT THE LEFT HAS NO VOICE.

Posted by: BUSHFLASH | March 22, 2006 07:17 AM

Are you aware that your new blogger, Ben Domenech, posted the following at Red State:

re Mrs. King's funeral:

"The President visits the funeral of a Communist. And phones in a message to the March for Life. I think we can get a little pissed about this."

Link: http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/2/7/203823/5583/190#190

Ben Domenech is Augustine.

Link: http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/01/126_the_brady_b.html#1

The Washington Post hires a racist to provide "balance". You should be proud.

Posted by: Erika Froh | March 22, 2006 07:33 AM

Shame on you Washington post. You have brought now thoughtful commentary or analysis, but rather more hatred and irrationality. What justification have you to give legitimacy to a political operative of the current administration, in place of a journalist. the other bloggers are journalists, this man is insane, and hypocrytical. He does not represent the majority of blue-collar working people in the red states. Washington post has sunk to a low. I hope you can recover.

I am disgusted.

Posted by: Chris | March 22, 2006 07:47 AM

And hilarity ensues.

If I wanted to hear the opinion of 24 year old, right wing non-journalists, why in God's name would I read a newspaper blog? Instead, I would go straight to the source, Redstate.com, and read this kind of empty, worthless, pseudo-intellectual nonsense from DOZENS (well, 2 dozen, tops) of 20-something right wing non-journalists. Plus that way the hate and racism of Redstate.com isn't filtered out when young Ben cleans up his act for your site. I'd rather hear straight from the source about the "brown preacher" talking at that "communist's" (Coretta Scott King's) funeral.

Posted by: Sean in NYC | March 22, 2006 07:59 AM

Liberals can't handle free speech, and hate religion and love for country, so their operatives come here to pile on poor Ben who is bringing balance back to these liberal bias pages. They can't deal with the facts, the logic. They already control most of the media. Why can't they leave room for other voices on science, politics, social issues and economics that are not based on the typical liberal blathering moonbat lockstep ideological multicultural correctness test? I am a Proud Red State American and I support Ben.

Posted by: Patriot Actor | March 22, 2006 08:12 AM

Brady,

I wish I knew how to quit you.

Every time I think I'm done with the Washington Post's right wing bias, y'all reach new heights. First the Howell-Froomkin hoo-hah, then the Abramoff flap. Then the deleting of comments and the running to your right-wing buddies to denounce those uncivil libruls.

And now this! A real-life frothing-at-the-mouth right-wing looney right on your venerable pages, representing the views of the Washington Post's political desk! Representing the views of your "ombudsman" and the managing editor of WaPo-dot-com!

Oh, how can I stay away? Thanks, WaPo!

Posted by: James | March 22, 2006 08:25 AM

Oh, and Ben Domenich,

http://goarmy.com/

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 22, 2006 08:42 AM

Your choice of Ben Domenech is mind-boggling. Domenech is not an independent thinker who happens to be conservative--he is a right-wing propagandist. His publishing company, Regnery, specializes in hit pieces such as Barbara Olsen's Hillary smear piece and the Swift Boat veteran's attack on John Kerry. They publish ideologues such as Michelle Malkin, who writes a book defending the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII (and by analogy, Arab-Americans today). Domenech's web sit, Red State is dedicated solely to furthering the cause of the Republican Party. In his blog, Domenech among other things writes diatribes against evolution (attacking the National Review's John Derbyshire for being in league with evolutionists).

It is hard to imagine a worse choice for an addition to the Washington Post. By choosing Domenech as a representative of conservative thought, you are basically saying that there is no difference between being conservative and being a Republican operative. That is an insult to thoughtful conservatives such as your own editorialist George Will.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough | March 22, 2006 08:48 AM

your new whiz-bang boy needs to be told how to turn on a spell-checker. the latest column needs it.
btw: http://goarmy.com for chickenhawks like him, Jenna and Cheney...

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 22, 2006 09:17 AM

It is now confirmed that Mr. Domanech has grossly misrepresented Steven Jay Gould's position on evolution. I was a professor at Harvard while he was still alive, and Gould taught in the same auditorium I did just before me; we would chat a little between classes most days. I didn't know Gould well, but I can tell you, Mr. Domanech committed either inexcusable fabrication or unbelievable sloppiness in this case. Neither is acceptable at a journalistic institution such as the Washington Post.

People like me, who take news seriously, who have been reading it carefully for the past twenty-five years, who care about the job journalists are doing, are walking away from the Washington Post. You have many fine reporters, dogged and professional. And you're burdening their credibility when you fire 80 reporters on the same day as hiring flacks such as Mr. Domanech.

The people who are writing in today are your readers, the ones who care. We want the Washington Post to be a professional, serious, credible journalistic enterprise. Listen to what they're saying. Because advertisers don't pay as much when you lose readers.

Posted by: Andrew Foland | March 22, 2006 09:19 AM

Hal Straus is perhaps already having an O*H S*H*I*T moment or two after realizing what he's done by hiring the prolific young dufus who posted two inspiring columns on his first day. Do you hear that sound? KA CHING KA CHING! It's the sound of money pouring into the coffers from new subscribers who finally have a voice in the main-stream media. I suppose Deborah Howell can give up her paper route now, and start answering some questions.

Posted by: Ka Ching! | March 22, 2006 09:21 AM

Thanks for deleting my comment. Apparently it was taken as a personal assault against Domenech, which is, of course, totally unacceptable.

I hope you guys have your digital red pens ready for editing Domenech's blog as fiercely as you do subscriber feedback, though. I'm pretty sure he's going to call quite a few people things a whole lot worse than "ass-clown". And, of course, we'll have to take our complaints here, since we can't comment on Domenech's blog.

This may get ugly. Fair warning.

Posted by: Tron | March 22, 2006 09:23 AM

I e-mailed a response to 'Red America' that I hope he forwarded to Mr. Brady. To say that what he wrote was utter drivel is to put it mildly. I couldn't agree more with other posters, that if I wanted to read that kind of nonsense, I'd go straight to the source, not here.

If you ask me, Howard Kurtz 'balances' Dan Froomkin. Enough said. Red America is a loser blog. I will keep checking back here for more amusement, honestly the posts are great! Thanks for keeping up my 'liberal' spirits.

Posted by: Beth | March 22, 2006 09:33 AM

Dear Washingtonpost,com:

I'm trying to understand the rationale for giving Ben Domenech a spot. He's not a journalist, he's a Republican party activist. Is this some response to the idea that Daniel Froomkin is a "liberal?" Froomkin, whatever his political beliefs, is a journalist, with years of experience. He's not a political appointee, he's not a party operative. Domenech is a partisan cheerleader, pure and simple, as he cheerfully admits. They aren't really comparable. So it can't be that he "balances" Froomkin. That would be sort of like hiring an arsonist to balance a firefighter. I know the Post would never do such a thing, because of its deep commitment to genuine journalism.

Maybe it's a good idea to have a right wing activist contributing to the Post--although why he's not listed as "opinion" is beyond me. He will certainly say controversial, insulting things--he already has. But when will you start "Blue America?" When will you give a Democratic party activist and blogger a spot? Because it seems to me you simply have to--you can't give one party's activists a regular spot, not classed as opinion, and not give the same to the other party--not if you genuinely believe in balance, which I know you do, being journalists.

Please note the total absence of profanity and incivility in this message. I look forward to your response.

Posted by: mike O'Malley | March 22, 2006 09:34 AM

Where's the young voice of reason? Did he oversleep this morning after his first day of hard work? I've been waiting over two and a half hours now for his morning column. I'm having withdrawal symptoms. Someone call him at home and wake him up! Now!

Posted by: Kay Passa | March 22, 2006 09:36 AM

As an American writer now relocated to France, can I have a blog on your site (let's call it "Freedom France") just for balance?

Posted by: Lupin | March 22, 2006 09:39 AM

You can have a column here Lupin, but we won't call it what you suggested. "Freedom Freedom" maybe, but we don't use that other "F" word around these parts.

Posted by: Kay Passa | March 22, 2006 09:42 AM

Just my two cents: The Red State blog isn't merely offensive, it's boring. We've heard this nonsense countless times before. It was old six years ago. If you're going to have a conservative commentator, try one that doesn't insult our intelligence.

Posted by: CT | March 22, 2006 09:43 AM

Post Toasties

the Post is toast its plain to see
don't get me wrong, I'm all pro-familee,
neutral on Debbee, hate profanitee,
not monomaniac, little of this little of that
is all my song, but still it seems to me
the Post is toast.

I'm unfamiliar with the back-storee,
fr'instance on Froomkin how it came to be that they said we
don't want to spike him necessarilee,
he's very blunt and strong, I think they said we need
something mature, more horse [],
For balance, and what's wrong with that?
That's the Post's boast.

Perhaps I'm the minoritee
But still it seems to me, perhaps to most,
Back then they had some courage, now they're paying Ben to beat the gong,
He's 24, his dad was liason you see, that's it,
That's why they print his pompous [],
Proving the Post is toast.

I could go on, but just to be clear, O prince, and gosh, we're never met
I say this with regret, it's good for Ben, but bad for you and me,
For sure the Post is toast, get used to it.

Posted by: poet laureate | March 22, 2006 09:50 AM

What a joke you folks have become. If I didn't think my kids should be exposed to a daily hardcopy newspaper, I'd cancel our subscription to the Post. This guy Domenech is the worst kind of rightwing hate-filled ideologue.

Posted by: Peter Kuhbach | March 22, 2006 09:52 AM

It is very sad to see the Washington Post get further and further away from any memory of a serious 'NEWS'paper.
And now you are hiring this person to be a regular feature in your paper?
Have you taken the time to check into prior postings from this man?
And, are you prepared to report on HIM, if the connections between his father and Abramoff prove to be inconvenient to this adminstration?

Posted by: J. Sherman | March 22, 2006 09:52 AM

Congratulations to Jim Brady for selecting Ben in his "Pin the Tail on the Wingnut" contest. Are you kidding? If he's so gungho about the war, why isn't he in Iraq. He's the perfect age.

Posted by: purvisames | March 22, 2006 10:00 AM

The fairytales about Iraq, the hit pieces on Howard Dean, the "Dems in dissaray" stories, the invented bi-partisan Abramoff donations, unwavering support for the disasterous Bush presidency, and now this. I get sick looking at the paper I've grown up reading morphing into a Fox clone. Come back to the reality-based world. Please! Your country needs you. Your country desperately needs you.

Posted by: Rosoce Rich | March 22, 2006 10:00 AM

So the Washington Post thinks a 20-year-old home-schooled nutjob is going to going to improve the quality of their online offering.

That's really all you need to know, isn't it?

Posted by: Faux news | March 22, 2006 10:02 AM

According to National Journal's Hotline:

"Later that p.m., a RedState post titled "We Need John Shadegg" was posted by "The Directors" -- Krempasky, Ben "Augustine" Domenech, Erick Erickson and Clayton Wagar -- urging in bright red oversized letters: "Call (202) 224-3121 and urge your congressman to support John Shadegg for Majority Leader. This matters."

It would appear then that Ben Domenech is the Red State poster Augustine.

Upon Coretta Scott King's death, here is what Ben Domenech as Augustine wrote:

"The President visits the funeral of a Communist. And phones in a message to the March for Life. I think we can get a little [angry] about this."

Is this the sort of substantive debate that the post promised Domenech would bring?

Or is this what Domenech refers to in his third column as "ridiculous hyperbole, unfounded accusations or unintentionally hilarious name-calling"?

Please, let us know.

Posted by: james | March 22, 2006 10:04 AM

One thing I suppose we've learned is that too much home-schooling and religious indoctrination can be a bad thing. Oh well, this experiment will be amusing... for a day or two.

Posted by: Not Amused | March 22, 2006 10:10 AM

Why is Mr. Domenech's blog not listed in the drop down menu on the Post's home page? Nor is he listed as a columnist. Is the Post hiding his column?

Posted by: DCAdam | March 22, 2006 10:11 AM

As a result of your downward spiral from the heights of journalistic excellence, the hiring of Ben D. is merely the most recent lead weight increasing the velocity. These days, I only turn to the Post for the cartoons, since they are at least honest about being funny pages.

Posted by: moe99 | March 22, 2006 10:11 AM

So the Washington Post thinks a 20-year-old home-schooled nutjob is going to going to improve the quality of their online offering.

Well, he managed to imporve the quality of his families life, especially his fathers.

Regardless of the cost to the nation.

Priorities you see. He's got them "right".

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 10:12 AM

Does the Post have a policy on smoking in the newsroom?

'Cause I just saw Jim Brady and Debroah Howell sharing a post-coital cigarette.

Posted by: Bend Over | March 22, 2006 10:13 AM

Hmmmm. Is there any length limit on the contents page, here? Cause it looks like this is a pretty good start for a Blue State Blog.

Posted by: MSM Can Bite Me | March 22, 2006 10:18 AM

Hello Mr. Brady;

I feel compelled to take a moment out of my workday to say that I object to the new Ben Domenech blog at washingtonpost.com. I don't believe that such a pointedly partisan blog is a reasonable balance for either that of Dan Froomkin (who has a specific beat, the White House) nor of Dana Milbank.

I don't feel like you are representing ME, a loyal Washington Post reader, with this choice. Literally years after I left the DC area, your paper and website are still the place I go for national news, what I consider to be the paper of record for the federal government. But if you want me to continue advocating for your paper wherever I may be, then please either discontinue "Red America" or balance it fairly with a more considered and comprehensive left-leaning view. Regardless, I just want to point out that, sadly enough, thoughtless partisan attacks, of either color, are no longer really news.

Posted by: C-Rose | March 22, 2006 10:20 AM

What a joke. Fair and balanced, as usual. News flash: there are no more "red states." Bush is in the mid-30s, and under 50 percent approval even in the majority of the states he "won" in 2004. This is old, old, old divisive politics.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 10:22 AM

Finally, a right wing voice on the Post! Yay, way to go guys!

No journalism background? Great! Idiot and Republican insider? Awesome! Can we get two more of him?

Posted by: burnplant | March 22, 2006 10:24 AM

This red state project was a brilliant ploy!

WASHINGTN POST CO B

Last Trade: 747.00
Trade Time: 10:02AM ET
Change: Up 4.75 (0.64%)

Posted by: Brilliant! | March 22, 2006 10:29 AM

I suppose it is par for the course for a newspaper that publishes editorials of the kind that appears today: " Mr. Bush Unvarnished".

The WP was once a good newspaper, selflessly dedicated to informing the public.

Unfortunately, like everything else in Washington these days, where mediocrity, cover-ups, lies, and shameless pandering, reign supreme, the Washington Post has become a sorry shadow of its former self.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | March 22, 2006 10:31 AM

What would make the Post hire a vicious little cretin like Ben Domenech, even to blog on its web site? Did anyone at the Post do any research into the racist swill that is regular fare over at RedState? What are you people thinking?

Posted by: Chris Baumer | March 22, 2006 10:31 AM

Congratulations to Jim Brady for selecting Ben in his "Pin the Tail on the Wingnut" contest. Are you kidding? If he's so gungho about the war, why isn't he in Iraq. He's the perfect age.

Posted by: purvisames | March 22, 2006 10:00 AM

Perfect Idea! Lets all write letters to Ben about how he can better serve his country by going to Iraq.
Im guessing he will have an excuse, ingrown toenail, failed IQ test....etc...

Posted by: pale | March 22, 2006 10:33 AM

it sure will help the Post's reputation in the African-American community when word gets out that they just hired a 'blogger' who calls Coretta Scott King a 'Communist'

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 22, 2006 10:34 AM

I don't think Ben needs to explain any further why he is opposed to personally joining the War in Iraq. He's already explained in his column yesterday:

BEN: "...to follow the dictum of an aging hippie couple I know who, despite their pacifist beliefs, still let their boys run around playing army with sticks made into guns. After all, someone has to defend America."

See? Someone has to defend America, and that someone would be someone else's kids.

Posted by: NattyBumpo | March 22, 2006 10:36 AM

Why the heck did you choose Mr. Domenick? Who is he supposed to balance? All your other writers are in the journalistic tradition of looking up facts they base their arguments on, not on some undeifened liberal bias. I'm sure there are real journalists with a right-wing out there who do fact-based reporting, and who have experience doing such reporting.

Posted by: Jonathan | March 22, 2006 10:36 AM

To Ben Domenech:

I have read your first two posts and have a few observations about your conclusions from the “whiny kids” study and about your remarks in "Comments about Comments."

You wrote, “Apparently, this violent testosterone-fueled psychological imperitive - not a coherent and just strategy for defending America in response to the first major attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor - is the real reason for our war in Iraq.”

First, the word is spelled “imperative.” Second, it could be inferred from this conflation of defense and attack that you think our real reason for going to war in Iraq was in response to the attacks of 9/11. This is curious, as the secular Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the religious fundamentalists thought to be behind the attacks of 9/11.

You wrote, “If these columnists and scientists are to be believed, then President Bush is … just another spineless conservative wussyboy who has to prove he's a big brave man in cowboy boots. This is ridiculous and wrong.”

Why is it ridiculous and wrong? Because you don’t like the thought of it? You give no other reason for rejecting what seems to be a fairly well-thought-out line of reasoning.

You conclude, “It's always better to just let kids be kids and keep the psychologists out of the way - to follow the dictum of an aging hippie couple I know who, despite their pacifist beliefs, still let their boys run around playing army with sticks made into guns. After all, someone has to defend America.”

Your first conclusion implies that kids are inherently healthy and don’t need no stinkin’ psychologists. Does this apply to all kids, even the bullies and the ones who torture small animals and the ones who pick up firearms and turn their schools into shooting galleries? And unless your second conclusion is based on your own personal military experience, then you are nothing more than a hypocrite who believes it’s okay to send other people to war for specious purposes.

Apparently you are unaware of the long-standing plans of Bush’s advisors to invade Iraq, but that’s not surprising, as you apparently reject out of hand anything that conflicts with your preconceived conclusions.

Your statements in your “Comments about Comments” post against playing “to the worst side of our knee-jerk partisan nature” and looking forward to engagement “in a serious, respectful discussion” are belied by your own posts in which you engage in the former and give only lip service to the latter.

Clearly, you are no conservative. A real conservative would be red, all right – red in the face with anger over the way the Bush administration has mismanaged every aspect of their tenure, from record deficits to squandering our military resources to enriching cronies. But then again, since you are clearly in the “crony” category, that last part might just be okay with you.

Posted by: jenifer_lewis | March 22, 2006 10:37 AM

Instead of "Red America" you probably should've named the new blog "Daily Dish" 'cause that's exactly what I foresee Mr. Domenech receiving, in spades, daily. It's only fair I guess, since that's what he's done all of his short political life. Diss others, that is.

Posted by: Sadly, Yes | March 22, 2006 10:40 AM

Are you nuts?
Where is the balance from the left?
Clearly you are tilting towards Fox and my trust of your capacity to be objective is adjusted accordingly.

Posted by: kali | March 22, 2006 10:41 AM

Free speech shall not be stifled......

The issue is, why would you want to associate the paper with a highly opinionated partisan hack.

What is the journalistic value of this columnist?

Will he have the same tenacity for citing sources a la Froomkin?

Will he report the news as the news or as he see's (wishes) it?

Will he face the scorn of Lovey and Jimmy if he is wrong or 'over the line'?

We all know the answer.....I will be cancelling my sub.

Posted by: oddball | March 22, 2006 10:45 AM

In his last entry, it sure seems like Ben Domenech is bashing the readers who took time to read and comment on his blog. Is this the new Post - "Opinion Writers" who bash the opinions of readers who bash their opinions? Sounds like money well spent! I guess the alternative is hearing how Ben thinks the war he promotes but is unwilling to fight in is like a video game.

Posted by: John | March 22, 2006 10:46 AM

"We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features."

I'm beginning to wonder if any of the previous posters even read this little snippet. It seems most are more interested in trashing the author than actually attempting to address any of his statements. Sadly, their myopic focus on the messenger and not the messenge only lends more credibility to that messenge. H

Posted by: Bob | March 22, 2006 10:48 AM

News from a different planet Earth: news is the news now. News is only news when the news is the news.

Schmidt and Starr: check
Woodward and Plame: check
Howell/Harris and Ruffini: check
Domenech and Abramoff: check

Still waiting on
Vandehei and DeLay

Posted by: Ben, but not that Ben | March 22, 2006 10:48 AM

Bob:
"I'm beginning to wonder if any of the previous posters even read this little snippet. It seems most are more interested in trashing the author than actually attempting to address any of his statements. Sadly, their myopic focus on the messenger and not the messenge only lends more credibility to that messenge."

Mr. Woodward, Dick Cheney on line 2 for you.

Posted by: Ben, but not that Ben | March 22, 2006 10:51 AM

You guys have to be kidding...this is beyond unbelieveable. This kid is an inexperienced hack - he doesn't even have his own political bona-fides, but rides solidly on his father's coattails as a GOP operative. It was pretty shameful when Jonah Goldberg's mommy got him a job with her old buddies at the NR, but the NR has been a clearly partisan rag for years. Old Buckley was up-front about it. The Post aspires, or rather, claims to be an objective news reporting operation.

I was a Post subscriber for just over 25 years - I'm 38 years old - starting as soon as it was available for home delivery in my town. In those days, the crack was pretty common about "Pravda on the Potomac". Sadly, it's become clear that the editorial slant of the Post, with the same irony as the re-appropriation of the symbolic meaning "Red" in our country, has made that formerly anti-liberal moniker into a reality: the paper has clearly become a sponsor of "Red" propaganda in the finest tradition of Pravda.

I dropped my subscription recently over the flap with your "Ombudsman" - right wing apologist Deborah Howell - but had recently reconsidered: I strongly value serious in-depth new reporting, something the newsroom still seems to practice at the Post. I continued to read selected articles online, and I thought I should be supporting institutions I care about.

Now, this? Really, you have got to be kidding! This kid engages in some third rate sophistry at what amounts to an online "Volkischer Beobacter" and you present him as a source of informed commentary? One would be naive to imagine that all the Opinion page scribes are deeply experienced sages - George Will is a propagandist with an excellent vocabulary and complex sentence structure - but at least they're over 30 and have spent some time out in the world, presumeably as some kind of journalist.

Does the Post realize that, unlike the cable TV news outlets, their remaining audience is made up of readers - that is, people who enjoy critical reasoning in the finest objective materialist (read: reality-and-fact-based) traditions. This kind of tripe drives us away.

One can only infer that such appointments - handouts - are the price of journalistic freedom elsewhere in the paper. Is the Post that afraid their presses will be smashed (or circulation depressed) by the rabble these propagandists rouse? It's not like there's a viable concern to be had out of the illiterati - the Washington Times has never come off life support since Rev. Moon revived it, and the aforementioned NR has been touch-and-go from the beginning.

I'd say this is the result of Katherine Graham's passing - but Donald Graham has been running things for a long while now. Perhaps it's the result of Meg Greenfield's passing instead. Who knows, but it's time to clean house editorially - the job of the Press in this country is to be adversarial to our government - not function in it's service as a mouthpiece. The Post did our country a great service under the Nixon administration - and yet, with an administration as bad or worse according to former Nixon staffers, the Post is hiring obvious shills. I cannot imagine what blackmail is employed to achieve these results, but save yourselves before it's too late - sunshine is the antidote.

Posted by: Scott Ruffner | March 22, 2006 10:53 AM

I'm amused at the reaction to the Post's decision to run "Red America." So, so many people who are so, so sure that the Post is a hardcore right-wing publication that has finally given up any pretense of journalism because it has made room for one (let's count together, one and . . . well then, one!) avowedly conservative blog in its online space.

That'd be like saying the Lincoln Center is a cabal of anti-cultural barbarians bent on destroying the last vestiges of fine art in the west if they were to allow a concert promoter to hang a Marilyn Manson advert in the foyer.

Unfortunately, the world of online political commentary has devolved into a series of narrowly-tailored echo-chambers. This is true on the left as well as the right and it isn't good for our society. But just because the post doesn't shout into the same echo chambers as the commentors on this page, doesn't automatically make it a conservative rag.

It is possible for a person (or a newspaper) to be somewhat more cosmopolitan, have a broader reach as it were, and avoid the ideological blinders of the echo-chamber crowd. However, to them what have their heads in the bucket, the well-rounded outlook is always going to appear extreme.

Posted by: aporitic | March 22, 2006 10:55 AM

Dump Ben. Replace him with Debra LaFave. Hurry! Before FAUX news snaps her up.

Posted by: Dr. Filbert | March 22, 2006 10:57 AM

Ugg, this trash is insulting as a 24 year old. I swear, we're not all this condescending. Hey Domenech, is this a "worthwhile comment"? Get a real job.

Or at least join the service. We need more bodies for your middle eastern meat grinder.

Posted by: 24 year old male | March 22, 2006 10:59 AM

I'm a liberal who's happy to read conservative columnists/bloggers, but is this inexperienced partisan kid really the best conservative voice that the Post.com could find? It seems that his goal is not to communicate with liberals about "Red America" in any meaningful way, but to combine tidbits of news, columns and academic journals into over-the-top characterizations of liberal thinking.

This blog doesn't add anything to public discussion that we can't get from Fox or talk radio. You would think that with all the Post's cout, this site could find a conservative blogger who's had some life experience and who could reach out to an audience beyond Red America.

Posted by: Jeff | March 22, 2006 11:01 AM

The more blogs, the better, IMO.

When do guys like Kos or Atrios and Marshall get their Washington Post blogs?

Posted by: john | March 22, 2006 11:01 AM

Does it tick you off that Ben pretty much slagged the Post and the rest of the MSM for being too liberal *even after* you gave him a place to write, raise his profile, and make some money?

If this doesn't prove to you that the "liberal media" trope is a scam, I don't know what will.

Posted by: mb | March 22, 2006 11:02 AM

WASHINGTN POST CO B

Last Trade: 747.91
Trade Time: 10:34AM ET
Change: Up 5.66 (0.76%)

Posted by: WooHoo! Break out the champagne! | March 22, 2006 11:05 AM

See, I think I know what the WaPo was trying to do here:

Like so many other news outlets, they've allowed themselves to get browbeaten and intimidated by the hordes of whiners on the right wing who blame all their failings and embarrassments on allegedly slanted coverage by the so-called "liberal" media, so the Post figured that if they just hired a right-winger to blog for them -- a nasty, partisan, who-needs-facts-when-I've-already-made-up-my-mind winger at that -- they could endear themselves to the conservative Cool Kids and hopefully inoculate themselves from further accusations of liberal bias.

So what does Domenech do in his very first post? He goes after the naughty liberal MSM. There's some gratitude for ya, WaPo!

Well, y'all made your bed, now it's time to lie in it. But this red-state liberal (yes, not everyone in Red America is a mindless GOP drone like Domenech -- we call ourselves "progressive rednecks" 'round these parts) can't drum up any sympathy for you. I really used to respect you guys, and working at the Post was once my dream job -- but if you'll hire people like Domenech, then suffice to say there's a lot less luster on that dream than there used to be.

Posted by: Doug | March 22, 2006 11:05 AM

aporitic: WTF?

Domenech is *not* the only avowed right-winger in the fold. Will, Novak, Krauthammer, they all count. Print Post = Online Post, don't let them tell you otherwise.

And thanks for the [other]worldy take on idealogical blinders. The Post is looking soooo cosmo now with an inexperienced racist in a lead online feature.

Posted by: Ben, but not that Ben | March 22, 2006 11:08 AM

Finally, something more amusing than the Comics Page in the Post.

I think "Red America" is the wrong name for this blog. It should be "Yellow Elephant."

Posted by: Corinne | March 22, 2006 11:09 AM

WaPo's claim that the appointment of Ben Domenech was based upon an objective assessmenr of his qualifications as a writer/journalist is reminiscent of the declaration of the senior Bush that his lapdog that was being nominated to SCOTUS was the most brilliant legal scholar. And just as believable.

Posted by: lib | March 22, 2006 11:11 AM

Hi!

Posted by: scally | March 22, 2006 11:12 AM

Dude,

Actions speak louder than words!
http://goarmy.com

Posted by: Marrak | March 22, 2006 11:13 AM

red state....blue state

what the heck happened to the UNITED STATES

oh right

i forgot

if we remained united the neocons would never have gotten contol of our nation

so they set out to divide the united states into red states and blue states

how sad

for America

for we the people

and for your party which cannot governor unless they keep america dangerously divided

a great republican president warned us about you red staters when he said

a house divided against itself cannot stand

yet you continue tearing down the house

shame on you

Posted by: KnotIookin | March 22, 2006 11:15 AM

Dear Post,
I am happy for you, the news maker becomes the news! Only this time its for signing on a wet-behind-the-ears punk whos opinions smack of an angry late night conversation in his dorm room.
Way to go laughing stock! :D :D :D

Posted by: Thentro | March 22, 2006 11:15 AM

"History's Greatest Monster"

By: Augustine

"Ladies and Gentlemen, Jimmy Carter."

Congratulations, Washington Post. Really, job well done.

Posted by: Jay in Virginia | March 22, 2006 11:16 AM

I'd like to nominate the Rude Pundit to be the liberal blogger.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/rude-pundit-auditions-to-be-liberal.html

Posted by: Corinne | March 22, 2006 11:16 AM

WASHINGTN POST CO B

Last Trade: 750.00
Trade Time: 10:52AM ET
Change: Up 7.75 (1.04%)

Posted by: Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh.................Ahhhhhhhhhhh | March 22, 2006 11:18 AM

Attn Jim Brady:

Hiring Ben (Augustine) Domenech, has been a terrible loss for all. First, the Post has sullied its reputation by hirng a racist 24 year old with no background as anything but a Abramoff tied Bush political operative as apparent balance to a non-existent left wing blogger. Second, you have led Ben away from the Army, which is really where this able-bodied, gung ho, pro military man should be.

Why do you hate Katherine Graham so much as to screw her pooch?

Best wishes!

Posted by: jerry | March 22, 2006 11:20 AM

This does seem pretty ridiculous. Why, if the Post can't afford to maintain newsroom staff, is it hiring more people to spout off opinions? There are already plenty of opinions on the Internet.

Posted by: Nick | March 22, 2006 11:20 AM

Supposedly "Washingtonpost.com hires writers for their ability to add something substantive to the national conversation."

What was it about Mr. Domenech's portfolio that made Washingtonpost.com believe he would add "something substantive" to the "national conversation"...?

Was it his 2002 invitation to Al Gore to "suck it?"
Was it his calling Coretta Scott King a "communist" in February of this year?
Was it his 2003 musing that "the commonly taught theory of evolution is a total crock?"

Washingtonpost.com could not find one single writer that could add such "substance" to its site?

Posted by: Eric R. | March 22, 2006 11:20 AM

Was Harriet Myers busy? Or is it that Ignorance is the new measure at the Post? I will cheer the shutting down of your offices, since you no longer represent the ideals of the founders. Free press indeed; your rag is worth nthing.

Posted by: ronjazz | March 22, 2006 11:21 AM

It was bad enough that your paper was the Bush administration stenographers during the run up to the Iraq quagmire. Now you have added a right wing hate monger blog. Why don't you just cut to the chase and run Rush Limbaugh's show as a blog?

Posted by: PJ | March 22, 2006 11:21 AM

Attn Jim Brady:

Why no comments allowed on Ben (goarmy.com) Domenech's blog? Cowardice?

Posted by: jerry | March 22, 2006 11:21 AM

In the Whiny Kids installment of Red America, Ben D. says this:
If these columnists and scientists are to be believed, then President Bush is just a real-life version of Dr. Strangelove's General Jack D. Ripper - blustering, impotent and murmuring about conspiracies to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids, just another spineless conservative wussyboy who has to prove he's a big brave man in cowboy boots.
Then:
This is ridiculous and wrong
I dunno. It sounds pretty accurate to me.

I wonder if Ben was whiny when he was a kid? He's certainly whiny now.

Adam Stanhope
Kingston, Massachusetts

Posted by: Adam Stanhope | March 22, 2006 11:22 AM

So, Christopher Soprano is now blogging for the Post! Bing-a-ding...

Posted by: Abrahamoff'd | March 22, 2006 11:23 AM

for some fine advice for Ben, check out Georgia10s screed at DailyKos http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/22/104154/380

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 22, 2006 11:23 AM

The best thing about this Domenech fiasco is Jim Brady will NEVER fire this kid. Domenech is Brady's way of "sticking it" to the mean ol' liberal bloggers who were so mean to him and L'il Debbie a month or so ago. In classic sports editor fashion, he is now going to prove to everyone who's penis is bigger, and if he has to burn every scrap of the Post's journalistic integrity to do it, by God, he will!

There is No. Freaking. Way. Jim Brady will EVER admit he's wrong on this. Pass the popcorn!

Posted by: dave | March 22, 2006 11:25 AM

As an editor in the UK, I can't believe or fathom why the Washington Post has made this decision. Shame on you.

Posted by: Ex-Subscriber | March 22, 2006 11:27 AM

well, at least Operation Yellow Elephant ( http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/ ) has a new poster boy!

I'm personally curious how Ben got this gig. I don't recall the Post putting up a "help wanted" ad or anything. They just went out and found themselves a white male to hire without even (apparently) giving women or african-Americans a shot at the position.

(It would certainly come as no surprise to find that White Male John Harris got his name from White Male (and GOP operative) Patrick Ruffini, but that's purely speculative).

Oh, and the Post may wish to check the qualifications of its hires in the future. Domenech claims that he was "given the Ruben J. Salazar award by the National Association of Hispanic Journalists" on his bio page ( http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/bio.html )

According to Marissa Silvera, Professional Development Manager of the NAHJ, that organization does not give out a "Ruben J. Salazar award." The NAHJ's overall scholarship/financial aid program is named for Salazar -- so maybe he got some cash from them by claiming Hispanic heritage. (although its difficult to see how he qualified, given that his father is a GOP operative and "financial need" is a criteria, and "Awareness of the Community" is also a criteria -- and its extremely difficult to find anything that suggests that Domenech is "aware of issues that face the Latino community and Latinos in the newsroom". Hell, Domenech betrays no interest in issues that affect the Latin American community---other than to use Latin American traditions to promote his own far-right agenda, like this little bit of racist cant from his blog...

"[I posted this in past years on May 5th - it's a Bendomenech.com tradition honoring Latino heritage. The basic point is this: Cinco de Mayo ought to be properly historically renamed, "Beat Up a Frenchman" day.]....So think about that tonight while you're chowing down on tortilla chips and salsa. And if you get the urge, go beat up a Frenchman. Hey, I'm not even Chicano, but I can understand."

http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/archives/001539.html

**************
gee, I guess the fact that I actually do research, and don't just spew opinions, disqualifies me automatically from the "Blue America" blog.

Posted by: paul lukasiak | March 22, 2006 11:30 AM

Can someone teach him to spell "imperative" correctly?

Thank you.

Posted by: Burzootie | March 22, 2006 11:32 AM

boy, doesn't it show the normal readership of the Post needs a little TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY when their reactions are this nutso to one simple freaking blog? The conservatives whine and moan about the liberal media all the time, and the Eric Altermans of the world sit there and sing to high heaven about how wrong that perception is, and yet leave it to a bunch of radical posers to demolish that argument in the thousand ridiculous comments they've left in response to one simple blog on a massive website. the left = ridiculous.

Posted by: ben wetmore | March 22, 2006 11:33 AM

If I may point out - many of the above comments imply that the poster will stop reading the WaPo because of this... I think that the opposite of this is true, and no doubt so is Brady. Every time this idiot posts a new article on his blog it will be flooded across the online progressive community. The hits for Red America will be though the roof - not from conservative readers, but from liberals. I think the Post is gambling that this avowed partisan hack will draw its left leaning readership much in the same way decent people stop to gawk at a horrific car accident.
It's a win-win for the Post. It will draw more conservatives, and the liberals will be reading it just to tear it up. It's good for the numbers.
On the plus side for us progressives is the fact I have not seen mentioned yet - This is a real opportunity for the rabid right to speak to a wider audience, and I am confident that with exposure to it many moderates and independents will run from it, fast.
Cheers,
Xero

Posted by: XeroMan | March 22, 2006 11:34 AM

So the WaPo has a blog by a movement conservative.

When do we get a blog by a movement liberal? I'd recommend Digby, who would be a reasonable counterbalance to Ben. Liberal rather than conservative, with just as much fight and feistiness, and much better sourced as a rule. A good, even match.

Posted by: RT | March 22, 2006 11:36 AM

Once again, the Post embarrasses itself.

Well played, Mr. Brady. Well played indeed.

Posted by: Holden Caulfield | March 22, 2006 11:39 AM

Yeah, totally. Look at all of the conservatives blogging here - it's loaded with them! I guess the irony is lost on you libs here. Maybe it's your awesome public schooling.
Oh and...
"51% voted against Chimperor GeeDub in '00. That's no majority."
Wasn't that 6 years ago? Do you need a calendar?

Posted by: Sheila | March 22, 2006 11:39 AM

This is really funny. I guess I should be thankful that the Post is no longer pretending to be anything other than a mouthpiece for the most played-out, unsupported, and infantile White House and Republican leadership talking points. You hire a kid whose greatest claim to fame is apparently being the home-schooled son of a Republican flunky (and Abramoff enabler, besides) and call it "balance"? You give this guy real estate on your site to promote the most obvious and overdone right-wing nuttiness and pretend that it is some sort of ground-breaking move into the 21st century?

And really, Ben-- I hate to sound like one of those "Yellow Elephant" guys, but if you have such a fondness for war without end and getting after them terrists, there is a better place to prove it than on a blog. Actually, there are at least four places better suited to someone of your gung-ho sensibilities-- the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. The Coast Guard does good work in that department as well.

But blog on, brave soldier.

Posted by: Jeff in Texas | March 22, 2006 11:40 AM

It's nice of the Post to exercise affirmative action on behalf of the young white children of politically connected Republicans. I'm sure Mr. Domenech will bring a wealth of wisdom gained from his 24 (count 'em!) years living as a privileged young home-schooled conservative.

I remember "Red Dawn." It was good for a laugh. No doubt this guy's new column will also provide many a chuckle; perhaps it ought to go in the comics page, next to the related rantings of B.C.

Posted by: DurianJoe | March 22, 2006 11:40 AM

Red America, eh? Too bad America's repudiating "red" policies right now and leaning purple more than anything. I can only hope that there will be some kind of hint of a liberal bias throughout the rest of the paper to make up for the blatant bias of this supposed "blog" (can it really be called a blog if it doesn't accept comments? What is Domenech afraid of?) Maybe it would be easier just to start a Blue America blog hosted by well-known no-spin doctor Bill O'Reilly, just to extend the level of self-parody.

Posted by: Colin | March 22, 2006 11:41 AM

Could Ms. Howell and/or Mr. Brady explain to me why they chose to hire a Republican operative to represent the "conservative" view? Particularly when the Republican partisan operative, Mr. Domenech, has little if any journalism background and skills? Particularly when the current incarnation of the GOP is anything but conservative.

This isn't a big deal, as I doubt many will read the young Mr. Domenech's partisan scribblings after a few samplings, and the Post readership numbers are tanking anyway. But it does represent a disturbing trend of partisan operatives infilitrating and/or cowing the media into advancing the Republican talking points and he said/she said with no analysis of the facts at question.

Sadly, I've canceled my WaPo sub after 14 years as a reader, in favor of Knight Ridder who seem more willing to play the historical role of journalism in questioning those in power, regardless which party they belong to. Disturbing trend, but it's clear that WaPo.com, the online version, is pretty oblivious WRT the internets. As the hard copy business dwindles, WaPo.com is going to have a very rough go. Maybe one day Brady will have an epiphany, I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: Alaskan_Pete | March 22, 2006 11:42 AM

Hey Ben,

I have 3 kids your age--all of them have served in Iraq.

Where's your patriotism and courage?

Posted by: SRL | March 22, 2006 11:42 AM

He'll be fired by the end of the month.

Posted by: Fred Furney | March 22, 2006 11:43 AM

Wow, the libs really don't like it when we crash their party.

Soldier on, Ben! Nothing like seeing the libs get their panties in a twist! maybe I'll actually start reading this rag again.

Posted by: Woo hoo! | March 22, 2006 11:43 AM

I'm not surprised that this many liberals have all this free time from their jobs to be posting such nasty comments about Mr. Domenech. Get back to work, hippies! Your revolution is over! The bums lost!

Posted by: Jim Rogers | March 22, 2006 11:45 AM

Wow! The People for the Anarchists Way crowd are really banging their spoons on their highchairs now.

Hey lefty moonbats. Deep breaths. Serenity now. Serenity now.

This is just proof that the left cannot tolerate diversity of thought. Period.
What a bunch of freakin' crybabies.

Posted by: pistolero | March 22, 2006 11:45 AM

Now you can balance your pro-war editorial page, which was very useful helping W drag (or mislead) us into this mess, with a pro-war blog.

Gotta love the balance corporations provide.

Posted by: Great! | March 22, 2006 11:45 AM

As a hispanic I find thefollowing disgusting.

The Post may wish to check the qualifications of its hires in the future. Domenech claims that he was "given the Ruben J. Salazar award by the National Association of Hispanic Journalists" on his bio page ( http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/bio.html )

According to Marissa Silvera, Professional Development Manager of the NAHJ, that organization does not give out a "Ruben J. Salazar award." The NAHJ's overall scholarship/financial aid program is named for Salazar -- so maybe he got some cash from them by claiming Hispanic heritage. (although its difficult to see how he qualified, given that his father is a GOP operative and "financial need" is a criteria, and "Awareness of the Community" is also a criteria -- and its extremely difficult to find anything that suggests that Domenech is "aware of issues that face the Latino community and Latinos in the newsroom". Hell, Domenech betrays no interest in issues that affect the Latin American community---other than to use Latin American traditions to promote his own far-right agenda, like this little bit of racist cant from his blog...

"[I posted this in past years on May 5th - it's a Bendomenech.com tradition honoring Latino heritage. The basic point is this: Cinco de Mayo ought to be properly historically renamed, "Beat Up a Frenchman" day.]....So think about that tonight while you're chowing down on tortilla chips and salsa. And if you get the urge, go beat up a Frenchman. Hey, I'm not even Chicano, but I can understand."

http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/...ves/ 001539.html

Posted by: Bfuentes | March 22, 2006 11:46 AM

Your 15 minutes have begun. Use them wisely. November is nigh, and WaPo won't need you to sell their fishwrap in December.

Posted by: Ben | March 22, 2006 11:46 AM

Yeah, right, "crashing the party". Like the Post online's got nothing but liberal bloggers before this. Care to link to them?

If you plan on reading the newspaper, you might want to start slow with The Pokey Puppy first.

By the way kids, if Ben's Red... and he's a Chickenhawk... what was that Warner Brothers character... Henry Chickenhawk?

Guess this guy's Benry Chickenhawk then.

Posted by: Taniwha | March 22, 2006 11:46 AM

Dear Post Board,
My checkbook and I appreciate your weekly efforts to give me a legitimate reason to cancel my subscription, but this is just too kind of you. I think I'll be taking the money I save each year and donating it to your competitors.

Posted by: MIH | March 22, 2006 11:47 AM

Hey Woo hoo!, don't you think young Mr. Domenech can be a better blogger if he's in Iraq, say, with our overstretched military? After all, he supports the war, and he is only 24. He can enlist, go to Iraq, and give us a true red-blooded conservative solider's view of the war there.

Or, he can fight the war from home, behind his keyboard, kind of like a neutered wolverine.

Posted by: DurianJoe | March 22, 2006 11:48 AM

Since when is the Washington Post in the business of hiring professional political operatives in order to BE professional political operatives? All involved should be ashamed of themselves for this horrible step towards turning journalism into not even thinly vailed propoaganda. Shame on you all for falling for right-wing bullying and responding by paying to provide an outlet for more right-wing bullying. You have demonstrated the level of incoherant and immature behavior that will yeild results from the Washington Post. I don't want to see any whining from your ombud when your decision to abandon journalism is thrown back in your face. The Washington Post is no longer an engine for journalism. Shame on you all for dismissing your legacy so callously.

Posted by: BStu | March 22, 2006 11:48 AM

This kid called Coretta Scott King a communist and said conservatives should be "pissed" the President honored her instead of attending a pro-life march. On, I believe, the day she was buried.

http://yourlogohere.blogspot.com/2006/03/ben-is-that-you-reddan-has-theory-that.html

This woman was a hero of the Civil Rights Movement--she and her husband are unquetionably American heroes. Her husband has a national holiday in his honor.

Seriously, what is beyond the pale anymore? How low does a radical right-wing pundit have to go before responsible journalists say, "Yeah, you're we actually don't have a responsibility to put our credibility behind to your rather insane, offensive, unsupported and totally out-there rantings."

And finally, a correction to the above. It's "Tommy Thompson," not "Tommie Thompson."

It's like you guys have totally abandoned all responsibility to fairness, balance, and accuracy. It's even hitting the copy department. Pathetic, really.

Posted by: concerned reader | March 22, 2006 11:49 AM

Disgusting. I have had numerous complaints about the post over the past 5-6 years. However, I have remained a subscriber as there is a considerable amount of good journalism in the paper and I enjoy the local info that I can't get elsewhere. However, this hiring of a conservative propagandist may be the last straw. NYTimes here I come. I will give the post two weeks to fire Domenech or hire a liberal blogger to balance him.

Posted by: Eric Thorn | March 22, 2006 11:50 AM

I hereby offer my services to the Washington Post (or what's left of it, anyway) to author a new blog called "Blue State." The format of Blue State will differ somewhat from that of "Red State" in that Blues State will rely on the presentation of facts to underpin any analysis and will be representative of the views of adults, the sane, and a majority of Americans.

Posted by: Ben | March 22, 2006 11:50 AM

I think these "liberal" bloggers are not so different from Mr. Red America. They care more about pushing their team foward than they do about intellectual integrity or considered discussion. I don't like the new blog, but threatening to cancel a subscription over it is just childish if you find value in the rest of the web site.

Posted by: IndieChick | March 22, 2006 11:50 AM

Two reasons I support the hiring of Ben Domenech:

1. It damages the credibility of the Post so severely that more readers will be inclined to seek a more accurate and non-partisan news source; and

2. If Ben represents the pinnacle of conservative intellectualism, evolution will - very soon - dictate that conservatism is dead.

(Yes, Ben, I understand that you don't believe the "theory" of evolution. You know, gravity is just a "theory," too - why don't you go test it?)

At the end of the day, hatred, racism, hyperbole, and fealty to a self-appointed messenger of god are not a viable political philosophy. Modern-day conservatism is the realm of sociopaths - Ben is a great reminder of this - and, thankfully, once diagnosed, it is easily remedied. Small minds are a threat to no one but their hosts.

Posted by: mateosf | March 22, 2006 11:51 AM

With the addition of Ben Domenech, I see that inside-the-beltway circle jerk continues unabated.

I wonder though, was Scalia was in attendance at the "meeting"** where the hiring of Domenech was approved?

** "Let me make it clear that the problem I am addressing is not the social evil of the judicial dispositions I have described. I accept, for the sake of argument, for example, that sexual orgies eliminate social tension and ought to be encouraged."

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 11:51 AM

I thought this was the Washington Post, not the Washington Times!

Posted by: Bookwoman | March 22, 2006 11:51 AM

It would be appropriate for a journalistic enterprise such as the Washington Post to maintain your credibility by offering a balance to Red State's conservatism. Where is the 'Blue State/Purple State/Other-Side-of-the-Fence State' blog? Where are your journalistic ethics????????????????????

Posted by: Jacque | March 22, 2006 11:52 AM

Are you kidding me? Why would the Post give this guy his own blog? It doesn't give you credibility, it makes you look like you are pandering to the far right in order to lessen the perception that the 'MSM' is liberal.

How pathetic is that for a supposed journalistic entity of high regard? You do know this person has made racist and disgusting posts throughout the internet, don't you?

It's a sad day in American journalism when the Washington Post decides that ratings and perception are more important than journalistic ethics.

Did Rupert Murdoch buy the Post while I was taking a nap?

Dave Dial

Posted by: Dave Dial | March 22, 2006 11:52 AM

Come on Mr. Brady...a Regnery Press employee? This is the publishing house that gave us A Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, written by someone active in the League of the South, a group that makes no apologies for, uh, slavery. That's not exactly what I would call "conservative"--more like paleoreactionary. I await Anne Coulter's blog...

Posted by: Jack Purdy | March 22, 2006 11:52 AM

Ben lists in his online bio that he was "given the Ruben J. Salazar award by the National Association of Hispanic Journalists."

Well, guess what. There is no such award given by the NAHJ.... I called them up and asked. According to Marissa Silvera, the NAJH's overall scholarship program is named after Salazar, a Latino journalist who was killed by cops while covering an anti-war protest in East LA in 1970. But there is no "Salazar award".

Posted by: paul lukasiak | March 22, 2006 11:52 AM

Well, judging from the comments, and assuming the ratio of commenters to readers is constistent (left readers and right readers.) The .Com enterprise of WPost seems to have a high percentage of left readers.

Interesting question: to grow sales, do they address the concerns of just the left, or do they try and add some right readers?

Posted by: John Lynch | March 22, 2006 11:52 AM

Oh, this is so great - I honestly didn't realize that this was a 24 year old kid with little experience beyond his own blog. I thought I was supposed to take the first two posts seriously.

Don't you all get it? This is a wonderful, wonderful thing that the editors have done. Launch this callow, politically unsophisticated young chap into the new role of "right-wing blogger" for the Post and sit back and watch him get chewed up - then you can say - "See, the right wing pundits (or most of them)are incapable of sophisticated thought."

Seriously, I think the right wing blog is a great idea - cut the blather about balance, et al. Let's get some different ideas out there and kick them around in an intelligent and reasoned manner. This kid, though, has got to go! Wrong guy on all counts.

Posted by: John In Houston | March 22, 2006 11:53 AM

this is the day I stop reading the washington post.

Posted by: ray | March 22, 2006 11:53 AM

I have read with interest far and wide the reaction to Domench's hiring. In particular, I found the answer to questions posed by the American Prospect blog, Tapped, to be very instructive. The answers are self contradictory, so one of them has to be a falsehood, a very public one. Your credibility is being shredded by your own cupidity, and since credibility is what you have to sell, no wonder your profits are dropping. Having taken time to read his output from the past, I'm just wondering how this exemplar of the irrational partisan screed is going elevate the tone of discourse in your paper. There is a blog that is the perfect namesake for this kind of behavior. It's called "Presstitutes". They're on vacation now, but they'll be back.

Posted by: Retired Catholic | March 22, 2006 11:53 AM

Thank you for giving me a great reason to cancel my subscription.

Posted by: keji | March 22, 2006 11:53 AM

"A right-wing blog is a good idea. When will the liberal blog start?"

oh the liberal one has been up and running for some time its address is

www.washingtonpost.com

;-)

Posted by: Pak152 | March 22, 2006 11:53 AM

I still love WaPo, but geez, guys, what a bone-headed move. I mean, it's not like WaPo lacks liars or wingnuts -- I offer Chuck "Wheels" Krauthammer and George "Tattoo" Will as but two of your better known hacks -- I mean "conservatives," dontchaknow.

Posted by: Sandy Shores | March 22, 2006 11:54 AM

I don't understand...are the Commies coming to get us again?

What is a Red State?

And where is the Blue state blog or the Purple state blog?

Why would the Post engage in this type of political one-sidedness? To say Froomkin is the balance is a huge smack in the face to a trained journalist.

I think I've grown tired of trying to pick out the propaganda on your website and will no longer be visiting. Really sad since the Washington Post has been my hometown paper for over 30 years. Post online has been a staple in my daily online reads but over the past few years, the quality of work and commitment to journalistic integrity has been forgotten by those left in charge.

It is a sad day for journalism.

Posted by: Ellie | March 22, 2006 11:55 AM

This is just more big corporate media pretending to balance a non-existent liberal bias by intentionally putting out more conservative propaganda to further the pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-GOP, anti-populist right-wing politics that your "non-opinion" sections already are furthering.

If you wanted to put in a new blog to balance the rest of your coverage, you should have a liberal blog- one particularly concerned with the actual down-to-earth facts about this war and this administration's other policies. Who do you think you are fooling?

Posted by: Tom Soppe | March 22, 2006 11:55 AM

RT above recommends Digby as a fair counterbalance to the young Republican operative Mr. Domenech.

As an acutal "Red Stater" (I live in Alaska, duh), I assert this would not be a fair match at all. The 24yr old partisan activist would be roundly trounced by anyone who uses actual "facts" rather than mental constructs they wish were true.

I come from a much more conservative viewpoint than this "digby" but I admire the writer for well argued, cogent writing that often challenges my viewpoints. Mr. Domench, otoh, appears to be simply another mouthpiece of the GOP, who's idea if reasoned discouse is name calling and assertions not backed up by any evidence/facts. I wonder if he is on the payroll ala Armstrong Williams and his ilk.

Is access so important to the Post that you would destroy the paper in the process? What good is access when you have no readers and the paper gets shuttered?

Posted by: Alaskan_Pete | March 22, 2006 11:56 AM

Dave Dial asked "Are you kidding me? Why would the Post give this guy his own blog?"

well, it doesn't look like the Post actuallly listed this as an available job, let alone do any minority outreach. So I'd have to say that a White Male (GOP operative Patrick Ruffini) complaint to a White Male (Post Political editor John Harris) was communicated to a White Male (WPNI editor in chief Jim Brady) who hired himself a White Male in response to the complaint..

Posted by: p. lukasiak | March 22, 2006 11:56 AM

This hire is so stunningly stupid, and offensive on so many levels, one has to wonder if there is something beneath the surface.

Maybe Richard Mellon Scaife or the Koch brothers or some other billionaire wingnut has agreed to buy a ton of advertisements in exchange for the hiring of a confederate. Or maybe it's less complicated -- maybe someone is dropping some cash in an envelope Jim Brady or whomever is in charge.

Why else would the Post do something that diminishes its own credibility, insults the credentials of its staff, and goes so far afield from its mission as a newspaper?

Because there is not one logical, rational reason to hire this kid -- little puke, really -- who has no credentials, no expertise, no life experience beyond video games, nothing that would give anybody any reason to listen to him.

Posted by: CMAlert | March 22, 2006 11:56 AM

I love the W.Post. It's a great paper. And I'm all for hiring a "conservative blogger" as one of many voices. But, what is he counter-balancing? Shouldn't there be a "liberal blogger?" I don't get it at all....

Posted by: D.C. | March 22, 2006 11:56 AM

The National Council of la Raza does give out a Ruben J. Salazar award and it certainly did not go to young Ben.

Posted by: Burzootie | March 22, 2006 11:57 AM

What are the WaPo's criteria for hiring "writers"? What exactly are Ben's credentials? They seem to be fairly thin, other then spewing hate-speech, smears and propaganda with the glee of a 3-year-old.

If the WaPo's hiring criteria is THAT lax - I've got a cat who needs a job! I think he would really please your anti-mouse readers.

Posted by: PacNW | March 22, 2006 11:57 AM

Editors of the Washington Post:

I am a 27 year old liberal blogger who recently made the move to mainstream Internet journalism with a job at HardOCP.com (who I am not claiming to speak for with this comment.)

In short, I'm a working blogger-turned-journalist - with an M.A. in Journalism from the University of Texas, I might add, and 3 years of experience in journalism.

So my resume is slightly better than your new hire's resume, while still being a "young blogger."

I would, therefore, be sending your human resources department my C.V., but then I thought: I really don't want to work for your company. You don't do a good job of reporting the news, I have to go to overseas news organizations for that. Your opinion page makes or repeats false statements in order to make it's points.

And, quite frankly, your latest hire--

Quite frankly, I thought that the Washington Post was shaming itself by hiring Domenech. But Domenech is kinda okay with being the guy that he is (and quite an unsavory character to boot.) Maybe Domenech -- and the rest of your staff, should be shamed for stooping to work at the Washington Post.

Posted by: Brian Boyko | March 22, 2006 11:58 AM

Redstate's racism will no doubt follow Ben to the WaPo, cleaned up a bit or avoided all together. Jim Crow Republicanism will no doubt be submerged inside of notions about mainstream America, God-country-apple pie values, and the whiteness ethic.

Posted by: Redstate Racism... | March 22, 2006 11:58 AM

Will Mr. Domenech be publishing any fact-based pieces, with original thoughts about what is workable public policy? Or will he continue to publish unsupported, conclusory statements that only one of the two political parties in this country magically has the right answer for every societal issue?

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 11:58 AM

finally, finally red state america will have some representation in the msm. i know he's not your guy but dan rather could some this up in one word. COURAGE.

Posted by: pukebot | March 22, 2006 11:58 AM

Ben, you seem to have driven the moonbats completely over the edge.

Keep up the good work! Nothing starts my day quite like reading endless petulance.

Eric in Hollywood

Posted by: HollywoodNeoCon | March 22, 2006 11:58 AM

Gee, Benny, did Daddy get you this job, too? I've read some of your incoherant ramblings...you're just not a very good writer! I guess WaPo had some makers called in by the WH. Jeez....tell me what the heck a 24-year old, sheltered, racist could possibly add to the debate? Balance, my ass....

Posted by: Jake Daab | March 22, 2006 11:59 AM

What is the idea behing this new blog? Why don't we, the WaPo readers, get an explanation from Mr. Brady? Does he shy away from publicly declaring that he succumbed to the pressure from Editor Harris and some GOP heavyweights who want to shift the Post's balance to the right?

There really should be some kind of explanation from WaPO.com about the backgrounds of this decission. Hiring the cofounder of a fringegroup blog, who posted some despicable extremist views under the cloak of a pseudonym, will significantly impact the esteem and the credibility of the Post.

Posted by: Andy Ludwig a.k.a. Gray | March 22, 2006 12:00 PM

Nice balancing act Post. Thanks for making my decision to drop you web site from my list easy. If I need red state propaganda in the form of objective news, I'll go to your sister site at the Washington Times - at least with the moonies, you know what you're getting.

Posted by: Disgusted | March 22, 2006 12:00 PM

you are a hypocrite and a sellout. congratulations on going mainstream.

Posted by: philip | March 22, 2006 12:00 PM

It's entirely indicative of the intellectual depth of conservative philosophical substance, that it can evidently be easily mastered and expounded upon by somebody who was 17 when the President was appointed to office.

Posted by: Max Planck | March 22, 2006 12:01 PM

Where's the balance? How about a liberal blogger? Frankly, I read the first entry and he makes it sound like these elections weren't close. It just drives me nuts

Posted by: Tim Anderson | March 22, 2006 12:01 PM

Is a job at the Washington Post like MTV's "Real World", where you have to be under 25?

Posted by: Frankie Machine | March 22, 2006 12:01 PM

Why does the Post have to make such foolish decisions? Why in the world wouldn't the post have a balance? Would it have been that hard? Imagine the fury on the right if the Post debuted a Blue State blogger and didn't have any balance. Why does the Post continually insult the intelligence of anyone who isn't a raging conservative? Good thing I don't have to pay for the paper.

Posted by: Nate | March 22, 2006 12:01 PM

Judging by the comments about "Redamerica", I think its pretty safe to assume the WP has a liberal readership. So why the need for a liberal blogger, since most of the coverage here is liberal anyway?

Or is it that fish don't feel the water?

Posted by: hee hee! | March 22, 2006 12:01 PM

why this kid? couldn't you get jeff gannon?

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 12:02 PM

If the post has so many lib readers, then we're the majority. And Benry Chickenhawk says that the majority gets to have their voice on top.

So go away now, little one.

Posted by: Taniwha | March 22, 2006 12:02 PM

oh, and regarding that scholarship....

one of the qualifications for getting a NAHJ scholarship is that the recipient be "aware of issues that face the Latino community and Latinos in the newsroom".

Here is one example of Ben "goarmy.com" Domenech's "awareness", from his blog...

"[I posted this in past years on May 5th - it's a Bendomenech.com tradition honoring Latino heritage. The basic point is this: Cinco de Mayo ought to be properly historically renamed, "Beat Up a Frenchman" day.]....So think about that tonight while you're chowing down on tortilla chips and salsa. And if you get the urge, go beat up a Frenchman. Hey, I'm not even Chicano, but I can understand."

nice hire there, Brady. I guess David Duke wasn't available?

Posted by: p. lukasiak | March 22, 2006 12:02 PM

Does Red America stand for Commie America;}

Posted by: C. Leue | March 22, 2006 12:03 PM

What is the idea behing this new blog? Why don't we, the WaPo readers, get an explanation from Mr. Brady? Does he shy away from publicly declaring that he succumbed to the pressure from Editor Harris and some GOP heavyweights who want to shift the Post's balance to the right?

There really should be some kind of explanation from WaPO.com about the backgrounds of this decission. Hiring the cofounder of a fringegroup blog, who posted some despicable extremist views under the cloak of a pseudonym, will significantly impact the esteem and the credibility of the Post.

P.S. What is going on with that comment filter? Do you find any profanity in my words? Why are my comments not published?

Posted by: Gray | March 22, 2006 12:03 PM

"Get back to work, hippies!"

Dude, you're defending a blogger. Blogging is the opposite of work.

Posted by: tron | March 22, 2006 12:04 PM

test

What is the idea behing this new blog? Why don't we, the WaPo readers, get an explanation from Mr. Brady? Does he shy away from publicly declaring that he succumbed to the pressure from Editor Harris and some GOP heavyweights who want to shift the Post's balance to the right?

Posted by: Gray | March 22, 2006 12:04 PM

As noted by Bfuentes, above (March 22, 2006 11:46 AM), Ben Domenech allegedly wrote this in a web posting some time in the past:

"[I posted this in past years on May 5th - it's a Bendomenech.com tradition honoring Latino heritage. The basic point is this: Cinco de Mayo ought to be properly historically renamed, "Beat Up a Frenchman" day.]....So think about that tonight while you're chowing down on tortilla chips and salsa. And if you get the urge, go beat up a Frenchman. Hey, I'm not even Chicano, but I can understand."

http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/...ves/ 001539.html

With this kind of background, I HAVE to believe that the Washington Post management is either stupid or deliberately crafty enough to hire this guy in order to not only shut up the right wingers (who complain about so-called "liberal bias" at the Post), but also to discredit the right wingers in the eyes of mainstream Americans.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 12:05 PM

test

There really should be some kind of explanation from WaPO.com about the backgrounds of this decission.

Posted by: Gray | March 22, 2006 12:05 PM

It will be really fun to watch this project become part of the direct line fax boviating of the RNC talking points and then eventually self distruct.
Thanks for the upcoming entertainment.

Posted by: Kate | March 22, 2006 12:05 PM

test

Hiring the cofounder of a fringegroup blog, who posted some despicable extremist views under the cloak of a pseudonym,

Posted by: Gray | March 22, 2006 12:06 PM

What is the idea behing this new blog? Why don't we, the WaPo readers, get an explanation from Mr. Brady? Does he shy away from publicly declaring that he succumbed to the pressure from Editor Harris and some GOP heavyweights who want to shift the Post's balance to the right?

There really should be some kind of clarification from WaPO.com about the backgrounds of this decission. Hiring the cofounder of a fringegroup blog, who posted some really extremist views under the cloak of a pseudonym, will significantly impact the esteem and the credibility of the Post.

Posted by: Gray | March 22, 2006 12:06 PM

Ben Domenech has no journalistic training or experience, has no real-world expertise from which to draw upon, and bases his opinions on emotion, not fact. So, why would a supposedly world-class paper like The Washington Post hire him? The only answer can be that he is this paper's version of a freak show: something so absurd or outlandish that passers-by will stop to gawk.

In other words, rather than attempt to boost their circulation with intelligent journalism, the once-great Washington Post is stooping to gimmicks. It stinks of desperation, and is no way to save a newspaper.

Posted by: Nick | March 22, 2006 12:07 PM

someone asked... "Will Mr. Domenech be publishing any fact-based pieces, with original thoughts about what is workable public policy? "

are you kidding? I just did more actual research on Ben Domenech than Domenech himself did the entire time he wrote for Red State. Which means that, despite the fact that I'm a White Male, Brady won't consider me for his "Blue America" blog....

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 12:07 PM

I seriously don't get it. If any of us wrote the things published by Domenech on washingtonpost.com, we'd be accused of hate speech and our comments deleted. How can Brady and Howell possibly condone the things this guy writes?

Posted by: pughd | March 22, 2006 12:08 PM

Attn Jim Brady and Deborah Howell:

Is Ben the Augustine poster? Were Augustine's posts racist? What is the Post's policy regarding racists comments made by their columnists? How did Ben's name come to the Washington Post? What other bloggers were looked at and turned away?

Will Ms. Howell look into this?

Posted by: jerry | March 22, 2006 12:08 PM

Fellow moonbats! We libryls, I mean "progressyves", need to protest this atrocity committed by the capitalist running dogs of the WaPo at once! Quick, begins constructing the giant paper-mache puppet heads!

And get the ugly chicks out into the streets! Direct action! Aaieeee!!!!

Posted by: Moonbats Over parador | March 22, 2006 12:08 PM

Could this be the Post's underhanded way of discrediting blogs? Will they drop this a few months from now with a statement that "like other blogs, this just turned into one man's forum to spout disinformation"?

Will Ben realize that if the MSM gives him a check, he is now MSM?

Posted by: Bat Guano | March 22, 2006 12:09 PM

you know, you are so full of contradictions. first you say you hire this guy to get a "variety of political perspectives" and then when asked if you will be hiring a liberal perspective to balance it out you say you dont hire people based on their political perspective?
WTF?
we all know you are in the belly of the GOP but really, why do you even try to hide it?
the person you just hired is a crediblity free unqualified hack who spews error riddled information and has called Coretta Scott King a commie. good work.
how is this credible debate again?

Posted by: losing feeling in my toes | March 22, 2006 12:09 PM

Good lord. Et tu, Washington Post? By the way, I'm 24 with no real experience in anything either. (My dad is a teacher, though, so no plush political appointments for me.) May I have my own Washington Post blog too? Forgive me for thinking you had to be qualified to represent one of the largest medial outlets in the country. I wouldn't let this wingnut write for my high-school paper. Bad form, y'all...

Posted by: bamagirlinVA | March 22, 2006 12:09 PM

Please explain to your readers why the Washington Post saw it fit to hire a blogger who called Coretta Scott King a "communist."

This reflects horribly on your newspaper and I am sure your African-American readers in particular are greatly offended.

Posted by: Reader | March 22, 2006 12:10 PM

So Ben is the Chosen One to bring Balance to the Post ... the last time I heard that, it was about Anakin and the Force. We all know how well THAT turned out.

Actually, since the Post is rapidly becoming a farce, we should look to the parody: "This is why Evil will triumph: because Good is dumb."

To the Post editors who thought providing a 24-yr-old with no experience doing anything but putting words in someone's mouth or spouting off his own: he may say things now like,
"We can all agree that [ad hominem attacks] lower the quality of debate on the Internet, play to the worst side of our knee-jerk partisan nature and have no place in the modern public square. I look forward to engaging you in a serious, respectful discussion on the issues that matter most to the future of our nation" ... but he doesn't really mean them. His record ("Augustine") kinda proves that.

Posted by: Encore | March 22, 2006 12:10 PM

Just because you've added blogs, don't make you Kewl. Adding a silly conservative one-- ditto that. You can't stop the bleeding WAPO because you have lost credibility. Fix that and you might rescue yourself from the crash and burn.

Catherine Graham must be spinnin'

Posted by: cl | March 22, 2006 12:10 PM

What a joke this paper has become.

Posted by: RowanRising | March 22, 2006 12:10 PM

Could the lefties please stop foaming at the mouth and recognize that, 2) there is a First Amendment that applies to all points of view, b) the Post, like most large dailies, already features a great deal of commentary in the form of columns and even blogs from liberals, and, c) those who would seek to muzzle the voices of those who take a different point of view diminish themselves far more than they elevate the debate. Tragically, some of the posts here are so hate-filled and frenzied they confirm the belief of a lot of Americans that many on the far left are simply bereft of reason.

Posted by: Okie | March 22, 2006 12:10 PM

are supposed to have hearts. It's not till middle age that you're supposed to go Right, that is, uness you learned something along the way. Ergo, you're a genetic freak. Sonny.

Posted by: 24 yr olds | March 22, 2006 12:10 PM

And I have to state that this comment filter is ridiculous!
I used the word 'despi*able'. The filter won't allow that. Now, if something is 'despi*able', are we supposed to play it down by saying 'objectionable'??? Where are we here, at a discussion board or at church participating in sunday school?

Posted by: Gray | March 22, 2006 12:11 PM

(BWAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!)
I can't understand why folks think that American journalism lacks credibility???

Posted by: Steve Blake | March 22, 2006 12:11 PM

The Post is disgusting. I am a Washingtonian with no hometown paper any more. The Post used to be the gold standard, but I find myself unable to trust its reporting. It's sadder than words can express. One word suffices: boycott. Boycott the bastards, in honor of the great paper that they have destroyed.

Posted by: Joel | March 22, 2006 12:11 PM

Wow, how ironic - you are simultaneously destroying the shreds of credibility you had left as one of the few decent news sources in our nation, AND killing off independent media, as well!

Congrats. I guess I'll be reading the rest of your articles (if I bother) with the understanding that you've all but admitted an internal bias.

Posted by: Amazed | March 22, 2006 12:11 PM

Heh. When does the Washington Times editorial staff move in? After all, it can't be that far away, given this move.

Posted by: eaeolian | March 22, 2006 12:12 PM

Yesterday's chat with the political journalist Tom Edsall on the new blog:
"Tom Edsall: Another good question. Washingtonpost.com is technically separate from the Post newspaper. The dot com is widely viewed as the area of future growth, while the paper is struggling to keep making a profit in the face of declining circulation and growing competition for advertisers. The results are very different personnel policies. The consequences for the quality of the journalism are not yet determined, although budget constraints are already limiting the scope of our work."

Several times he addresses the question of the new blogger being hired at the same time actual journalists are being laid off. I think this is NOT a popular move among the Post professional staff. But then, "professsional" doesn't seem to matter much to the Post managers anymore, I guess.

So... Ms. Howell, are we going to hear about dissent among the Post's journalists on this hiring? After all, you devoted a whole column to dissing Dan Froomkin (who is a REAL journalist with impeccable credentials, unlike young Ben Blogger) because supposedly some political reporters complained (although none of the Post reporters admitted to it). Sounds like the Post political reporters REALLY aren't happy with Ben Blogger's hiring! How about a new column, huh? Tell us why Dan Froomkin's well-sourced column is a problem, while Ben Blogger's unsourced column is fine?

Posted by: lilia | March 22, 2006 12:12 PM

I assume that the Post will be fact checking this new blog? Given the writer's history of playing fast and loose with facts, in hat oh so special Ann Coulter fashion, the Post better do it's homework.

Also, what is he supposed to be balancing? Krauthammer? Novak? Katherine Graham must be spinning in her grave!!!

Posted by: Peter | March 22, 2006 12:13 PM

Looks like they've finished another 100 posts whining about how unfair it all is so it should be time for one congratulating the Washington Post for adding the blog.

Way to go folks!

And now back to the crazed moonbattery.

Posted by: KCSteve | March 22, 2006 12:13 PM

testing:
lukasiak
hamsher
(just checking the filters)

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 22, 2006 12:13 PM

If I wanted fiction, I rather have Dean Koontz.
This propaganda is already available elsewhere, and your paper is literally diminished by cross-posting it here.
It is very sad to see the Washington Post accomodate it's enemies -- Domenech is LAUGHING at you as he pours poison down your throat.

Posted by: Montana Reader | March 22, 2006 12:14 PM

Don't Click on Wingnuts

Cancelling your subscription to the WaPo is one thing, but circulation numbers can be fudged and they've been falling for just about every newspaper anyway.

A couple of better and more immediate ways to send a message directly to the Washington Post Company's bottom line:

- Don't link to anything at WaPo.com (except for Froomkin and solid reality-based articles)

- Never click on any of the banner ads on WaPo.com and encourage everyone you know to do the same.

- If you must cite a WaPo article because, as a reality-based blogger, you believe in backing up your statements with evidence you can 1) make a non hyperlinked reference to the article or 2) put a warning after the link [DCOW - Don't Click On Wingnuts] like we do over at Correntewire.com

As someone who works in marketing, I know that links and clickthroughs are tracked, analyzed and reported as a way to justify the price of advertising on any web site. Advertisers can also independently track clickthroughs on their ads.

Blogs drive traffic to Corporate Media websites, even if the blogs are critical of what they link to. Even negative attention boosts WaPo.com's numbers.

From a Washingtonian article 12/9/05 by Henry Jaffe:

"Washington Post chairman Don Graham said publicly for the first time this week that the future of news is on the Internet, not in print newspapers like the Washington Post.

“The Web site simply has to come through, ours and that of other newspapers, for us to be successful,” Graham told investment analysts Wednesday in New York."

###

You can also let the Washington Post Company know that the management of it's online division has made an incredibly, oh what's a "civilized" word, "not smart" move by hiring Domenech.

The Washington Post Company
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20071
202.334.6000
TWPCoReply@washpost.com

A move that is putting the financial future of the company at great risk and one that can only be explained by WaPo.com Management's ideological alignment with the Right Wing.

At least this is the perception they have created by their actions. Jim Brady circled the wagons and fought back vehemently against Lefty criticism of a factually-challenged Deborah Howell column, but for some reason has gracefully accepted and accomodated Right Wingers' claims that the Washington Post is part of the intrinsically Liberal Main Stream Media.

Editor & Publisher's website posted this yesterday:

Starting with a bang, Domenech declared today, "This is a blog for the majority of Americans." Some may argue that this is an outdated notion, given the president's current approval rating and the latest polls showing that a clear majority of Americans favor Democrats in this November's congressional elections.

###

Given the current demographics, WaPo.com's decision to hire Domenech will, without a doubt, negatively affect the perception of the Washington Post and the company's bottom line.

Posted by: Shystee | March 22, 2006 12:14 PM

Thank you Okie. You nailed it. And this is why they never win elections either.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 12:15 PM

You have now sunk to the lowest of lows. One has to wonder with WHAT it is you all are thinking. You should be completely ashamed.

Posted by: DYANA | March 22, 2006 12:15 PM

I'm truly looking forward to reading your blog everyday as I do w/ Michelle and Sandmonkey. Most of the comments posted have been from the looney lefties, their running scared. Does my heart good to see a young fresh face in the blog world today. Helps to restore my faith that America's new generations have gotten on board with the real world and not promoting "old hippie people" and their unhinged views.

Posted by: Ramona | March 22, 2006 12:15 PM

As rarely as I can bring myself to read the Post, either in print, online, or in the “blog” section, all the hoopla over this Domeneche character got me curious. Girding my loins for the ubiquitous defenses of anything Bush, I clicked the link that took me into the bowels of the Post blog “Red America” (snappy, by the way, what with Red Sate already taken….oh, yeah, never mind), and almost instantly regretted it. I think Ben is absolutely right to hold off on the comments section, given that he won’t have exclusive authority to ban on a whim. He’ll actually have to read the comments that point out just how…”off base” he manages to be most of the time. For example, Ben obviously didn’t remember that President Bush was a male cheerleader at Yale when Ben typed the immortal phrase “Never trust a male cheerleader.”

This was proved true by the first three posts: one on Red Dawn, of all things, one on how whiny punks grow up to be Republicans, as if we were waiting on a study to point that out, and one on the comments the post has received to date. While the first post is of zero value, the second and third deserve a response. In the second, Mr. Domeneche mentions something about public school teachers without a hint of irony, given his home schooling adventure. CNN has a marvelous tape of 15 year old Ben struggling to string together a coherent thought, so what would he know about public school education? The third post has my absolute favorite comment of the entire blog. “Comments will be coming after the initial launch is finished, when I've gotten used to the rhythm of posting and you, gracious readers, have gotten used to it, too.” While Mr Domeneche has a great deal of gall to post this following a barely disguised plea for commenters to go easy on him (referencing the “personal attacks” cited by editors when the blog was drenched in comments about the variably accurate ombudsman), I have to wonder what “rhythm” he is speaking of. I think he’ll find that the readers here are up to the intellectual rigors of anything he might post, and, quite often, more so than he.

Mr. Wetmore,

I propose that you may have missed the fundamental irony of your post, in a rather forest for the trees kind of way. Awfully difficult to hold up Alterman and the liberal media when you're replying to commenters who are opposed to a conservative blogger posting unopposed. You see the irony there? A conservative operative with zero journalistic training, credibility or integrity, and who admits that he intends to post provocative opinion, gets hired by the Post who have shown themselves to be far more interested in access to the Bush Administration than they are about getting out the facts or being critical of them. It's the perfect storm of irony when you toss in the fact that with all the talk of balance that has given the right control of the media (that would be Coulter who made the connection), there is no liberal blogger to balance Mr. Demeche.

Posted by: Officious Pedant | March 22, 2006 12:15 PM

I must admit, I appreciate the fact that WaPo is dropping their pretence of being balanced media. Hiring an explicitly Republican blogger to spin ever-more-blatant propaganda, with even less journalistic credibility and even more Abramoff connections? Sheer brilliance on proving loyalty to your neo-con support base, while simultaneously undermining your own establishment.

Sarcastic, I know. But with choices like these? C'mon WaPo, get used to it.

Posted by: Shawn | March 22, 2006 12:16 PM

The Post has added this Red blogger to provide balance to supposedly blue writer Froomkin. I don't think that Froomkin is liberal, he is just telling the truth, which the right views as anti-Bush. I imagine that he will continue skewering a Democratic President should one be elected in 2008 (as he should), while Domenech will continue spewing his right wing poison.

If you were looking for balance, perhaps you should balance a writer who tells the truth with someone who tells lies. Or perhaps that is what you did by hiring Domenech.

Posted by: MichaelM | March 22, 2006 12:16 PM

This kid is the best the Post could do? The son of an Abramoff ally in the interior, whose history of contributions to the public include slander of Coretta King?

It's hard not to shudder a bit.

Posted by: eli | March 22, 2006 12:17 PM

Well, I'm disgusted. 'Red America' is written by a racist, Ann-Coulter-Wannabe propagandist, who does not display the virtues of the Right Wing, but instead simply trumpets his favorite false conservatives.

What has the Post gotten from this? Someone who throws around 'Mainstream Media' like a swear, while working for that same Mainstream Media.

Is this what the Post beleives conservatives are? Or is it worse than that; is it that the Post is this brand of vile scum wearing 'Conservative' as a label yet abandoning the GOP's principles?

Posted by: Martin Kemmish | March 22, 2006 12:17 PM

Any consideration I ever had of subscribing to your paper just ended. Please let "Sonny Boy" know that his Rethugs are NOT representing a majority of Americans- the Senates'(55)Rethugs represent 131 million vs. (44) Democrats represent 161 million. Isn't redistricting a cornerstone of Democracy? Perhaps they should try in Iraq

Posted by: Laurie (Blue in Fredneck) | March 22, 2006 12:17 PM

So.... who's going to be the Colmes to your Hannity?

Posted by: Woodstar | March 22, 2006 12:17 PM

Wow, talk about a loss of credibility here. So the Washington Post creates a conservative blog and ONLY a conservative blog, no liberal blog. In the mind of most media types these days, that is balanced. Man, can you guys sink any lower. Journalistic standards? No at the Washington Times, uh, I mean, Post.

And Domenech has the balls to attack the "mainstream media". Hey, moron, you ARE the mainstream media. You write for the damn Washington Post!

Posted by: Naveen | March 22, 2006 12:17 PM

"Could the lefties please stop foaming at the mouth and recognize that, 2) there is a First Amendment that applies to all points of view, b) the Post, like most large dailies, already features a great deal of commentary in the form of columns and even blogs from liberals, and, c) those who would seek to muzzle the voices of those who take a different point of view diminish themselves far more than they elevate the debate. Tragically, some of the posts here are so hate-filled and frenzied they confirm the belief of a lot of Americans that many on the far left are simply bereft of reason."
----

Lots of people who aren't "lefties" are bothered by this move simply because it promotes partisan punditry (of which there's already plenty to be had) over journalism. Many readers want fewer political opinion blogs and more of what the Post is actually good at -- reporting.

Don't assume everyone is upset for the same reason -- we don't all subscribe to groupthink.

Posted by: Tron | March 22, 2006 12:18 PM

Subscription cancelled...

Posted by: Chadwig | March 22, 2006 12:19 PM

Has anyone from the Post been over the RedState and taken in their blantantly racist comments? Has the Post gone stark raving mad and decided that hiring someone who would just as soon bury all of their reporting staff is a good idea? A guy who made his living denying the facts?

I suppose that all good things . . .

Posted by: Necromancer | March 22, 2006 12:19 PM

sounds to me like this is another know nothing kid who talks the talk but won't walk the walk just like his heroes in the WH. If you are such a tough guy son? why aren't you serving your country in combat if it is so noble?

Please Wash Po, you have to be kidding me, a 24 year old with no real life experiences and we are suppose to act as if his opinion means something? please what a joke.

Posted by: mo curt | March 22, 2006 12:19 PM

Guess What - I am probably one of your actual paying customers - And I think I will cancell my subscription.

I thought Washington Post was somewhat trustworthy. NOt anymore - Political hackery (colbert's new word!)

Can you not see the tide is turning away from right wingnut spewing and to more sensible discussion. Guess not - See ya in the unemployment line along with my newspaper delivery boy.

Posted by: totallynext | March 22, 2006 12:20 PM

Will Mr. Brady be clarifying any of the above issues? Was the hiring of Ben Domenech motivated by a desire to placate right-wing critics? Will a libral blog be added to Washington Post to placate libral critics? Does the Post feel that conservative voices in general were lacking at the paper? I think the Post owes it to its readers to explain the hiring on a non-journalist blogger.

Posted by: John | March 22, 2006 12:20 PM

What a joke this is. Yeah, just one more attempt to fabricate the whole conspiracy theory that there is liberal bias in the media. Very sad to see one of what once was America's greatest papers go down the toilet like this.

Posted by: R. Lewis | March 22, 2006 12:21 PM

not enough, or too little too late

personally, i think it's going to be difficult to balance the pushback from the obviously partisan lefty liberal wapo with only one young rightwinger. you need a whole slew of them. can't you just feel the need?

if you had a team of them perhaps you could attempt to respond to some of the commentary from your audience, which, from the sound of the posts, if representative of the population, seems to be swinging more to the left. get in there quick and rescue the disadvantaged right.

i have a question. why can't conservatives conserve?

if the right is wrong and the left is right (ei the pre war assessments) do 2 rights make a wrong?

you really need to hire a team to support this young blogger, the brainpower on the left is highjacking our youth.

Posted by: annie | March 22, 2006 12:21 PM

Deer Washunton Posd:

Plees hyre me bkause i kin rite as gud as Ben dominick.

And I ken think as beter than Ben, two!

Posted by: aldorossi | March 22, 2006 12:21 PM

I didn't write the following statement, I used the cut and paste function from another author, a trick I hope your editors will catch on to....

"The next miracle to tackle: proving yourself to be anything other than a propagandist and a Ann Coulter-wannabe. Good luck, Ben"

By the way...I couldn't have said it better

Posted by: MDH in NY | March 22, 2006 12:22 PM

No Thanks. I'm not the most political person in the world, but I won;t be subscribing to the WaPo after this.

Posted by: Jason | March 22, 2006 12:22 PM

Here is what I had to say about Coretta Scott King's funeral:

Why is it that we have to accept the Pantheon of the Left and see their funerals televised -- from Wellstone to Mrs. King?

Why is it that those who participate in these funerals feel compelled to turn a solemn, religious event into a Def Comedy Jam spectacle of anti-Republican, anti-conservative boilerplate "known facts" and demands for handouts?

To borrow another contributor's phrase -- the media and the left treat the Jesse Jacksons of this country and the Jesse Jacksons of the Middle East with respect, compassion, and understanding. Those of us who work hard for a living to provide for our families, humbly go to church, and try to do unto others as we would have them do unto us see our values, our lifestyles, our beliefs, and our Lord ridiculed and bashed on television, the cover of Rolling Stone, and in the mainstream media.

I also think I have a clearer understanding of why the culture of so many black Americans in this country is below what it should be and is capable of being.

The prominent black spiritual leaders, like Joseph Lowery, are more interested in subsidization from The Man than salvation from the Lord.

Posted by: Domemech | March 22, 2006 12:23 PM

So, Jim Brady has seen fit to hire a man who would call the late Coretta Scott King a communist. Link here.

Posted by: manyoso | March 22, 2006 12:23 PM

I'm glad I'm not a subscriber to the Washington Post, in that it saves me the effort of cancelling my subscription.

Posted by: Gatchaman | March 22, 2006 12:23 PM

someone wrote: "(just checking the filters)"

I think my post didn't go through for one of two reasons....

1) my post was based on a lot of research, and (unlike Ben) I provide links to back up statements of fact whenever possible. Some commenting software flag comments with lots of links

or

2) I mentioned Operati*n Yell*w Eleph*nt . No doubt Ben "goarmy.com" Domenech is rather sensitive about the saffron colored puddle that forms at his feet whenever anyone asks why, as a big supporter of Operation Iraqi Freedom, he hasn't volunteered himself....

paul

Posted by: p. lukasiak | March 22, 2006 12:24 PM

The lefties claim that he is qualitatively different from Fromkin as the latter writes about the truth.

Well, I was convinced that Ben is definitely the right person for the job as soon as I read a paragraph from a speech that he wrote in which he implicitly compared gay marrigage to the marriage between a man and a box turtle.

Washington Post must be congratulated for bringing this great mind on board.

All the lefties should applaud as well. At least this lefty does.

Posted by: lib | March 22, 2006 12:24 PM

A Bush appointee? Why not Karl Rove?

His Dad is a Bush insider, he's a Bush insider, it appears this is a White House appointee to the Post.

The WP missed it's chance at redemption when it failed to fire Woodward.

Why does the Washington Post hate Liberal Blogs and fairness?

I guess DC has two right wing papers now:

The Washington Times

The Washington Post

Interesting year for The Washington Post.


Posted by: ZappoDave | March 22, 2006 12:24 PM

I have now rebookmarked the site. I used to go to the home page, poke around, and read a bunch and give clicks to Post advertisers.

Now I'm stopping that in protest. I'm going to bookmark the few folks I read reguarily and that's it.

You lost my general support over this, Post. Sorry. Hiring someone who has made racist, inflammatory statements in an effort to achieve "balance" is wrong. You are sponsoring hate speech. Have you read anything this guy has said in the past? If so, things are even worse than I imagine.

Posted by: Woodie | March 22, 2006 12:24 PM

After having read this thread, FDL, TPM, Kos & a host of other comments elsewhere regarding this "Red America" enterprise, I have nothing further to add except...

...FEH!

Just one comment, perhaps?

[...] "Now, if you don't hire an editor to correct every other sentence in your posts, then I'll have to expose your lies on a daily basis, and hon, I don't have enough hours in my day to go down that route."

-- georgia10 @ Kos

You won't be alone, georgia10.

Welcome to the bigs, Mr. Domenech. Where just bringin' your "A" game to this side of the aisle's bleacher creatures ain't gonna cut it.

You should REALLY get that editor.

Posted by: Liberal-at-large | March 22, 2006 12:25 PM

Privacy rights. We hear so much from the liberal left about protecting your (my) privacy rights. But stop and think about it. Since the 60's, liberal politicians and judges have created a bill of rights for criminals and those contemplating criminal activity and they call it privacy rights. They tell me my privacy rights are being threatened by conservatives. But none of those 'rights' apply to me because I am not a criminal nor am I contemplating any criminal activity. Won't someone (Ben) explore this and give us the facts? Why do liberals always try to protect the lawbreakers at the expense of those of us who are not?

Posted by: T J Novak | March 22, 2006 12:26 PM

WE SHALL OVERCOME...yep, you heard it right! Your hiring of a hysterical, right-wing nutcase (besides the fact that he is totally unqualified because of age and experience, but hey, that obviously didn't factor in his job description) is heralding the demise of your 'paper'!. Yipeee! It all has come about because you, as well as others at WaPo, have sold your souls to the devil...literally. After reading Ben's sophmoric babblings, I still find it hard to believe that you ( or anyone with a brain, for that matter) believe him to be a voice worthy of our attention. OOOOH BOY, what a joke! Calling Caretta Scott King a Communist? NO ONE IS GOING TO RESPECT THIS IDIOT! Your paper will find itself in deep financial trouble because you don't pay any attention to the polls...Americans have had more than enough of lies, corruption,distortions, their civil liberties trampled on, DEATH, just to name a few. We're going to take back our country, and you and your 'paper' will be left in the dust.

Posted by: Harriett | March 22, 2006 12:26 PM

Mr. Domenech's writings have established him as a racist and one who does not base his opinions or rantings on facts. How did he get a job at the Post?

Shame.

Posted by: jillles | March 22, 2006 12:26 PM

Good to know that White House neopotism even works at the Post. The son of the official in charge of ensuring Abramoff's was money channeled correctly. You have outdone yourself!

thanks for giving me a good excuse to cancel my subscription to the Post - 20 year subscriber. Maybe you can peel someone away from the Washington Times to make up for me.

Posted by: jbusteed | March 22, 2006 12:27 PM

Amateur hour continues at the post. Hiring this guy Ben is a clear admission that these guys don't have any clue what they are doing. Sure his dad is a bush appointee, sure he knows how a web browser works, but geez man does this really qualify him as anthing other than a stegnographer?

Did you guys at the Post feel a keen lack of having a Jonah Goldberg on staff? The Post has now become just another place for rich parents to dump their legacies while they wait for them to grow up. Thought you all would have learned how dangerously inneffective this kind of rich-boob warehousing is having watched the Green Zone in Iraq these last three years?

I bet Robert Redford rues the day he ever made the movie that yout guys have rested your reputation on for the last 30 years.

Posted by: patience | March 22, 2006 12:27 PM

The hiring of Domenech brought me to this website to post my opinion of his hiring.

yecccchhhhh

Posted by: bobinkc | March 22, 2006 12:27 PM

Thank You Washington Post. Now, I will not only cancel my own subscription, but will also get all my 26 co-workers (most of whom are African-American/Hispanic/Asian) to cancel their subscriptions too as a protest against The Post hiring a known racist to be a columnist for The Post.

Good luck with your balance.

The truth should never be balanced with lies.

Posted by: William Grant | March 22, 2006 12:28 PM

Combine this genius move with your inane editorial of Bush's press conference and you are having one "heck'uva" day WaPo.

Posted by: Ms. Censure | March 22, 2006 12:28 PM

it is good to see Ben (http://goarmy.com) is reading these comments and trying to dodge from his racist remarks about Mrs. King. The alleged clarification he just posted will certainly play well with African-American readers such as Clarence Thomas and Claude Allen...

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 22, 2006 12:29 PM

Ben "Augustine" Domenech on Coretta Scott King's funeral, posted on Feb. 7th, 2006:

---

The President visits the funeral of a Communist

And phones in a message to the March for Life.
I think we can get a little pissed about this.

---

link here:

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/2/7/203823/5583/190#190

Posted by: Reader | March 22, 2006 12:29 PM

I recently cancelled my subscription to the Washington Post because of its lack of balance. I sincerly hope that "Red America" may work to restore some of that balance.

Posted by: John K. | March 22, 2006 12:29 PM

This is really sad. Didn't the Washington Post research this guy before hiring him? This guy is so full of hate it is really sad. Plus, he does not seem to realize that the movie "Red Dawn" teaches one how a country acts when it is occupied. The kids in Red Dawn blowing things up to fight the Russian occupiers are, I suppose, heros to him. When Iraqi's who are occupied by the US do it, I guess they are terrorists right Ben? Don't you see the irony in that?

The Washington Post inches one step closer to being a joke newspaper.

Steven Joseph

Posted by: Steven Joseph | March 22, 2006 12:29 PM

I understand there is a meme in media outlets today that say essentially that the conservative Republicans are the most loyal consumers. This is why TV news has moved rightward into political propaganda, and other news sources have taken a relativist approach to reporting (all opinions are equally valuable, and all people have an equally valuable interpretation of facts). Where as shows like O'Reilly's have succeeded, newspapers like the Washington Times have been financially struggling for over a decade. The reason for this is that TV is TV, talk radio is talk radio and newspapers are newspapers. People at the Washington Post have obviously forgotten that two the media formats are dominated by entertainment and the newspaper is dominated by...news!

I am not sure this is truly an attempt to balance any news at the Post, I think this is a more transparent attempt to up readership by becoming controversial and at the same time attempting to suck in a loyal conservative base for increasing subscriptions. The bad news for the post is that they missed the gravely train on the conservative revolution in media, the pendulum has swung back to center, and the conservative blogosphere is all but mute and dead. The worse news for the Post is that they have shot their credibility in the foot with their new blog "Red America."

The opening salvo of Red America is offensive, not only to Democrats but to the majority of Americans who are moderates and independents. The claims the majority of America is "red," which in either interpretation (demographic displacement or political ideology) is specious. That statement alone reveals that the blog is not news, or journalism, or even opinion; its a false outright lie, intended to use the cover of the Washington Post's credibility for propaganda. The extreme right will continue hounding media until it is lock step with their agenda and talking points, and even with Domenech's new blog, the Washington Post cannot reasonably expect the howling of the extremists to end, but as I said before, I doubt that was the major motivation. Shame on the Washington Post! I feel like its just took a huge step towards mimicking the Drudge Report, and Jeff Gannon style journalism, opposed to finding its roots in truth and recommitting to fact based journalism and opinion. The Washington Post has egg on its face!

Posted by: PatSprouseYo | March 22, 2006 12:30 PM

Ben:

Re: Your 3/22 12:23 p.m. post, are you DENYING that you are the Augustine who called Coretta Scott King a "communist"?

Jack

Posted by: jfxgillis | March 22, 2006 12:30 PM

If you are going to have a Red America Blog, then start a Blue America Blog. Also, turn on some comments at Red America. Only chickens start a blog with out comments.

Posted by: TimH | March 22, 2006 12:30 PM

Why is everyone so pissed? I mean, every newspaper needs a humor column.

What? It's not?

Sorry. Never mind.

Posted by: D. Wilcox | March 22, 2006 12:31 PM

I would assume you're joking...right? No? How sad for you.

Posted by: Thomas McTighe | March 22, 2006 12:31 PM

Posted by: Domemech | March 22, 2006 12:23 PM

Ben, don't be so modest. Here's what else you had to say about Mrs. King's funeral:

The President visits the funeral of a Communist By: Augustine

And phones in a message to the March for Life.

I think we can get a little pissed about this.

===

Don't hide your light under a bushel, son.

Posted by: Corinne | March 22, 2006 12:32 PM

Great work, kiddo.

Me and my loofah salute you. Any job openings at the Post? The liberal hypocrite owners of FOX News are cramping my style. I want YOUR kind of Gig. Do you get many calls from chicks? My loofah is ready for some hot internet action.

Posted by: Bill O'Really | March 22, 2006 12:32 PM

LOL!!!!

This just gets funnier by the minute! Seriously, I refresh the page every 30 seconds, and I'm treated to even MORE derangement.

Ben you must be doing something right! You've invaded the moonbats' turf, and boy, aren't they pissed?

Keep it up, and I might actually subscribe to the WaPo.

Eric in Hollywood

Posted by: HollywoodNeoCon | March 22, 2006 12:34 PM

Since balancing the content on the website is such a big concern, how about hiring Eric Alterman or Joe Conason to provide some counterbalance to Howard Kurtz"s right leaning post.com contributions?

Posted by: TMH | March 22, 2006 12:35 PM

This is the longest I've ever spent on the WaPo's website. Their paper version is conservative already, and apparently misguidedly hellbent on picking up the Washington Times' neanderthal readers in my the same way that CCN is chasing after Fox News' lowbrow fans.

For real news, I read the New York Times, both paper and website. For cultural happenings, there is always the free City Paper. The WaPo is now good for only two things: the comics pages, and . . . okay, make that one thing.

If the missus agrees, we will cancel our subscription to this increasingly useless newspaper. I'll miss Mutts, but then again, it is free online.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 12:35 PM

http://www.nclr.org/section/conference_nominations/
Via google, I found that the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) does give a Ruben Salazar award, but Ben isn't mentioned as winning it:

Ruben Salazar Award for Communications
... annually recognizes an individual who has dedicated his or her life to promoting the accurate and positive portrayal of Hispanic historical, political, economic, and cultural contributions to American society.... The recipient of this award must be a communications professional who has dedicated his or her professional life to portraying issues, concerns, and/or news relevant to contemporary Hispanic America.
This year's recipient will be Soledad O'Brien....
1990 Dr. Hector P. Garcia
1991 Everett Alvarez, Jr.
1992 Donald E. Mroscak
1993 Honorable Ed Pastor
1994 Polly Baca
1995 Guadalupe Reyes
1996 Bernie Valdez
1997 Tomas Atencio
1998 Dr. Juan Romagoza
1999 Judge Albert Peña
2000 Sr. Alicia Cuarón
2001 Lorraine Lee
2002 Guarione Diaz
2003 Armando de Leon
2004 Honorable Ed Pastor
--

Posted by: googlefan | March 22, 2006 12:35 PM

The Washington Post is turning into a bad joke. This gentleman Domenech is an insult to our intelligence. Can he at least get some experience first. And who is his opposition on this site? I don't see any.

Posted by: Fred | March 22, 2006 12:35 PM

By hiring Mr. Domenech to write a blog for their paper, the editors of the Washington Post are really only being true to the direction their publication has taken in the past several years. They are an inch left of the Washington Times. And while newspaper editors the country over moan about declining readership, they can look to decisions like this to explain the erosion of confidence in the information being provided by their publications.

Posted by: barb | March 22, 2006 12:35 PM

Thanks for giving me another reason not to read your publication. I was getting worried there for a second, but you came through with that "balance" just in time.

Posted by: Slothrop | March 22, 2006 12:36 PM

I'm sorry, was Washington somewhow lacking Republican voiceboxes? Is the media just too liberal for you? I can't believe the WP bowed down to such right wing propoganda.
Keep it up and you'll lose a lifetime reader.

Posted by: L.A. | March 22, 2006 12:37 PM

now tron, plllease try to avid hate filled posts about how the left posts are hate filled. i know the right just looves this teminology but as anyone can see, if you ever want real hate filled slander you will need to read the queen of hate, ann coulter, or go hang on LGF.

who thinks the left is far left?? raise your hand?
there is no significant far left , we are the left. you want far you have to look at the extremes on the right, the fundies, etc. the dobsens. the cell worshipers to find exteme numbers. why just yesterday i heard the legislature in georgia supports passing out the bible as a textbook. talk about far out!

a request, could we get some original thought out of the right? they all use the same terms, it gets so old.

Posted by: heavens to merg | March 22, 2006 12:38 PM

I hope the Post keeps on allowing comments. RedState takes away comment privs if you dare disagree with their position, no matter how civil you try to be.

So when do you offer Digby a job for real balance?

Posted by: Dick Tuck | March 22, 2006 12:39 PM

Is this blog going to take comments from readers?

Is Ben going to participate in Live Discussions?

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 12:39 PM

Hee haw, the moonbats are going nuts! By hiring an arguably racist, callow little conservative with a sheltered upbringing, the Washington Post has finally tuned into today's GOP mindset, and it's about time! But why stop there? Hire David Duke! He's our kind of guy: stupid and bigoted! Then we'll really see the moonbats go nuts.

Posted by: Hollywood Nitwitcon | March 22, 2006 12:39 PM

A new Domenech blog at WaPo? How many fact checkers is WaPo hiring to try and keep up with such a geyser of toxic misinformation?

Or is it the case that, besides getting a free pass on reporting credentials, he also gets a free pass on having any factual basis for his propaganda?

Hopefully the job includes a travel budget -- as things get peachier and peachier in Iraq, it would be fun to get some on-the-scene blogging from Ben from, say, Baghdad or Karbala...

Posted by: Average Joe | March 22, 2006 12:39 PM

More Domenech goodness--this time about his new "colleague" Dan Froomkin:

========
Dan Froomkin: Cut, Paste, Ignore
By: Augustine · Section: Miscellania

If one spends any amount of time reading the columns of washingtonpost.com's Dan Froomkin - whose status as leader of the hack is without compare - it's easy to realize that, on any given day, the cut and paste function has to be a tiring chore. Every day, it's use the same template, find a new reason to hate. "Bush is a liar because X." "The President is a fool because X." "The White House wants to kill your child's pet because X." Etc. He has his crowd, and he plays to it.

But with all that cut and pasting, sometimes little things can get in the way if you're only reading the lefty sites... things like facts.

Today, Froomkin opines (yes, Dan, it's "Opinion," despite your many claims to the contrary) on a video that is being hyped as a smoking gun in the Katrina hullabaloo (of course, since President Bush is Superman, as soon as he found out a storm was coming he could've flown through the air, turned the earth backward, made levees five times as high, and stopped the storm dead...he chose not too because he doesn't care about poor minorities. And don't you forget it).

There's only one problem: the video in question is a dishonestly edited version, and one that the Times conceded this morning just flat-out ignores highly relevant portions:

The AP video does not include footage of Chertoff asking Brown whether he needs any other help or of Chertoff asking whether Brown wants him to approach the Department of Defense. Transcripts show that to both questions, Brown indicated that no additional assistance was needed.

Read the transcript if you want the real story, and more of it at PowerLine and Captain's Quarters. But Dan Froomkin isn't interested in the real story - just his cut and paste storyline. Tomorrow, more ways we can blame President Bush for the crabgrass in your lawn.

Mar 2nd, 2006: 16:05:36

========
Oh now I can see the kind of "balance" this blog will provide. :eye roll:

Posted by: Corinne | March 22, 2006 12:39 PM

Glad to see that the Post and its subsidiaries are much more interested in "balancing" viewpoints than accurately "reporting" facts.

It finally dispels any misconception that The Washington Post Company is a news organization.

I also find it curious that your new blog doesn't automatically post comments from readers, but instead resorts to the author's/editor's choice to pick and choose comments and excerpts to post in order to further their agenda.

Since the Post Company apparently only believes in the bottom line, listen up: I am canceling my 7-day/week home subscription, canceling my weekday office subscription and never posting another job listing through your affiliated websites ever again. Why should I pay for a worthless rag when what I want is a real newspaper?

Posted by: Dan from Pentagon City, VA | March 22, 2006 12:40 PM

Great--The New York Times went down with Judith Miller and now the Washington Post will go down with Ben Domenech's RedAmerica Blog. America's media is toast, just when we need accurate reporting that challenges the disaster of the Bush Administration.

Thanks for nothing.

Posted by: Judy | March 22, 2006 12:40 PM

Well, I was gonna suggest that the WaPo hire Kos, Atrios, Josh Marshall, or some other qualified lefty blogger, but why bother when they can just hire me? After all, "qualifications" don't seem to be much of a factor, only the ability to stir up the wingnuts with poorly-written red meat.

Posted by: Ben-but-not-that-Ben | March 22, 2006 12:41 PM

As noted above, journalists are not balance to a far right wing blogger. Therefore I hereby nominate Hunter (famed dailykos poster) and superlative writer for the position of left wing Washington Post blogger. (I'm a subscriber and if I have to put up with the rantings of a facsimile of Coulter/Limbaugh, I want to see some REAL &*&* balance.)

Posted by: ShawDC | March 22, 2006 12:42 PM

What I think is funniest is his poor analysis of "Red Dawn".

""Red Dawn? You must know it - the greatest pro-gun movie ever? I mean, they actually show the jackbooted communist thugs prying the guns from cold dead hands.""

This is such the anti-gun moment. It shows that even with his right to bear arms, he is still dead. The "need" to own a gun to protect himself and his country against did nothing to protect him or his country. The guy was killed. One redneck with a gun did absolutely nothing.

Posted by: Rob | March 22, 2006 12:42 PM

This is hideous. If this is isn't the most desperate move to please Daddyparty...

I have been a NYT reader since I was in diapers and I stopped ready thr print and online versions of that rag once they canonized J. Miller. And thought WaPo would be better, and it was. Sayonara. I didn't think WaPo could do any more damage to its credibility beyond Woodward, but I have underestimated how craven and desperate these hacks have become.

Satan, preserve us.

Posted by: sullynyc | March 22, 2006 12:43 PM

I really hope you will be utilizing a fact checker for the blog. When you bring such an individual into the fold of the mainstream media and put your banner up over their head, you are responsible for what they say. If they mislead, you are responsible. If they misquote or mischaracterize, you are responsible. If they plagiarize, you are responsible. Please don't forget that.

Posted by: David from DC | March 22, 2006 12:43 PM

One more thing about this post from Domemech @ 12:23 PM--

He didn't write this. Blanton did.

http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/2/7/203823/5583

With Regard To Today's Funeral Political Rally
By: Blanton · Section: Culture

Why is it that we have to accept the Pantheon of the Left and see their funerals televised -- from Wellstone to Mrs. King?

Why is it that those who participate in these funerals feel compelled to turn a solemn, religious event into a Def Comedy Jam spectacle of anti-Republican, anti-conservative boilerplate "known facts" and demands for handouts?

This is just further indication that the left is out of touch.

To borrow another contributor's phrase -- the media and the left treat the Jesse Jacksons of this country and the Jesse Jacksons of the Middle East with respect, compassion, and understanding. Those of us who work hard for a living to provide for our families, humbly go to church, and try to do unto others as we would have them do unto us see our values, our lifestyles, our beliefs, and our Lord ridiculed and bashed on television, the cover of Rolling Stone, and in the mainstream media.

I also think I have a clearer understanding of why the culture of so many black Americans in this country is below what it should be and is capable of being. The prominent black spiritual leaders, like Joseph Lowery, are more interested in subsidization from The ManTM than salvation from the Lord.

Feb 7th, 2006: 20:38:23

Posted by: Corinne | March 22, 2006 12:43 PM

How soon will the WaPo be deleting the comments above that it doesn't agree with, and run a column whimpering and crying that we "used bad language". Those people in the comments used bad language! Now Ben, our blogger/writer, has used plenty of bad language, defamed Coretta Scott King, and made other remarks "not fit for a family newspaper", but that's uh, ok. Right.

Posted by: So tell me | March 22, 2006 12:44 PM

Since when does 33% equal a majority? And I'm referring to the lap dog support of the current Prez, whose performance a huge majority disapprove of. A majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. A majority of American's would today vote for a Democratic Congress. So why does "Red America" proclaim to speak for the majority? Is it the majority of elites who actually control power in this country that you're talking about? Oh, and what about those family connections to Abramoff? Red - the color of tyrants.

Posted by: Hippocrat | March 22, 2006 12:45 PM


" I also think I have a clearer understanding of why the culture of so many black Americans in this country is below what it should be and is capable of being.

The prominent black spiritual leaders, like Joseph Lowery, are more interested in subsidization from The Man than salvation from the Lord."
Posted by: Domemech | March 22, 2006 12:23 PM


Mr. Brady, let's see, your Chairman publicly states the future of your paper is on-line - and you hire 'Moses' Domemech as your readership tilts 'blue'

how's that working for ya ?

Posted by: cbl | March 22, 2006 12:45 PM

Y'know, you pathetic corporate suckups would be hysterically funny if you weren't doing so much damage to this country. While America becomes a third world nation (oh not you guys, you get to be in the 'elite' classes) y'all peddle yet more radical right wing spin, mi-direction, obfuscation and out-right lies. And from some 24 year old heretofore known for calling Coretta Scott King a "Commie". Does your shiny new wingnut blogger like to dress up in ladies' clothes like good ol' J Edgar did? They seem to share the same predilection to use that old-timey catch-all smear, It's not a stretch to presume they might share some other. . . um. . . proclivities.

In short, I am not surprised. As the nation crumbles under mountains of radical right wing engineered debt there's only on thing to do- flood the channels of information with even more of the same criminal, nutball dishonesty.

Why do you hate America?

Posted by: Dave | March 22, 2006 12:46 PM

Hey Lefties.

Go back to your Box Turtle girlfriends and pary to the Communist Corretta Scott King.

You are not welcome here.

Posted by: lib | March 22, 2006 12:46 PM

Paul Lukasiak wrote:

Ben lists in his online bio that he was "given the Ruben J. Salazar award by the National Association of Hispanic Journalists."

Well, guess what. There is no such award given by the NAHJ.... I called them up and asked. According to Marissa Silvera, the NAJH's overall scholarship program is named after Salazar, a Latino journalist who was killed by cops while covering an anti-war protest in East LA in 1970. But there is no "Salazar award".

I emailed Domenech about this. Within minutes he politely wrote back, saying "The NAHJ changed the name of the award in the years since I received it, it's now one of their leadership scholarships. You're welcome to call and confirm with them that I received it."

Those who, like me, may have tried to Google for more information about this award may have been thwarted by failing to include the accent mark over the e in "Rubén."

I take Domenech at his word when he claims to have won this award. I still think it was a bad idea to hire him to write a Republican blog, though.

Posted by: Vern Morrison | March 22, 2006 12:46 PM

What a total waste of WaPo money and server space. If you wanted something balanced, why would you give a forum for a hate-baiting whackjob?

Seriously, since when did you guys lose your spines and need to kowtow to the myth that the media is this vast liberal conspiracy? Last time I checked, I was a liberal and disagreed with most of your coverage.

What sycophantic twits. Get some real opinion writers and ditch this idealogical mental midget. Personally, I'm not going to even read his ramblings anymore. MSM conspiracy. Yeah, get your tin foil hat, make sure you bring enough for the asskissing WaPo board.

Posted by: Josh from Philadelphia | March 22, 2006 12:47 PM

I knew it was only a matter of time before some right-wing whiner started whipping out the "1st Amendment!!!11!!!!1!!11!" canard.

I'll talk real slow so you can understand, Okie -- the First Amendment only applies to GOVERNMENT REGULATION of speech. The Washington Post is a PRIVATE COMPANY, which means they are not under any obligation to publish any one person's screeds, Domenech's or anyone else's. They are no more legally bound to publish Domenech than they are to publish in purple ink.

Which means that they gave him a blog 'cause they WANTED to . . . which might be the most depressing thing of all.

From Woodward & Bernstein to Whiny Conserva-Kid in just 31 short years . . . come on, WaPo, you can't tell me you're not a LITTLE ashamed of this.

Posted by: Doug | March 22, 2006 12:47 PM

It's not incovceivable that, had they made a really concerted effort, the WaPo could have found a conservative who's actually thoughtful and who might add to useful debate. Not inconceivable. But to have made this choice is to have decided, evidently, that those who read blogs, like those who listen to Bill OReilly want only diatribe; non fact-based, at that. Which is to misunderstand woefully what blogs are about. Mostly.

Posted by: Sid | March 22, 2006 12:47 PM

RedState.org poster Augustine, who has been outed as Ben Domenech, had this to say about his fellow washingtonpost.com employee, Dan Froomkin:

" If one spends any amount of time reading the columns of washingtonpost.com's Dan Froomkin - whose status as leader of the hack is without compare - it's easy to realize that, on any given day, the cut and paste function has to be a tiring chore. Every day, it's use the same template, find a new reason to hate. "Bush is a liar because X." "The President is a fool because X." "The White House wants to kill your child's pet because X." Etc. He has his crowd, and he plays to it.

"But with all that cut and pasting, sometimes little things can get in the way if you're only reading the lefty sites... things like facts."

Was management at the Washington Post aware of Domenech's postings at RedState.org? If so, why was this not flagged as a conflict of interest?

Posted by: AltHippo | March 22, 2006 12:48 PM

I'm also curious as to what my colleagues down the road in Quantico will think when they find out that this pampered 24 year-old William & Mary graduate not only advocates bloody, prolonged ground campaigns but makes money off of the good name of the United States Marine Corps (while corrupting the heritage of the Marine marksman)?

http://www.cafepress.com/Bendomenech

Posted by: Dan from Pentagon City, VA | March 22, 2006 12:49 PM

Nice to see that the well reasoned response to criticism about political balance on the blog is to hire a bushbot...Yeah!! That's the ticket!!!

Posted by: Amused Canuck | March 22, 2006 12:49 PM

The March 22, 2006 12:23 PM posting from "Domemech" is obviously forged -- the content actually comes from a (racist) Red State post by one "Blanton," not Domenech-with-an-n. But that aside, I agree with everyone else here that this new hire is pretty senseless.

Posted by: Matthew B. | March 22, 2006 12:49 PM

He will never make it, I don't care what his "work" history is; Ben's reasoning and writing skills are not up to par. His false assumptions or, lies will be exposed daily. And his undergrad vitriol will only disgust. Oh, wait a minute... he is the perfect example of a Repuglican. Congratulations to the Post, you nailed it! You really had me going there for a second.
Of course, you could do better and expose more Red Staters for the racist, reactionary rednecks that they are. I peruse that site sometimes for amusement. Its fun, like an inverted reality. Give more Red State kids a blog and I promise I will go out and actually buy your paper... yeah right.

Posted by: M Schumann | March 22, 2006 12:49 PM

Do you know who called Ben to Congratulate?
Yup, Prez did & said...
Thanks for taking 1 for the team, "Benny".
Now the "lefty blogs" are talking about u and not talking about me. I hope soon "liberal media" will follow their lead and get off my case.

Posted by: ksk | March 22, 2006 12:50 PM

To clarify, in my comment of 12:46 PM, Paul Lukasiak wrote everything from "Ben lists . . . to " . . . no Salazar award." The rest is mine. I tried to offset Paul's words with italics, but apparently no HTML tags are supported here.

Posted by: Vern Morrison | March 22, 2006 12:50 PM

So WaPo, how much $$$ did you get from the Bush Administration's PR budget to start this thing?

Posted by: Andrew | March 22, 2006 12:51 PM

WaPo Please do not hire anymore racists and bigots.

Posted by: Nate D. | March 22, 2006 12:52 PM

Someone at the Post must be joking.

Posted by: amf | March 22, 2006 12:52 PM

So much for the Washington Post. Bye.

Posted by: K | March 22, 2006 12:53 PM

I have been reading the Post a long long time. I will not cancel my subscription over this travesty, but I do expect to hear an explantion from the editors. I welcome having conservative opinion in the newspaper I read daily, it informs me to hear the rationale of those with whom I disagree. But this guy is just spewing out propaganda from an extreme perspective, it does not rise to the level of opinion in the tradition of the Post. Is an explanation forthcoming?

Posted by: Disappointed | March 22, 2006 12:53 PM

Washington Post, fair and balanced.

Posted by: picaraza | March 22, 2006 12:53 PM

Wow! I haven't read all the comments, but a quick scan sure does give the idea, doesn't it?

Either:
a) Conservative-hating liberals are pouncing in an inordinate proportion on a juicy (scary?) target, or
b) Washington Post's readership tends to be conservative-hating liberals.

Hmm, I'm guessing the latter. Not too many conservatives take the WaPo very seriously these days. I sure don't. I only read it to see what the left is whining about.

So don't let the venom get you dowm, Mr. Domenech. I'm sure you know full well that is just the customary manner of these people when they can't win by force of reason. Word of this promising blog will spread like wildfire among sensible people that have abandoned the sinking, left-listing Washington Post years ago. Your readership will be BIG. Thank you!

Thanks also, Washington Post, for allowing this to happen. It makes me think better of your paper, although it will take more than this to really change my fundamental objections.

I'll be back...
(linked from American Thinker)

Small-c in Canuckistan

Posted by: Small-c in Canuckistan | March 22, 2006 12:54 PM

I've been reading the Post for 17 years- what is this garbage about needing a right wing blogger for "balance"? What "balance"? It's bad enough you've started shilling for Bush to get us into a war in Iran, please don't insult us with more propaganda from a 24 year-old whose opinions are clearly at odds with most Americans (read the polls much?).

Posted by: Steve E | March 22, 2006 12:54 PM

And a once-great paper continues its rush toward irrelevance and sycophancy. Pathetic.

Posted by: paulw | March 22, 2006 12:54 PM

Oh wow. With the Presidency, Congress, and SC under their control, it seems this bloviator can STILL find a way to blame all America's problems on those boogeymen he disagrees with.

Any chance he'll bash the press while using the nation's second largest newspaper as a megaphone?

Posted by: Adam C | March 22, 2006 12:54 PM

I'm sure the Post people are really happy with all the interest they've generated. Domenech's blog is the journalistic equivalent of the Madonna in Feces. But all this complaining isn't really going to do much good -- unless you can actually spit on the Posties or accost them in the street. The reality-based DC community has to cancel subscriptions, en masse, and engage in really meaningful letter-writing boycotts of their advertisers. In general, this is the only tactic that will bring any balance to the media. They don't care what you think. They don't care what they print, host or air, as long as the money rolls in on time.

There's only one good thing about this: nothing scares more easily, when really challenged, than a billion dollars. With so much to lose....

Posted by: kalkaino | March 22, 2006 12:56 PM

Just a simple question here: Does the Post really need 'balance' with the Washington Times, WSJ, Fox News, and all of the rest of the far-right media parroting the White House's talking points on a daily basis? Seriously- Ben's little screed really isn't the missing link between the media as it exists today and a 'balanced' media.

Posted by: Chuck | March 22, 2006 12:56 PM

Someone must have some serious dirt on one of your editors - that's the only way you can reasonably explain hiring this boy. Astounding garbage.

Worst. Blog. Ever. I guess the Post wants to join that club.
-Michael

Posted by: Michael Josephson | March 22, 2006 12:56 PM

it seems we have taken on the cloak of our former enemy the soviet union. if one looks throughout history, this is usually the case.

Posted by: capioxxii | March 22, 2006 12:56 PM

Buzzt. Wrong answer. My subscription's cancelled ASAP. You can stuff your Red State blog up your ass.

Posted by: ddp | March 22, 2006 12:56 PM

The only google reference I find connecting Ben Domenech to the National Association of Hispanic Journalists is on his own blog. (Oddly, there IS a hispanic journalist named Domenech-- SARAH Domenech.)

The NAHJ Website does list many journalism award recipients, but I didn't see Ben listed. As far as the "award", they do sponsor a scholarship named for Ruben Salazar, but:
'These scholarships are designed to encourage and assist Latino students pursue careers in journalism."

Hmmm.... Post, here might be your out! You might want to check and see if Ben kind of, you know, invented an award and awarded it to himself? And then you could quietly get rid of his blog without having to say it was because of reader complaints, because everyone knows readers don't count.

Posted by: googlefan | March 22, 2006 12:57 PM

@Domemech | March 22, 2006 12:23 PM

are you for real? is this a hoax or an imposter?
i am serious. is this an example of your thought process ?


Posted by: | March 22, 2006 12:57 PM

um. really? seriously?
looks like you've scraped all the way through the bottom of the barrel to find this guy.
good looking out.

Posted by: jake | March 22, 2006 12:57 PM

Lies. Nothing but a bunch of propagandist lies in Ben's column. Shame on you, Washington Post, for printing such.

Posted by: sotony | March 22, 2006 12:58 PM

Will Mr. Domenech be recusing himself from commenting on issues relating to the Abramoff case? My understanding is that his father is involved at least as a witness in the case, if not a potential subject of the investigation. Normal journalistic rules would prevent a journalist from commenting on a matter in which he or she had a personal interest.

Posted by: Rob W | March 22, 2006 12:58 PM

I like to read all the different stuff at the Washington Post. I look forward to reading the new blog by the young man. I like Mr. Froomkin a lot. He seems smart.

I like to watch the Ministry video of "New World Order" over and over. I like the part where the giant Nixon head is dancing in the flames.

I like to watch Slim Pickens riding the bomb down in "Dr. Strangelove". He's funny..

I wonder if this new young man has seen this movie. I know I'm old, but my head got hurt back during Vietnam.

Oh well...good luck to everybody. Don't forget to duck and cover...

Posted by: lerel | March 22, 2006 12:59 PM

Oh my. The way to achieve balance is to report the facts without bias, not to report two ways, with competing bias. So, now are you going to "balance" the new racist blogger with a non-racist? And balance his neo-conservative views with a conservative? And a liberal?

Posted by: bryan broyles | March 22, 2006 12:59 PM


Posted by: Michael Josephson | March 22, 2006 12:56 PM

my thought exactly, rove has someone @wapo byt the balls.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 01:00 PM

Are you kidding me?!? Seriously, are you kidding me?

Very poor. Very, very poor.

Posted by: Edgar Newt | March 22, 2006 01:00 PM

Congratulations, Post. By allowing yourself to be cowed into hiring this hack-- this mindless parrot of a neo-fascist [whose credentials include being the "youngest political appointee of President George W. Bush"-- and whose father is the official administration lackey and shoe-shine boy for Jack Abramoff -- you have officially, once and forever, destroyed your credibility.

I understand now why you were having so much trouble earlier being honest about the republican Abramoff scandal. You're clearly an official organ and mouthpiece of the republican party yourself.

Posted by: Drindl | March 22, 2006 01:01 PM

More Ben Domenech please!
May my new favorite funnyman (well, second only to Krauthammer) continue to share his turtle-headed goodness for days to come.

Posted by: shingles | March 22, 2006 01:01 PM

The majority of Americans are not represented by this blog. As Georgia10 pointed out:

[T]he majority of voters have been against overturning Roe, against cuts in funding for alternative energy, against privatizing Social Security, and against lax gun laws.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 01:01 PM

The worst thing about this is that, against my better judgement, I just renewed my Post subscription.

No more. You're not getting any more of my money if you keep bashing away at the Post's reputation for ... what's that word again? ... integrity.

Posted by: Tom | March 22, 2006 01:01 PM

This is a joke, right?

An idea, change the name to "Purple State," and hire/allow a young Dem to post on the blog who can balance out Mr. Dominech.

I don't see how there can be any credible claim to balance when you publish a blog called "Red State."

Posted by: John Hamilton | March 22, 2006 01:05 PM

Okay, what are we supposed to be balancing here? "Red State America" already has its voice. Every major media pundit, right now, continues to sing the praises of President Bush at a time when his approval numbers include little more than his base. All three branches of government are in Republican hands, as are a majority of the states.

The only thing we Blue Staters have going for us is Helen Thomas, the Nation, A two-bit radio station full of talk show hosts and comedians, and Whole Foods. If you fellas in elephant suits can't sway public opinion with all that going for you, this poorly written "blog" isn't going to help.

Posted by: Crassus Augustus | March 22, 2006 01:05 PM

Ah...another publication falls to the "fair and balanced" pressure exerted by the paranoid extremists on the right. But journalism be damned; the pundits have taught us all that people are not interested in reportage, they want biased opinion to inform their small world view. Add WaPo to the list of profiteers and panderers who have figured out that Right Wing Conservative media bias is an excellent business model, as the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world have shown( from their limousines and mansions). Yes folks, add WaPo to that distinct group of charlatans who count on the ignorant and the misinformed to prove that there IS a sucker born every day. After all, it is they that put the CON in CONservative...

Posted by: al padrino | March 22, 2006 01:06 PM

Where's the liberal blog that will balance this? And you HAVE to hire someone who writes for a racists blog (RedState.org)? WaPo has become absolutely pathetic, a tool of the administration...that's why I don't bother to read it anymore.

Posted by: JeanBaptiste | March 22, 2006 01:06 PM

The Washington Post is now hiring racists?

How sad it must be for the rest of the staff.

Posted by: Brian | March 22, 2006 01:06 PM

WILD NAKED TEEN RED AMERICA 4 U! YOU'VE GOT TO SEE THIS! BEN DOMENECH GIVES ANN COULTER ABLOW JOB! SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN BEN BRADLEE SHOWS UP! WATCH THEM LAFF AS SATANIC MOOSLIMS DIE BY THE TRUCKLOAD! THAT'S RITE! REAL SNUFF IN THE NAME OF JESUS! ONLY THE BEST PR0N! FELATION INFLATION NATION! GO TO: WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM!

Posted by: usuckass | March 22, 2006 01:06 PM

washingtonpost.com has been my home page, so I saw the Red State blog first thing when I logged on yesterday.

I checked it out when I saw it, thinking "what is this?", and I have to say it's pretty insulting. I mean, I know there have been 400 comments and they all say the same thing, but seriously - this is the best you could do? This clown is what represents serious thought on the right such that you'd give him what has to be pretty coveted space on your website? You couldn't find someone with something more intelligent to say?

Posted by: Wallace | March 22, 2006 01:06 PM

Ben, throwing red state love your way! Keep up the great work!

Posted by: KelliD | March 22, 2006 01:07 PM

I keep hearing Sun Myung Moon has been quietly buying up WP stock. Looks like he has that 51% he wanted.

Ah, a well balanced media.

Why should WP readers be subjected to this kind of stuff? Let's just drag the nation into the gutter with more Rush and Coulter trained wannabees who claim it is the left who does/starts it. This kind of crap has been a staple of all those who trained Mr. Ben's mind. Now we must see it foisted on the nation via the WP. Just great. Just great.

http://edcone.typepad.com/wordup/2006/03/unintended_iron.html

From WaPo blogger Ben Domenech's third post, a shot at commenters who partake of "ridiculous hyperbole...or unintentionally hilarious name-calling."

From his first post: "Democrats...the shrieking denizens of their increasingly extreme base...the unhinged elements of their base, motivated by partisan rage."

Ridiculous hyperbole, unintentionally hilarious name-calling -- they guy certainly knows whereof he speaks.

Posted by: Sad Stateofaffairs | March 22, 2006 01:07 PM

This is almost sad. I always knew my parents were getting stupider by the day, but judging from the vast numbers of indignant moonbats on display here, I'm now convinced the overwhelming majority of Boomers are just as clueless.

Do me a favor, folks. At least TRY to accept the reality that your infantile rantings are about as bereft of meaning as my dog's farts.

The streets of the blogosphere run blue with petulance.

Posted by: HollywoodNeoCon | March 22, 2006 01:07 PM

How the mighty have fallen!
Is the Post really helpless to avoid descent into the purgatory of mindless political blogging and smear-mongering? Why do you allow yourself to be whiplashed by the right? Katharine Graham would be appalled.

Posted by: Julian | March 22, 2006 01:08 PM

with this trash the Post has provided the motivation to break old habits

no more daily buy for me

will pick up a NY TImes this sunday and decide about that, too

Posted by: good bye | March 22, 2006 01:09 PM

I would suppose that Ben was invited to balance out the (dwindling) fact-based element at washingtonpost.com ... the modern conservative cannot stand to read reality and must have filtered pap spoon-fed in order to maintain his blithe, listless, happy-consumer state. I suppose it is preferable to have him run around in the streets with guns. Unfortunately, though, the modern conservative likes to send other people's children to foreign lands to do that.

Posted by: Michael Wasserman | March 22, 2006 01:09 PM

Good job on totally abandoning any pretext at journalistic integrity. And really, who needs truth when you can have more right-wing lies? Racing the NYT to the bottom of the journalistic barrel isn't going to pay off for you, but it will pay off for the LA Times. Oh, and this little boy you hired to be your Winger-in-Residence is a first-degree moron. Poor wittle victim of libewal bias...

Posted by: R. Hamilton | March 22, 2006 01:09 PM

"The streets of the blogosphere run blue with petulance"

PETULANCE??? Have you READ this kid's blog? The guy is petulance incarnate.

Posted by: tron | March 22, 2006 01:10 PM

What a pathetic choice.

Posted by: Paul B. Curtin | March 22, 2006 01:10 PM

I read the Post to get away from all the conservative crap. Now this. Man.

Posted by: NeoLiberal | March 22, 2006 01:10 PM

I can only speculate that their first choice, William Joyce, was still dead?

Posted by: Slinky the Wonder Ferret | March 22, 2006 01:10 PM

Shouldn't the respect for truth, facts and inquiry be all the balance a news site needs? Why provide a highly paid forum to someone with no record of this respect?

Posted by: Philo | March 22, 2006 01:11 PM

I can't wait for your announcement regarding the Blue America blog!

Posted by: manimal | March 22, 2006 01:12 PM

May I please join the chorus of those who ask "When will the Washington Post start a 'Blue America' blog?" It seems an elementary step, failing which the Post will lose significant credibility as a source of news and analysis.

A secondary request: Gravatars ( http://www.gravatar.com ) to minimize author-spoofing and multiple-posting. [It's secure; the WaPo would never be able to read, store or display the email addresses that are used.] I'd even go so far as to recommend requiring a gravatar for posting, though I can see the counter-argument.

Posted by: S.O.S. in MA | March 22, 2006 01:12 PM

Red Dawn lol

BD calls it the greatest pro-gun movie ever. I got a laugh out of that, then it rang a bell. A military serviceman I know, a Republican, called the remake of Dawn of the Dead the greatest argument ever for gun ownership in the home.

Because, you know, the zombies and commies may be here any day.

Posted by: Ben, but not that Ben or the other not-Ben | March 22, 2006 01:15 PM


I particularly like the kudos the site has from Florida Cracker. A racists world view has been given legitimicy by the Washington Post. We have always paid attention to what they believed, we have just been smart enough to reject it. If this is the majority than I want to be the minority.

Posted by: Bethie | March 22, 2006 01:16 PM

Meet Ben Domenich.
The question of the day is how Ben Domenech, a 24 year old with little journalistic experience who lists among his credientials being the "youngest political appointee of President George W. Bush", was hired by the Washington Post to be their conservative blogger providing balance to...I dunno, their editorial page which was gung-ho for the war in Iraq.

Here's an interesting tidbit about Ben Domenech. Turns out Ben isn't the only Bush appointee in the family. His dad, Doug Domenech, former Loudon County Republican Committee Chairman, was appointed in January, 2002, as the White House Liaison for the Department of the Interior.

How do I know this? Ben Domenech said so.

Perusing an old blog of Ben's, here's some wisdom from Ben Domenech, the college years:

Hopefully today's military action will be the first of a long campaign, though I've always preferred drop teams to smart bombs.

Peace Through Superior Thermonuclear Capability.[10/7/01]

Never trust a male cheerleader. [12/12/01] (You know, Ben, Bush was a male cheerleader)

If I was two or three years younger, I would at this very moment be emerging from the warm smells of popcorn and ju-ju bees to the air outside, fresh from the glory of the first showing of The Lord of the Rings. [12/19/01]
(but wait, Ben, I thought "Red Dawn" was the greatest movie ever...)

Post-9/11 TV Host of the Year: Jon Stewart
Ugly Old Bat of the Year: Helen Thomas
Winner of the Year (uncontested): God [1/4/02]

“It never fails to amaze me how little respect they have for women’s capacity to understand what goes on in our bodies,” [NARAL President Kate] Michelman said. “I faced a crisis pregnancy after having three children, and I didn’t need anyone to show me a sonogram to inform me that my pregnancy would result in giving birth to a person.”

How about the fact that having an abortion would result in the death of a person, Kate? Did you need a sonogram to remember that? [2/2/02]

Al Gore can suck it. [2/4/02]

Antonin Scalia openly questioned the Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty today, proving once again that he is a man of deep spiritual intelligence, a modern St. Augustine of jurisprudence. [2/5/02]

I don't know about you, but the more Colin Powell insults the French, the more I like him. [2/20/02]

On Protest: It's totally different to protest against war before troops are sent somewhere and to protest against war after our boys are over there with guns in their hands and blood on the ground. The former, in my mind, is a totally legitimate act of political expression. The latter is horrendous and vile. [3/24/03]

I believe this war will take longer than the pundits were saying beforehand, but I also don't think we're going to be forced into a long door-by-door campaign in Baghdad. [3/30/03]

Al Qaeda is getting smoked out in Iraq -- and anyone who thought there was no connection better line up for their serving of crow. [3/28/03]

And here is my absolute favorite find so far:

Claude Allen is as clearcut as a razor's edge. He's a stand-up, principled Virginian. [5/13/03]

Claude Allen, of course, was recently arrested for a felony theft scheme.

Posted by: Jeff | March 22, 2006 01:16 PM

Ben "Augustine" Domenech on now-colleague Dan Froomkin, 3/2/06

---

Yes, he's an embarassment

Just Google around and read about the flaps between him and Post Online editor Jim Brady.

---

link:

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/3/2/16536/28064/7#7

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 01:17 PM

this is like when Tucker Carlson "balanced out" PBS.

Posted by: good lord | March 22, 2006 01:17 PM

SORRY STATE OF AFFAIRS WHEN YOU HIRE A BUSHCO EMPLOYEE TO BLOG ON YOUR SITE . PLEASE PLEASE THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING ,YOU ARE ABOUT TO LOSE WHAT LITTLE RELIVACE YOU LEFT

Posted by: FLURDMAN | March 22, 2006 01:19 PM

When are these neocons ever going to look reality in the face? Dilusional dilusional and sad.

Posted by: imindie | March 22, 2006 01:19 PM

I'm also saddened by the actions of the Post.

The Post needs to either hire a ballancing left-wing blogger, or prove to the public that the Post is by nature a "left-wing" publication needing ballance by someone on the extreme right wing.

I think that most media, like the Post is neither left wing or right wing in general (except for Faux News). What happens seems to be that the journalists who usually try to ballance the news happen to identify themselves as more liberal than conservative. But the editors and management who decide what gets published usually identify themselves as more conservative than liberal. That seems to cause the media to bias more towards their own profit and ratings than towards any political idealogy. Of course, there are individual exceptions, such as Judith Miller, Fox News in general, etc.

Posted by: John S | March 22, 2006 01:20 PM

This is bloody hilarious! ben, looks like you stumbled into the moonbats cave and now they're all a-twitter!

Ladies and gentlemen...you're "reality-based" community! LOL

Posted by: Dead Hippies tell no Tales | March 22, 2006 01:20 PM

Only inside the beltway would Dana Milbank, the reporter who said he'd rather write for the Food Section than cover Al Gore, be considered liberal. Milbank might be a prick, but he's in the small minority of high profile journalists who imagines his job to be that of a critic.

...which also calls into question the Post's perception of the political spectrum. If you want to ideologically balance Red Dawn Dom, you need to look at the left of the public debate, at people like Alexander Cockburn, Peter Camejo or Noam Chomsky. Hell, cultivate your own Edward Said - there are only like 30,000,000 active bloggers to choose from.

But the current personality obsessed WaPo perception misses the obvious: even the so-called liberal blogosphere has rejected the traditional American Left, to the point that Greens, representing perhaps 5% of the country, can't get respect in any major blog. Not one. Because there is no real Left does not mean that balance comes from the homeschool-osphere.

If you look at decades of public polling on education, the environment, Social Security, etc., you see that we are a staunchly centrist country, or in the view of the right, a country dedicated to liberal policies. It's no different now, regarding Iraq.

Now, the WaPo may comfortable with its strange view of the political spectrum, but who is it lying to? Red Dawn Dom is in on the working-the-refs joke. It seems to me the only people who are being fooled are the editors at the Post.

PNAC, we're not. But great job with the "balance."

Posted by: Pacific John | March 22, 2006 01:20 PM

Written like a true early-20s naive fool. Red Dawn references? Honestly, man...I know several 40something voters who lean conservative *big time* and they have no idea what movie that is (I just asked them myself.) Shame on the Washington Post for offering up this tripe via the cherished washingtonpost.com URL. Whoever made this decision needs to be fired; if you want a column just like this thats guaranteed to be enjoyed by its target demographic, I can type out Hannity and Limbaugh's comments each day, you know.

Posted by: JD | March 22, 2006 01:21 PM

Subscription:cancelled

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 01:21 PM

Come November 8, 2006 Benny will be changing the name of this blog to "Red Sunset". That is, if he lasts that long.

Posted by: Earl | March 22, 2006 01:21 PM

You all are being unfair to this young fellow. After all, he only longs for the days when the trains used to run on time.

Posted by: Dot Connector | March 22, 2006 01:21 PM

Red Dawn, huh? Even at the time of its release, it was arguably the most unintentionally funny movie ever made (I can still remember listening to a few teenagers making fun of it while riding on a NYC subway train 21 years ago). Given that only 4 years after the film's release the same omnipotent Soviet bloc that conquers the weak, decadent US in the film collapsed under its own weight, it became even funnier, and now (inarguably I think) stands as the least prescient motion picture ever made (kind of the anti-Network).

Though I must say that transforming drive-in movie theatres into Commie Reeducation/concentration camps would be a great satiric idea, had only the film's creator John Milius been possessed of a sense of irony.

Congratulations WaPo, you've just made a mistake on the magnitude of Boy George's comment about how long US troops will be in Iraq.

Posted by: JJB | March 22, 2006 01:21 PM

Where's Blue State? Some balance...pheh.

Posted by: Andrew | March 22, 2006 01:22 PM

May I please join the chorus of those who ask "When will the Washington Post start a 'Blue America' blog?"

Not necessary: the whole of The Washington Post is a 'Blue America' blog.

Posted by: Cato | March 22, 2006 01:22 PM

I love it. You put a single conservative voice on a widely acknowledged left leaning newspaper, and the "party of tolerance" goes ballistic.

I guess "progressives" only tolerate people who agree with them.

Thank you, lefties. Sometimes it is easy for people to forget why there is an elected conservative majority in this country and in our government. These infantile outburts, coupled with your intellectual shortcomings and inability to see beyond your own immediate needs serves as a vivid reminder as to why you and yours are unfit to run this great country.

Keep crying, children. Keep thrashing around on the floor and throwing your tantrums. Keep showing your true hate-filled colors. All it does is solidify the conservative base even more.

Posted by: Travis | March 22, 2006 01:22 PM

Providing balance for the Froomkin column (if that's what you intend to do) would mean hiring a journalist who is capable of reading newspaper articles about today's Democratic Party leaders and of calling attention to and documenting any foolish statements or ethical lapses or displays of hubris he or she runs across. With a complementary thorn-in-their-side column, at least the vehicle for providing balance would be tied to breaking news. On the other hand: Red America appears to be flawed in a number of ways -- but one of its most glaring deficiencies is that it seems to be divorced from current events. We get stale ruminations on how deeply the author is misunderstood by others and some ossified red-state/blue-state cultural analysis. Is this really a new blog or are we getting archives?

Posted by: birddog | March 22, 2006 01:23 PM

You've got to be kidding me. This young man who writes a blog full of racist comments and wild innacuracies is given a mouthpiece at the Washington Post? What's the matter, 99% of the media (I'm including the Post) wasn't good enough for the Bush Administration? They need 100%? WP indeed. Let's just change it to Washington Pravda.

Posted by: Scott M | March 22, 2006 01:23 PM

Subscription cancelled? Hell, I'm going to avoid even clicking links that take me to WaPo from now on.

I've already ditched the NY Times, might as well get rid of this place too. I don't need to listen to shills.

Posted by: c sanford | March 22, 2006 01:23 PM

Post editors, this is the height of foolishness!

The meme of 'two conflicting viewpoints, both equally valid' is diametrically opposed to the concept of reporting the news without bias. Instead, it creates a situation where the reader/viewer doesn't know what the truth is at all.

Contrary to what the 'crossfire' model of analysis might have you believe, you have a responsibility to make judgements about the events that happen; not present illogical viewpoints as if they were equally valid.

Shame!

Posted by: Cycloptichorn | March 22, 2006 01:24 PM

wait, wait...if all you lefties are in here complaining, who running the organic food co-ops and bong shops?

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 01:24 PM

How sad that washingtonpost.com has lowered itself even further into the muck and mire of hack driven bloviating.

Posted by: Dennis R. | March 22, 2006 01:24 PM

Has any one emailed this guy and asked him if in fact he is the Augustine that posted the racist comment about Mrs. King?

If he is indeed Augustine, it will be irrsponsible for WashingtonPost.com not to discontinue this blog.

Mr. Brady, are you listening?

Posted by: lib | March 22, 2006 01:25 PM

These comments are hilarious. Listen, if you don't like the blog, don't agree with it, than DON"T READ IT!!! Don't you all understand that you represent everything the majority of America despise about liberals - the obnoxious, elitest attitude. Not necessarily your views, but how fast you put down other's views as being so subservient to yours. Get a life people, and the faster you realize that there are other/different viewpoints that coexist with yours the sooner you would be happier, and less "angry".

Posted by: Anti-elitest | March 22, 2006 01:25 PM

How very sad your paper is these days...

Posted by: king kevin | March 22, 2006 01:26 PM

Mrs. King is dead. Probably doesn't matter too much now anyway.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 01:26 PM

if Ben (http://goarmy.com) liked Red Dawn, he should love Red Scorpion from the same era. Red Scorpion was financed by the apartheid South African government and produced by family buddy: Jack Abramoff. It also has lots of sweaty male bodies -- too bad Ben seems to admire them safely from a distance -- Iraq's a little too hot for BennyBoi !

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 22, 2006 01:26 PM

A newspaper should be transparent, I bothers me that the WaPo has been silent (other than empty PR talk) on why exactly it hired a partisan republican blogger.

Who made to decision to start Red America? Why was it started? Will the post consider hiring a liberal progressive blogger? If not, why?

These are all very important questions that need to be addressed.

Posted by: JG | March 22, 2006 01:27 PM

Dear Washington Post,
It is not too late. There are people there right now being pressured from the inside forces to submit to the dark-side. Resist! You do know that one day this corporate raid will end and the citizens will not look lightly on the propagandists and paid pundits. Resist the urge. Say no to fascism. There are many honest, I'm sure, journalists among you. Come forward. Explain the pressures being applied. Are they newley appointed management? Is it just a phone call from a powerfull voice? Either way, resist the dark-side, open up to truthfullness and openness. Peace be with you and our children.

Posted by: kharma | March 22, 2006 01:27 PM

Washington Post, you're doing a heckuva job.

Posted by: Scott | March 22, 2006 01:28 PM

this is tripe.

this is yet another coddled daddy's boy chicken-hawk republican in the best of the g. bush tradition taking the lexus for a spin and running people over with it.

this is an offensive thing to find on the washpost. much like leslie steiner, this guy exists purely to enrage people.

why do you treat your readers like crap? why do you insult them? call them loonies? is that how you run your business?

this is also embarrassing for anyone from a real red-state, which this boy does not know anything about.

get rid of this crap. youhave 400 comments here saying as much. does reader feedback count for nothing?

Posted by: buffetwaswrong | March 22, 2006 01:28 PM

Who made to decision to start Red America? Why was it started? Will the post consider hiring a liberal progressive blogger? If not, why?

Will the Post be responding to these questions?

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 01:28 PM

All that I wonder is: Where is "Blue America"?

Posted by: David | March 22, 2006 01:29 PM

Cool. Francis Fukuyama wrote the End of History.

Now we have the end of journalism, journalism ethics, reporting on actual events using actual facts.

It's been a long slide, but I believe the Washington Post has now hit bottom.

It took Woodward 33 years to go from intrepid investigative reporter to Banana Republican shill. Good to see the Post is skipping the whole 'build the credentials' route and going straight to shill.

Katherine Graham must be smiling in heaven.

Posted by: Art | March 22, 2006 01:29 PM

Wow, judging by how angry posters here are, I guess its true that conservatives are happier than liberals.

Don't get unhinged...bad for your health because you know, all that stuff you "dropped" back in the day will come back to haunt you.

Just sit back, pop in some Jefferson Airplane and remember when you were "sticking it to the man"

Posted by: Happy Hippie Hippo | March 22, 2006 01:30 PM

Well, at least this frees up a space on my Favorites menu.

Posted by: Atlantajan | March 22, 2006 01:30 PM

WTF?

Posted by: Mr. Pablo | March 22, 2006 01:30 PM

Kathy Graham must be rolling in her grave. I live across the street from her childhood home. Blogs like this are an offense to the tradition of elegance and excellence that she established.

Why don't you just sell the remaining husk of your publication to Rupert Murdoch and be done with it?

What an embarrassment.

Posted by: across the street from Kathy Graham | March 22, 2006 01:31 PM

I predict these comments won't be read. Someone will put up curse words, and they'll paint us all as abusive. The Post needs to figure out where the smart journalist adults are (you know, the ones with integrity about the truth), and put them in charge, quick. This Red-State column is ugly garbage.

Posted by: Beth | March 22, 2006 01:31 PM

Hey, why didn't you guys at the WaPo just snap up Jeff Gannon aka James Dale Guckert? He's available. For a price. [snerk] He even has experience [snerk] writing a rightwing bloviating blog, a blog without those pesky comments too.

By the way, WaPo, if you'd like to peek out from behind Cheney for a moment, you'll see something real: America just isn't so red anymore. It's is getting to be a very purple country. The Bush junta's popularity is in freefall. Don't be riding those coattails, they're headed for the sewer.

Posted by: Kimberly Stone | March 22, 2006 01:32 PM

You look like a healthy young specimen. Go serve Dear Leader over in Iraq. It's hard work, y'know!

Posted by: mayandjay | March 22, 2006 01:32 PM

I haven't read this poor excuse for a paper in years. This move is hardly surprising, given the general trend it's been on. Seems like a lame attempt to attract readership via controversy. To which I say, "Yawn."

Posted by: Jeff Altemus | March 22, 2006 01:32 PM

Great move WaPo! The Washington Post's transormation from a respected newspaper into a pathetic rag is almost complete. Giving home to a proven racist ranks up there with the contortions of the editorial board as they try to cloud their own culpability in the Iraq War and Deborah Howell's complete farce of a Ombudsman column week after week. Poor Katherine Graham...RIP.

Posted by: a newly divested installation | March 22, 2006 01:33 PM

oh no, these comments will be read by red state bloggers everywhere and then posted everywhere as an example of your unhinged nature.

Why are you so nice to us?

Posted by: Heinrietta | March 22, 2006 01:33 PM

BTW, just exactly how does a 24 year old white guy with zero experience get a job like this?

I can't wait for Bennie's first hypocritical anti-affirmative action diatribe about handouts, etc.

Posted by: Loco Pocho | March 22, 2006 01:34 PM

Who the heck is "Tommie Thompson"? You mean Secretary of Health & Human Services Tommy Thompson? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/thompson-bio.html)

Is this the journalistic rigor we can expect from you guys by bringing in this fool?

This dim bulb can be outsmarted by a box turtle.

Posted by: Jeremy | March 22, 2006 01:34 PM

Dear Ben,

You are the greatest thing since the internets, because you have confirmed a long-held theory of mine--that the movie "Red Dawn" has led to an entire generation of Second Amendment supporters who took that movie waaaaaayyyyy too seriously.

Incidentally, Red Dawn led to my high school's teams being named the Wolverines. I saw Red Dawn when I was around 10, and MAN did some of my classmates love that movie. A few years later, a new high school opened in my school district, and as the first class to attend the high school, we were allowed to pick the school's name. Thanks largely to Red Dawn, we ended up being named the "Wolverines".

Anyway, keep up the good work. Perhaps next you can confirm my belief that "RED AMERICA" still believes in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Boogieman, other things that it was cool to believe in when you were a kid, but that you really should have grown out of by the time you're given a job as a Washington Post blogger.

Posted by: Bucky Katt | March 22, 2006 01:35 PM

If my daddy was friends with Jack Abramoff and the White House, would you hire me to spew propaganda, too?

Perhaps the Washington Post should change it's name to Pravda.

Posted by: gnipgnop | March 22, 2006 01:35 PM

Well, I see that the Post's idea of "balance" is by hiring a throwback to the 90's. Really...I thought that political discourse consisting entirely of infantile name-calling and dubious distortions had gone out of vogue with the demise of Rush Limbaugh's TV show. Really, why not hire Howard Stern to write on women's issues? The "journalistic" standards would be the same.

Posted by: Taliesin Athor Govannon | March 22, 2006 01:35 PM

More WATB talk from the Republican Coward set.
Keep on drinking the Kool Aid freaks..

Cultists.


Posted by: | March 22, 2006 01:36 PM

Thank GOD we finally have a voice of reason amongst all the abortion-loving, family-hating, earth-hugging crazies. I am delighted to see that another perspective is included in WAPO. It's about time. The comments from liberals, who can't STAND when someone disagrees or has another perspective, are already bloviating. If you truly believe in the right to free speech under the First Amendment (which you obviously don't), or the possibility of opening your mind (no again), this wouldn't be a problem, now would it?

Posted by: Red Stater | March 22, 2006 01:37 PM

Does this mean that the Post condones Mr. Domenech's comments comparing Coretta Scott King's funeral to a "Def Jam spectacle"? Does the WaPo agree with its new blogger that blacks are interested only in "handouts" and that the "culture of so many black Americans in this country is below what it should be and is capable of being"?

If the editors at the Washington Post believe that they need a racist perspective to "balance" their news content, I think the selection of Domenech is appropriate.

Posted by: Jay Stevens | March 22, 2006 01:37 PM

Have you no shame?

Posted by: Slats Grobnik | March 22, 2006 01:37 PM

Wow, I never really liked this paper, but this really makes me sick nonetheless. People who write crap like this will, in the end, do nothing but ruin America.

Posted by: LJ | March 22, 2006 01:37 PM

Ahh...the Post falls for the old "it's all liberal bias if it doesn't contain a blog of temper-tantrums" ploy. . .and the rules, of course, are that ONLY conservatives have the right to launch diatribes on subjects they know nothing about.

Posted by: Kevin | March 22, 2006 01:38 PM

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT

Posted by: Brick | March 22, 2006 01:38 PM

hurray for free speach. unless we disagree with it of course. hypocrites.

Posted by: Casa Rossa | March 22, 2006 01:38 PM

So, Ben, daddy owns a lot of stock, no? Maybe you can be POTUS one day.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 01:39 PM

As an angry, red neck, bugged out, crazy ass moderate spewing hate filled invective at every opportunity and spitting bile in the face of all mainstream media in an effort to get reasonably competenet people to run the media and the government, I have to continue in that vein by saying:

How tragically disappointing it is to see an American institution get turned into an instrument of intentional divisiveness.

There - I just had to dump that bucket of hate, laced with ad hominem attacks, to keep my mentally unbalanced outlook for another day.

Posted by: lone wolf | March 22, 2006 01:39 PM

I have to laugh at the conservative 'commentary' we've seen here.

Let's see, liberals are 'angry' and 'hate-filled' and 'working at the organic food co-op' and listening to Jefferson Airplane?

I'm sure we can expect Ben to repeat a lot of this verbatim. It's what passes for rightwing thought.

Posted by: Kimberly Stone | March 22, 2006 01:40 PM

Re: the nonexistent "Salazar Award"...

Domenech is now claiming that the "Salazar Award" has been renamed, and is now a "leadership scholarship". per vern morrison at 12:46 PM

"I emailed Domenech about this. Within minutes he politely wrote back, saying "The NAHJ changed the name of the award in the years since I received it, it's now one of their leadership scholarships. You're welcome to call and confirm with them that I received it." "

Here is a list of the scholarships currently available from NAHJ. Note that none of them are described as "leadership scholarships"...

NAHJ Currently Offers the Following Scholarships

TV & Radio Broadcast

NAHJ General Scholarship ($1,000-$2,000)
NAHJ Newsroom Bound Scholarship Program ($4,000)
María Elena Salinas Scholarship Program ($5,000)
Geraldo Rivera Scholarship ($1,000-$5,000)
CNN 25 Scholars ($3,000-$5,000)
Print/Online


NAHJ General Scholarship ($1,000-$2,000)
Newhouse Scholarship Program ($10,000)
NAHJ Newsroom Bound Scholarship Program ($4,000)
The Washington Post Scholarship Program ($2,500)
CNN 25 Scholars ($3,000-$5,000)

As I noted originally, Ben may have gotten a scholarship from this group (of course, its also likely that he wasn't terribly honest on his application when it came to concern about Hispanic issues.) But Ben had played fast and loose with the facts before ( see http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_06_16_archive.html for a sample of Ben making stuff up ) and until he can show us some proof that he received an AWARD named after a Latino journalist who was killed by a cop while covering an anti-war demonstration in East LA, well, lets just say that skepticism is warranted.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 01:40 PM

My, what astute business sense you all have here at the WPO. Look at the traffic generated already! Why bring in someone who might foster the kind of debate that informs readers and furthers progress, when you can bring in a hack to stir up controversy and cause the kind of scene reminiscent of a child that has thrown it self down in the isle of the local supermarket.

www.fredbieling.blogspot.com

Posted by: Fred | March 22, 2006 01:40 PM

Please! Please! I would love the right wing sites to my comments everywhere.

My Box Turtle girlfriend/fiancee would love it even more.

Please! Won't you?

Posted by: lib | March 22, 2006 01:40 PM

Hey Ben...

Tell us again what a great and noble Virginian Claude Allen is...

Republicans=Cowards

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 01:41 PM

The Washington Post just bent over and kissed

Posted by: Martin Heldt | March 22, 2006 01:41 PM

Nice hire! I am excited to see the Washington Post further fall into the position of being a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration. Please let me know when you are changing the name of the paper to "PRAVDA" so I can change my links.

PS - I love the statements claiming that opposition to this homeschooled son-of-a-crony and Abramoff laop dog reflects "elitism." Is that all you fascists have?

Posted by: Shemp | March 22, 2006 01:42 PM

The Washington Post just bent over and kissed its diminished credibility goodbye.

Posted by: Martin Heldt | March 22, 2006 01:43 PM

You should do your blog from Iraq. You chichenhawk twit!

Posted by: Sandy | March 22, 2006 01:43 PM

“Yet even in a climate where Republicans … advocate views shared by a majority of voters”

Overconfidence suits you well. Remember King George’s narrow margin of victory in the last election, made possible only by voter-obstruction project in Ohio and Florida?

And which is the real Red America – the one that wants small government, or the one that wants government in everyone’s bedroom, policing “family values”? The one that wants free markets, or the one that wants corporate subsidies and business-friendly regulations limiting consumer and citizen rights? The one that wants to build a fence on the border, or the one that wants the low-wage transient work force? The one that want to make investments in infrastructure and education to fuel economic growth, or the one that wants to underfund our future on the theory that taxation is theft, and privatize all the benefits of public investments?


Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: skeptical | March 22, 2006 01:43 PM

Bob Woodward started the slide.

But Ben Domenech has completed it.

Posted by: lone wolf | March 22, 2006 01:43 PM

It's not the speech that we disagree with that we don't like.

It's the hate speech that we abhor, like slandering Corretta Scott King on the day of her funeral.

Posted by: lib | March 22, 2006 01:44 PM

RE: I have to laugh at the conservative 'commentary' we've seen here.

Let's see, liberals are 'angry' and 'hate-filled' and 'working at the organic food co-op' and listening to Jefferson Airplane?

I'm sure we can expect Ben to repeat a lot of this verbatim. It's what passes for rightwing thought.

====

Right, because all the belly acheing we've seen in here is so "stimulating".

If you don't like him, don't read him. Simple as that

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 01:44 PM

Whwn, of when, will you media people get a clue? When Fox started driving down CNN's sumbers, CNN responded by hiring right wingers, ;umping up the noise, and cutting back on substance, in-depth reporting and, well, everything that made CNN what it was. Of course, the firebreathing conservatives stayed with Fox, and all the idiots in Atlanta managed to do was alienate their most loyal viewers and tarnish the brand beyond redemption. The LA Times, on their own "let's eat the seed corn" kick, fires Bob Scheer and hires Jonah Freaking Goldberg. And now the WaPo, a liberal rag only in the minds of people who just woke up from a 20-year coma, decides it needs to bring in the kids with their own post-pubescent right-winger blogger.

It didn't work for CNN. It didn't work for the LA Times. And it's not going to work for you.

You see, the thing about right-wing blog readers is, well, THEY HATE YOU! If they read a DC paper, it would be your cross-town rival The Moon Tribune. Another great twofer you have there: appealing to the uninterested while alienating your base readership.

You know what you are? You're AM Top 40 radio in the late 1970s. The kinds have abandoned you for a new technology (FM stereo then, the web now), and you're in full panic mode.

Sorry, guys, it's over. Time to sign on to that Beautiful Music format and play records by Lawrence Welk and Doris Day.

Game over.

Posted by: Old DJ | March 22, 2006 01:44 PM

why would a paper so right-leaning already as the Washington Post feel the need to hire a right-wing nutjob for "balance"? First of all, this guy is an ignorant racist. Secondly, a partisan hack with no real experience or credibility in the world of journalism. Third, where in any of the Washington Post is a liberal political worldview accorded such a forum? The very idea is such a joke! Froomkin? Hehehe. I know, I know, god FORBID anyone hold the president accountable for his own actions and for failing to fulfill his own promises, but that is pretty apolitical behavior. Do we call Dems who criticized Clinton in the 90's conservatives? No...

Posted by: ben j. | March 22, 2006 01:44 PM

One more nail in meritocracy's coffin.

Posted by: EconAtheist | March 22, 2006 01:45 PM

Balance Froomkin? You mean balance Froomkin's IQ? Froomkin has a track record as an serious, independent journalist, vouched for by several reputed institutions. It's not his fault that the current WH press corps are a joke, and that he's willing to say that the Emperor has no clothes.

The Washington Post is now fully in the hands of rabid right-wingers, at least on the national politics beat and on its blogs.

From Susan 'Karl Rove's private stenographer' Schmidt, to Jim 'I have a shrine to Bush in my home offive' VandeHei, to that old Nixon/Ford hand Ron Nessen. And let's not get started on Deborah Howell... The Washington Post is now a proud member of the right-wing propaganda machine.

I weep for Katherine Graham.

Posted by: mzw | March 22, 2006 01:47 PM

Memo
To: Human
From: Tweety

Please do not line my birdcage with the Washington Post. I have standards, you know.

Posted by: Tweety | March 22, 2006 01:48 PM

A hearty welcome to Red America and congratulations to Ben Domenech for securing a position with one of America's most venerated institutions. The fact that Mr. Domenech has secured a marginal position as an opinion weblogger should not detract from the fact that he has meteorically risen to heights that few people of his limited years, experience, and questionable knowledge may claim.

As a socialist I am perhaps the political polar opposite of Mr. Domenech but share with him, as he expresses in his latest post, a dismay and disappointment in the lack of political discourse in our country. I can only hope that Mr. Domenech is sincere in his encouraging comments to throw off the yoke of his former affiliations, statements, and positions and is willing to truly open up this forum to political discourse and debate. While remaining healthfully skeptical that this monumental task is actually possible for someone so young, seemingly cocksure, and inexperienced to successfully undertake I hold my final judgment in reserve and ask my fellow progressives to do the same.

In concluding my welcome note to Mr. Domenech I call upon him, as he has called upon us, to take pause - leave the stereotypes, talking points, ad hominem attacks for another day, another forum, and perhaps, just perhaps, we can find that small forgotten corner of America where a political discussion entails an actual exchange of ideas. One of my favorite quotes of late does not herald liberty or patriotism, laude dissent or disobedience, it simply addresses the basest of civilities - "Conversation would be vastly improved by the use of four simple words: I do not know." Andre Maurois

Posted by: rudgrl | March 22, 2006 01:48 PM

Has anybody made the point yet that the WP isn't supposed to be balanced? Our media are supposed to be liberal.

'Liberal' means 'pertaining to freedom.' And America's media are supposed to give us the information we need so that we can make good decisions about running our country and maintaining our freedom. That means being suspicious of those in power. I.e., LIBERAL.

Conservatives tend to support the existence of class boundaries. They support the authoritarian view that those with power (the rich, the white, the male) should remain in power. That directly contradicts the purpose of good journalism.

Adding a conservative blogger is not 'balance' - it's the exact opposite, in fact. The WP should be 'balancing' the administration.

(I haven't read all the comments here yet, but the first fifty or so didn't.)

Posted by: idahogie | March 22, 2006 01:49 PM

"This is a blog for the majority of Americans"

As if the majority of Americans are priveleged white boys who live in Washington.

"Red America's citizens are the political majority."

Which is why Bush lost the popular vote?

"DO shop at Wal-Mart, DON'T buy gas from Citgo"

Ah, philosophy...

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 01:49 PM

WaPo won't tolerate "personal attacks" from commenters. Columnists OK, commenters, no.

Or isn't calling Coretta Scott King a communist a personal attack?

Cancel subscriptions, read it online if you must.

Posted by: epistemology | March 22, 2006 01:51 PM

Rudgrl:

Ben isn't interested in political discussion.

And if you asked him to leave stereotypes, talking points, and ad hominem out of what he has to say, he'd have nothing to say.

Posted by: Kimberly Stone | March 22, 2006 01:51 PM

I like the new Red America column; a corking good read! I've bookmarked it, and I'll definitely be back.

Posted by: LMAO | March 22, 2006 01:52 PM

To join the chorus of those who have already posted: the Washington Post seems to be suggesting, with the hiring of an ideological hack to provide "balance" to its other columnists, that its regular columnists are also ideologically driven political hacks. Does the Post actually believe, as many on the right do, that anyone who criticizes this administration is nothing more than an unprofessional attack dog? Or is this move intended to capture more of the Rush Limbaugh crowd? In either case, I am canceling my print subscription. I have seen the Post drifting toward the CNN/MSNBC-style "journalism" for some time, and I refuse to continue to support this.

Posted by: Jim Bishop | March 22, 2006 01:52 PM

To the Post editors:
You are the worse kind of Bush apologists - you know better and you dont have the balls to admit it. What is the reason you fools let this ignorent hack from a "red-state" (read: underdeveloped backwoods bastion of racism and abject ignorence) post his BS on the website of what some might consider (myself not among them) a reputable newspaper? Is it that you are unapologetic reactionaries? In the end, you know your old money makes you more like the brain dead chimp in the whitehouse than thinking Americans. Good luck with the "red state" crowd - Im sure the inclusion of drivel like this on your site will garner you many new sunscriptions from the former C.S.A.

Posted by: George | March 22, 2006 01:54 PM

Where Ben gets it right:

"Apparently, this violent testosterone-fueled psychological imperitive - not a coherent and just strategy for defending America in response to the first major attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor - is the real reason for our war in Iraq. Oh, and Condi Rice? Don't worry, women can have manly envy, too. Clearly, Maggie Thatcher did."

And:

"If these columnists and scientists are to be believed, then President Bush is just a real-life version of Dr. Strangelove's General Jack D. Ripper - blustering, impotent and murmuring about conspiracies to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids, just another spineless conservative wussyboy who has to prove he's a big brave man in cowboy boots."

Correct on both counts. Congrats to the WP for hiring such an astute young man.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 01:54 PM

Can I be the first to state the obvious?

To balance out Red Dawn Dom, just grab one of Arianna's major bloggers like Cindy Sheehan, Jane Hamsher, or Glen Greenwald.

They might not be as insulting as young Dom, and perhaps not as off-center, but they would surely make the WaPo editorial board squirm more.

Posted by: Pacific John | March 22, 2006 01:56 PM

For a second there I thought they gave Ann Coulter a haircut and a p*nis.

Seriously though. What snobbish, contemptous hate fills the minds of the wingnuts. It amazes me. And good decent conservative people take people like Ann(Ben) seriously? They're racists, fascists and possibly psychotic for all their lying.

WaPo, it's your money, spend it where you think is best but if this is to represent balance, I think you should be giving Hugo Chavez a blog and a check to even out the rhetoric.

Posted by: twoLibs | March 22, 2006 01:56 PM

What type of bush-lite qualifications does this guy have? and doesnt he already have a prominent racist blog?

wondering?

Posted by: ME, A JERK | March 22, 2006 01:56 PM

Exceptionally poor judgment on behalf of the Washington Post's editors. Who will you give an opinion gig to next? David Duke or Pat Robertson?

Posted by: The Richmond Democrat | March 22, 2006 01:56 PM

I don't understand how the addition of a partisan hack to the staff is going to do anything for WaPo's declining credibility.

Posted by: Lona | March 22, 2006 01:56 PM

I see the Post is trying to steer it's readers to this vile column by appealing to their higher instincts. On the home page, there's a link: "Red America: What's Wrong With Infanticide?"

Posted by: Dee Dee | March 22, 2006 01:58 PM

Some of these reply posts are downright hilarious. Any honest person with a brain realizes that the Post desperately needed to balance its incredibly left leaning coverage. The amount of accurate information that is buried or omitted by the Post will finally see the light of day. Thank goodness. Hail to the end of your ignorance. Welcome to the ever growing masses of informed Americans!

Posted by: Brien S | March 22, 2006 01:58 PM

Elsewere at Red State, "Augustine" can be seen comparing the American judiciary unfavourably to the KKK:

"The worst black-robed men and women are worse then the KKK, and not just because they have the authority of the state behind them. They don't even use the vile pretense of skin color - they dismiss the value of all unborn lives, not just the lives of ethnic minorities."

Is that you, Ben?

Posted by: Matthew B. | March 22, 2006 01:59 PM

I think it's great Ben got this job. It lets everyone know right where the Washington Post stands on a host of issues.

Transparent they are, unfortunately for them.

Posted by: lone wolf | March 22, 2006 01:59 PM

I'm embarassed for the Post. How far you've fallen, how marginalized you've become. You've cast your lot with the Republicans, foregoing any semblance of journalistic integrity, and history will judge you harshly. But who cares as long as the checks keep rolling in, eh? Well, I predict a sharp decline in advertising revenues once people realize who you are. Enjoy your insignificance.

Posted by: McStubbins | March 22, 2006 02:00 PM

red state blog? isn't that what the post is anyway?

Posted by: snooze | March 22, 2006 02:00 PM

Mrs. Graham would find the Post's choice of Mr.Domenech tacky. I agree.
I understand that times have changed, but your paper does have a bit of a heritage to live up to. You are not doing so.

Posted by: Kathy | March 22, 2006 02:01 PM

Yes, Bennie Boy's latest "Sackcloth and Ashes" piece takes a view that very few in the US would have a problem with, and uses it to take a little cut at the Dems. And a little Europhobia, too boot. Classic Regnery.

He uses a piece about infanticide to float the notion that Dem doctors would have pushed Strom Thurmond out the door sooner if we allowed such behavior here. Hmm, I seem to recall something about a push poll in the SC GOP primary in 2000 often associate with the current Deputy Chief of Staff over at the WH....

Anybody ask Ben yet about his father's connections to Jack Abramoff (lemme guess: "Never heard of him"), Italia Federici, and Gail Norton??

Posted by: vienna local | March 22, 2006 02:01 PM

Accelerate it my dear.

Posted by: Lona

I don't understand how the addition of a partisan hack to the staff is going to do anything for WaPo's declining credibility.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 02:01 PM

What a piece of trash.

Posted by: Michael | March 22, 2006 02:02 PM

Ben will put the liberals in their place. Look at their whining above. These people are afraid of war.

I hope he will call a spade a spade. Blacks ("afircan americans" to you PC folks, even though they have not been in africa for 300 years) have overrun our cities, and the liberal newspapers cow-towed to them to avoid more riots.

Now the gays followed the blacks into the cities and it is the same thing. The newspapers condone the gay agenda (metrosexuals, anal sex, etc.) to avoid falling real-estate prices which would happen if gays left. Most editors live in town and own real estate there.

So lets here it for more for RED STATE support of Christian values. God does NOT condone killing babies, sodomy, or racism against whites ("affirmative action" for you pc folks).

Posted by: look at all the winey liberals | March 22, 2006 02:03 PM

Boy, these liberals and their _balance_. Anybody on our side knows that these so-called "conservatives" are just wimp libs in disguise. Why didn't the Post give us some REAL wingers? I demand you hire a blooger from the Aryan Nations, or the White Knights, or the Anti-Abortion Action League, or critics of the Italo-Brit-Zionist Conspiracy to show people how red staters REALLY feel!

Posted by: Jimmy D | March 22, 2006 02:06 PM

Oh Great Gaia help us! The WaPo has hired a mean, greedy, racist to offer an opinion! Don't we all know that all Republithugs are just environment-devastating, seal-clubbing, pension stealing zionists who kidnap minorities to drink their blood? Oh great Gaia help us!

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 02:07 PM

Coretta Scott King opened the floodgates to blacks to overrun the cities. That is frankly what you got from Martin Luther King. Then all the white people had to leave or get killed.

Kudos to Ben for questioning America's celebration of this woman and her agenda.

P.S. MLK was a womanizer and a plagerizer of speechs.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 02:08 PM

I would argue that this Red State is backed by a racist, homophobic, and hate-filled minority, but Michael has already done that quite eloquently in supporting Red State.
This is the level of intellect you can now expect.

Posted by: Matt | March 22, 2006 02:08 PM

Well, I suppose the good news is that the Post can count on new subscriptions from good people like "winey liberals". Then again, I am tempted to believe that a post as sad, profane and misguided as winey's almost has to be done by a liberal trying to make the "red staters" look bad. Because no one is that far off their rocker, right? (Or am I being too "elite"?)

Posted by: BT | March 22, 2006 02:10 PM

Who would have thought all those years ago during the height of the Watergate scandal that almost 35 years later the Washington Post would have given up all of its journalistic credibility. Who's going to be the watchdog for americans now that the Washington Post has gone in the tank for the Republicans? The entire MSM has become Fox News. We're all wearing the blue dress now.

Posted by: Glen | March 22, 2006 02:11 PM


What a coincidence to encounter "look at all the whiney liberals" post right after I posted this over at Jay Rosen's Pressthink blog:

[Off topic, I know, but you might find this interesting. Here's a head's up.

A lot of liberals, like Jane Hamsher, to name one, have blogged the hiring of Ben Domenich, and his history of comments deriding the poor and people of color, seems like the Post has some internal marketing surveys that indicate a much bigger audience for a blogger that denigrates African American culture and Coretta Scott King right after her funeral than for hiring someone with an association of the large, historic black community of DC.

If I were African American and lived in DC, I'd be tempted to organize a late night effort to spray paint every Post newspaper rack with RACISTS in bright red letters (get the pun? Domenich's blog is entitled RED STATE, and the racks would be painted RED . . . )

Indeed, being African American has nothing to do with it, I'd be tempted anyway. Where are the anarchists when you really need them? Domenich is one of the banes of American social life, that person who elevates himself by promoting bigotry towards people of color and the Post hires him. A great, great move.

Looking forward to his first efforts to malign African Americans, Asian Americans or Latinos on the Post site as soon as some prominent figure from one of these communities dies. Pandering to white racists is an apparently untapped market for a paper like the Post.

But, I digress, although you might consider addressing how such a decision by the Post is going to enable it to reach a broad, diverse audience by hiring someone who considers African Americans culturally deficient. Next time you see Brady, you might ask him. You might also ask him how this will help the Post in seeking to recruit journalists of color, a problem faced by most major newspapers in America.

Anyway, I know you focus on the technological transformation of the industry, and do it well, so this is what I really wanted to bring to your attention (from Domenich's blog):

[Comments About Comments

A few notes are in order after the impressive reaction to the premiere of this blog.

First off, a note of thanks to the liberal side of washingtonpost.com's readership, which has weighed in on Red America in this comment thread. I'm happy that no one's engaged in any ridiculous hyperbole, unfounded accusations or unintentionally hilarious name-calling. We can all agree that such things lower the quality of debate on the Internet, play to the worst side of our knee-jerk partisan nature and have no place in the modern public square. I look forward to engaging you in a serious, respectful discussion on the issues that matter most to the future of our nation.

To that last point, we'll be rolling out comments here shortly. Because this is an opinion blog, and not a work of unbiased journalism, it is sure to spark responses from a few fringe members of this Internet political community, who might be motivated to deluge comment systems with offtopic concerns (or perhaps go after other members of the Washington Post family, who have nothing to do with this blog - silly, I know, but I'm told it happens). Comments will be coming after the initial launch is finished, when I've gotten used to the rhythm of posting and you, gracious readers, have gotten used to it, too.

In the meantime, I'll be posting worthwhile reader reactions from the comment thread mentioned above and from email. It's great to be part of the washingtonpost.com Opinions section, and I hope this column proves to be an interesting and worthwhile read for all of you.]

I will not even dignify this bigot's request for "serious, respect discussion", except to say, that he's already demonstrated that it is a whites only endeavor.

For your purposes, however, it appears that Brady isn't quite that the proponent of openness for the Post blog, because people have to wait until they have proven that they can be nice before comments will be opened. In other words, Post management is well aware of the firestorm that this selection will ignite, and has preemptively shut down Domenich's blog.

One wonders, when will the blog open for comments, May 2007? I always thought that a blog without comments was kind of like a car without tires, but, maybe, an amateur like me doesn't understand new trends in the industry.

Whatever the Post website is, the Guardian it ain't.

Posted by: Richard Estes at March 22, 2006 02:02 PM | Permalink]

Posted by: Richard Estes | March 22, 2006 02:11 PM

Why is the left so upset over this "Red State" blogging place?

They're terrified the Truth may actually have a voice in the lame Stream Media.

95% of the press is liberal....and yet, they are scared to death of one little mainstram blog being given voice in the Washington Post online?

Pathetic.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 02:11 PM

The best part is comparing the comments of the moonbats and wingnuts right here on this page:
We see moonbats with facts to back up their criticism and wingnuts with none. We see moonbats with reason, who know how to write, and wingnuts with nothing but snide, defensive little comments. The moonbats debate and the wingnuts can only say "shut-up", "get back to work" (don't think, be more like us).
I'm no psychologist but it appears fairly obvious that the wingnuts are acting a bit like a cornered rats these days. They are just at that painful point of realizing that their dreams of a white theocratic monarchy, or an "apple pie fascism", or some other apocalyptic fantasy of fear assuaged are not shared by some "silent majority". Real conservatives are abandoning the wingnuts right and left, realizing they were sold a bill of goods by average Texas con-men with too much money. While good liberals are refining the moonbats everyday. The former and later are even finding points of agreement (god forbid); thereby leaving the wingnuts with their president... all 30% percent of them. I mean it must be hard to admit your man has botched absolutely every aspect of government. Real conservatives admit it and want nothing to do with you, and that must hurt. Don't feel too bad kids, the moonbats have done it to the liberals before and may again some day.
Let the games begin!

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 02:11 PM

The poorly spelled post above from Mr. "look at the winey (sic -- does he think we all drink too much) liberals" is exactly what the Post can expect for inviting the RedState wingnut racist. Congrats Post -- my wife and I have decided to let our print subscription go.

"He who invites trouble into his own house shall inherit the wind." Proverbs 11:29 (yes, some liberals are religious)

Posted by: Maimonides | March 22, 2006 02:12 PM

Congratulations on jumping the shark. Journalism students in need of a paper topic thank you very much.

Posted by: clb72 | March 22, 2006 02:12 PM

WaPo - see ya. I have nothing but contempt for your choice to provide "balance". The attempt at balance itself is questionable, but your choice shows stupidity beyond belief.

You have lost my respect.

Posted by: Norfolk, VA | March 22, 2006 02:13 PM

You filthy bastard. How many times do you want to shoot Dr.King anyway?!

Posted by: Salminio | March 22, 2006 02:13 PM

Ben/Augustine's new WaPo blog is unintentionally hilarious. Steven Colbert couldn't produce a parody for his show any funnier than the silliness found in Red America. It's a gem complete with Red Dawn references and self-righteous angst.
Truly, home schooling is a wonderful thing.
However, if there's anything 'red' around here, it should be the collective faces of the reporters and editors at Washington Post.
Just a thought: Maybe WaPo can change its name to the "Wolverine Post". Because you can never be fair and balanced enough

Posted by: Mimi | March 22, 2006 02:13 PM

Hi,

I was wondering if the someone at the Washington Post is going to provide any more insight into the creation of this blog. Specifically, answering these questions would be a good start:

Who made to decision to start Red America? Why was it started?

Will the post consider hiring a liberal progressive blogger? If not, why?

I thought one of the lessons regarding the last time comments were pulled from the Post is that your silence was a large part of the problem.

If you don't plan on answering these questions, fine, just let us know that you won't be answering them. If you do plan on answering them, please let us know when and where.

Thanks

Posted by: John | March 22, 2006 02:13 PM

You freaks keep finding new depths to sink to. You have now entered the 6th grade children's level of newspaper reporting, having consciously chosen to skip right by the 12th through 7th grades.

Posted by: beyond paranoid | March 22, 2006 02:14 PM

I am so glad that the Washington Post has proven to the world just how slavishly they suckle at the teat of Ken Mehlman and the RNC fax-blasted talking points (though I don't remember the RNC calling Coretta Scott King a "commie" before, but maybe that was BEFORE Kenny apologized for the Southern Strategy and promised to come out of the clos- I mean, be nice to blacks)...crap, I just said "teat," is Deborah Howell going to cry and demand that this post be removed for insulting her delicate sensibilities? Because you've just hired someone who called a dead woman a "commie" while she was still lying in state (and while Supreme Ruler Bush was pretending to give a crap), so there goes the argument that the Post is concerned about the "quality of dialogue" in these parts...anyway, top notch hiring, if this baby-faced ignoramus is supposed to be the best we can find to "balance" Froomkin (of Harvard School of Journalism residency) and his horrible practice of highlighting the stupid stuff these people actually say on the record (reality is SO liberal), then conservatism might be dying a faster, more public death than I ever imagined.

Posted by: the Mantis | March 22, 2006 02:16 PM

Ben Domenech has zero journalistic credibility. Was Ann Coulter not available?

Posted by: rmwarnick | March 22, 2006 02:16 PM

WaPO: Explain this one to me:

His personal profile at RedState.com says:

Political Correctness is Killing African-Americans
by Brandon

http://www.redstate.com/user/Augustine

This is the Pottery Barn Rule WaPo. You bought this mother F*cker, you now own him ass.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 02:16 PM

"Ben Domenech is a co-founder of RedState, the web's leading Republican community blog. He began his career as a political journalist covering Capitol Hill, writing for numerous publications and working as a contributing editor to National Review Online. After 9/11, he abandoned the journalism field for a taxpayer-funded life and was sworn in as the youngest political appointee of President George W. Bush. Following a year as a speechwriter for HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson and two as the chief speechwriter for Texas Senator John Cornyn, Ben is now a book editor for Regnery Publishing, where he has edited multiple bestsellers and books by Michelle Malkin, Ramesh Ponnuru, and Hugh Hewitt."


Please remind me of why the Post has chosen a Republican speechwriter to write its blog to "balance" a Republican administration and Republican courts and legislators. Or is it to "balance" journalists with opinions who source their work (Froomkin) -- as this blogger is not required to do (nor does he do so).

When will we see the Blue State Blog?

You could invite Markos Moulitsas Zúniga (dailykos.com -- which is one of the web's prominent progressive blogs) or Michael Moore or Congressman Kucinich -- all of whom have a 'progressive' perspective. But they would source their blogs and provide back up information for what they write about -- so perhaps they would not qualify to stand alongside the young, insubstantial, ill-informed, right-winger whom you've selected as a blogger, Ben Domenech.

Posted by: MS | March 22, 2006 02:17 PM

"If the miracles worked in you had taken place in Tyre and Sidon, they would have reformed in sackcloth and ashes long ago" (Matthew 11:21).

9/11 was God's Will. Katrina was God's Will. New York and Louisiana were two of the most sinful places on earth for usury, gambling, sodomy... (The Jews were warned in New York and got out in time b/c they are God's special children).

So let us PRAY for those who cannot see the light our Lord Jesus Christ has offered them, for the wrath of God is not to be taken lightly.

Posted by: sack cloth and ashes | March 22, 2006 02:17 PM

I was shocked at the gross errors related to what a "majority of Americans" supposedly believe. Ben is simply wrong on all of those things. I hope he does better than this in the future.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 02:18 PM

The Washington Post has ceased to be of any value to me as a news organization.

Posted by: David | March 22, 2006 02:18 PM

I read the Post almost daily online for national news and commentary, even though I live in Ohio. Coming from a "Red State," I don't quite understand the special need for a separate weblog apparantly targeted to what editors assume are the opinions of people like me. If the Post is going to exlicitly publish something like a "Red State" or conservative blog, they should equally publish a "Blue State" or progressive blog, too, to avoid bias and ensure readers get all sides of issues.

Posted by: Andrew C. Breen | March 22, 2006 02:21 PM

Frankly, commentary by Mr. Domenech is a waste of headcount/ salary, bandwidth, and space. Not to mention redundant - as the Right-wing media machine already commands the public megaphone.

Posted by: Cancelling Subscription | March 22, 2006 02:21 PM

Attention, Conservatives:

'message' not 'messenge'
'whiner' not 'winer'
'plagiarist' not 'plagerizer'


Posted by: Miss Spelled. | March 22, 2006 02:21 PM

The perils of home-schooling

" I don't necessarily subscribe to all Creationist theories, but I do take Genesis literally. And I believe the commonly taught theory of evolution is a total crock."

Ben "www.goarmy.com" Domenech 3-7-2003

now, here is my question. Benny-boy was home schooled. So how does he have the slightest clue what constitutes the "commonly taught theory of evolution?"

Here is a clue for Mr. Brady --- don't hire someone who considers the book of Genesis "factual" to comment on political and social issues. If you want to hire a religion blogger, that's one thing. But you hired someone whose "education" consisted of home schooling by a religious nutcase, and it shows.

Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 22, 2006 02:22 PM

Nice balance. Factual reporting, including those "liberally biased facts", offset by right wing wind, based on no facts.

Or are you intentionally sabotaging the right wing, by printing this callow oaf as its representative?

Oh, and where are the comments at Red Nation? Or is cowardice in the face of contradiction a trait of not only the president, but his apologists, too.

Posted by: Rich Levy | March 22, 2006 02:23 PM

So, I am assuming you will soon be statrting a "liberal blog", or is the Post only giving the GOP a mouthpice at your online paper?

Posted by: Paul White | March 22, 2006 02:23 PM

The fastest way to kill a bad product is with good marketing.

Keep talking home-schooler, that sucking sound you hear is the "movement" imploding.

Your 15 minutes are about done.

Posted by: Urban Pirate | March 22, 2006 02:24 PM

Why isn't this kid in the Army? Does he have other priorities?

Posted by: TerryKindlon | March 22, 2006 02:24 PM

Seriously, Ben, why aren't you in uniform fighting in this war you think is vital to our nation's security?

It's a serious question that deserves a serious answer. Unless you are a fraud.

Posted by: Ohdave | March 22, 2006 02:25 PM

Couldn't the post have found a rational conservative with some journalism, or even life, experience rather than a 24-year-old kid whose commentary reflects an even more sophomoric maturity level? For that matter, why would an institution like the Washington Post even want to be associated with someone with such a low regard for reason -- diversity or not? I guess values like "credibility" and "integrity" are passe these days.

Posted by: MoCrash | March 22, 2006 02:27 PM

Will the post be hiring a "blue state" blogger? I'm disturbed by the lack of balance. VERY disturbed. Dan Froomkin does not qualify--not even close--as a "blue state blogger."

Posted by: Rachel | March 22, 2006 02:27 PM

Dear WashingtonPost.com

Did you seriously hire a guy who was ANGRY that Bush went to Coretta Scott King's funeral? Ben Domenech called her a 'communist' you know. This kid is homeschooled, which should piss off just about every homeschooler in the country. Also, he's 24! Did you pick this guy via dartboard?

Posted by: Padraig | March 22, 2006 02:27 PM

Interesting that Domenich worked for Hugh Hewitt.

Maybe Brady and Hewitt had a brief conversation before they went on the air for that lovefest during the Howell/Abramoff debacle, where Brady just nodded his head and agreed with every statement Hewitt made about bloggers who were critical of the Post's refusal to correct its erroneous coverage of the Abramoff case.

By the way, forgot to mention that Domenich hates gays as much as he hates African Americans. So, there's another group that the Post is apparently writing off.

Here's a suggestion for a new ad campaign featuring Domenich: "The Post: THE SOURCE for racist, homophobic opinion in the DC metro area."

Posted by: Richard Estes | March 22, 2006 02:28 PM

You crackers think the WaPo is a right-wing mouthpiece? Good Lord. What's next? NPR is really a front for the VRWC?

Too much fun.

Posted by: St. Alban | March 22, 2006 02:28 PM

Congratulations Washington Post on completing your descent into an all time low. A newspaper that hires folks that call a revered public figure like Coretta Scott King a commie- How proud you must be to have such an articulate, intolerant racist working for you! You went lower then any of your readers could have ever imagined.

Posted by: Christine Waltz | March 22, 2006 02:29 PM

Good Lord, yet another "there-are-no-truths-just-better-spin" right-wing gas bag? I've been reading that the newspaper industry is becoming increasingly more desperate to attract readers, but this boob? Fortunately, I assume he'll be as easy to ignore as the rest.

Posted by: D. Williams | March 22, 2006 02:30 PM

So, where's "Blue America" at? I mean, WaPo is trying to be equal, right? Or are you just trying to be Fair and Balanced?

Posted by: Dan | March 22, 2006 02:30 PM

Ben got this job through family connections (his father is a Bush appointee). But how did Al Gore get to be Veep (his dad was a senator)?

Bush's dad was president, but so was John Adams. The Roosevelts where cousins. And all three Kennedy brothers got into office through nepotism. Does demean any of them?

Finally, Hillary Clinton is a senator, and that had nothing to do with Bill's help, right?

And your precious Katherine Graham inheritied the paper from her father after her husband killed himself.

So. If nepotism is good enough for all your favorite liberals, it's good enough for Ben. To say anything less is hypocritical.

Posted by: hypocritical liberals | March 22, 2006 02:30 PM

Carl Bernstein has held on to his integrity but Woodward should be writing a weekly pro-Republican White House column for People magazine.

Posted by: beyond paranoid | March 22, 2006 02:32 PM


WashPo seems to be letting the conservative sphere tell it what to print. So, why bother with this "balanced" charade?

Readers: there are better newspapers out there. This one doesn't want you to use your brains...

Posted by: dejah | March 22, 2006 02:33 PM

This is just another right wing outlet. Add the W. Post to the MSM as this Freeper calls it...fish wrap.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 02:33 PM

Wow. Look at the liberal wack-jobs foaming at the mouth. How much you wanna bet all these comments are just three guys from St. E's?

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 02:35 PM

when did the washington post become the washington times?

consider my subscription cancelled

Posted by: ed | March 22, 2006 02:35 PM

Ben Domenech is the Rush Limbaugh of bloggers: GOP great, Dems bad.

The Washington Post might as well hire Scott McLellan to regurgitate Bush's propaganda and get paid by the federal government to print it.

Come November he'll be discovering that his fantasy about speaking on behalf of a silent Republican majority will be "small enough to drown in the bathtub."

Not that he'll admit any faults...just like his hero, the liar President.

Posted by: Redwretch | March 22, 2006 02:35 PM

Wait, wait, I thought you libs were supposed to be open-minded, tolerant, and understanding? Surely if you can understand the "root causes" of why osama hates us you can share a little blog space with a republican now, can't you?

Posted by: Gin Jihadi | March 22, 2006 02:38 PM

This is bloody hilarious! ben, looks like you stumbled into the moonbats cave and now they're all a-twitter!

Ladies and gentlemen...you're "reality-based" community! LOL
--------------------

Funny. The grammatically challenged supporting the factually challenged.

Posted by: Thumb | March 22, 2006 02:38 PM

This isn't a blog, its a phlog, a fake blog. I'm not Blue or Red, Right or Left, Republican or Democrat, I'm uh just an American. I think the entire US Government and their Corporate State Controlled Media should be brought to swift justice! Fluff up your feather pillows and keep the tar on the back burner. Let them burn, let them squirm, start the fire and fire the liars!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com

Posted by: rebellion to tyrants | March 22, 2006 02:39 PM

Badly, badly done, folks. As a regular online reader of the Post and a subscriber to Newsweek for the past thirteen years, beginning in journalism school (imagine that! Journalism school!), I have been increasingly dismayed by the Post Company's alarming submission to the presidential administration currently in office, as well as to the extreme right wing that gives broad voice to the administration. I want to make clear that I have voted for candidates from both major parties in presidential, congressional, statewide, and local elections. But the hardening of the discourse by the current Republican party and its most ardent supporters -- and, more importantly, the contempt for which the current party in power repeatedly shows the American people, the constitution, and the rule of law -- has driven me to hope desperately for some sort of opposition. That is supposed to be the job of the media. It is a job that Dan Froomkin does well, not on behalf of liberals, but on behalf of Americans.

The Bush-hypnotized conservatives who protest Dan Froomkin cannot process the fact that the truth is not biased. Apparently, neither can you. You are trying to "balance" a longstanding, credentialed journalist with a semi-precocious child, a professional with a whiner, a truth-teller with a liar. The jaw drops at your ham-handedness. This entire situation shows incredibly poor news and business judgment. Needless to say, I will no longer read the Post, and I have cancelled my Newsweek subscription.

Posted by: Angela | March 22, 2006 02:39 PM

Well, they obviously can't win elections, so foaming at the mouth is all they got left.

Posted by: Gin jihadi | March 22, 2006 02:39 PM


Bush's dad was president, but so was John Adams.
------

So, Barbara Bush also slept with John Adams?

How naughty of her. Also, considering Adams has been dead over 200 years, that's kind of kinky.

Posted by: LMFAO | March 22, 2006 02:39 PM

I find it bordering on the surreal that a majority of conservative commentators and "bloggers" continue to expound the claim that their opinions and views are not reflected in the main-stream media.

The high-pitched screams of the "moon-bats" (we all have rather adorable monikers for those whom we cannot understand, don't we? wing-nuts, moon-bats; it's like a Lewis Carrol poem or something written by Gogol) contain the thread that the MSM is leaning too far to the right and is providing a means for the administration to spout propoganda.

Then I thought, why would someone who supports conservative ideals (namely small government, fiscal responsibility, etc.) swear almost zealotrous allegiance to the Bush cult of personality (Bush being someone who is not purely conservative in the least)?

Then it hit me: this is about controversy and eyeballs. Mr. Domenech's blog is going to either make people cancel their WP subscriptions out of disgust or cause people to read the paper under the pretext, "I wonder what the 'conservative' blogger is going to write now; oooh, this'll make the moon-bats holler even louder".

It's sad when the only source of entertainment you have is watching people on your "side" or the other "side", which are those who have or pretend to have completely opposing ideals, go at each other like roosters in a Thai cock-fighting tournament. Sad, sad, sad.

Posted by: John | March 22, 2006 02:40 PM

Gin Jihadi wrote:

Surely if you can understand the "root causes" of why osama hates us you can share a little blog space with a republican now, can't you?

----

I think you need to understand the root causes of why liberals hate the GOP. But that would require critical thinking, honesty and courage.

Posted by: Kimberly Stone | March 22, 2006 02:42 PM

What were you thinking?!?

The cynic in me says:

Wow, what a clever way to increase site traffic!

Bring in an unqualified, blatantly partisan kid to start a 'Red America' blog without starting a 'Blue America' blog, tapping into and inflaming the outrage still simmering over Howell's incompetence and the Post's defensive and disingenuous response to justified criticism.

However, the part of me that grew up delivering and reading the Washington Post is dismayed that a once great newspaper has fallen so far.

Posted by: Bragan | March 22, 2006 02:43 PM

Posties, apparently you're behind -- satirizing the right-wing bloviation machine is now what's in. Your Foxification is so 1990s!

Posted by: ColbertNation! | March 22, 2006 02:44 PM

There is one huge reason why Bennie should not be blogging for the Post.

His daddy is involved in the abramoff scandal, and Bennie (in the guise of Augustine) has tried to hide the White House's involvement in that scandal.

Back on March 10, "Augustine" announced Gail Norton's resignation over at Red State. The first commenter in that thread asked the question "does this have anything to do with Abramoff and the Indian-casino dealings? " Bennie's answer was...

"Nope I'm pretty sure the only Interior folks involved with that are former people (Griles). "

(see http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/3/10/123024/389 --and theres even a bit more there)

now, I'm not quite sure what the about bit of incoherence means, but since we know (via Josh Marshall) that Bennie's daddy was the White House connection between Interior and Italia Federici, its pretty obvious that Bennie is trying to cover for his daddy here.

Because of the extreme levels of corruption of the Bush regime, no one whose father works in the White House should be blogging for the Post --- especially someone like Bennie, who plays fast and loose with the facts.


Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 22, 2006 02:45 PM


Wow, what a bad business decision.
You cannot be serious. I'm embarassed to call myself a journalist.

Posted by: Roberta1 | March 22, 2006 02:45 PM

Nice to see the Washington Post is at least consistent: toady editorial policies and nepotistic hiring decisions that put you squarely on Karl's beloved Goebbels Memorial List of Reliable Finks. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Posted by: dougkwhite | March 22, 2006 02:45 PM

just another white rich male getting richer by talking about how "red america" is getting ignored.

think bill o-reilly. think all the white males who have banked $$$ss off of what is real suffering/ real problems in the places commonly referred to as "red america"

PS to the writer of the blog: "red america" was a term the MSM gave a group of states. to be against teh MSM and continue to blissfully use their language is silly.

but then, so are you.

Posted by: Needing | March 22, 2006 02:46 PM

You liberals really are losing it. It's quite sad and pathetic, really. Please, get a life.

Posted by: Michele O | March 22, 2006 02:47 PM

Hey WAPO and Ben. Little clarification for you: A Blog allows comments; real comments, not emailed and moderated. What you have here is a Column. You know? Like Ann Landers.

Congratulations, Ben, on your new Column.

LOL

Posted by: dj angst | March 22, 2006 02:47 PM

""the Washington Times has never come off life support since Rev. Moon revived it,""

Actually Moon started the WT from scratch and has funded it with a couple billion he made running cons on the Japanese.

find some of that here:
http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/moonies/moonies_in_Japan.htm

Moon is the conservative movement's savior. And you were told the left was being bought by Soros. hahaha Soros' piddly millions spent on the left makes him a cheapskate compared to Moon's billions propping up and guiding the conservative movement rise to control America. He even says it was his job as messiah to raise up the religious right and he did it. He is their messiah.

Yes, a man many call a "madman" paid to bring the new right to power in America. The WP once upon a time did some good reporting on that but no more, now they are on his side dragging the nation to hell.

Notice the replies by the right in this thread, how conditioned they are? How they are the same words they are told to use by Rush, Coulter and all?

Ever wonder why the right is so cult like?

You starting to get the picture?

Posted by: Ned | March 22, 2006 02:48 PM

Who picked him? Ms. Howell? This is a joke. Subscription to be cancelled post haste.

Posted by: Patrick in Chicago | March 22, 2006 02:49 PM

Congratulations. I suppose that hiring a blogger makes you feel that the attacks on your once-great newspaper will cease to exist.

First of all, there should've been two hires. As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, Froomkin is NOT balance. I have read him from the beginning, and while he throws in comments between links and cuts from news stories, he brings up salient points. His counterpoint, I suppose, would be Howard Kurtz, who does the same thing for Media Notes, but without the Opinion tag stuck in front of him.

Do you see what you are doing here? You are subscribing to the very meme that is making you more irrelevant every single day. Because Froomkin leans left in his commenting, and the right-wing noise machine launches into gear, along with your ombudsman (who is a poor substitute for the talented and fair Michael Getler), calling him a liberal who needs to be tagged with a big "Opinion" label.

Meanwhile, Kurtz, who leans right in his commenting, gets no tag. Your new blogger gets no tag. You are singling out the "liberal" while not tagging the "conservatives." Why is that, Mr. Brady? Doesn't that demonstrate a bias against Froomkin's opinions?

Furthermore, if you were going to hire a RedState blogger, a similar contract should have been given to a DailyKos frontpager, or to Atrios, or any one of the liberal bloggers. To have a "Red America" blogger, but not a "Blue America" blogger demonstrates that you believe in the crap that the GOP has been spouting for thirty years: that the media is somehow liberally biased. By playing their game, you are diminishing your credibility, your relevance, and your history as one of the great reporting newspapers. Even Woodward has joined in the game now.

I have loved the Washington Post for years, and have revered it. Now I find myself reading less and less, and for that, you only have yourselves to blame.

Posted by: Thad | March 22, 2006 02:51 PM

Cancelling a subscription because the Post decided to hire a blogger? A bit extreme, no? Why not just skip his column?

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 02:51 PM

Why does anyone still read this proganda rag? Now it's "liberal" to tell the truth and give facts about a war and administration build on lies, crimes and deceit. How stupid does the Post think the public really is?

The Wash Post has become the White House Post. Bush's mouth piece. I feel sorry for my family in DC--WaPo will rot your mind with all of it sugar coating of Bush's criminal acts and lying us into an illegal war. I will beg my family to cancel their subscriptions.

Thank God for the Internet! I can read the objective truth about America and world events from unbiased and credible English-speaking on-line newspapers in the UK, Canada and South Africa. I hope this paper finally goes offline for good. That would be best for the US intellect.

Posted by: Nigel Elliott | March 22, 2006 02:51 PM

I think this is a breath of fresh air. The Post needs more data free analysis by racist blowhards, to balance the facts which occasionally appear in your news pages. After all, reality has a liberal bias, so you can't let it go unchallenged.

Posted by: Cervantes | March 22, 2006 02:53 PM

All I can say is: "You've got to be kidding!!" This is an early April Fool's joke isn't it? If so, you've picked the right fool.

Posted by: Ray Heyd | March 22, 2006 02:54 PM

oh, and on the irony front....

Domenech isn't blogging for the Post, but for WPNI --- basically, the Post newspaper and its editors (theoretically) had nothing to do with the decision to hire Bennie the Yellow Pachyderm. So all of these people who are cancelling their subscriptions to the Post are (theoretically) hurting the wrong target.

I say "theoretically", because lets face it, maybe Jim Brady made the decision, but the decision itself was forced by Debbie Howell and John Harris and Len Downie and their desperate desire to placate the Bush regime at all costs -- and Harris and Howell and Downie ARE "The Post".

Of course Brady still gets his share of the blame for being spineless....

Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 22, 2006 02:55 PM

last week, a poster on the Daily Politics stated that right-leaners probably dont read that daily chat because they are afraid of having their views challenged and are closed minded people.

the majority of the comments posted here against the new blog shows that this is the same mentality on the right. Are you willing to only read or listen to what only appeals to your leaning?

as a confirmed conservative (who does disagree withe some actions of the current administration and is vocal about it), I also read the liberal opinions on both the Washington Post, the NY Times, and listen to NPR. This is so I know and understand the liberal viewpoint.

As Sun Tzu said: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained, you will also suffer a defeat.

so, instead of dismissing the new blog, why dont you just trying reading what he posts for the Washington Post, using an open mind, and then judge accordingly. At a minimum, you will learn more about the other half of the country you view as enemies.

Posted by: read first | March 22, 2006 02:56 PM

Ben,
Your blog is a wonderful addition to the Washington Post and they are lucky to have you on board.
(And, Way to take the battle right to the home front!)
We'll all be reading, linking and posting.
Best!!

Posted by: Amanda B. Carpenter | March 22, 2006 02:56 PM

Just a comment back to the conservatives complaining about the Post's customers complaining about the RedState Debacle: This dude is a racist, plain and simple. If that's what being conservative is about, then once again I'm proud to be a liberal.

The Post and the MSM are more conservative than Liberal. You won't believe that, but it's true. If they were liberal they'd have questioned the war from the outset, not after our 3rd Year of Failure. But they didn't. Then you have talk radio dominated by conservatives, Fox, MSNBC and CNN all fighting to be the most conservative (with the Post joining in a decade late). Further proof -- Look at the Post today. We have Will and Krauthammer (were they not conservative enough) and plenty of reporting critical of the marginalized Dems (how much reporting can a paper do on teh minority party). You all develop mind-shattering cognitive dissonance whenever the FACTS show that the Administration screwed up. Again.

I'm sure you don't think they've screwed up, so let's review (30 second version):
We were warned/weren't warned about Osama, WMDs in Iraq, Iraq working with Al Quaeda, Mission Accomplished, Social Security Reform, Terri Schiavo, Intelligent Design, Dubai Ports Deal, Harriet Myers, India's Getting Nukes!, Osama (still out there), Afghanistan (remember the war we forgot to finish?), Katrina, Brownie, Libby, Cheney Shot a Guy, and Immigration . . .
go ahead, let's hear the successes.

Posted by: MitionAkomplished | March 22, 2006 02:58 PM

Explain this to me. Do I have it right? Is the Washington Post organization saying that the new "Red America" blog is supposed to be some kind of balance to Dan Froomkin?

Dan Froomkin--who is a real journalist? Dan Froomkin--who may be slightly progressive but who holds it in check and criticizes both sides of the political spectrum?

Ben Domenech balances Froomkin?

Are we talking about the same Ben Domenech? The same Ben Domenech who was a Bush political appointee? The same Ben Domenech who wrote (below)about the Coretta Scott King Funeral and the black culture:

"Why is it that we have to accept the Pantheon of the Left and see THEIR [emphasis mine] funerals televised -- from Wellstone to Mrs. King?"

"I also think I have a clearer understanding of why the culture of so many black Americans in this country is below what it should be and is capable of being."

(Coretta King was a national heroine married to a national hero, was she not? The fight for civil rights was a national struggle, was it not? Who but a far right hard-liner and a borderline racist would say things like this?)

Is the Washington Post saying Froomkin writes columns THIS BIASED, therefore he has to be balanced?

In my opinion, Domenech is a 24-year-old right winger who thinks he knows it all and who won't realize he doesn't for another decade. Or more.

For example, in his first column, Domenech claimed that his blog represents the "majority of Americans." Good lord. Is the Washington Post going to allow inaccuracies like this?

According to the polls, most of us don't hold the same views as Domenech. Most of us weren't for privatizing Social Security. Most of us weren't for starving the beast and weakening FEMA. Even according to our representation in government, most of us don't hold the same views as Domenech.

Take our representatives in the Senate, for instance: 55 Republican Senators represent 131 million people and 44 Democratic Senators represent 161 million. By what stretch of the imagination does Domenech speak for most Americans?

I beg with you--plead with you--Washington Post, don't do this to your loyal readers. Don't make us dispise you for your hypocrisy.

At the very least, get Domenech an editor who will check his facts and also help him rewrite expressions of his more offensive far right views.

Posted by: sallyemoto | March 22, 2006 02:58 PM

So this is what the Washington Post is reduced to? Hiring someone with little-to-no journalistic experience to mouth off and call liberals names? No thanks.

Posted by: HDS | March 22, 2006 02:58 PM

If your purpose was to reinforce the red state stereotype -- that well-known combination of ignorance and arrogance -- then you hired the perfect man for the job. His first priority is to lambast the "left" (whoever that is) and claim he's right and they're wrong, his team is running the world and nyah nyah nyah. Good job there. Then he goes into an oversimplified and misleading rant about "infanticide" (apparently just one of many characteristics he attributes to the "left").

And no comments allowed, no suprise there. Anyone who has ever tried to post disagreement on his redstate.org blog knows how he feels about dissent.

Then his helpful friends are more than happy to jump on board and tell the "left" how pathetic they are.

Is it just me or is it always the least populated states that claim to be the mainstream?

Posted by: this liberal is entertained | March 22, 2006 03:00 PM

While I have written Ms. Howell about this, it should be discussed here.

RedState.org, in collusion with AOL, last year participated in journalistic fraud. When Senator Cornyn of Texas made his remarks sympathethic with those who were outraged at "activist judges," AOL ran a headline that said something to the effect of, "Senator Cornyn: See What He Actually Said." The link, however, took the reader to a page on RedState.org that gave only a sentence or two from Cornyn's actual speech and a number of excerpts from other speeches where he advocated respect of the judicary and the rule of law, along with commentary by RedState editors and regular readers. There was no link to any transcript of Cornyn's speech and no presentation of his entire remarks.

Clearly, this fraudulent representation of an extended defense of Senator Cornyn as reported and transcribed news took the collusion of AOL's content editors and of at least some editors of RedState.org.

I cancelled my AOL account over this fraud and similar right-wing antics. Let me reiterate -- this was fraud.

No one at the Post seems willing to say how "balance" is achieved by hiring someone who has NO journalistic ethics, or at the very least has had no problem with those who don't have any, to counter someone (Froomkin) who has clearly made a serious effort to abide by them.

When El Cid swore fealty to Alphonso of Spain, as a condition he forced Alphonso to publiclly swear he had had no role in the murder of his brother Sancho. It is doubtful that the Post will engage in the same act of coerced integrity with respect to an act of fraud.

I can back my claim. Unless AOL has deleted or modified my customer service complaints, they are on record under my name.

Posted by: eniarku99 | March 22, 2006 03:00 PM

RE: Unbelievable. 24 years old. No experience in journalism.

And this is supposed to be one of the best papers in the country. What a joke.

====

Emily Messner is about 25 years old and has a blog here. Handles it quite well, considering she came to it straight from an intern job.

WaPo is making a shot for a younger demographic and is casting its net out to catch all the readers it can get, pure and simple

Posted by: Hola! | March 22, 2006 03:03 PM

Poor Katharine Graham -- spinning, spinning, spinning ....

Posted by: Rachel | March 22, 2006 03:03 PM

Ben got this job through family connections (his father is a Bush appointee). But how did Al Gore get to be Veep (his dad was a senator)?

Bush's dad was president, but so was John Adams. The Roosevelts where cousins. And all three Kennedy brothers got into office through nepotism. Does demean any of them?

Finally, Hillary Clinton is a senator, and that had nothing to do with Bill's help, right?
--------------------

What is it with Reich-wingers and basic literacy? Is an IQ approaching one's shoe size and a compulsion to advertize it a requirement to be considered a "conservative" these days? Maybe it's a result of trying to squeeze the square peg of modern republicanism into the round hole of reality that leaves these people sounding like Dan Quayle teaching spelling to minors. Chicken. Egg. Who knows.

Anyway, here, let me spell it out r_e_a_l s_l_o_w_l_y so even a freeper can keep up.

Gore, Hillary, the Kennedys, the Rosevelts, John Adams, et al weren't given a "job through family connections," they were e_l_e_c_t_e_d to public office.

To the best of my understanding ben didn't get his new job through any public election.

If you still have problems understanding this most basic of concepts try moving your lips when you slowly read through it again.

And remember kids, don't drop out of school. You can see what happens to your reasoning abilities.

Posted by: Thumb | March 22, 2006 03:04 PM

Red America is Red Amerika. Get my drift? Support of the neocon agenda simply ruined this country and put it into the fascist state is is now. If you're red, your opinions are dead. You don't count and you will be humiliated in due time. You'll be exposed for the fascist elitists you are. I feel sorry for you.

Posted by: liberals save the world | March 22, 2006 03:05 PM

why don't you answer the question of whether or not you used to post under the name Augustine? I can see why you wouldn't want to own up to those posts -- it's mostly racist drivel, but think of this as a chance to have some balls. You're too much of a coward to fight the war you support, isn't this the least you can do -- fess up to your own writing? Be a man.

Posted by: rtss | March 22, 2006 03:06 PM

He's 24, hummm? And he's not serving time in Iraq with our armed forces? Yet he tends to cheerlead the war, quite often. I think that's called a "Chickenhawk", is it not?
It's time you people stand up for what you believe in or sit down and be quiet.

Posted by: Kris | March 22, 2006 03:06 PM

Amerika was supposed to be spelled with thre K's dude. Come on, get your stereotypes right.

Posted by: Chimpy Mchalliburton Jr. | March 22, 2006 03:07 PM

So your Dad is "associated" with Abramoff eh. Nothing like Young Doughy Republicans earning things the "old fashioned way" - family connections.

Posted by: Agent Orange | March 22, 2006 03:08 PM

kudos to another american newspaper of record prostituting themselves to maintain access and stay in the good graces of the fascists in power... apparently you don't want to offend your hometown neocon masters but this is beyond the pale.
to believe that the paper that exposed corruption in the Nixon white house has become lapdogs for the RNC.
your paper was one of the big boys banging the war drum a few years ago and still, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, your editorial board continues to spit in the face of your readership and the citizens of america by not retracting your position and saying a mea culpa.
nooooo - you can't do that! that would upset the folks you want / need to maintain access to for the dictation you take and pedal as "journalism"... if i want to read RNC or other Rovian-propaganda, I'll go to the republican website. if i want to read conservative bloviates, i'll search the blogosphere. but you hire (and apparently pay) this republican crony (yes, the fact that he comes from a old line conservative family, tight with the powers-that-be, i'm sure entered into the hiring equation... "he'll maintain our access to our neocon masters"
(er, well, i thought that's why you kept bob woodward on the payroll... its certainly not for his journalistic ethics"
the fascinating thing about these decisions: editorial boards continue to ask "where are our readers / viewers going"... well, if you all want to look and sound and talk like Pravda - aka, Fox News - then, be prepared because there's only so many wankers out there who enjoy receiving propaganda. the rest of us want news.
hence, we continue to look to the Guardian, the BBC, and the Times where the writers and editors are not beholden to their political handlers.
to the washington post: my how far you've fallen. good riddance! and do roll up your pants legs - when you're joining others in the dung heap, you have to keep your trousers clean...

Posted by: thelonegunman | March 22, 2006 03:09 PM

Conservative Christians have nothing to say about anything... because this would be, well, un-conservative Christian.
Stop calling names and say something valuable. This comment board is for serious remarks only.
So, conservatives, please stop spamming here. You know you have nothing to say that your leader has not already said for you... nor are you allowed to say more.
So please go away and stop pretending that you have some kind of majority rights. Everyone knows that there are at least, oh, say, around, gee, I guess 30% wacko rednecks on every board. You don't need to comment to let us know this, as if your little monster in the WH is not enough to prove it.
And a late Happy Holidays to you!

Posted by: Why are the majority of conservatives so uneducated? | March 22, 2006 03:09 PM

I would like to congratulate you, recommend Ann Coulter for the position of omsbudsman, and help you bid a fond farewell to the reality-based community.

Sig heil!

Posted by: It's happening here | March 22, 2006 03:10 PM

I'll be cancelling my Post Subscription this weekend. You all have just gone down hill too much too fast. Katherine Graham must be rolling in her grave.

Posted by: DC Native | March 22, 2006 03:11 PM


Eric Alterman was correct. "Working the refs" really works. They seem to have complained their way into getting a red blogger for "balance."

Man, the POST can't seem to do anything right these days. Perhaps that explains your paper's obdurate empathy for a bumbling administration.

Posted by: Skip | March 22, 2006 03:12 PM

The Washington Post used to be a model of journalistic integrity. Today it aspires to something more -- Truthiness!

Posted by: Nemo | March 22, 2006 03:12 PM

I find it nice that we're allowed to "challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews an multimedia features." But what really needs challenging is the integrity of the paper's management. Coddling up to the Washington Times isn't indicative of a willingness for earnest debate and it won't help sales either.

On the plus side, atleast we now have proof of WAPO's right-wing slant, because it's in the open for everyone to see!

Posted by: Bob | March 22, 2006 03:12 PM

I'm so looking forward to the Howell/Brady mumbled response/defensive sneer.

Posted by: Howell&Brady4ever | March 22, 2006 03:15 PM

Ben's feature is a great addition. It adds a style and perspective that weren't presented here before. The idea that it was added to "balance" something else is just wrong.

And to the the poster that suggested we righties lable people "moonbats" because we don't understand them I'd like to say that I understand perfectly how the tinfoil prevents the government from stealing your thoughts. It isn't a lack of understanding that earns one the description "moonbat". In fact, it's the opposite.

Posted by: Darin Zimmerman | March 22, 2006 03:15 PM

Taking a look at the comments here, everything from Ben's "Family Ties" to Amramoff to WaPo corp's stock tumbles to all the lies, racism and fascism over at RedState makes me think:

Whatever WaPo does, do the opposite.

And to "read first" who posted above: Forget IT!!! Are you paying attention here? A 24-year-old political flack who spewed racism against Coretta Scott King now has a place to spew more vile wingnut screeds! That's the problem! Fair and balanced is more than just a spin, and if WaPo wants to bend over to the right, I have a problem with that! You would to, if you were truly conservative!

Posted by: Databoy | March 22, 2006 03:15 PM

Why would the Post hire not just and extreme right winger, but a creationist, who created a racist blog, and who characterized Coretta Scott King as a "communist"?

By the Domenech standards, balance to him would have to be a Maoist.

It's simply an outrgage.

Posted by: Upper West | March 22, 2006 03:15 PM

I forgot to add:

In all fairness, Ben Domenech's had a good reason for settling for a position at Regnery. Der Stürmer was starting to lay people off.

Posted by: skip | March 22, 2006 03:16 PM

Good. Lord.

Was Karl Rove just too busy to do a blog for you guys? Want somebody to do a blog that represents most of America? Try Opera. When was the last time most of you idiots at the WaPo saw a black person, were unemployed, or sent someone off to war?

Posted by: flawed | March 22, 2006 03:16 PM

And one more thing. Even though I've never read the Post before, I'll be cancelling my subscription as well!

Posted by: Darin Zimmerman | March 22, 2006 03:17 PM

For the Bush administration to protect us would be like plugging the butt of the goose that lays golden eggs... ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: smarter faster stronger than any republican any day | March 22, 2006 03:18 PM

Maybe y'all can hire George Deutsch as an editor now too. I hear he is looking for a job. I can't believe this is the same Washington Post that broke the Watergate story. Absolutely shameful.

Posted by: Bowser | March 22, 2006 03:18 PM

Give the post credit for a shrewd political calculation. After a few weeks of this kid's ranting, Americans will be embarrased to call themselves conservatives.

It's only his second day and he's already calling his opponents baby killers.

Posted by: this liberal is entertained | March 22, 2006 03:19 PM

"I'm so looking forward to the Howell/Brady mumbled response/defensive sneer.

Posted by: Howell&Brady4ever | March 22, 2006 03:15 PM"

Masterful. I just loved that.

For the record, I still favor gravatars -- but I think that this blog will not survive long enough to implement anything! :-)

Posted by: S.O.S. in MA | March 22, 2006 03:21 PM

Let’s do the math here: Ben Domenech was apparently 15 years old in 1997. That means he was, let’s see, carry the one, two years old when Red Dawn (1984) came out?

So obviously, Ben didn’t see it in the theaters. But’s it’s evidently enough of a cultural icon for him to think that every “red-blooded American conservative” should know the movie. He clearly has watched it more than once himself. Red Dawn is apparently a pivotal cultural moment for him.

What I want to know is this: What kind of bizarre, twisted home-schooling was this child raised on? Did his parents push this movie on him as a lesson about the dangers of Communism? Does he really take that crap seriously?

I also remember when Red Dawn came out. I was twelve years old. It was a big deal, because it was the first movie released with a PG-13 rating. That rating was created in response to the PG ratings given to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins. But when I heard the premise - Russian soldiers invade a small Colorado town - I started laughing. Even at age 12, I knew this premise wasn’t remotely plausible.

The more I think about it, the weirder Domenech’s statement gets. I mean, it’s the equivalent of me (born in 1972) saying that all hostage negotiators are steeped in the ethos found in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. Or that all liberals are aware of the ironic take on race relations found in Blazing Saddles. Or that all Americans who are tough on crime are familiar with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Wait, all of those movies are more highly rated than Red Dawn (5.6 stars on IMDb).

It’s more like me saying that liberals get their bleeding hearts from watching Benji. Wasn’t it great how that cute little dog saved those two kidnapped children? Isn’t that a great metaphor for how we should care for each other? Awwwww.

What on earth is the Washington Post thinking, hiring this maroon?

Posted by: Kenneth Fair | March 22, 2006 03:21 PM

I presume it won't be long until Jeff Gannon is hired for a regular column on the Op-Ed page. You call this journalism?

Posted by: Hah! | March 22, 2006 03:22 PM

Good job. Hiring a non-experienced, racist, ignorant rich white kid with obvious links to the Bush White House is quite an achievement, dont you think?
You must be very proud.

Posted by: David A. | March 22, 2006 03:23 PM

Interesting to see all the lefty outrage. They show a deep understanding of the Islamist Fascist's need to allow no other religions to defile their countries. Lefties see WaPo is their turf and will kill any apostates they can catch.

Lefties suffer from TMS. (Tertiary Moral Syphillis)

Posted by: Billy Hank | March 22, 2006 03:24 PM

Huh, I just removed my tin-foil wrapped colander I usually wear on my head and wouldn't you know it? Karl Rove's evil telepathy told me to go and subscribe to the Post since it was now, because of one fairly unkown 24 year old blogger, a tool of the dark power.

Luckily I was able to block him with a healthy application of patchouli oil to the scalp. Damn, a close one there.

Anyone for some hacky-sac?

Posted by: yee Shall Know Him By His Deeds | March 22, 2006 03:24 PM

Why use Domenech? The Post could save money by simply printing White House press releases. You could then reduce the price of a newspaper that is clearly declining in quality anyway.

Posted by: Eric | March 22, 2006 03:26 PM

Wait a minute, wasn't that tin foil hat guy (the real one, not the movie), a devoted Christian Conservative who thought the government was trying to brain-wash him into paying taxes or some such rot?

Posted by: When the church rules, God does not exist. | March 22, 2006 03:26 PM

I see... out of hundreds of comments, there's maybe three [all of them drooling and illiterate] that support the new blog. Their screen names are telling -- like 'Dead Hippies Don't Talk' and 'Sniper'.

Man, if this is the kind of readership the Post wants to attract, they are even worse off than I thought.

Posted by: Drindl | March 22, 2006 03:27 PM

Did you guys actually read this guy's blog before you made this deal? WTF?

Posted by: Narf! | March 22, 2006 03:28 PM

I also saw Red Dawn in the theaters as a kid. I was 13 so it was a big deal to be able to see the new PG-13 rating. It was camp even then. Cuban paratroopers taking over your school, shooting your teacher, so you could camp and hunt with your friends and play soldier? It was a paradoy of a pre-teen Reaganaut fantasy. Apparently, it still is.

And for the record, the movie did not actually have any scene showing Russains taking away guns.

Posted by: this liberal is entertained | March 22, 2006 03:29 PM

A couple of quick questions,
Will the Washington Post be changing it's name to "The Republican Post"?

And, are the people in Upper manangment 100 percent aware of whats going on and if so are they absolute Idiots?

Posted by: Wess | March 22, 2006 03:30 PM

I see all the wingnuts can do is to attack the Lefties who has something subtantial to say i.e Ben is a 24 year old inexperienced ex-Bush staffer who calls Coretta Scott King a commie. Why not defend Ben if he is so capable? What a talentless hack. Way to go WaPo.

Posted by: K | March 22, 2006 03:30 PM

So was Mommy Domenech was exhibiting proper conservative family values letting her innocent 2-year-old son Ben watch violent, PG-13 rated "Red Dawn" when it came out? No wonder he grew up so intellectually and socially corrupted.

Posted by: astreeter | March 22, 2006 03:31 PM

I've got a great idea: why doesn't the Post get a feed from NewsMax or even Humaneventsonline! Heck, cut out the middleman and just put an RNC communications staffer in the Post's offices!

Posted by: NewIdeas! | March 22, 2006 03:32 PM

Ben needs to revisit his netflix favorites and watch Red Dawn again. Not only does it not show commies taking away guns, there is a pivotal line requiring his special attention: "All that hate is going to burn you up, kid."

Posted by: this liberal is entertained | March 22, 2006 03:33 PM

Wow, the Washington Post ain't what it used to be. When will the Blue America blog be starting? Since there is nothing blue in your paper anymore, I have to assume either that you will be balancing little Bennie in short order, or that you have become the Washington Times without the funding. You disgust me. I'm so glad I haven't been a print subscriber in years.

Posted by: CF | March 22, 2006 03:34 PM

Why do Republicans think liberals are hippy types? What cave do they live in anyway? (Oh, I forgot all those cave dwellings down South.) Anyway, the two avowed liberals I know are marines and would knock em seven ways to Sunday. Which is good, because then they could learn more about the schizophrenic Jew they worship (no offense to Jews).
Don't they realize that the neo-cons they so fiercely defend were born out of the secular democrats of the sixties? Haven't they heard that even Evangelicals are getting of that boat? Get over it, become Democrat already, we won't abuse you the way your own party does, even when we disagree with you.

Posted by: Who is Domenech? | March 22, 2006 03:37 PM

So much for Voltaire's "I disagree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it", eh?

Anyone see a double standard here? Let him blog. If he's successful, good on him. If he's not, the Post will let him go. Its a business people, not a party newspaper.

And if you don't like what he writes, skip it. its not like you don't have the rest of the paper to feed your BDS.

Posted by: Bob the Builder | March 22, 2006 03:37 PM

Stop pretending you have to balance a liberal media. The media should be informative, not taking a political stand. Remove this hack and get on with real journalism. Report on things the US needs to hear about, not the right-wing spin.

Posted by: RussinWy | March 22, 2006 03:37 PM

Interesting to see all the lefty outrage. Blah, blah, blah. They show a deep understanding of the Islamist Fascist's need to allow no other religions to defile their countries. Blah, blah, blah. Moonbats. Moonbats. Lefties see WaPo is their turf and will kill any apostates they can catch. Blah.

Lefties suffer from TMS. (Tertiary Moral Syphillis)

Also, I have a tiny, tiny brain.

Posted by: Billy Hank | March 22, 2006 03:38 PM

Has the Post lost all sense of journalistic balance? The idea of a column called "Red America" without another column full of insane partisan ranting to counterweight it seems absurd. Indeed, the idea of either sort of unconsidering, blatherful trash strikes me as ridiculous in a newspaper of this stature. I encourage you to take stock of your decision.

Posted by: G. Banner | March 22, 2006 03:38 PM

It's been funny enough watching them squirm and complain when they put up with the label "Liberal Media" for corporate run papers like the Post and NY Times who wouldn't give voice to a real radical liberal anti-corporate voice if their quarterly statements depended on it.

Now they get to see a 24-year old red-meat Conservative who would be wielding a gun in uniform on the streets of Baghdad if he believed half of what he said get a cushy self-promotional gig compliments of the Post.

Eat it, libs. Approval ratings are transitory ... cash on the barrel is what matters, and you just don't have enough to get taken seriously.

Posted by: Poor Liberals | March 22, 2006 03:39 PM

Domemech please don't give us this 'Holier than" Thou attitude when you are supporting War, Torture and Kidnapping.

Whatever you may believe yourself to be, you definitely are not a Christian.

Posted by: Wess | March 22, 2006 03:40 PM

test

"The President visits the funeral of a Communist By: Augustine
And phones in a message to the March for Life.

I think we can get a little pissed about this."

Posted by: Gray | March 22, 2006 03:40 PM

Considering Ben is a healthy 24 years old and strongly believes in this war, shouldn't he be the one doing more defending and less disagreeing?

Posted by: this liberal is entertained | March 22, 2006 03:40 PM

why is the Post lending its name to and sponsoring this person to spout claptrap? When will the post afford the same space,"balance" and visibility to those speaking for a progressive (and I don't mean "liberal") viewpoint?

Posted by: mls | March 22, 2006 03:40 PM

As an ex-marine from 1960--1966 and a patriotic American (read free thinking, free speaking, free-wheeling), I am horrified by The Washington's Post caving in to the right wing ideologues that seem more akin to facists than to republicans (read republic and democratic government.)

Hold the fire to their feet. They deserve it.

Posted by: Jim Williams, NYC | March 22, 2006 03:40 PM

It has, finally, come to this. Thank you WaPo for finally having the courage, nay, the passion, to come out of the editorial closet and proclaim for all to see, "we're conservative-enabling yellow journalists, and we're proud of it."

Now, can you get your looney friends on the "internets" to drop the "liberal media" schtick? It just makes them look even more foolish now.

Posted by: David | March 22, 2006 03:41 PM

Privacy rights. We hear so much from the liberal left about protecting your (my) privacy rights. But stop and think about it. Since the 60's, liberal politicians and judges have created a bill of rights for criminals and those contemplating criminal activity and they call it privacy rights. They tell me my privacy rights are being threatened by conservatives. But none of those 'rights' apply to me because I am not a criminal nor am I contemplating any criminal activity. Won't someone (Ben) explore this and give us the facts? Why do liberals always try to protect the lawbreakers at the expense of those of us who are not?

Posted by: T J Novak | March 22, 2006 12:26 PM

You raise an interetsing point, sort of. But you did so without asking of yourself a rather telling question: would it be acceptable for the military/police/FBI to kick in your door at any hour of the day or night and search it if you "hadn't done anything wrong, or planned to do anything wrong..."?

Does privacy hinge on whether you did it, or plan to do it, or is it just a right that the Founders added because they KNEW what it was to EXPECT your door to be kicked down on a whim? Take a moment and consider this, really consider it: if you are willing, in your innocence, to dispense with the rights this country was founded to provide and protect, then you should be willing to dispense with them all. No need for the fifth, as you'll never need to testify. No need to express your opinion as you already agree with the "majority", no need to own a weapon because the police already protect us.

Now, if there are rights you need to retain, then you have to retain them ALL. Tell you what, read the 4th Amendment again, take a good look around your home, and tell me you can't imagine that there aren't things in your home that you'd rather the government not see. Nothing criminal, just stuff that isn't any of their business.

If you can't, then I'd appreciate a link to the website where you post the minutes of your calls, your medical and credit history, Social Security numbers, whatever. Don't worry, I won't let anyone do anything nefarious with the information.

Posted by: Officious Pedant | March 22, 2006 03:42 PM

Where is the BlueAmerica blog, for a truly balanced look at what's going on in America?

Posted by: Denise | March 22, 2006 03:42 PM

Domenech reminds me of a contestant on "America's Next Top Model". The poor girl was only 18, but stood in front of the cameras, loudly proclaiming how she was as right wing conservative as they come, and proud of it.

Some would shrug this off, because she's 18, obviously from a sheltered backwater upbringing, and completely inexperienced. She wanted to get a shot in the modeling industry, where there is a predominance of gay men working behind the scenes, and yet she was quick to point out that she hated gays.

Now at 18, I would say most hateful rhetoric and judgementalism is a combination of shallow, ignorant, and inexperienced. But when you're 24 and guilty of the same behavior, and a so-called prestigious nationally read newspaper gives you a column outside of celebrity gossip and the "teen beat", that shows some critical failures in judgement from those at the top.

We already know that of late the "Washington Post" has shown a severe inability to grow and change with the times, and an extreme allegiance to proping up the Bush administration at any cost possible, but this is just pathetic.

Honestly, you bring in someone who is old enough and mature enough to have even left the country and become worldly, someone who has the ability to see more than mommy and daddy's perspective about politics, and someone who has actually had to interact with more than their gated community growing up and their fraternity brothers at their ivy league school, and maybe people will stop calling the "Washington Post" on it's truthiness and right wing bias.

But I'm not going to hold my breath. When Bush is finally kicked out of office, the amount of flailing this paper is going to do will be laughable if not tragic.

You've made your bed and now you lay it in, as the saying goes. I guess if you ever need to replace the pretend "balance" of Domenech's predictable truthiness, there's an even younger fool out there who didn't make it to the finals of "America's Next Top Model", who is also looking to get famous.

Posted by: Amazed | March 22, 2006 03:43 PM

Here we see another example of the media's attempt to provide "balance." To please the drooling right-wing class, they hire a right-wing hack to balance real and informative journalism. Could you at least hire a progressive hack to provide some real balance?

Posted by: DM | March 22, 2006 03:43 PM

When did the Washington Post evolve into a mouthpiece for the Republican Party? Will the Post include a high-profile progressive opinion writer? Does the Post intend to exercise any editorial oversight over this opinion writer to ensure accuracy and integrity? Why do I suspect the answer to all these questions is "no"?

Sigh. I guess this completes the evolution of the Washington Post into the Washington Times.

Posted by: Liam Yore | March 22, 2006 03:43 PM

Great. This comment filter doesn't allow profanities like "despi*able", but when I post Domenech's (a.k.a. Augustine) statement that he felt "pissed" that Bush honored Ms. King, that is perfectly ok? Hmm.

Just wondering what the afro-american majority of Washington D.C. thinks about the opinions of this new WaPo blogger.

Posted by: Gray | March 22, 2006 03:44 PM

What are you thinking? I've lived in the "Red State" south all my life and Ben Domenech does not represent the majority opinions. I'm wondering who got paid off to put this silver spooned, "I've got better things to do than join the military but war is good", kid's blog up. I mean he's my son's age. You know how much my son knows about life? Give me a break.

Posted by: DixieMom | March 22, 2006 03:44 PM

I'm at a loss to understand what the Post is attempting to balance in seeking out the unique "insights" of someone like Ben Domenech who trades in little more than venom and vitriol. What prevailing tone is being countered with the inclusion of a man who calls Coretta Scott King a Communist or whose idea of political discourse is telling Al Gore to "suck it?" For an institution allegedly concerned with "civil, genuine discussion," that is exactly the Post appears to be working against with this decision.

Rather than eliciting civil discussion, Mr. Domenech proudly appeals to the lowest common denominator, marginalizing those with whom he disagrees as "shrieking," "unhinged," and full of rage. That's not discourse, that's dismissal, and the Washington Post should be ashamed for not knowing the difference.

Posted by: Verchiel | March 22, 2006 03:44 PM

Once again the default position of the left is to try to silence anyone who dares to express an opposing point of view.

Posted by: BungaloeBill | March 22, 2006 03:45 PM

With the choice of Domenech the Post is "hurting America", as Jon Stewart so aptly skewered the Crossfire mentality.

Diversity of well-reasoned opinion is vital to the national discourse. This particular blogger has in the past displayed little aptitude for or respect for reasoned discourse. This is not much of a step up from hiring a Coulter, Malkin, or Limbaugh.

It's a real lost opportunity to bring in someone from the right like Torie Clarke, who exemplifies professionalism, experience, judgement, and maturity. I had hoped, against recent experience, that the Post might choose to raise the level of debate rather than stoop further itself.

Posted by: James Wilen | March 22, 2006 03:45 PM

WAPO Springt den Haifisch

"Jumps the Shark"

Or to use another analogy.... it is not entirely unlike the glory days of the Khmer Rouge. THEY, too enlisted children with no sense of the mystery and complexity of the world, before they ahd learned the meaning of love... to enforce their perverted view of the world.

This young boy needs to grow some whiskers before being let loose on an unsuspecting audience with his cockamammy regurgitated fascist mantras. He needs to live a bit, suffer, acquire a little worldly wisdom and fall in love.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO AMERIKA? I was only there a few short years ago. I don't recognise it.

Posted by: "Journalistic" Hitler Jugend | March 22, 2006 03:46 PM

How utterly sad a commentary of life in America in the new century. We all thought the WaPo was actually a news orginization, even though we could count on your recent slide towards propoganda, we thought you would at least continue trying to "look" like a news outlet. What makes you think this child can provide a unique perspective on todays issues when he has barely been weened from the bottle. His life experiances are less than even an average "C" student from an average middle school being "home schooled" and all. Maybe his teacher (mommy?) thought racism was a nice lessen to learn. To bad they thought teaching it meant acting on it as well.
But what is really scary is the WaPo is willing to let racism have a home while creating a perpetual divide in the American culture. All under the guise of Opinion. I must have been asleep while they taught journalism in school, because I dreamed presenting opinion was a balanced act.
Good luck. Nothing says GOP like a racist, and nothing says racist like the WaPo!!

Posted by: voiceofreason | March 22, 2006 03:46 PM

oh, the humanity.

is this how the Post is going to work after firing actual field reporters who see things first hand? Why not just sell out to Faux News?

Posted by: RC | March 22, 2006 03:47 PM

I was very disappointed to learn the Washington Post is caving into right-wing pressure. How does right-wing quackery balance real watchdog jounalism? Partisan political columns do not substitute for hard-hitting, honest journalism. At the very least you should give progressives and equal voice.
This is the time for the press to stand up and not be intimidated by a bullying administration.

Posted by: Andrew Leone | March 22, 2006 03:47 PM

Congratulations to the Post. It's about time a son of privilege was given a cushy job for which he has no qualifications. It certainly can't happen all that often, can it? So kudos to the Post for having so much compassion for a child of entitlement.

Posted by: bthwaithe | March 22, 2006 03:47 PM

Btw, is WaPO conducting any vetting process when hiring a blogger? And did WaPO learn anything from that "Kerik" desaster of the Bush administration?

Posted by: Gray | March 22, 2006 03:48 PM

I would like to commend the Washington Post for trying to bring a conservative voice to their Blog opinion pages. However, the person whom you have hired,Ben Domenech, is a 24 year old political hack. He doesn't bring experience, or well-reasoned opinions to the table. I mean seriously, the Washington Post is one of the most respected papers in the world, and this the best you could do?? Try finding someone who has actually lived a little in the world rather than someone barely out of high school. Also, he needs a good fact checker and editor on his pieces, they are riddled with inaccuracies.

Posted by: LB | March 22, 2006 03:48 PM

To Whom it may concern:

This is unbelievable. Why has your publication given space to a propagandist? The job of the media is to hold power accountable, not to promote the blind cheerleading of people who are drunk with power and arrogance. Hold power accountable - remember back in Journalism 101 when the first rule of journalism was taught, and get this self aggrandizing propagandist "Ben Domenech" out of your organization. This is not a time for promoting spin and excusing people in power for offenses no one else would be allowed to get away with!

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 03:48 PM

We the undersigned commend the Washington Post for the brave stand they are taking to balance out the overwhelmingly liberal and anti-American media that has a strangle hold on ideas and keeps all conservative voices muted.

Rev. Pat Robertson, Rev. Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, Stephen Hayes, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, John Gibson, J.C. Watts, Monica Crowley, David Horowitz, Cal Thomas, Roger Ailes, Jonah Goldberg, Bob Novak, Kate O'Bierne, Lucyanne Goldberg, Matt Drudge, Rupert Murdoch, Richard Mellon-Scaife, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Mary Matalin, William F. Buckley, Newt Gingrich, George Will and the rest of the muted majority.

Posted by: Greg B. | March 22, 2006 03:49 PM

Post, this is tactless. But, it's not the first time a racist, war-mongering, right-wing, idiotic bigot with no credentials has been handed a mouthpiece. Let's all stand up and call for censure!

Posted by: Brett Lawless | March 22, 2006 03:49 PM

I'm not at all surprised by the new column "red america". Nowadays, almost every media outlet is dominated by right wing, partisan opinions. I've come to terms with this take over but what I can't accept is being played for a fool. Please quit forcing on us the ludacris notion that watchdog journalism "leans to the left" and/or needs to be balanced with right wing columnist.

Posted by: Katey | March 22, 2006 03:49 PM

And the Blue State blog will be appearing when?

Posted by: bthwaithe | March 22, 2006 03:50 PM

You gotta be kiddin me! The Washington Post has lent space to a right wing political hack?!?!

Do you really think that adding Red America is going to balance things? Are you stupid?

Of course now all progressives will have to take your message with a grain of salt. With fascists behind the scenes it will be that much more difficult to know what is real.

If I lived in Washington DC, I would cease any and all subscriptions to your rag. As it is, you will just have to note my displeasure with your recent misadventure.

Posted by: Fritz Kraly | March 22, 2006 03:50 PM

While I am all for reporting on both sides, this blog pretty much destroys my opinion of the Washington Post and them bowing to the right. I do not expect a blog called Blue America, but rather the unbiased reporting that made Washington Post enjoyable to read for their readers.

I would hope that this decision will be short lived. I will continue to read WashPost articles, but avoid the new blog completely.

Posted by: Marty Mankins | March 22, 2006 03:51 PM

Just when I thought the Post couldn't lose any more credibility you go and hire a right-wing nut.

Posted by: Greg | March 22, 2006 03:51 PM

How many more news media will the Radical Right co-opt before they're satisfied that they have enough outlets to spread their lies and propaganda? How despicable that a one time worthy newspaper like the Post has been bullied like this by a semi-literate like Domenech.

Posted by: Carol L. Dewees | March 22, 2006 03:51 PM

"Once again the default position of the left is to try to silence anyone who dares to express an opposing point of view."

I feel silenced, too, Bill. Every time I post something, I have a hard time finding my comment published because of all the incoming messages here. Terrific.

Posted by: Gray | March 22, 2006 03:52 PM

The WaPo has just shown that they think "blogs", those things on the "internets", are only partisan spewage. Or that is what they want those who don't know better to believe.
They just think that Domenech is a good example of a right wing blogger...... Oh, wait a minute, they are right.

Posted by: Subscription Cancelled Just Now | March 22, 2006 03:53 PM

"Once again the default position of the left is to try to silence anyone who dares to express an opposing point of view."

Tell that to the Dixie Chicks.

Posted by: this liberal is entertained | March 22, 2006 03:53 PM

Why don't you just publish Ann Coulter. At least she is hilarious!

Posted by: Mark | March 22, 2006 03:53 PM

Ouch. I did not think the Washington Post would weaken its credibility like this.

As much as the Post can state that a blog doesn't reflect its views, to the general readership, it DOES. By creating a space for an editorial viewpoint (in this case a volatile right wing one), yet not creating a space for an opposite viewpoint, gives the impression that the Post leans toward the right. It's a good idea to post views; just make sure you encompass the breadth of the spectrum.

Either stick with neutral, fact-armed journalism or display multiple personal viewpoints, but please don't cater to one side's demand for "balanced" journalism by offering only one conservative loudspeaker.

Posted by: Dave Elsensohn | March 22, 2006 03:53 PM

Today reporting of the facts tend to favor those considered liberal.

To believe that this requires balance with an online column intended to twist the truth, as "Red American" is now doing seems somehow inappropriate.

Isn't Rush and the others on the radio enough?

If you want partisan voices that intensionally twist the truth, on both sides, say so and give progressives a voice. Please note I said progressives, not democrats.

Please try report the facts and tell the truth, as best you can.


Posted by: Paul Myers | March 22, 2006 03:54 PM

The political agenda of the Washington Post is so obvious that it is more funny than it is sad.

Posted by: JL | March 22, 2006 03:54 PM

The Washington Post has often been a beacon during troubling times.
With all due respect,
it would appear, with the advent of Red America, that is no longer the case.
I deplore the Post's action.
It is an open effort to support public ignorance and hide the truth.
Does the Post know no shame!
Please reverse this deplorable move ... Remove the Red America column - immediately.

Sincerely,
Larry

Marengo, IN 47140

Posted by: Larry ... Marengo, IN | March 22, 2006 03:55 PM

The Post can go to hell!

It's wrong to "balance" real watchdog journalism with right wing hackery. If you want partisan political columns, then give progressives a voice as well

Posted by: Tim Janssen | March 22, 2006 03:55 PM

I am appalled at the selection of a clearly partisan hack in Domenech to run your "Red America" blog! I used to think you provided insightful journalism, but with the way you were cheerleading the leadup for Bush's war of choice with Iraq and now with the addition of someone clearly neoconservative and nearly as shrill as Coulter, I have lost what little respect I had for your paper. If you were really concerned about providing fair and balanced news, you would bring in someone like Markos from the "dailykos" blog to counter the addition of Domenech. It is sad to see a once great newspaper become little more than a mouthpiece for the current administration.

Posted by: Laurie B | March 22, 2006 03:55 PM

"This is hilarious! Its just a bloody blog people! who gives an f*?"

I don't think this Benny boy is hilarious but despi*able, but, right, I would give him an "F". And imho he should be suspended asap.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 03:55 PM

Greg B,
That IS the muted majority right there, those you mentioned. Or, you are kidding and I missed it... good one, mate!

Posted by: "Oh my God!" | March 22, 2006 03:56 PM

How sad. So much for journalism, the bedrock of democracy- now we just have jingoism.

Posted by: Rob | March 22, 2006 03:56 PM

Is this the Washington Post or the Washington Times? Hmmm...

Is America going Communist? Is that the reference to "Red" in Mr. Domenech's blog?

Because, as you know, there are no "red states" and "blue states," politically speaking. We are all degrees of purple. Unless, of course, real RED is creeping in. But I thought that was all handled by Joe McCarthy years ago...

Posted by: Kris | March 22, 2006 03:56 PM

I was extremely troubled to learn that the Washington Post has provided a column to a self-described right-wing conservative as a way to "balance" out the news that is appearing in the rest of the paper. News stories are the product of journalists who are doing the job of describing and analyzing the events of the day. If the events of the day reflect badly on the Bush Administration, the news will convey this poor performance. The idea that real news ought to be "counterbalanced" with the unself-critical pronouncements of a political partisan misunderstands the function that news and journalism itself perform in a free and democratic society.

The Washington Post is one of the nation's leading papers. This latest editorial change sorely challenges its legitimacy as an institution of high journalistic integrity.


Sharon Dolovich
Los Angeles, CA

Posted by: Sharon Dolovich | March 22, 2006 03:56 PM

voor een krant die een dergelijke prachtige verslaggever zoals Dana Milbank inhuurt, is het een medelijden dat zij een dergelijke racistische oorlog-mongering lafaard zoals BennyBoi in een regelmatige positie zouden zetten. Domenech toont de lelijke kant van Amerika. Een welk medelijden hoe laag de Post is gedaald!

Posted by: Queen Beatrix | March 22, 2006 03:57 PM

You are wrong to "balance" real watchdag journalism with right wing hackery. If you want partisan plitical columns, then you must also give one to the left wing. I am personally appalled that you, considered on of the United States' finest papers, are even printing all this garbage. Makes me wonder if you are being paid to do so like the foriegn press in places like Iraq is being paid by our governement. SCARY!!!

Posted by: Jerry Lasley | March 22, 2006 03:58 PM

I believe that giving a voice to conservative opinion (with the introduction of Red America) without a countervailing voice (Blue America, or a progressive vision) is unfair and unbalanced. Journalism, no matter the ideology of its practitioners, consists of a recitation of verifiable facts; no matter what conservatives claim, there is no need to "balance" quality journalism such as that practiced by The Washington Post with opinion of any kind, let alone the far-right ideology espoused by Red America.
Please reconsider, and either remove Red America from your website, or add a balancing voice from the Left.

Posted by: Mark R. | March 22, 2006 03:58 PM

Actually, i think the WaPo has pulled a pretty clever business decision. They hire a relatively inexperienced right-wing blogger who doesn't really represent actual conservative values, work their lefty base up in a tither, the base threaten cancellation but won't, they return day after day to bash this guy and while they're here, read some articles, maybe buy some things, etc.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 03:58 PM

I am saddened to see that the Washington Post has succumbed to the biggest lie perpetrated by the Right Wing today: that critical journalism and holding powerful people accountable is somehow biased toward the left. For years the Washington Post allowed its own sense of journalistic ethics and professionalism to be the guide to its actions; now, by hiring a screed writer like Ben Domenech, you have caved into the cynical view that there can be no objective reporting in journalism and that the only "fair" thing to do is give propagandists equal access. Not only does this reduce the credibility of the reporting in your paper, but it also provides another nail in the coffin of the free press in America. Leave the professional wrestling view of journalism to the 24 hour cable news networks and get back to the job of investigative reporting based on the facts. Our very existence as a civilization depends upon it.

Posted by: Matt | March 22, 2006 03:58 PM

Once again the Washington Post shows us why their circulation numbers are in the toilet - they just don't get it. Bush's poll numbers are in the toilet, Republicans are being indicted every day, fewer and fewer people are listening to the shuck and jive of Scotty McClellan and the Washington Posts response is to hire a racist, ditto head to provide "balance". Man, talk about OD-ing on Republican talking points. The Media is hardly a liberal breeding ground (check out Media Matters if you think otherwise) and yet we need more Neo-con spinmeisters (I guess Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Matthews, Scarsborough, Couric, and company aren't enough). We don't need "balance" in the news. We need truth.

Posted by: Disgusted | March 22, 2006 03:58 PM

So ... the "Washington Post," that great bastion of the Fourth Estate, has caved into right wing pressure and is starting up a new online column called "Red America" to be written by some right-wing ideologue, supposedly to "balance" those Post journalists who have been holding President Bush accountable for being one of the worst presidents in the memory of most living Americans? Say it ain't so!

Is this true? If so, will "Red America" be balanced by a new "Blue America" blog written by some left-wing ideologue?

What's wrong with just continuing to do what the Post has always done -- provide good, honest reporting and maintain an editorial position of speaking truth to power?

You are our last defense against the Dark Side. Please -- don't cave in on us now!

Thanks.

John R. Conway
Niles, Michigan

Posted by: Bob Conway | March 22, 2006 03:59 PM

A sad day for journalism and the Washington Post.

Posted by: Ann | March 22, 2006 03:59 PM

Congratulations on caving to the right-wing fanatics! I was absolutely terrified that American journalism might actually begin to regain a fair, impartial stance in reporting news and holding the government accountable. Whew! What a relief to know that the venerable Washington Post will never yield to such crazy ideas.

Keep up the good work. I will keep tabs on your progress as I read your competitors.

Ericka Dunham

Seattle, Washington

Posted by: Ericka Dunham | March 22, 2006 03:59 PM

I am disgusted that the Washington Post has lowered itself with the introduction of Ben Domenech's Red America column. I expect this right-wing demagoguery from the New York Post, but not a serious newspaper of record.

Posted by: Dan Miner | March 22, 2006 04:00 PM

You've really made a mistake in putting Mr. Domenech in as a columnist. If we want to get the rabid right wing view, we can watch Fox "fair and balanced" propaganda. The Washington Post had started to represent the Fourth Estate again. Please don't muck it all up by reverting to being a propaganda arm of the Bush Gang and printing more of their trash. There is more than enough of that floating around now. We need some truth, some objective reporting about what is going on now. We don't need more of Orwell's "Ministry of Truth" in operation.

Posted by: Steve Osborn | March 22, 2006 04:00 PM

It seems to me that a respectable newspaper such as the Washington Post should be hiring journalists with actual qualifications to write insightful, fact-based articles. Instead you have chosen a partisan hack with no deep knowledge of anything in particular over the many qualified opinion leaders out there. His first "article" is a rant against the very people who hired him, completely devoid of any substantive material.

This trash is not worthy of the Post.

Posted by: Abhishek | March 22, 2006 04:00 PM

One other thing...

Domenech is 24 years old. Perfect age to enlist in the military. So, big guy, when are you going to sign-up? You support the cause, so why not go over and help out?

Posted by: Disgusted | March 22, 2006 04:01 PM

WaPo walked off the liberal plantation and massa ain't too happy about that.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 04:01 PM

I've been a reader of the POST for 20 years. Ben Domenech is the last thing the POST needs. Cancel his column immediately!

Posted by: Anne McKeithen | March 22, 2006 04:02 PM

Ben, You're my hero!

Posted by: Ann Coulter | March 22, 2006 04:02 PM

Wow! The old hypothesis has been proven true: If you stick a bunch of chimpanzees in a room full of typewriters and leave them there long enough, they will peck out an installation of Red America.

Posted by: jazzmaniac | March 22, 2006 04:02 PM

Those folks who think that this is a way to get liberals to read the Post are really dillusional. Domenech will be bashed everywhere, no need to give the Post a dime, or even a thought.

Posted by: Gay Texan | March 22, 2006 04:03 PM

Welcome to Orwellian America everybody.

I'm thinking that if the Post really wants to be 'balanced' they will reprint some of the columns from the Völkischer Beobachter.

Right wing balanced out by really right wing.

Posted by: Stephen Sanders | March 22, 2006 04:03 PM

By giving Ben Domenech a column called "Red America" you have sided with Red America. You are not simply providing fair and equal time to the Right Wing, you have acknowledged and embraced the very worst of their extremist and hateful language. When you, through the words of Mr. Domenech, refer to anyone who dares disagree with the administration's point of view as "jackbooted communist thugs," you are referring to me and almost everyone I know, and I take that as an abhorrent insult. In your eyes, "jackbooted communist thugs" broke from the tyranny of the King, fought at Lexington, dumped tea into Boston harbor, and signed our Declaration of Independence. You have done a great disservice to not only the Washington Post, but to the American people as well.

Posted by: Stuart Balcomb | March 22, 2006 04:03 PM

Oh, please...
The Post is balanced enough without adding "Red America," which is a radical right-wing column. If you're going to do that, you should find someone equally radical from the Left.

I trust the Post, as one of the best newspapers in the country, to address this imbalance.
Thank you.

Posted by: Ann McNeal | March 22, 2006 04:04 PM

Nepotism rulez!

This has to qualify as the most spectacular jouralism home goal in recent history.

is this a dream... I've clocked up about 10 hours surfing...

somebody wake me up.

Posted by: Heckuva Job. Benny! | March 22, 2006 04:04 PM

Hilarious new blogger,

When will Blue America get one at the Washington Post? As someone from Texas I wonder if Domenech was responsible for the tone-death speeches and statements by our junior Senator.

People in Texas, home of the Alamo, really were jolted awake with the statement "liberties don't matter if you're dead."

I suspect Ben will be equally inspiring on the once great WP.

Posted by: Gary Denton | March 22, 2006 04:05 PM

As a one-time subscriber, when I lived in the East, and as a fairly regular reader, I must ask:

Is there some reason that the Washington Post has decided to undercut its own credibility by providing column support for Ben Domenech, a representative of the loony fringe of the Right Wing? He has limited experience, none of it journalistic, as I understand matters; he is a parody of a thinker (calling Coretta Scott King, on the event of her funeral, a "communist"). What possible reason is there for the Post to do this -- except to further the career and influence of the Radical Right Wing of American politics -- a segment that will only push for more and more restrictions on honest reporting.

With recent developments involving Post personnel, I would have expected a little rational decision-making from the Post.

I am very disappointed. Though, I must confess, not surprised.


Posted by: Dwight P | March 22, 2006 04:06 PM

Actually, I'll kinda enjoy reading the goose-step diatribes. I think it's cute. And yeah, too bad Joe McCarthy can't be president "again", he-he.

Posted by: Alan Deane | March 22, 2006 04:06 PM

sallyemoto asks: "Coretta King was a national heroine married to a national hero, was she not?"

To me "heroine" implies someone who is helpless and unable to affect the world around her. CSK was none of those things. I'd call her a hero.

She was a courageous, smart, and kind person. The contrast between her and this pathetic little man who tried to smear her by calling her a "communist" could not be more stark.

Posted by: Cujo359 | March 22, 2006 04:06 PM

How sad. The newspaper of Watergate and of Katherine Graham has now become just a noise machine for the extreme right wing republican party. It was bad enough that Bob Woodward was just a shill for George Bush, but now you have hired Ben Domenech to write "Red America". No effort to balance, and no apologies. He hates all things Democratic (and probably democracy itself), and will have space in your exalted newspaper to spew his venom .

I wonder if journalism in America will ever be the same? A grand old newspaper is now no better than FOX news. At least it had ethics in the early 1970's.

Sad, really.

Posted by: Diane | March 22, 2006 04:06 PM

I’ve never understood why some news organizations feel the need to balance factual reporting that is unfavorable to the right with editorial content that is more favorable.

This smacks of attempts by small-town school districts (now struck down by the courts) to give equal time to fundamentalist religious beliefs in biology classes that teach the accepted scientific theory of evolution.


Ben Domenech is a rabid, red-baiting ideologue. Are you “balancing” his hateful bile with someone equally far out on the left? And if not, why not?

Posted by: Andrew | March 22, 2006 04:07 PM

We live in a day and age where the average American who wants to hear the real news, or read the real news, has to either go online to seek out foreign or alternative news sources, or watch the BBC, or find an international news stand where they can purchase a foreign paper. No longer can Americans count on stalwarts like the New York Times and the Washington Post to provide real news, investigative journalism or muckraking. It is sad that they, too, have become nothing more than a photocopier for the White House speeches, statements and press releases. The fact that you have chosen to further the demise of the American Free Press by giving Ben Domenech his own column, "Red America", at all, and especially by not providing a "Blue America" column as well is just another nail in the coffin of the free press. It's sad that a paper with as righteous and storied a history as the Washington Post, the paper of free press, muckraking heroes Woodward and Bernstein have resorted to this. Without a free press, this American Democracy is not long for the world. The Washington Post has a responsibility not only to its self and its history, not only to the American people but to America, to Democracy itself, to do it's job - to be an independent source of NEWS (not solely opinion, not a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration, and certainly not as a forum for a bigot like Ben Domenech) - to do the investigative journalism, muckraking and watchdoging that a functioning democracy requires to retain it's integrity as such. Please boot Ben Domenech and Red America which is nothing more than a forum for his idiotic, frothing, bigoted, inflammatory rhetoric. I will not buy another Washington Post, nor read your paper online until he is removed from its pages.

Posted by: Emily Harting | March 22, 2006 04:07 PM

I'm not really sure when it happened, but sometime within the last 10 or 15 years, investigative journalism became synonymous with left-wing partisan diatribe. This alarms me as a woman, a cancer survivor, a Ph.D. student in neuroscience, a teacher, and an educated member of your reading public. I rely on publications such as the Washington Post to accurately relay information to me on subjects ranging from health care and court rulings on abortion rights to science education and student welfare.

Please consider either removing Ben Domenech's new opinion column, "Red America," from your online paper, or add an equally profane and ridiculous progressive voice for your readers. The rest of the paper should be FACTUAL and non-partisan. So, at least balance out your opinion articles.

Thank you

Posted by: Gwen | March 22, 2006 04:07 PM

Oops, I said think think. Didn't have to think twice about THIS column.

Posted by: Alan Deane | March 22, 2006 04:08 PM

I would never have come to this blog ordinarily, but here was so many comments on americablog, I couldn't reist. It is much ado about nothing. This site is as most redstate things, dumb and boring.

Posted by: Jane | March 22, 2006 04:09 PM

In related news, Bob Woodward apologized to Nixon for leaking state secrets regarding his presidency. Bob was reported to have said, "I was wrong and suffering from NDS (Nixon Derangement Syndrome for you MSM types)."

Posted by: this liberal is entertained | March 22, 2006 04:10 PM

I find the pathetic rants of Ben Domenech in his "Red America" column offensive and ungrounded. This is not reporting, nor is it even entertainment. A wise editorial decision would be to strike the column altogether. Stick with REAL news and accuracy - you could be the only newspaper in the U.S. to do so!

Posted by: Pathetic! | March 22, 2006 04:11 PM

You know why many of these posts have not been removed? The IPs are being sent to NSA as we speak. Don't you Republicans think you will be screened out either.

Posted by: You Think Not? | March 22, 2006 04:11 PM

Hello
Allowing a right-wing hack like Ben Domenech his own column is nothing short of caving in to the immense pressures of a red-dominated administration. If there’s ever a time to present a balanced viewpoint, it’s to present all sides of the issues rather than provide a forum for a right-wing apologist to further propaganda for this administration.

Remember George Orwell? The Ministry of Truth? Don’t allow the Washington Post to become a mouthpiece for such a blatant arch conservative. Your journalistic integrity is at stake, and we’ll be watching closely.

Best Regards
Scott Pearson

Posted by: RedAmerica? Think again | March 22, 2006 04:11 PM

Could you really find no one, no one, any more qualified to represent, lets be charitable here, Conservative Republican views, than a 24 year old kid?

Did you think that no one would notice his political connections?

Maybe the plan is to let the 'conservative' blogger make an ass of himself, thus giving you the opportunity to distance yourself from him? Are you that dependent on 'perception' that you *need* that kind of cover, which isn't cover at all, before making a stand?

How much are you paying this creep?

Posted by: Michael Cloud | March 22, 2006 04:12 PM

Interesting that the "liberal media" approach to balance is bringing in the most irresponsible and extreme right-wingers they can sign. Is this intentional with the hope that they will embarass themselves utterly? I mean this is the guy who decried the Presidents attendance at Coretta Scott King's funeral in an article titled "The President visits the funeral of a Communist" so it shouldn't take long.

Oh, reading his new blog, I'd say that it has already happened.

Interesting also, that when I search your site for "Ben Domenech", I get results with the following heading:
"Your Search for Ben Domenech returned 666 results" -- if that doesn't change soon, it could alienate some of your fundamentalist subscribers!

Posted by: Tom Yamada | March 22, 2006 04:13 PM

Facts are liberal (that is why they aligned against Bush) therefore they need to be balanced by Republican talking points and opinion. Domenech may be wrong about everything but since the Post is all about 'truthiness' now it really doesn't matter.

Posted by: colbert | March 22, 2006 04:13 PM

I am a pro-life, evangelical Christian who is very disappointed in the Post's decision to hire someone who is 24 years old and with close ties to the present administration for the (strange) purpose of balance. I lived in a country with a state-controlled media for some years and was delighted to be able to read the Post on-line and be proud of our freedom of the press. You are making a mockery of that. I am an intelligent person who will pay only to read columns by experienced, balanced people.

Posted by: Kathy | March 22, 2006 04:14 PM

So, the once credible Washington Post has decided to become News Journalism’s version of the Fox News Network!
I, for one , will no longer bother reading your paper – either on-line or in the newsprint. You surely understand that if you are going to have a right-wing hack produce a column for you, in all fairness, you should also have a left-wing hack write a column for you, too. There that would be fair and balanced…not truthful, but fair and balanced.
As long as the media continues to go after the sensational, the American newspaper reader will be getting short shrift. Alas, there are very few truthful sources available to those of us who still have a brain and wish to use it. Your paper was just beginning to get back some of its bygone respect. Now look what you have gone and done. What a shame to have the likes of Ben Domenech express the conservative point of view. He has used the same old, tired incendiary comments and tactics that everyone of his ilk call their own. Just trash, nothing newsworthy, nothing enlightening – what a shame and what a missed opportunity.

Maria T. Mash
Reno, Nevada

Posted by: Maria | March 22, 2006 04:14 PM

I used to read the Post right after I read the NYTimes for accurate and unbiased journalism. Now that you've caved in to the neocons by that atrocious column, I doubt that I will be much concerned about your reporting in other matters. The more time goes on the more neocons resemble the early Nazi movement, although most of them are so illiterate I doubt if they would grasp the undertones of the allusion.
What a pity that the Post has at last fallen victim of right-wing hysteria. You disgrace the thus far outstanding traditions of your founders. I wonder what your new columnist thinks of Watergate. No doubt, Nixon was really a hero who suffered martyrdom at the hands of the Washington Post.

Posted by: John Anderson -- Chicago | March 22, 2006 04:15 PM

Shame on you Washington Post. You who were the sole reason Watergate got exposed. In a time when good journalism is truly at an all time low – why aid and abet the twisted neo conservative rhetoric of the right wing.

We are counting on you to expose whomever is guilty of fraud, bribery or breaking the law. If not you then who will keep our Democracy strong. I implore you. Dig deep and tell the stories of deception and secrecy that abound in this administration.

Thank you for your time.

Posted by: Linda Gardner | March 22, 2006 04:15 PM

As a 62 year old college educated self employed male married to the same lovely lady for 42 years, I am sickened and saddened by your obvious pandering to the most extreme right wing elemenmts of this nation. You must surely have a reason, but it has little to do with "balance" and very likely much to do with appeasing those who knowingly or unknowingly adhere to the principles of fascism.

Posted by: Butler Lee | March 22, 2006 04:15 PM

Dude,
Your blog does not represent the "majority of Americans." It represents those Americans like you who choose to live in the imaginary America of poodle skirts and men in suits and hats. You're 23 years old! I know you think you know everything, l did too when I was 23, but you don't. Wait until you've lived a while in the real world, if you dare. That's right, it takes courage to face the truth of America and what it has become in these last 6 years. It takes courage, and, dude, you ain't got it. How do I know? RED DAWN! What is up with your "Red Dawn" fascination? It's a movie for arm chair patriots. Look beyond the cliche patriotism and watch a movie about the real thing, like, "Best Years of Their Lives." I'll warn, you the movie is old and in black and white, but it shows how war strains a country to the breaking point. It shows that America after World War II didn't break, it survived and grew stronger. And how? By facing the ugliness of war and what it means to be an American. Americans who fought proudly, who were actually greeted with flowers and smiles when they entered cities. Americans who stayed here and took over jobs vacated by those fighting and kept industries strong. Americans who rationed their use of sugar and coffee and others things they used so that those who fought could have more. They sacrificed. Or watch, "Deer Hunter." That'll show you the cost of Vietnam both on the soldiers and on our Country.
Dude, If you're going to learn about patriotism and war, you should be watching movies that deal with REAL patriotism and REAL wars, not imaginary courage in an imaginary war.
Sincerely,
Jo Tolkin

Posted by: Jo Tolkin | March 22, 2006 04:16 PM

Is anyone else having trouble posting ?

Posted by: A.Scott | March 22, 2006 04:16 PM

Are you kidding? A column by a self-professed Liberal hater in your newspaper without any balance? Will Michael Moore be publishing "Blue America" in the Washington Post?

Or have you caved to the lie that the Main Stream Media is sufficient Liberal balance?

Thank you,
Eddie Caplan
Fairfield, IA

Posted by: Eddie Caplan | March 22, 2006 04:18 PM

Pathetic.

Posted by: Michael Bender | March 22, 2006 04:18 PM

Come on, it's easy:
Investigative journalism became synomymous with left wing politics as soon as those "investigations" revealed the curruption of the powerful. Why do you think it is a Republican meme?
biased, bigoted, ranting is news and factual accounting (logos) is opinion.
The powerful now have control of the media outlets so it to be expected that the reversal of truth is the norm.

Posted by: Worst President Ever | March 22, 2006 04:18 PM

I can't help but think of the movie, "Red." What a sad state of affairs this country has fell into! As my favorite bumper sticker says, "If you are not COMPLETELY APPALLED, you have not been paying attention!!" My newest fave is, "2008: END of an ERROR!!"

Posted by: Rick Westbrooks | March 22, 2006 04:19 PM

Cancel your Post subscription? My wife and I did! Call this number (202) 334-6100 and dial 0! Tell'em Ben sent you.

Posted by: Cancellation Street | March 22, 2006 04:19 PM

Hello. I live in Havre, Montana, and get the WashingtonPost.comNews every day. I grew up in Springfield, VA, and read the Post every day. I am proud to know that I was raised in an informed way through reading the Post.

As a resident of a "purple" state, I am dismayed that the Post would give unequal time to one side of a partisan issue. If the Post feels it's necessary to give time to the right, then please also give time to the center and left. The Post has always been my ideal newspaper...one that gave investigative reporting and balanced journalism a home. Please return the Post to its true identity.

Pam Hillery, Havre City Councilperson


Posted by: phillery | March 22, 2006 04:19 PM

I would gladly accept the premise of Ben Domenech offering a daily mix of commentary, analysis and cultural criticism – if only I could find it.

The first three installments of Red America have offered none of the above, only the weak sophistry of consevative victimization. How original.

Would the editors of WaPo.com please inform me, as a subscriber and shareholder, of the reasoning governing the selection of Mr. Domenech as a salaried WaPo employee offering “a daily mix of commentary, analysis and cultural criticism”? Surely you are not attempting to bring the word “Balance” into the equation unless it involves therapy and medication for Mr. Domenech.

Or was this just as good as it was going to get for you? I could have spared you the troubles of search and expense – there are plenty of rabid juveniles foaming at the pen in any number of frat houses across the capitol.

Posted by: Reds Skeleton | March 22, 2006 04:21 PM

That's funny... I was brought up to believe that the colors of America were Red, White *and* Blue... and that to pretend one didn't need the other was to miss the whole point of it.

Too bad the Post has fallen to the pressures of 'Divide and Conquer' tactics of "Red" America.

I prefer the full spectrum.

Posted by: annie | March 22, 2006 04:22 PM

What pisses me off about this, besides the obvious and misplaced additional wieght on "right wing" views, is that this guy probably is drawing some type of paycheck for his blog, while the good hardworking folk at DC Wire are expected to blog for free.

Posted by: Mark/Dupont Circle | March 22, 2006 04:22 PM

And beyond all the other hideous things from this punks past he's an operative of the Regnery cabal, they of the Zero Credibility rating, wherein violent racists ( see,Jerome R. Corsi ) and pathological liars ( see Criminal Disgraced President Nixon's professional Kerry assassin John E. O'Neill, that good man ) and Robert 'expose the CIA agent for retribution' Novak's son toil away in fact free obscurity. (Ben, will you yell and storm off when there is nothing left to make up?)
Another Home Run for accurate Media in America. I wonder if the Post will write a 30 page supplemental Mea Culpa when the entire Republican Establishment in power is under indictment and everything they ever claimed is proved State-Power falshood.
I hear Ken Mehlman actually does know Abramoff quite well...
Do Ben and the Post not get it? The Bush Era is over, the support is fleeing, and the architects of the experiment are saying the whole thing was a terrible Blunder (see Francis Fukuyama on Neocon failings, he'd know. See William F Buckley on the Lost, Botched War of Choice)
Not really a great time to hire on yet another blathering juvenile Coulterite to make stuff up, tiny flimsy, easily disproved fibs and deceptions intended to patch another breach in the collapsing hull of the Far Right Cleptocracy.
If it weren't so baffling it would just be funny.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 04:23 PM

I can't believe it! Why would the Post promote such trash? Why would your paper, with its strong liberal heritage, give the Bush Administration a bully pulpit for one of its speechwriters?

Your readership deserves better.

"Red America" is written by Ben Domenech. His bio calls him "the youngest political appointee of President George W. Bush"—as speechwriter for a Bush cabinet secretary. He is co-founder of RedState, a right-wing Intenet site, and an editor at Regnery Press, which publishes right-wing books. His only journalistic credential is dabbling in right-wing movement publications.

Within 24 hours of getting his new gig, Domenech made himself into a parody of everything people associate with crazy right-wing extremists. Michael Moore bashing—check. Howard Dean loathing—check. O'Reilly-like delusion of representing the "majority of Americans"—check. To prove he represents the very fringe, Domenech made sure to reference "jackbooted communist thugs." Domenech didn't just say it, but in a full-frontal illusion of grandeur he quoted himself saying it!

What's truly tragic is the Washington Post chose to "balance" legitimate journalists who hold politicians accountable with an extreme right-wing propagandist. Today, media wachdog group Media Matters reports Domenach recently wrote online about Coretta Scott King's funeral and titled his comment, "The President visits the funeral of a Communist."

We don't need more hateful, red-baiting garbage in this country.

Please print the truth and dump this man's column ASAP!

Posted by: Kathryn Riss | March 22, 2006 04:23 PM

The Washington Post is no longer the paper I grew up with in the 1970's, when you stood up to abuse of power. Now you pander to it and call it "balance". You sadden me with your weakness and lack of ethics.

Posted by: David Martin | March 22, 2006 04:23 PM

I suppose the Post feels that a hard-hitting accountability blog (Froomkin) needs to be balanced by a conservatives-can-do-no-wrong sycophant blog, but I really think the Post should be more concerned with truth than faux balance.

The Truth does not need to be "balanced" with lies. If you want to increase the partisan rhetoric on your site, you should also start a flame-throwing left wing blog to balance "Red America." But if you're looking for accuracy and truth in reporting, you really should be focusing on the right-wing bias that is so often represented in your mainstream stories (e.g. your Abramoff coverage). Or is "Red America" just an attempt to pander to the Right?

Oh, was that hateful? I'm so sorry.

"Better dead than Red"
Shargash

Posted by: shargash | March 22, 2006 04:24 PM

I'm looking forward to hearing the Post explain why it would hire a man who publicly insulted a Civil Rights icon on the day of her funeral.

Posted by: Tom | March 22, 2006 04:24 PM

How was Ben Domenech chosen? He has absolutely no journalistic background, and he is not even one of the top conservative bloggers. He is a bit of a wingnut from reading his column, is that what you were looking for?

I am just wondering how extensive was the search. Was Mr. Domenech your first choice? Are you really paying him for those first two columns?

Will there be a Liberal Blogger on the WashingtonPost.com?

Just wondering

Posted by: Ivanogray | March 22, 2006 04:25 PM

Hi -

I can't believe you people are publishing this trash! Stop it! We want the Washington Post not the Washington times!

Posted by: Jim de Seve | March 22, 2006 04:25 PM

Gee it seems Ben Domenech doesn't have a lot of friends here. I am shocked! I would have assumed that all those people turning to the Washington Post for fair, balanced, nuanced news and commentary, would welcome with open arms an inexperienced, brazenly partisan, closed minded, ideologue. What is wrong with those unhinged crazy bloggers that can't appreciate this?!? I, for one, am happy that the Washington Post has shown its true colors as a cheerleader of the political elite. I delight as WashingtonPost.com tries to reshape itself into a less popular version of The Corner. Way to go guys (and gals)!

Posted by: Fish | March 22, 2006 04:25 PM

Why not have Mr. Domenech author his bloganda while embedded in the field with a unit in Iraq? Say for at least a 1 year tour.

This would be a great opportunity for Mr. Domenech to get on the job training on being a real reporter. Then maybe apprentice him in Afganistan until he has matured.

At the very least he would be earning his keep and getting an eduction about the real world rather than simply parroting unsubstantiated pseudo facts and living off the largess of the "liberal" Washington Post while laughing his way to the bank.

Right now Mr. Domenech cannot even claim an original thought or position. Everything he "authors" is spoon fed to him from the radical right wing propaganda mills disguised as think tanks.

Posted by: Mate Gross | March 22, 2006 04:26 PM

Hiring a guy who called Corretta scott King a communist...Brilliant!! this has to be almost as clever as USA today hiring Ann Coulter.

Posted by: huerta | March 22, 2006 04:26 PM

People here are missing the point slightly.

This isn't really red state versus blue state.

It's white (as in robe) versus the rest of us.

That's the pedigree of people like Domenech. That's the audience he is trying to reach when he maligns Corretta Scott King and black culture at the time of her funeral.

It's code, and it's not very subtle.

Surely, posters haven't forgotten how Trent Lott is aligned with the White Citizens Council, which has its roots in the KKK?

Can't wait to see his next non-white target of abuse.

Posted by: Richard Estes | March 22, 2006 04:26 PM

Is the Washington Post to become another mouthpiece for the "Fair & Balanced" Fox News opinion hucksters?

"Red America" is not news, nor is it even necessary; I can find partisan diatribes like these on Craigslist.com (and even those are more entertaining). No, this is yet more evidence of the media's "Strategy for Placation" posing as discourse.

You need brass ones.

Posted by: Appalled | March 22, 2006 04:27 PM

This is hilarious. You hire a wingnut like this, and the first thing he does is turn around and slap the "MSM". Serves you right.

Posted by: skybluewater | March 22, 2006 04:27 PM

You are all wrong. Since nobody else is going to defend this kid, I guess I should.
His ilk do not, in fact, have mainstream outlets for their voice. They are locked away in castles and huts for fear of maurading bans of "tax collectors" and hatchet wielding horsemen. The plaque is rampant where they live and the Arabs are approaching. The only solace they have is the church and even there corruption rules.
Let the poor child's voice sing out loud and clear in the light of day. He is an old man in his world and may not get a chance again.

Posted by: Be Kind To Repuglicans | March 22, 2006 04:28 PM

April Fools Day is a week and a half away.

Posted by: PaulR | March 22, 2006 04:29 PM

Hire Kos!

Posted by: Jay | March 22, 2006 04:29 PM

Did WaPo ever consider hiring Michael Moore to counterbalance Krauthammer? Why not?

Posted by: Gray | March 22, 2006 04:29 PM

What a sad shadow of its former self the Post has become. As the "Milquetoast Post" sinks further into irrelevancy, perhaps the editors will look back at the halcyon days of Watergate, when the Post actually did fearless investigative journalism. To give a naive right-wing political hack free reign to propagandize under the Post masthead in the guise of "balance" is not journalism; it is the destruction of journalism.

Posted by: WaPo shoots self in foot | March 22, 2006 04:29 PM

I don't mind conservative opinions, but I do mind factually incorrect information that is being posted on the Redstate blog. Balancing with a conservative voice does not mean allowing someone to lie, as is the case in this blog. Fire him now and get rid of this embarassment for the Post. Thanks.

Posted by: Drew | March 22, 2006 04:30 PM

You've lost yet another reader.

Posted by: Sam | March 22, 2006 04:31 PM

Now that you have red state blogger When will you have a blue state blogger? You will rue the day you hired Domenech he is one of the nuttiest right wing bloggers out there.

Posted by: Robert Whitley | March 22, 2006 04:31 PM

Ben Domenech is 'balanced' journalism?!?!?!? It saddens me that the Washington Post, one of the FEW media who doesn't bow to the right wing and the Bush Administration and actually reports the truth, has had to break down and add a hack like Ben Domenech, whose media credentials are equivalent to Jeff Gannon's.

Posted by: schrank | March 22, 2006 04:32 PM

I find it regrettable and discouraging that The Washington Post has chosen to "balance" the work of actual journalists, reporting facts, and calling authorities to account for their actions with the ravings of a radical right-wing propagandist. Will you now "balance" your weather reporting with detailed instructions for performing rain dances?

I know that Fox News works daily, and uses pre-defined "talking points" to try to blur the line between fact and opinion, journalism and propaganda. I also realize that Fox has had some success among the gullible members of the public in actually conflating propaganda with "news." I had not expected this to have a similar effect on an institution of the sophistication and stature of the Post.

If you have lost your way, become confused in our "Foxified" world, perhaps you can be guided by the words of one of journalism's elders. Bill Moyers, who practices actual journalism, gave a succinct definition of real news. He said, recently, that whatever those in power would prefer to keep hidden, and want you never to find out, is the real news. Everything else is just publicity.

Please restore the Washington Post to the practice of actual journalism. We have so few outlets left for that.

Alternatively, if the powers in charge of the Post decide it is more lucrative to follow the path of Fox, then you surely must allow someone from the opposition to the prevailing right-wing, crypto-fascist hacks to have an equally prominent column. And all opinion columns need to be clearly identified as such. The public requires this service.

Posted by: Peggy Kenny | March 22, 2006 04:33 PM

I argue elsewhere (at Brad DeLong’s Semi-daily Journal) that Domenech’s appointment as WaPo blogger is part of a desperate commercial strategy on the part of WaPo to recover from its ongoing losses in some other areas of operation by going for the lowest common denominator in its online operations.

On the print side, a similar strategy was to try to offset declining sales the regular daily edition by joining the rush to free tabloid dailies with their own “Express”, which has failed to stand up to the vigorous competition in the DC metro area.

The interesting thing is that Domenech expresses, in his self-justification of his own position as representing a majoritarian one (“twice as many Americans believe in creationism as in evolution;” conservatives are the majority of the public; etc.), exactly the logic of the WaPo’s commercial strategy in going after this market segment in the blogosphere.

In this respect, they are evidently prepared to sacrifice whatever reputation they may have acquired in the past as a respected and reliable source of news and informed discourse for the benefit of the bottom line – a strategy of product dilution that is bound to backfire.

Posted by: Jim Dandy | March 22, 2006 04:34 PM

I am sorry that in the interest of making your paper more uh, balanced, you chose this young man to blog for the conservative party. I don't think he is truly representative of conservatives, or at least not of any that I know.

Posted by: gregariousred | March 22, 2006 04:34 PM

This is an early April's Fool joke, right? It's a joke, right?

My, my, how the mighty WaPo has fallen.

Let the games begin.

Posted by: DLC | March 22, 2006 04:35 PM

I’ve frequently been dumbfounded, flabbergasted, bewildered, confounded, confused and angered by this current Bush cabel/administration. They seem to have no historical perspective nor awareness of who we truly are as a people and nation. They are disconnected from the ideals, intentions and dreams of our founding fathers, raison d'etre of our country and seem intent on remaking the country to conform with their radical beliefs.  

I travel internationally (48 countries so far) 6 – 8 months each year and have witnessed first hand the steady erosion of respect, friendliness and support out there since bush and “the dick” took office. In many countries (including former and current allies) we are despised by a majority now. I’ve recently lost two business contracts in Europe simply, and only, because I’m an American. One of my staff is Canadian and when we meet people and they ask where we are from I let him answer first, and then just shut up...

One day, in the height of frustration with the accumulation of power abuses, self-serving decisions and arrogance, I wondered if maybe it was I who misunderstood who we are, so I reread the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. I forgot that 2/3 of the Declaration of Independence is a list of grievances against King George III, many of which apply today to the current imperial “king George” wannabe. Take a look below from the Declaration of Independence (Current administration's transgressions in bold)--


...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Grievances against King George, from the Declaration of Independence:


He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good [WIRETAPPING/SPYING ON USA CITIZENS. CIRCUMVENTING TRIAL BY JURY. GUANTANAMO. SCORNING UN AND GENEVA TREATY OBLIGATIONS. TORTURE SCANDLES...].


He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands [WALL ALONG THE MEXICO BORDER/].

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. [SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS]

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices [SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS]...

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power [MISLED/LIED COUNTRY INTO IRAQ WAR. PRISONERS IN CUBA AND SECRET PRISONS.].

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended   Legislation:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world [STEEL TARRIFS]:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury [GUANTANAMO. SECRET PRISONS]:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences [GUANTANAMO]:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies [IRAQ, GUANTANAMO, AND...].

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments [UN OBLIGATIONS AND COOPERATION]:

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation [IRAQ, GUANTANAMO, ABU GRAB, CIA SECRET PRISONS... ]

I know I've missed many of the current transgressions. You can add them.

We have a way to “Declare our Independence”. It’s called impeachment.
Terry Tillman


--
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
-Yogi Berra.

Posted by: TTillman | March 22, 2006 04:35 PM

Back in the day there was a sayng that used to refer to the Communists: "Better dead than RED!" Still seems pretty apropos!

Posted by: Don K. in NE | March 22, 2006 04:36 PM

Are you serious? This is surely the nursery schooler being invited to drive the school bus.

Kathryn Graham must be absolutely spinning in her grave..............

Posted by: Jim Wright in SF | March 22, 2006 04:37 PM

It's a sad day for the state of journalism in America when a paper like the Washington Post caves to the right wing and hires a columnist like Ben Domenech to write "Red America."

This isn't watchdog journalism, it's lapdog journalism. Shocking for a paper that has published some of the finest investigative journalism in the country. Domenech is a mouthpiece for the administration and its trashing of the left, a true right wing hack. If I wanted to read this kind of trash I would subscribe to the Washington Times.

I went to college in DC as a political science and journalism student at American University and got a crucial part of my political education reading The Washington Post. I'm shocked at how much the paper has changed as evidenced by this recent hire.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 04:38 PM

Journalism is not about red state/ blue state partisanship. It's about finding out the facts of a situation and writing about them as objectively as possible. Giving a column to someone like Bob Domenech is a very bad idea if what you are interested in is real journalism. His use of inflammatory language and his questionable hold on facts, give voice to extremism in a place it does not belong, namely, an even-handed newspaper, as the Washington Post has had a reputation for being. What the right wing has called a liberal bias in the media is often just reporting the news-- if there is a story about a scandal in Congress, or if experts say the war in Iraq is not being won, reporting on that is the job of the news media. Giving a platform to name-calling and politicial ranting in a paper such as yours is a way of legitimizing that kind of yellow journalism, something I would hate to see our country's newspapers revert to. It is unhealthy, dishonest, and counter-productive to the democratic endeavor of creating an informed citizenry.

Sincerely,

Caroline Allen

Posted by: caroline Allen | March 22, 2006 04:38 PM

This young man has been given an opportunity many would bleed for -- he's on the opinion page at washingtonpost.com. His words will be seen by anyone that wants to be part of the country's national political conversation.

After reading his first fews posts, all I can say is that I don't mind that the Post got a conservative blogger so much as they got this particular conservative blogger. They really could have done much, much better. "Red Dawn"? Please..

Posted by: David G | March 22, 2006 04:39 PM

It's the Domino Theory in action, as another news outlet goes down, caving to the incessant whining, threatening and bullying of American extremism. It's embarrassing that WaPo has handed an unwashed hack opportunist with the journalistic credentials of a gnat yet *another* bully pulpit from which to spew neocon lies and invective to no meaningful purpose. WaPo, leave the "fair and balanced" make-believe to Fox News and go after what's really happening in this country. Shame on you for aiming so low.

Posted by: Betsey | March 22, 2006 04:41 PM

"Just as the time of reckoning approaches and the Washington Post will, like it or no, have to take responsibility for all the flagrant, credulous warmongering it did in a fit of BushCo. access rapture, you guys hire the most thick-witted, mouth breathing home schooled freak you could lay your hands on." Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake

God I wish I written that.

Posted by: Dave | March 22, 2006 04:43 PM

I am deeply distressed by the Post's descent into Orwellian reality by having found it necessary or desirable (shudder) to give exposure to a lunatic fringe voice (Red America), disguised as "balance." I think they know it is not. The press has abrogated it's responsibility to the public and as a result our nation is more dangerously threatened from within than it has ever been from without.Editor, uphold your tradition. Reapply the principles of a free press. Let reason and history remain your guides, and leave the frothy blabber of the emotionally unwell and intellectually unfit to the more sun colored publications. Be part of the solution to our tragic condition, not part of its underpinnings.

Posted by: Bruce Fields | March 22, 2006 04:43 PM

I think the affirmative action angle is also noteworthy in the hiring of this gentleman.

A 24 year old white male with connections to the GOP but no real qualifications exception some sophomoric crap on NRO is given the space in the top national newspaper.

And then the Repubs complain about reverse descrimination.

I hope that at least this gentleman never writes about how good the blacks and minorities have it and therefore do not deserve any special treatment.

Posted by: lib | March 22, 2006 04:44 PM

I opened up Ben D's blog yesterday for the first time hoping to read something - anything- meaningful. Instead I got what amounted to the partisan tantrums of a snot-flinging child. Way to go, WaPo.

Posted by: kg | March 22, 2006 04:44 PM


I'm posting this to register my dismay with the Washington Post for "balancing" the editorial perspective with the addition of the right wing idealogue Ben Domenech. If you think his perspective is anywhere near the center right, you need to start reading his copy. This foaming at the mouth, Democrat bashing idiot is about as representative of my Republican friends as your newpaper is representative of a Physics textbook. Anyone that refers to Coretta King as a "Communist" is way out of the mainstream and is hardly a "balanced" commentator. Try and reclaim some of your more centrist and progressive readers by at least hosting a column that will offset his diatribes - something like Molly Ivins comes to mind. Otherwise, risk being lumped with the many other mouthpieces of a corrupt administration.

Posted by: Jack | March 22, 2006 04:45 PM

as long time reader of the post who considers themself an independent . . . even i agree - this is a joke. chalk up another canceled subscription until you launch blue state

Posted by: n8 | March 22, 2006 04:45 PM

Wow this is hilarious! All the conservative posts have major spelling errors in them. And here everyone thought that whole "dumb conservative" thing was just a stereotype..

"Cow-tow" "plagerize" I'm falling all over myself laughing at their elementary school English failings. "Their" for "They're" "You're" when it should've been "your"

No wonder Ben's already made mistakes on his WaPo blog. Look at the morons he calls his peers!

Posted by: AnnaBanana | March 22, 2006 04:45 PM

Is this an online comic we're talking about? Couldn't you have gotten something intellectually meaty, like Ziggy, or something?

Posted by: SpinDentist | March 22, 2006 04:45 PM

Please. "Balancing" the variety of opinions in your paper is one thing. Hiring -- and in so doing, *endorsing* -- propagandist hacks is another. Conservative or otherwise.

What happened to the Washington Post that spoke truth to power? And valued professionalism, credentials and ethics over this sort of cheap slander?

And I'm with "Ben," below. No equally hysterical "liberal" counterpoint blog, please. How about simply intelligent people who can make an argument without demonizing half of America along the way?

Posted by: serious_songs | March 22, 2006 04:45 PM

So, we're going for the Fox News approach to "news" now, are we?

No more of this "reporting" and "facts" crap, eh?

I applaud you brave editors who are on the vanguard of the movement that will destroy the line between opinion bloggers and newspapers.

Posted by: Josh H | March 22, 2006 04:46 PM

This is a setup. Get some young red-meat right wing kid who enjoys throwing cherry bombs at democrats and lefties, present him as the face of modern conservatism, solidify your base and discredit the conservative movement.

WaPo is trying to help you, you dolts.

Posted by: WaPo died for your sins | March 22, 2006 04:46 PM

Do Ben and the Post not get it? The Bush Era is over, the support is fleeing, and the architects of the experiment are saying the whole thing was a terrible Blunder :see Francis Fukuyama on Neocon failings, he'd know. See William F Buckley on the Lost, Botched War of Choice...
Not really a great time to hire on yet another blathering juvenile Coulterite to make stuff up, tiny flimsy, easily disproved fibs and deceptions intended to patch another breach in the collapsing hull of the Far Right Cleptocracy.
Jane Speak, we agree.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 04:47 PM

I was dismayed to read "Red America," by Ben Domenech. I regularly read the Wall Street Journal and watch snippets of partisan news shows, so I am no stranger to conservative editorials. But for Washington Post to explain this new column's purpose is to balance out its coverage by legitimate journalists is ridiculous. Where's Al Franken's column? Where is the far left represented? Or is truthful reporting of the news inherently liberal? And make no mistake, Domenech has already demonstrated that he is not within the mainstream - "jackbooted communist thugs"? Bashing Michael Moore Howard Dean? What have they done to be in the news lately? Nothing. Editorials should be commentary on current events or state of affairs, not a platform for extremist rhretoric and talk-radio-style attacks.

Balance out your coverage of "Red America" by giving your readers liberal coverage, or toss Ben Domenech's loser column to the trash heap, where it belongs.

Posted by: Katie Short | March 22, 2006 04:47 PM

It looked like you were going to be a real newspaper there for a while. Allowing Right Wing hacks (Red America) such an influence in a popular news source is low, even for the Post. Caving to these slanderous mud-slingers is unacceptable. Do you like to lose readers? It seems the already corrupt one party system is yet again using its cronies (you) to get America to think the way the right wing wants.
If this published opinion (because lets face it, we aren't dealing in facts here) is the way that you think your so-called "news" is best presented, then why not truly 'balance' the field by allowing progressives a column. Call it whatever you like, this is a new low and an embarassment to true journalistic integrity.

Posted by: D Campbell | March 22, 2006 04:49 PM

So when will WaPo balance out this lightweight with a Blue American? Froomkin is a WH commentator, he doesn't count.

Please, please enlighten us older folks on your comments about Intelligent Design, or about Coretta Scott King being a commie, or how our judges are like the KKK.

I will so look to reading your cut-and-paste Republican talking points.

Posted by: Innocent Bystander | March 22, 2006 04:50 PM

BennyBoi never realized that in the real world actions have consequences and adults take responsibilty for their actions. The Marine Sniper Coffee Mug he had been peddling via CafePress has been scrubbed but via the miracle of the Internets caching, the ads are still available for perusers...

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 22, 2006 04:53 PM

Your propagating the right-wing propaganda of the Bush mass-murderers by giving Ben Domenech a prominent soapbox is a disservice to your readers,a disservice to America, and an embarrassment to journalism.

I have been a daily reader of the WaPo for years. Good bye.

randy

Posted by: Randy Bush | March 22, 2006 04:53 PM

Now that his cred as a movie reviewer has been established, can Benji talk about daddy's bagman work for Jack Abramoff?

Posted by: HeavyJ | March 22, 2006 04:54 PM

Let's see.

Republican operative connected with Abramoff;

Writes racist articles;

Poor writing skills;

Balances whom? Those who prepare well-written, independent, fact-based articles?

For shame.

Posted by: E. "Greg" Ious | March 22, 2006 04:55 PM

Calling Coretta Scott King a commie? Yea, this guy is a real winner.

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/2/7/203823/5583/190#190

Posted by: Andre Beaucage | March 22, 2006 04:56 PM

"Red America?" How divisive and one-sided can you get?

Either launch a pair of blogs -- "Red America" and "Blue America" -- so you can get political spin from each side of the blogosphere, or (preferably) stay away from using your media brand to allow one side to spout off.

In fact, why not launch a blog called "Real America" where the solid majority of Americans who are dissatisfied with President Bush's job performance have a voice. After all, the White House certainly has its own spin machine that gets reported by all the mainstream media journalists, including the Washington Post, who go to presidential press conferences and then report back the points the president is trying to make.

You guys still don't get it. Even when you report disagreements with the president's talking points, you're still allowing the administration to frame the debate by starting with their talking points as the reference point.

Posted by: Sharon | March 22, 2006 04:57 PM

Wow! Comments have totally vilified this young man because:

1. He is 24 years old.

2. He is has a point of view different that yours.

3. He is a Republican

4. He was home-schooled.

If you don't agree with him, that's fine.

Calling him a liar because you don't agree with him is wrong.

Posted by: Kathie | March 22, 2006 04:57 PM

Hey Howell & Davis? Do you feel it yet huh? Can you feel it now?

Not with a bang, but a wimp.

Posted by: Canyoufeelthat | March 22, 2006 04:57 PM

Once upon a time, the Washington Post was one of the most respectable papers in the U.S., because it took its job as government watchdog seriously. But then with the neocon coup, it became just another cheerleading right-wing rag, and I stopped reading it regularly. However, I continued to hope that the Post would recover its former respectability. Until now. Your addition of Ben Domenech's Red America column dispels all remaining doubt that you've sold out to fascist propaganda. Oh well, at least you're being honest about it now.

Posted by: Andreas Wittenstein | March 22, 2006 04:59 PM

The Post's decision to fund Republican partisan Ben Domenech's "Red America" blog is hardly an example of "balance." Rather, it only serves to slant The Post further to the right. Moreover, it is an especially shocking move after Bob Woodward's attempts to bail out the Bush Administration through his campaign of public slander of Patrick Fitzgerald and his investigation into the Plame leak.

Where exactly does the Post draw the line between journalism and activism? Is the Post prepared to fund a similar blog for an avowed left winger to restore some semblance of balance?

Posted by: War4Sale | March 22, 2006 04:59 PM

You are just preaching to the quire. The majority of Americans realize everything the Bush administration does and says is a lie, so now, you just become a propaganda machine instead of honest journalists and you are just a tool of the right wing administration, you have lost your credibility---Too bad

Posted by: Mike Swerdlow | March 22, 2006 05:00 PM

Congratulations MSM darling Washington Post for hiring a lovely MSM basher with interesting racist tendencies and no journalistic experience to his name, let alone little life experience to boot. It really is interesting how Republican bloggers have slowly but surely blended in nicely with that darn "liberal" media so seemlessly. Really does make one wonder just how "liberal" the "MSM" truly is.

Actually, only a twit would truly wonder. Whatever credibility the WaPost had left, that was truly flushed down the toilet, unless you actually have the sack to hire a liberal blogger for balance.

But who would ever think of such a concept such as balance here?

Posted by: MisterOpus1 | March 22, 2006 05:00 PM

All the right thinking blogs should have this headline in their home page at least for a week:


WASHINGTONPOST.COM HIRES A RACIST BLOGGER.

Short and to the point and sure to get attention.

Posted by: lib | March 22, 2006 05:01 PM

The Washington Post should concentrate on giving a voice to regular working Americans, instead of handing yet another megaphone to the neoconservative elites who already control our federal government.

Posted by: Paul | March 22, 2006 05:02 PM

It is a serious affront to a free press to "balance" real watchdog journalism with right wing hackery. If The Post wants partisan political columns, it should also give progressives a voice.

Posted by: Lorraine Suzuki | March 22, 2006 05:03 PM

I believe Domenech's ancestry is Puerto Rican. Those of you criticizing the "privileged white guy" or making accusations of "white supremacy" might want to stop.

Posted by: Whoever | March 22, 2006 05:03 PM

This is an absolutely atrocious decision and further weakens any faith I might have had left in corporate media. Each and every one of you on the editorial board should be ashamed of yourselves. How dare you call yourselves journalists and support this sort of drivel. I visit the Post every day and sometimes even buy it. I will not visit this site again until I see that this "Red State" blog is gone or there is an equivalent "Blue State" blog written by a qualified blogger.

Thanks for the memories!

Posted by: James Dunleavy | March 22, 2006 05:04 PM

I don't mind that you have a conservative blogger. But it is not fair that you don't have a liberal blogger writing a "Blue State America" side by side.

Newspapers must be non-partisan if they want credibility. Opinion columns are great, and Dan Froomkin's is wonderful. But Froomkin writes a column, not a blog, and you have no liberal blogger to balance Mr. Domenech.

Surely there is a liberal blogger eager to write for the Post and balance Mr. Domenech. How about it?

Jeralyn Merritt, http://talkleft.com

Posted by: TalkLeft | March 22, 2006 05:04 PM

this poster was reading my mind....

"This is a setup. Get some young red-meat right wing kid who enjoys throwing cherry bombs at democrats and lefties, present him as the face of modern conservatism, solidify your base and discredit the conservative movement.

WaPo is trying to help you, you dolts.
"

It's actually rather amusing.

Posted by: Somebody gets it. | March 22, 2006 05:05 PM

Can the Wash Post now do a special on "Coretta King: The Dirty Commie" ?

With Ben on board they'll have plenty of material for this never before told story.

Maybe Woodward can help also.

Thanks

Posted by: NickJG | March 22, 2006 05:07 PM

I assume, given your paper’s commitment to be fair and balance (or is that Fox’s commitment), that a Blue America Blog will be up and running soon in your esteemed journal.

Peter Cohen

Posted by: Peter Cohen | March 22, 2006 05:08 PM

Is that the cheepest hack you could afford?No, wait, he is paying YOU? Very smart. Quite in keeping with your image, now.

Posted by: california_reality_check | March 22, 2006 05:10 PM

The Post would have done a better public service to turn the column inches over to a 2nd grader. Ben Domenech is not capable of giving a fair or balanced perspective on anything.

His is the kind of column that gives American journalism a bad name. I have read him for the last time, and the Post will soon follow in the "last time" category if they keep going with stuff like his.

Please get rid of him.

Posted by: Michael Jacob | March 22, 2006 05:11 PM


I am shocked and disappointed that The Washington Post has finally joined the ranks of the FOX (UNbalanced) News cronies. Hiring Ben Domenech in the name of balanced reporting? This is nothing short of laughable. This man is nothing but a shill for the current administration. He writes propoganda that is stark raving lunacy and The Post is giving him a podium from which to espouse his rants. Please rethink this decision or offer someone from the left an equal position. The Washington Post is losing credibility really fast with this appointment.

Posted by: Victor | March 22, 2006 05:13 PM

For the Washington Post to cave in to a right-wing hack such as this is reprehensible. This is not journalism, this is just attack-dog tactics.

To try to "balance" real watchdog journalism with right wing bluster is hypocritical and just plain wrong. If you wish to provide partisan political columns, you should also give progressives a chance to express their views.

Have the courage to publish good journalism, and real investigative pieces, and do not rely on vitriolic opinions to pass as news.

Posted by: Terence Shumaker | March 22, 2006 05:14 PM

So, WaPo has decided to balance Froomkin with a suck up under the pretext of "balance"?

You see, this is why you can take the last ten years of American journalism and flush them down the toilet.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan | March 22, 2006 05:14 PM

Some of the worst decisions you can make in your life are bad hiring decisions, and this is when the hiring decision is a private one.

The President is struggling with a credibility problem. I guess you wanted to spread the wealth. Now your readership has reason to question your judgement.

Are you crazy?

Posted by: Pat | March 22, 2006 05:15 PM

I dont care if BennyBoi's racial background is part Quechua or Aymara: he has obviously been raised to be very, very white in a sheltered environment. The Coretta King red-baiting in 2006 is beyond the pale...

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 22, 2006 05:16 PM

My goodness.

Posted by: Sue | March 22, 2006 05:17 PM

The "Red America" column is appalling, inappropriate, and distressing. It really sends the Post over to the "dark" side by tilting what had been investigative journalism and relatively balanced commentary towards distortion of fact and unreasoned bias.

I used to be a fan of the Washington Post; my father was a Washington correspondent and I grew up with this paper. I am ashamed of what is passing for journalism and "balanced" news these days. The addition of this column only serves to drag the paper further away from its responsibility to report and comment on the actual facts of news.

Posted by: Kit | March 22, 2006 05:18 PM

I firmly believe in fair and balanced reporting. However the methods used by the Karl Roved Right already have their outlets. I suggest that if you feel that more inane, extremist commentary is needed why not fund a position at the "New Republic" or "Fox News" for Mr. Domenech.

Posted by: Christopher Nunez | March 22, 2006 05:20 PM

If this kid is so much in favor of Bush's war inn Iraq, why doesn't he sign up with the armed forces and go fight in it? Or is that beneath him?

Posted by: Andy O | March 22, 2006 05:21 PM

You caved in big time this time. I suggest you put Domenech with the "Funnies" section or next to Doonsbury. No pretense there. I'm disappointed again and so this time will discontinue my hefty subscription fee to WaPo.

DML

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 05:21 PM

HILARIOUS. RED USE TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE. N0W WE HAVE RED PSEUDO-CHRISTIANS, RED NEOCONS, RED CAPITALISM. RED AMERIKA, , THE LAND WHERE FASCISM HAS FOUND AT LAST ITS TRUE HOME. AND THE WASHINGTON POST, IN THE NAME OF A FAIRNESS THE REDS (WHAT A DELIGHT TO BE ABLE TO CALL THEM THAT) HAVE NEVER SHOWN ANYONE, GIVES THESE NOT QUITE YET HUMANS A SPACE TO EXHIBIT THEIR EXCREMENT. NO ONE WILL DESTROY THIS COUNTRY BUT THOSE WHO INHABIT IT. THE BUSHIES AND THE REPUBLICANS, THE RED MENACE!

Posted by: ALFREDO VILLANUEVA | March 22, 2006 05:21 PM

The Washington Post has sunk to a new low. I hope your Red State blog is only the first "red", soon to be followed by red ink for income to your paper. You tarnish the word "journalism".

I won't be reading it.

Posted by: roodoc | March 22, 2006 05:22 PM

So you've put yourself in the same position as NASA, hiring a 24-year-old twerp whose only experience is spewing rightwing opinions and trying to enforce rightwing PC. Perhaps this will last slightly longer than that appointment. You couldn't have done much worse if the White House was vetting these people for you. What's the matter, David Duke wasn't interested?

Let's see--he represents the 35% (or less) who still believe Bush is doing a good job. So, for balance, do you plan to hire two people on the other side who think the current administration is incompetent and disengaged?

Posted by: dogofthesouth | March 22, 2006 05:22 PM

How sad.

Posted by: ShockedandAwed | March 22, 2006 05:23 PM

Great ! Another Bush cheerleader. That's what we really need. If people just understood what Ben has been trying to tell us we'd be winning the war on terror.

We don't need political discussion. We need cheerleading.

Come on boys, kick up your legs. Real high. Show us your pink panties. Rah, rah, rah. Sis boom bah.

Posted by: Patrick Adams | March 22, 2006 05:23 PM


Domenech is one of the worst examples of right wing whacko journalism that I have had the misfortune of reading. I am suprised and disappointed by the Post's pandering to the radical right. I urge you to continue to stand up and do the right thing in reporting the abuses and arrogance of the Bush administration and it's allies in Congress. Please don't become "balanced" by allowing this garbage to be spewed on the American people Fox News style.

Posted by: Randy Smith | March 22, 2006 05:24 PM

Two words: Volkischer Beobachter

Posted by: Patrick Adams | March 22, 2006 05:25 PM

Wow, I guess you have your own version of Jeff Gannon now.

Posted by: RobbOrBaron | March 22, 2006 05:26 PM

I am shocked and dismayed that you would fall for a false sense of "political correctness" or - worse - "balance", and give space to Ben Domenech in your paper on a regular basis. The journalism practiced in your paper so far has been one of the more enlightened in the United States of America - I have enjoyed it regularly and appreciatively. But now you have apparently given in to radical right-wing pressure and added a regular column of completely non-factual, misleading, and outrageous commentary to supposedly "balance" excellent in-depth, investigative journalism.

I can only assume that you must have lost sight of what real journalism and the role of excellent journalism in American democracy is for you to do such a thing.

On the day you will return to first-class investigative journalism without such punditry for political "balance", I will return to reading your paper. Until then you have lost me.

Posted by: Susanne Moser | March 22, 2006 05:28 PM

Dear Editor:

I remember when the Washington Post stood for true investigative journalism and holding government responsible for mismanagement and abuse of power. What a sad turn your paper has come to with the advent of a openly biased column. If and when the present administration and the radical Republicans succeed in turning this nation into a theocracy with little resemblence to democracy, the Washington Post will be in the vanguard of those to whom blame must be assigned.

Shame on you for misusing the power of the press in this manner.

Posted by: Nina Shinaberry | March 22, 2006 05:28 PM

So, will he be taking Laura Ingraham's cue and heading off to blog to us about the good news in Iraq?

I'm not quite sure why you have so much disdain for actual journalists and journalism - but good luck to you in your efforts.

Posted by: Mary | March 22, 2006 05:28 PM

re Ben Domenech:

Words cannot express how deeply disappointed and distressed I am that you hired this man under the pretense that he is a journalist. I have always had a profound admiration and respect for good journalism. I came of age during the Watergate era and could not have been prouder that our capital had such a bold and unbiased publication. I have taught my children the importance of a free and unbiased press based on the Post's work in that era.

I am ashamed of you people.

Katharine Graham would turn over in her grave.

Julia
San Diego

Posted by: Julia | March 22, 2006 05:29 PM

This is so amusing.

Posted by: My mother, my car | March 22, 2006 05:30 PM

I guess the Washington Post needed an inside scoop on how Jack Abramoff works. Or perhaps that Washington DC's overwhelmingly liberal populace would really enjoy reading childish conservative rants. At least I know that I don't have to support a newspaper or a website that tries to dumb down the media. I suppose someone did the math and figured that the 35% who love Bush would flock to the Post after adding a 3rd-rate blogger and that would counteract the 65% who leave after figuring out that this hack represents the New Journalism of the Washington Post.

Posted by: hokun | March 22, 2006 05:32 PM

I can understand a major news outlet like the Post looking for good, unknown op-ed talent. But did you have to hire someone who seems like he can't form a logical argument if his life depended on it? Was Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh otherwise engaged? The problem isn't that Domenech is conservative. It's that, if his first posting is any indication, he's not very talented as a writer and even less talented as an advocate for a point of view.

Here's a thought: get rid of Domenech, hire a conservative who can offer solid arguments and support them, and challenge those who might disagree with them. And hire an equally challenging liberal. Now *that* would be balance.

Posted by: Theodoric of York | March 22, 2006 05:34 PM

Distressed! Distressed and distraught I tell you! Why, why, I've lost the will, the WILL man, to live because of your decision! How could you let me down, oh once sacred bastion of truth and content-free goodiness? Why? Whatever shall we do. You've hired, ulp, one of THEM. My petulance shall know no bounds! i demand you listen, no, you obey my adolescent caterwaulings and fire this man immediately! His mere presence in this publication offends my finely-honed sense of self righteousness!!

Posted by: Hirsuite Montana | March 22, 2006 05:36 PM

Once again the Post proves that it is a mouthpiece for the sick far right.
Peace.

Posted by: Human | March 22, 2006 05:39 PM

If the Post truly pursues the truth, then ‘balancing’ your coverage with a column like Red America is totally unnecessary.

Why? Because truth doesn’t need balancing.

Congratulations on taking one more step DOWN the ladder of journalistic integrity.

Posted by: NdA | March 22, 2006 05:40 PM

If you had the courage of your convictions, you would have no trouble providing a real dialog on the issues that included opposing points of view. So much of what passes for "news journalism" in your paper is really just right-wing reactionary propaganda.

Posted by: Stephen Pew | March 22, 2006 05:43 PM

I already find the Washington Post to be so slanted toward the right that I can't believe you found the need to add an obvious right wing demagogue in the mix. I find it hard to read the Washington Post as it is and generally get my news from the New York Times because it is less slanted. I think you should remove this obviously slanted columnist from your pages as I think you'll keep turning away more and more readers. Or at least you should add a real Progressive leaning columnist to the mix.

Posted by: C. Kirby | March 22, 2006 05:44 PM

To the Washington Post: Don't cave in to the red right. It's wrong to "balance" real watchdog journalism with right wing hackery. If you want partisan political columns, you should also give progressives a voice. If "Red America", written by Ben Domenech, is to be run in your paper you must have a like column for "Blue America". Better yet, don't run "Red American".


Posted by: Rosanna Miller | March 22, 2006 05:44 PM

Wow. Is this the Washington Post or the National Enquirer? Bush's poll numbers are down in the 30's now - people are finally mad about things they need to get mad about. And what does the Post do? Hires a full-time mouthpiece for the Bush Administration to stomp down the opposition under a hob-nailed boot. What happened to real journalism? Integrity? To finding out the truth? Does anyone care about that anymore? If the Post turns into a national joke where else do we go?

Posted by: Post is a Laughing-Stock | March 22, 2006 05:48 PM

The Washington Post is slanted to the right? uh huh. And Helen Thomas is really Bill O'Reilly in drag.

Geez, where do you people come from?

Posted by: HM | March 22, 2006 05:49 PM

Great move WP! I hope this is a first step in providing a more balanced viewpoint of both opinion and news.

Posted by: Deagle | March 22, 2006 05:49 PM

Give me a break! I expected more from the people who broke the Watergate Scandal than a bunch of Republican trash talk. Where did we come from HM? WE COME FROM AMERICA!!!

Posted by: Sam Mead | March 22, 2006 05:52 PM

Oh the horror! The inevitable descent into fascism has begun! They have lists! They have camps for the heroic truth tellers of the AmeriKKKan left. Oh, for want of a blog, a opinion page was lost. For want of an opinion page, a paper was lost. For want of a paper, the struggle..the STRUGGLE man!...was lost. Its over dude. Its over. Its just like Vietnam, except without the jungles, protests, viet cong, marines, etc..well you get the point.

Posted by: Hirsuite Montana | March 22, 2006 05:53 PM

Red America? HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!

Oh, this isn't a joke?

Posted by: pilgrim | March 22, 2006 05:54 PM

WE COME FROM AMERICA!!!

not sure i understand what you're getting at, but calling the WaPo some bastion of right-wing extremism because they hire some silly blogger is, well, silly.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 05:56 PM

SHAME! Shame is the only sentiment that adequately describes the Washington Post hiring of Ben Domenech. In the long unfortunate tradition of racial polarization and institutional arrogance Domenech brings his bashing of this nations most enduring institutions to the pages of the Washington Post. Its not only that he lambasted Coretta Scott King, defaming her as a communist, he is an expert in the most shrill and ugly of indefensible attacks on values that dare challenge, not his own, but values instilled as political jingoism with a sole purpose to pander to the most extreme sentiments of our society. I guess Anne Coulter wasn’t available. However, it is unfortunate to see the Washington Post fall to this level of garbage journalism.

Posted by: HGM | March 22, 2006 05:57 PM

This column does not deserve the validation of a spot on WashingtonPost.com. Hysterical, extremist, snide, blatant propaganda doesn't provide balance to anything.

Posted by: Mark 90048 | March 22, 2006 05:58 PM

This may be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen a major newspaper do. This guy has no bona fides as a writer, and what little history he does have is often troublingly extreme.
Asinine to the core.

What are you trying to prove?

Posted by: P.J. | March 22, 2006 05:58 PM

It's appalling that the Washington Post has hired a conservative right-wing commentator like Ben Domenechseen to write an online column. As should be obvious to everyone, the "liberal media" is a myth created by conservatives to mask the fact that the media is now controlled by the right, resulting in the replacement of balanced independent journalism with partisan politics. While the WaPo has sometimes bucked this trend, fair balanced reporting is in little evidence these days.

If the WaPo must have someone like Domenechseen write a column - and I can't imagine why they must, except to pander to a readership that is being adequately served through thousands of other media outlets - then they should also hire a reputable progressive columnist to present the views of non-right-wing thinkers and activists.

The last thing this country needs is to have one more paper parroting the White House party line. The WaPo was a courageous and honorable newspaper in the days when Bob Woodward was a courageous and honorable reporter. WaPo readers don't need to hear from another White House apologist.

Where's the balance in giving Domenechseen space on the WaPo website? Unless the paper gives equal space to progressive writers, they need to get rid of an ideologue like Domenechseen.

Posted by: Jill Franklin | March 22, 2006 05:58 PM

Wel, I read the "Red State" column, and it is fact-free bloviation. Obviously, the question now is, where is the balance? Bring on "Blue State" and I'll be coming to WP every day.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 06:00 PM

Well, it's out of the closet for you, Washington Post. No one in America is going to mistake your new bloggie as anything but the rightie extremist he is. Congratulations! You're free of your hypocrisy. Go, Bush!

Posted by: Radio Head | March 22, 2006 06:00 PM

Just think about what'll happen we we take over NPR. You'll probably choke on your fair-trade Starbucks lattes.

BUUWHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA!!!!

Posted by: KR McNoodle | March 22, 2006 06:03 PM

Ben should just quietly pull his blankie over his head. Such an embarrassment for the Post!

Posted by: merrylib | March 22, 2006 06:06 PM

Setting aside the fact that many "news" companies make no effort to achieve "balance" in their reporting, your recent step to achieve "balance" with Ben Dominech is without doubt a step in the wrong direction.

If we look at Mr. Dominech's statements, we find not balance, nor even positions near the "main stream." This may be seen in his recent comment about Coretta Scott King's funeral entitled: "The Preident visits the funeral of a Communist."

If we look at Mr. Dominech's journalism credentials, we find only writing for extremist publications. He does not know what balance means, and he appears to be consitutionally incapable of writing without imparting his opinion.

The Post might also attempt to achieve "balance" by publishing articles by Rush Limbaugh, Pat (let's "take out" Hugo Chavez) Robertson, Sean Hannity, Pat Buchannen and others, however we know what these people do is not journalism. Mr. Dominech's opinions, with, or more likely without, facts, is not journalism. It is partizan hackery, and not worthy of the Post.

Posted by: Thomas Cook | March 22, 2006 06:11 PM

Domenech's hire as a WAPO blogger, George W. Bush election President. We are a culture that celebrates, even supports mediocrity! I agree with the posters that recognize the silver lining. Domenech represents one of the factions of the GOP that has been able to exist under the radar for too long. Although most of the critical thinking wing of the party has bolted, his brand of politics will insure that the only GOP voters left will be the theocrats and those that play them and use their ignorance and bias' for their own self-enrichment. Kudos to the post for bringing a representative of one the conservative "cults" to the mainstream for all to view.

Posted by: slamkitty | March 22, 2006 06:13 PM

Has Ben served in the military? Seems to be of the ripe age to do so.

When shall we be hearing of Ben enlisting? I can think of no better way to demonstrate your voice for the cause of Bush's Iraq war than to stand in the front line with our brave men and women and fight for the cause you so ardently you support.

I look forward to hearing about your enlistment details soon. I'd hate to actually see yet another yellow Republican in the midst.

Posted by: markoo | March 22, 2006 06:14 PM

We all know about this cynical ploy of the right--the insistence that balance consists of letting the right use its hacks and shells to propagate their spin. That is different from actual balance, which consists of carefully analyzing the issues and using knowledge and expertise to reach conclusions. The right has been using the so-called "balance" tactic deliberately and cynically for years now, replacing knowledge and expertise with Limbaugh-style blowhards. These unqualified pr hacks do not deserve a major platform for their advertising. Many observers see through this tactic, and I wish the Washington Post could be more intelligent in its response to the attacks from the right.

Posted by: Mallika Henry | March 22, 2006 06:16 PM

OOPS! No hyperlinks! OK, let's try this again:

That's fab: "2. No, Froomkin doesn't count [as balance to Domenech]. Froomkin, while adversarial, sources his material carefully."

That's a crock. Read this link carefully.

http://lnsmitheeblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/no-doubt-about-it-cindy-wants-usa-out.html

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 06:16 PM

I'm speechless. Absolutely stunned.

After spending a good portion of the day familiarizing myself with the writings of your new "red state" blogger there are just two questions I'd like the Washington Post to answer.

First, didn't you bother to read his scribblings?

And second, if you did indeed bother to bone up on his history, how could you have hired him?

It really, really hurts to see what the Washington Post is doing to itself.

Posted by: Thomas C | March 22, 2006 06:18 PM

Funny, I just stumbled upon the part by the WaPost under "post a comment":

"We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features."

Let's try to reword:

"We encourage WaPost writers to analyze, comment on and even challenge our government's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features."

With the exception of Froomkin, how far from reality is this statement?

Posted by: markoo | March 22, 2006 06:21 PM

Red this and Red that I feel like a victim of the cold war all over again. Were truth is bastardized for the ultimate objective. Red state, Red China, Red Army, Red America?? with Ben Domenech it all seems to fit somehow.

Posted by: M J LaPlante | March 22, 2006 06:23 PM

Balance is not between factual reporting and partisan opinionating. Should you have a columnist for Creationism and another one against Global Warming?
Al Franken as a columnist is a bit too rational as a balance to your new RED STATE person, but it's a start. John M. Phelan

Posted by: John M. Phelan | March 22, 2006 06:24 PM

Can you believe that someone came out with a study today saying that CONSERVATIVES are whiny? I think that researcher should check out the comments section here before he publishes another study.

Posted by: Chairman | March 22, 2006 06:24 PM

Hiring Ben Domenech to carry on a responsless "blog" from a far-right, hateful, badly informed, badly sourced viewpoint is probably the silliest and most pointless decision I've seen the Post make in...well, at least a week.

This is the guy who called Coretta Scott King a "communist." He's a founder of the RedState blog, which encourages rampant racism and the jailing of dissenters against the administration. And, far from being an "independent" mouthpiece, he's the son of the White House liason to the Department of the Interior.

Do you honestly think your audience is stick-stupid enough to accept the yammerings of such a blithering Bush lapdog as "independent," "conservative" commentary?

Please, let us know when the Post will officially change its name to "Pravda."

Posted by: Max Black | March 22, 2006 06:25 PM

Hee hee!

Posted by: snarleteer | March 22, 2006 06:30 PM

It's a sad commentary on the state of affairs in this country when yet another ranting extremist conservative is given a voice.

Posted by: Holly Dowling | March 22, 2006 06:31 PM

GOD,how I miss the glory days of Woodward and Bernstein! What has happened to the Washington Post's journalistic credibility?
Domenech is a black stain on your reputation. For shame!!

Posted by: LIBINSLC | March 22, 2006 06:32 PM

I have no qualifications and ill-informed political opinions. When can I expect my first paycheck?

Posted by: MrLiberal | March 22, 2006 06:35 PM

As a frequent reader of Red State, I was not surprised to find that one of the founders of the website/blog would be authoring a conservative blog at the WaPo. Probably most of those commenting here have never spent time at Red State, but most of the diaries and front page stories generate really good discussions of the issues with a fairly good cross-section of opinions. The tone is mostly civil and self-policing - even those well-liked get criticized by fellow commentators if they get offensive in tone.

Unfortunately for the liberal denizens of the blogging world, they have never really experienced the debate and critiques that occur on the "wingnut" blogs. Harriet Miers and immigration are both topics that generated huge debates on the RIGHT side of the blogosphere - good for conservatives and GOP to shape opinion on issues. I have yet to see that kind of thoughtful debate occur among liberals. Challenge the ideology and you get called all sorts of names, but rarely do you get to engage in an illuminating conversation.

The new author of this blog was handed a blog because he has already proven himself successful in this field of media! Maybe, just maybe, it's impossible to find someone unbrainwashed by journalism schools to represent a mainstream thought. Maybe, the WaPo wanted a young man who represents a new generation experimenting with a new kind of media.

If you're so bothered, don't read the column. By all means write the editorial staff and complain, but don't expect them to censure his blog because you don't want to read another view point. Don't read it. It's quite simple, actually.

Posted by: Robin | March 22, 2006 06:35 PM

Well, maybe Jimbo and Lil' Debbie are too busy digging up that "proof" that Abrahamoff "directed" money to Dems.

Ms. Howell promised us that during the last dustup, and used it as a justification why she didn't issue a correction.

HOWELL: WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR A CORRECTION OR YOUR "PROOF".

BRADY: WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR THE CORRECTION OR "PROOF".

Maybe Ste-No-Sue is on the case.

Posted by: Alaskan_Pete | March 22, 2006 06:35 PM

BINGO!

This nails it.

[I think the affirmative action angle is also noteworthy in the hiring of this gentleman.

A 24 year old white male with connections to the GOP but no real qualifications exception some sophomoric crap on NRO is given the space in the top national newspaper.

And then the Repubs complain about reverse descrimination.

I hope that at least this gentleman never writes about how good the blacks and minorities have it and therefore do not deserve any special treatment.

Posted by: lib | March 22, 2006 04:44 PM]

Great insight, because, this is, of course, the whole point, to hire a privileged white racist to condemn non-whites for their purported inadequancies.


Posted by: | March 22, 2006 06:36 PM

ARE YOU KIDDING ME! How pathetic, the white house, mr.Bush, and in general, Repbulicans are flailing, hemmoraging at the seams, and what do you do because they cry about the reporting done by the media, and you give them their own column. WOW, they must have the Washington Post in their DEEP, RIGHT POCKET. I wish you had given Democrats their own column when Republicans made a big deal about an adulterous affair by the president. At least NOBODY DIED with his lie. I'm ashamed of your paper, I will stop reading it until you have a BLUE AMERICA column, fair is fair. Your journalistic integrity for all these years has now gone down the drain. For shame!!!

Posted by: Jim Butler, Boulder,CO | March 22, 2006 06:36 PM

Congrats! Greatest match since Michael Jackson sang an ode to a rodent.

Posted by: Mary 2 | March 22, 2006 06:38 PM

I welcome the addition of diverse viewpoints to the online Washington Post. (For the record, I am a political independent who habitually engages in split ticket voting.) I read the WaPo because I'm interested in hard news and informed opinion. I read a variety of commentators, including conservatives such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer, because I want to get a range of views. (I don't generally bother reading people who are so predictable you know in advance what they're going to say -- whether they be on the left or the right.)

However, I don't know what the WaPo editors were thinking when they launched this Red America blog.

Hal Straus has written, "Ben Domenech brings an original and authentically conservative voice to the site's Opinions area, where we're committed to presenting the most provocative, informed and ideologically diverse policy debate on the web."

From what I've read thus far of Mr. Domenech's writings, both in the Post and in the past, I can only agree about the provocative part. Unlike his more intelligent and seasoned conservative counterparts, Mr. Domenech strikes me as a wet-behind-the-ears kid who owes his position entirely to his political connections with the Bush Administration rather than any journalistic qualifications, which are nonexistent. His writings do not provide news or informed commentary; they are about baiting liberals, pure and simple, and represent the lowest political road imaginable. It is a prime example of Jon Stewart's charge that the television (and now print) media have seriously harmed the country with their promotion of ill-informed shouting heads. I am embarassed for the WaPo; its journalistic standards seem to have dropped sharply over the past few years.

I also can't help wondering if the journalism "profession" (or what's left of it) isn't the real loser here. By hiring someone like Mr. Domenech, who has virtually no experience and is nothing more than a Republican political operative, to provide so-called "balance" to journalists with many years of experience, isn't the WaPo saying that professionalism doesn't matter in journalism anymore? Despite Mr. Straus' claim that the WaPo writers aren't hired for their political viewpoint, isn't that exactly the reason why Mr. Domenech was hired?

Once upon a time, perhaps 20 years ago, it used to be said that the revolving door between government and the media was endangering the independence of the press. That battle seems lost now. I fear we have just witnessed the latest act in the creeping hostile takeover of the press by government proxies.

Posted by: BZ | March 22, 2006 06:41 PM

No, Robin, it's not that simple.

You far righties complained for decades about a "liberal media"...maybe you should have just stopped reading/watching instead of complaining. That's your argument..."just don't read it" is good enough when the slant is rightward, but not good enough for you in the 90s when you folks screamed about the liberal media?

A "liberal media" that pushed for impeachment of a president over a oval office hummer while his job approval was over 60%. Get some perspective. Bias has no place in journalism, whether left or right.

Posted by: Alaskan_Pete | March 22, 2006 06:41 PM

Wow! I haven't had this much fun watching liberals melt down since browsing DemocraticUnderground.com the day after the 2004 election!

I'll get a bag of popcorn and come here more often. Seeing Liberals stirred up like a bed of ants if quite intertaining.

I can't wait till the 2006 election cycle is over and all these "Polls" liberals love to use as "facts" are proven wrong once again and the american people continue to vote them out of existence.

If the crying and whining in here seems bad now...just wait till then. HA HA!

Posted by: stev | March 22, 2006 06:41 PM

Robin says, "Probably most of those commenting here have never spent time at Red State, but most of the diaries and front page stories generate really good discussions of the issues with a fairly good cross-section of opinions."

Like when Ben Domenech called Coretta Scott King a communist and said that some judges are worse than the KKK?

Yes, those ideas are cornerstones of any good discussion.

Posted by: James | March 22, 2006 06:46 PM

Re: Ben Domenech blog

Why not just cut out the middleman and have Dubya do this spot? His spelling wouldn't be any worse and you could probably get him just as cheaply. And he doesn't allow unsolicited comments, either.

Posted by: punpirate | March 22, 2006 06:47 PM

I'm aghast to learn that a newspaper of your caliber has sunk to this new low. It's a sad day in America when the Fourth Estate
abdicates truth in favor of demagogery.

Posted by: Adella | March 22, 2006 06:49 PM

Rather than pointlessly re-writing the troubling message just received from more seriously concerned and active watchdog media sources, I'm simply copying it for you here (with minor editing), as the message, itself, makes quite clear my own concerns:

**********************

Yesterday, one of the most powerful newspapers in America—the Washington Post—caved to the right wing and dealt a blow to strong watchdog journalism.

After years of being a virtual scribe to President Bush during his first term, the media had finally begun to do its job and hold power accountable. The right wing couldn't handle the truth—they got angry, lashed out, and the Washington Post caved.

To "balance" journalists who were doing their job, Washington Post editors gave a right-wing hack his own online column called "Red America." When it launched yesterday, it was immediately used to trash the left and the media.

... it's wrong to "balance" real watchdog journalism with right-wing hackery. If they want partisan political columns, they should also give progressives a voice.

"Red America" is written by Ben Domenech. His bio calls him "the youngest political appointee of President George W. Bush"—as speechwriter for a Bush cabinet secretary. He is co-founder of RedState, a right-wing Intenet site, and an editor at Regnery Press, which publishes right-wing books. His only journalistic credential is dabbling in right-wing movement publications.

Within 24 hours of getting his new gig, Domenech made himself into a parody of everything people associate with crazy right-wing extremists. Michael Moore bashing—check. Howard Dean loathing—check. O'Reilly-like delusion of representing the "majority of Americans"—check. To prove he represents the very fringe, Domenech made sure to reference "jackbooted communist thugs." Domenech didn't just say it, but in a full-frontal illusion of grandeur he quoted himself saying it!

What's truly tragic is the Washington Post chose to "balance" legitimate journalists who hold politicians accountable with an extreme right-wing propagandist. Today, media wachdog group Media Matters reports Domenach recently wrote online about Coretta Scott King's funeral and titled his comment, "The President visits the funeral of a Communist."

Domenech's fringe views are now being given a forum in a news outlet with great influence on national opinion. Many Americans around the country read the Washington Post online—and they'll now read Domenech's opinions assuming they are credible, and without any progressive balance.

The Washington Post caved to the right wing and struck a blow to strong watchdog journalism ....

*********************

Balanced, fearless journalism-?! ... And to think that this is the same Washington Post that educated, fair-minded, reasoned people once admired and trusted to 'tell it like it is' ... unafraid of stepping upon the toes of intimidating, bullying political heavyweights ... instead, dutifully holding their muddied feet to the fire-! ... FOR SHAME, FOR SHAME!

T. Fuller Dean tfdean1@cox.net Alpine, CA


Posted by: T. Fuller Dean | March 22, 2006 06:49 PM

I am truly surprised you didn't hire Jeff Gannon.

Hey, he's had plenty of White House experience. In fact he may even be there right now as I post.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein | March 22, 2006 06:50 PM

Why even pretend anymore?
You've gloriously failed even the pretense of informing the public.
Give Rove a blog. At least his will be polished.

Posted by: Give Rove a Column! | March 22, 2006 06:51 PM

I am seriously considering ending my subscription to the Post as a result of the paper adding the Domenech blog. His inclusion in a mainstream media outlet is disgraceful.

Posted by: DR | March 22, 2006 06:53 PM

The irony, Alaskan Pete, is that we conservative DO read the "liberal media." Yes we complain and we argue the premise or the slant of the articles, but we do read them.

I agree, bias has no place in journalism. That's why conservatives are troubled by how the NY Times and CNN cover stories, for example. They have cast aside objectivity to achieve an end. Think CBS. That's why I happen to like political commentary, because I generally don't have to parse a story to get a sense of the author's objective. I can then research the background myself and make an educated decision on where I stand.

I don't remember the media pushing for impeachment of the president that had so successfully court them during his tenure in office. I believe that was a GOP congress unhappy with the disrespect of a man for the office of president. But we have more important issues on our plates than to carry grudges from 8 years ago. I suggest you find some perspective yourself.

This blog is a tiny voice in a rather large media empire. Surely you can find someone giving you the news the way you want. I would suggest that you try out some of the conservative commentators to get a sense of the kinds of debate occurring on the other side of the aisle. You might be surprised.

Posted by: Robin | March 22, 2006 06:53 PM

Guess I'm one of the "shrieking denizens" of this country. I'm a Democrat and as you've no doubt been made aware, Mr. Domenech, I'm in the majority in the U.S.

Btw, that's quite a "shrill" tone you have.

Posted by: Charles | March 22, 2006 06:54 PM

After almost 6 years of the media cowering at the feet of the neo-cons and the religious right, I was beginning to think that the media was coming alive again, reporting actual facts and events, rather than opinion. I guess I was wrong.

Your medium is called a "news" paper. That means you print NEWS. Remember the good ol' "who, what, when, where, why, and how?" of journalism? Don't they teach that in journalism school anymore?

Caving in to the religious right has become an epidemic, one that needs to be ended. As a liberal, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, church-going, singing-in-the-choir Christian I deplore what's become of this country. As a Democrat who doesn't live in Washington, D.C., I deplore what's become of Democrats in power. Oh, wait a minute, that's right. They're not in power. They aren't even showing any life at all! I feel that the elected Democrats are as much to blame for our country's demise as the Republicans.

It's a sad day for all of us.

Posted by: AlwaysLearning | March 22, 2006 06:54 PM

Apparently one of Ben's "qualifications" was that he edited Michelle Malkin's "In Defense of Internment" while at Regnery Press.

Guess y'all didn't check on his qualifications all that thoroughly, huh?

Posted by: Lex | March 22, 2006 06:58 PM

I am utterly disgusted. This country is skidding into fascism and now the Washington Post is going to distinguish itself by becoming a political tool rather than a reporter of the news? As a university professor, I will no longer refer to anything appearing in your pages as long as you continue to publish propaganda such as Red America. I am ashamed of you and disappointed that the newspaper that sprung the Watergate conspiracy has sunk so humiliatingly low.

~Rebecca Hensley

Posted by: Rebecca Hensley | March 22, 2006 06:58 PM

Ugh.

Posted by: J.T. | March 22, 2006 07:02 PM

Another one hits the dust!

What a shame.

Posted by: A different Dubya | March 22, 2006 07:05 PM

stev, if you're having fun now, just wait until Bush's policies come to roost... when the massive Republican deficits devalue the dollar you'll really hear some whining. Won't that be fun?

And Robin, it wasn't that the GOP thought Clinton disrespected the office. They wanted power, and didn't care how they got it. Bush clearly has no respect for his office, and the GOP doesn't seem to mind one bit.

Posted by: this liberal is entertained | March 22, 2006 07:06 PM

I am outraged that the Washington Post has hired Republican activist Ben Domenech to write the partisan weblog, Red America.

He comes from a conservative publishing company that gave us the thoroughly discredited "Unfit to Command" book by Swift Boat Veterans. He referred to Coretta Scott King as a communist, when he complained about President Bush attending her funeral.

This man uses inaccuracies to mislead and divide people in the same style as Karl Rove. He is not a responsible journalist, and does not engage in responsible commentary. He should be fired, and a responsible conservative commentator who deals with facts, rather than hate messages, should replace him.

The notion of Red vs Blue, and Red States vs Blue States is divisive and inaccurate. While most states may lean to one party or another, none are monolythic in their political thinking. Stop dividing us with irresponsible commentators.

Very truly yours,

Bill Gazitano
Utica, New York
http://www.pencandle.com/Reclaim

Posted by: Bill Gazitano | March 22, 2006 07:06 PM

Robin opines:

"The irony, Alaskan Pete, is that we conservative DO read the "liberal media." Yes we complain and we argue the premise or the slant of the articles, but we do read them."

Like the articles from Judy Kneepad Miller on Iraq's WMD in the NYTimes? Or are you actually referring to the op-ed pages which are actually opinions and not the actual news reports themselves? Because as far as the news reports being covered by the NYTimes, WaPost, LATimes, the AP, and so on, that coverage is about as unbiased as one can get. It's just reality.

I realize reality is a difficult concept for Conservatives to accept, but there's always hope I suppose.

"I agree, bias has no place in journalism. That's why conservatives are troubled by how the NY Times and CNN cover stories, for example."

I had some sincere troubles with how the NYTimes covered Iraq's supposed WMD capabilities too. I'm glad we're on the same page on these instances.

"They have cast aside objectivity to achieve an end. Think CBS."

Sure thing:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

A note of caution to our dear creationist-loving Domenech blogger, the article above is about science so you might want to avert your eyes.


"That's why I happen to like political commentary, because I generally don't have to parse a story to get a sense of the author's objective."

Yeah, who wants facts to get in the way of biased, blathering commentary anyway?

"I can then research the background myself and make an educated decision on where I stand."

Hmmm, what's to stop you from doing that with any given story that you deem "questionable" in the first place?

Methinks you tend to question those darn AP reports much more often than you ever do from the freeper commentary. But I leave plenty of room for your correction.......

Posted by: MisterOpus1 | March 22, 2006 07:07 PM

I was listening to a radio show called "Savage Nation" in which the host says "We're going to round up liberals and put them in internment camps." Should this worry me?

Posted by: this liberal is entertained | March 22, 2006 07:08 PM

The liberals' tolerance is just sooooo inspiring!

Posted by: Kathy Heitmeier | March 22, 2006 07:09 PM

Some person by the name of Robin mentioned the great discussion on RedState.org re. Harriet Miers.

Under Stories by Augustine (who apparently is the same person as this new blogger at WaPo) the poster brings up the point that because of lack of Miers' experience she would have significant inferiority complex working with stalwarts like Scalia, and this would pose a big problem for her.

I assume that Ben is soaked in inferiority complex here, as whatever George Will and Krauthammer are, Ben is no George Will or Krauthammer.

Posted by: lib | March 22, 2006 07:15 PM

I am stunned. Shame on you for caving in to the fascists.
fascism 1. A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism. The Americn Heritage Dictionary

Posted by: Sharyn | March 22, 2006 07:19 PM

Oh Kathy, you really need not preach to us about tolerance. That word is often absent from the modern day GOP dictionary.

Posted by: MisterOpus1 | March 22, 2006 07:19 PM

The Post is a great paper. You should hire Jeff Gannon. He makes up good news.

This is a complete abdication of your responsibility to the adjudication of fact. Ben makes things up to feed his culture war.

Shame.

Posted by: Dereau | March 22, 2006 07:19 PM

The Post hired the man that said this upon the death of Coretta Scott King: "The President visits the funeral of a Communist." If I had a subscription, I'd cancel it. Woodward and Bernstein, be not proud.

Posted by: David Eye | March 22, 2006 07:20 PM

What next special columns for people who sniff glue?

The apolgists of George Bush Jr. are not 'balanced' and the Wahsington Post's corporation's coddling and caving into such nuts is truly cowardice. IMO the Wahsington Post corporation's right wing biased mainstream media reporting is already barely more than a dictation machine for George Bush Jr.'s junta. Until the Washington Post corporation changes I will refuse to purchase it nor consider it as anything other than George Bush Jr.'s 'Pravda' and make my view know to all whom I know.

As a simple example, one does 'balance' reporting of the Nazis' killing of innocents by giving equal time to those very same Nazis. George Bush Jr.'s junta is today's equivalent of Hitler's Nazis, that my friend is not an opinion it is a fact based upon what they have done regarding restricting rights and attacking countries who supposedly harbor terrorists. George Bush Jr.'s junta is just as far on the road now that the Nazis were on in about 1933.

I do not see a liberal special column. The Washington Post should get better, Americans deserve more than press cowardice and the lies of George Bush Jr. not described as the lies that they are.

Posted by: c currey | March 22, 2006 07:24 PM

You tolerant leftists are so warm and fuzzy.

Posted by: jim | March 22, 2006 07:24 PM

What has become of journalism as we know it? Nowadays when I read a story that might have political implications, I cross check it thoroughly. I'm one of those independent swing voters that knows Faux is BS and that the liberal representatives aren't representing anything but scandal and corruption (which is par for the course in washington, but it's not a rallying cry).

I am an avid reader of multiple news sources and the state of media today is truly frustrating, from talk shows (radio or television) to genuine "news" outlets (which always leave out important details that their opponents are quick to point out) you can't trust ANYBODY.

So, why hire a shill instead of a professional? Are your sales that bad?

Posted by: Concerned for Journalism | March 22, 2006 07:29 PM

I think the folks here are making a mistake even considering, talking or opining on Ben. Anyone who has read his opinions will quickly surmise that he is childish, lacks experience, intellectual curiosity, and any semblance of critical thought. A better name for his Blog would be the Myths My Daddy Taught Me about the World and Ben has Uncritically Accepted.

Those that have posted on open blogs should recognize Ben, he is the Troll that repeats the Talking Points ad nauseum, will not ever recognize that the GOP is morally corrupy in its current incarnation -despite Ben's moralizing, and will always claim shrill-ly that the opposition is shrill. If you want this latest WaPO fiasco to be a failure, do what you do to other Trolls -ignore him. Two things will happen 1) Ben will pout and rant and rave and bemoan and become more extreme in his posting in an effort to DRAW ATTENTION to himself. 2) He will fail sooner rather than later.

So Dont feed the Troll!!! He really is just a waste of time.

Posted by: Mark S | March 22, 2006 07:31 PM

I'll return when I hear that you've hired a left-wing blogger. The Post really doesn't even pretend to be objective or balanced anymore, does it?

Add my name to the list of people above that are fed up with the Post. Pathetic.

Posted by: Mike Novak | March 22, 2006 07:32 PM

Does anybody at the Post read these comments? What's the point saying anything if after 900+ comments, the Post doesn't see fit to respond? Seriously, the Post has had over 24 hours to respond to questions about this blog. Why the silence?

Time to start reading the NYtimes. At least they have an omsbudsman who actually responds to readers.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 07:38 PM

Now, don't be mean to Ben. Writing farce is difficult.
Plus, Ms. Howell and Mr. Brady will get all testy and take us to the woodshed.

Posted by: Mary | March 22, 2006 07:38 PM

What are you people so afraid of? This is an opinion blog. You don't have to believe it, agree with it, or, get this--read it. It really is a sad sign of what the left has become when you cannot abide the sight of an opposing view.

Posted by: What a hoot! | March 22, 2006 07:38 PM

Dear God, how you you relegate truthful journalism to "just an opinion" by having it contrasted or compared with someone who bends, distorts, escapes from, truth as another comparable "opinion". Would (did you)you have given a column to McCarthy?

Please cease and desist...

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 07:41 PM

I will no longer get my news from you. Good riddance Washington Post.

Posted by: Jeremy | March 22, 2006 07:42 PM

I love it when neocons relentlessly bash liberals and then when liberals hit back, they cry intolerance. Read up on what liberals went through during the civil rights movement if you want to know what real intolerance is, or try posting a dissenting opinion on redstate.

But to cry intolerance because you're being criticized, that's just whiny. Amusingly whiny, but whiny nonetheless.

Posted by: this liberal is entertained | March 22, 2006 07:42 PM

What are liberals afraid of, hoot? Maybe the advocacy of internment camps for dissenters or members of an "enemy race", perhaps? Does that jog your memory?

But you can't say liberals are afraid of debate. Certainly not debate rooted in verifyable facts. That is not the situation here.

Let's see the new kid open his blog to comments. Or is he afraid of debate?

Posted by: this liberal is entertained | March 22, 2006 07:46 PM

For those that are clamoring about the "tolerance" of the liberals here on this blog, do you not know how this lovely shill of a blogger got here in the first place?:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_11.php#007245

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/12/astroturf_vs_gr.html

Tolerance indeed. Hi Kettle, Pot here. What color am I?

Posted by: MisterOpus1 | March 22, 2006 07:46 PM

So when does "Air America" get a chance to take on Domenech? Why not a blog with one of their lightening fast intellects?

Posted by: Jinger | March 22, 2006 07:47 PM

I am very proud to see progressives fighting back against the corporate media. This is what we should have been doing from the beginning of the Clinton Administration when the right wing used the media to disrupt the Clinton presidency. We have to understand that the mainstream media is not interested in balance as much as it is interested in access. The well-paid and well-connected editors and journalists want to be included in the Georgetown social affairs and the White House parties. By and large, these folks are sycophants to the conservative establishment in Washington. They do not like us; they never will. We are beneath them and their contempt for us is obvious. "Red America" is just the latest example.

Keep fighting the good fight. We will win in the end.

Posted by: DSG-TX | March 22, 2006 07:50 PM

I'm happy to post my comment here, although it would have been more fun to have the opportunity do it directly at the new "redblog," as most real blogs have it. How out of touch is the new WP -- a republican mouthpiece sought out by a news entity?? Ha, Ha!! Post, you've solidified your place as a source of entertainment rather than a place for information and/or news! The new redguy will have almost as much value for me as the sportspage (online, for free). Which may actually work in your favor if page views go up...seriously, Post, allow comments at his blog so the readers can have a little fun at his expense...

Posted by: DC | March 22, 2006 07:58 PM

Incredible. Just when opinion in this country has finally turned against the lies and idiocy of the Republicans yoy hire this throw-back. Who makes these decisions-Karl Rove?

Posted by: marty | March 22, 2006 08:02 PM

so much for journalism......it's all entertainment now

don't be surprised when the print media is obsolete in five years...
you just bought the shovel with which you will be buried

Posted by: james in LA | March 22, 2006 08:02 PM

What a hoot!,

Is is not fear that you smell (unless it is your own), it is empowerment. Something you and your ilk had back during that bloody "War on Christmas". I say let little Ben have his say. Let's toss out all of the arguments concerning partisanship, age, cronyism, lack of factual information, frequent ad hominem attacks and rascist remarks. As a former Republican, I will offer my opinion that it is much sadder what the GOP has become. Ben's musings will do nothing more than to provide incentive to those Independents and moderate Republicans (all 43 of them) to join the rest of us in the reality based world. What will be left are the theocrats, the apocalytics, and those that use them for their own self-interests. Pat Robertson is on his couch praying for you, please send him a check.

Posted by: slamkitty | March 22, 2006 08:02 PM

Now, now, children, y'all play nice or the editor will come and shut off the comments section, then the ombudsman will tell us all how we have misjudged the situation, and that this blog is "fair and balanced".

Pfui.

WaPo, I thought better of you. Katherine Graham is spinning in her grave like an airplane propeller.

Posted by: Son of Liberty | March 22, 2006 08:02 PM

Your "news" organization is biased point of view nonsense, as demonstrated by your recent hire.

Posted by: Frank Stanza | March 22, 2006 08:03 PM

so the Washington Post is proud of a guy who would write this?

"Actually, Dobson's soft-pedaling it. The worst black-robed men and women are worse then the KKK, and not just because they have the authority of the state behind them. They don't even use the vile pretense of skin color - they dismiss the value of all unborn lives, not just the lives of ethnic minorities."

What a disgrace. I'll never pick up a copy of this paper again until this vile hate-filled thug is fired.

Posted by: former reader | March 22, 2006 08:05 PM

That's just the problem. There is no debate, just name calling, threats and a "the sky is falling" mentality. A blog like this should encourage debate--I'd like to see it happen but I wont hold my breath. I've ventured onto other liberal threads and come away saddened -- most times they are vile, unintelligible rants. We desperately need a strong 2 party system in this country--I'm pulling for you lefties--raise the level of discussion--take on opinions you don't agree with and refute them with coherence. Don't try to stifle dissent. "It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites." (Thomas Sowell)

Posted by: What a hoot! | March 22, 2006 08:08 PM

Has the Washington Ppost been taken over by Rupert Murdoch. One would think so?

Posted by: savemefrombush | March 22, 2006 08:08 PM

It is wrong to "balance" real watchdog journalism with right wing hackery. If they want partisan political columns, they should also give progressives a voice. Now that the press is finally stepping up to report what is really happening in our government, it is not time to "cave in." I have always had great respect for your paper, but this certainly changes my opinion.

Posted by: Ellen Afromsky | March 22, 2006 08:10 PM

I heard the WP is doing phony news and comedy now - is this the right place?

Posted by: Bryan | March 22, 2006 08:11 PM


I read your paper everyday on line, believing it is relatively balanced; and was shocked to see that "Red America" column by Ben Domenech.

This is right wing hackery and thuggery - not journalism. What the hell are you doing?? Who paid you off??

Have you completely lost your journalistic integrity?? Can I trust you anymore??

If you are going to allow this kind of junk to be in your paper, then the least you can do is counter it with someone on the left.

Hey, Howard Zinn?? Noam Chomsky?? Paul Krugman?? These guys are credentialed, deeply knowledgeable and very credible.

Domenech is full of hateful rhetoric, and you should be ashamed that you gave him space in your paper.


Posted by: Karen Jean | March 22, 2006 08:11 PM


A right-wing blog is a good idea. When will the liberal blog start?

Posted by: Beau | March 21, 2006 04:54 PM

The whole Washington Post is a left wing blog.
You just can not see it for what it is.
And you are right: one conservative does equal one journalist(nickname "liberal").

Posted by: tjj | March 22, 2006 08:15 PM

Yes, let's pander to the right wing as their power drains from their party day by day...

... Wait... WHAT?!?

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 08:18 PM

"Now I stand accused of the things I've said."
--Bono

Posted by: Augustine | March 22, 2006 08:27 PM

Twill be fun to watch BennyBoi implode. His whole background has been a sheltered one -- one where the supreme qualification is slavish devotion to the Respected and Beloved Leader and to the Partei. In the real world these ideals are regarded much more skepticly and he will be hard pressed to defend them. In white Republican DC circles, it might be fashionable to whisper about Mrs. King being a Communist but most folk consider such opinions to be White Supremacy without the hooded sheets.

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 22, 2006 08:28 PM

But why??? The right-wing has all branches of government in it's grasp - it's up to the Press to be the remaining free voice. This so-called idea of "balance" is sophomoric - LIES do not balance TRUTH, OPINION does not balance FACTS. They are opposites, but not on a spectrum, such as right and left wing politics. They are opposites because the existence of one CANCELS out the other!

Posted by: Russell Johnson | March 22, 2006 08:28 PM

So Mr. Brady: when are you going to ask Ben, to his face, whether he's "Augustine"?

If you don't care to try to find the answer to this question, you're a pretty pathetic excuse for a newspaper editor.

Posted by: RT | March 22, 2006 08:29 PM

Every time I think the Washington Post couldn't possibly sink any lower in its lack of any journalistic integrity at all (aside from Dan Froomkin's column, who is almost lost in a sea of Bush apologists), it finds a new low.

Posted by: lily | March 22, 2006 08:31 PM

I'm really puzzled by the choice of the name for this column. "Red America" sounds, well...like a COMMUNIST publication. Not what I've come to expect from the Post.

Posted by: aewpatriot | March 22, 2006 08:35 PM

slamkitty said: "Is is not fear that you smell (unless it is your own), it is empowerment. Something you and your ilk had back during that bloody "War on Christmas".

Didn't take long for the name-calling to begin did it?
So empowerment is acting like the world is going to end because the WaPo hired one measley conservative opinion blogger? Hmmmm--interesting.

So funny you're a former republican--I used to be a dem--then I grew up, had kids, got a job and had to become a contributing member of society.

Posted by: What a Hoot! | March 22, 2006 08:38 PM

Dear Mr. Domenech:

When you wrote

"Pachyderms in the Mist: Red America and the MSM

This is a blog for the majority of Americans. ..."

You were indulging in a bit of fancy and nostalgia, wouldn't you say?

(A) You apparently would have us believe that "Red America" actually exists and that "it" won the last two Presidential elections handily, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Only divisive pandering, jingoistic sloganeering, and outright vote manipulation eked out a "victory" which was then trumpeted as "a mandate" -- and then all the bought-and-paid-for media (of which you were but a stripling wannabe in 2000) dropped right into line. Leading us STRAIGHT to the present quagmire.

and

(B) You would have us believe that "the majority of Americans" are still affiliated with that mythical "Red America" when all current opinion polls show Resident Bush's ratings are in the toilet.

SFX: SOUND OF FLUSHING, BEGINNING IN NOV. 2008

Posted by: S.O.S. in MA | March 22, 2006 08:39 PM

Legitimate journalists who speak honestly and accurately about politicians are needed to educate the public. In speeches recently the president knows he is under fire by a majority of the population. Putting a column in your paper to try to disprove that, is a hoax on your part. Shame on you!

Posted by: Sara | March 22, 2006 08:39 PM

I urge you, first, to read what Al Gore has to say about media from the We Media conference last October. What he suggested, and what I believe, as a Post reader, is that balance of what is a realistic position is not a biased position. Presumably the Post is reporting accurately what is going on in the U.S. and Iraq, among other places. This being the case, it hardly seems necessary to give space to right-wing ideologues as if their position was an honest balance to truthful (though characterized as biased by the right) reporting. I have recently been reading Aristotle on the golden mean, which is behavior that falls between two extremes and is to be desired. When newspapers are reporting in a manner consistent with the golden mean, it doesn't make a lot of sense to provide balance by giving space to one of the extremes.

Please think about this.

Posted by: John Woods | March 22, 2006 08:42 PM

Fair and balanced journalism does not mean matching facts with the opinions of people who do not like those particular facts. Note that I am not asking you to balance 'Red America' with something like 'Blue America'. Far from it. I am asking the WP to stick to honest journalism. Unmixed, unpaired, unmatched journalism.

Posted by: JR in Saint Paul | March 22, 2006 08:43 PM

I love that you are calling your new online column "Red America." I think it's appropriate considering this entire country is turning into a Potemkin village, the leader is a ruthless dictator who tosses dissenters into jail, and you have long since turned into "Pravda." Joseph McCarthy must be spinning in Hell.

Thank you for the most delicious irony of the week.

Posted by: Texan In L.A. | March 22, 2006 08:44 PM

Every time I go to a town meeting, people say "How do 'they' get away with it". The "they" are the GOP Republicans who control Washington. They have produced the worst budget in 200+ years, they have supported unconstitutional behavior by the executive branch - including extraordinary rendition, torture, and arrests without trial or legal representation, and they have supported the worst environmental program in the history of our nation.

"How" they get away with it, it because the media, including the Washington Post, is not doing their job. They are not reporting all the news, they are not doing investigative reporting, and they are not presenting mutilple sides to the stories.

It is a disgrace, and it threatens democracy.

Your attempt at PR by adding your "Red American" blog is ludicrous - it is yet another ultra-conservative blog. You should include some progressive ones, like dailykos, buzzflash, alternet, bradblog - any of the more reputable ones. You should also look at the "Daou Report" in the eMagazine "Salon" (www.salon.com), which does a great job showing representative articles of varying points of view from legitimate blogs."

Posted by: MassMinuteman | March 22, 2006 08:44 PM

It is disappointing to see a newspaper with a
proud tradition contributing to the Foxification of
corporate news. Giving a Bush Inc. drone his own blog is not balance; it is decreasing
the already drastically reduced credibility of
journalism in this country. Where lies are treated as
truth, where facts are presented as opinion, where
partisan agenda is given the weight of actual
reporting, there is the work being done of those who
are pushing journalism, government and the people of
this country toward fascism. If you think that word is
inappropriate, what whould you call a form of
government that serves first and foremost corporate
interests, which launches illegal wars of aggression
for the financial benefit of its chief corporate
backers, which rules over the people absolutely, which
can suspend instantly and permanently any and all
individual rights by executive fiat? What would you
call that? And why would you give a column to a person
whose obvious goal is to support that corporate
government agenda? The only possible answers are that
you support that agenda or are afraid to be seen as
opposing it. In either case, you should be ashamed of
yourselves.
Sincerely,
Earl F.

Posted by: Earl F. | March 22, 2006 08:48 PM

Just what the world needs: another ignorant, misguided, hate-inspired Bill O'Reilly wannabe. How very disapointing that a paper of the Post's stature should decide to extend the respectability of their forum to such an offensive individual. May I respectfully remind the editors that they do not share readership with Fox News, the bulk of whom do not read. Rather, the community which supports the Post, by an overwhelming 90% margin, voted against George Bush and unequivocally disapproves of his administration and policies. Is there some particular reason why the Post wishes to offend with right-wing hate speech the community which supports it? Just a thought, but I imagine you will find that most of your readers - astonishingly enough - will generally not appreciate being insulted and called things like "unhinged" and "shrieking denizens." Perhaps you can make up for the resultant loss in subscription revenues by selling space to the administration. I understand the White House pays top dollar to papers willing to publish Karl Rove's propaganda pieces.

Posted by: Kevin Jernegan | March 22, 2006 08:57 PM

For the extraordinarily thick (i.e. Bush supporters) the reason people are up-in-arms over Ben is that this is a display of nepotism (who doubts daddy got Big Ben the job?) and the young man is wholly unqualified.

Of course, some of you have trouble understanding the concept of qualifications for journalism, ever since Jeff Gannon, stud for hire took center stage.

But, believe it or not, people should be qualified for a job in order to obtain it. Otherwise they're just a bunch of "heckuva job Brownie" people.

Posted by: FlyingEquestrian | March 22, 2006 09:05 PM

Looks like the 'Gang of Bush' and Red America's brainwashing machine has taken full control of Domenech and The Washington Post. How sad!! Everyone looses in America with this kind of RUBBISH!!!

Posted by: Catherine | March 22, 2006 09:06 PM


You people have utterly ruined my love of "red."
Also, I believe the elephants should sue for
defamation of character.

Posted by: Pete | March 22, 2006 09:06 PM

Doing investigative journalism isn't left or right -- it's a newspaper's job! If what journalists find is contrary to what the powers that be want, well, that's because they're screwing up, and you have no responsibility to "balance" the truth with propaganda.

Posted by: chakrates | March 22, 2006 09:10 PM

I want to know why this 24 year old puppy isn't in the army. I am an old conservative Republican. I cast my first vote for Goldwater in 64. I don't know what makes him qualified to be called a "conservative" red stater? But I bet the army could get him qualified to wear a uniform in a jiffy. He is like so many of his ilk. All mouth and no backbone. If he would shut up and serve his country he would understand that his nasty cheap talk, those first amendment rights he he is flogging in such a shameful way aren't cheap! They are earned with the blood and lives of patriots. When you are being shot at for real those democrats he lives to ridicule are mighty welcome covering your back. A little smart ass like him wouldn't know that. He appears to be one of those chickens fighting the "culture war".

I would think the Post would have better judgment to put a wet behind the ears partisan hack on it's pages. Why don't you get a blue state blogger just as silly and extrene and officially turn the Post into a three ring circus. I used to carry a grudge against the Post for bringing Nixon down. But I admired your guts. Those guts clearly have evaporated as you all cravenly drink the cool aid they pass out in Washington.

If you want his style drivel on your pages why don't you write it yourselves and put your own name on that crap? You truly have so little credibility anymore because of your slavish carrying water day after day for this Whitehouse. If that is what you have turned the Post into "waterboys" don't let a little lizard like this guy do your work for you. Do it yourselves and stand by it.

Posted by: Red-Ruffian | March 22, 2006 09:11 PM

What a joke.

Posted by: wtf | March 22, 2006 09:11 PM

Hoot said,
Didn't take long for the name-calling to begin did it?
So empowerment is acting like the world is going to end because the WaPo hired one measley conservative opinion blogger? Hmmmm--interesting.

So funny you're a former republican--I used to be a dem--then I grew up, had kids, got a job and had to become a contributing member of society.


Aw now Hoot,

Didn't call you a name, now did I?
Your assumption that I have not grown up, had children, contributed to society, held a job, am a Democrat is incorrect. I just said I was a former Republican. I know it is much more comfortable to define your own reality, but you know what happens when one assumes. Though I do appreciate your concern, I have been indeed both fruitful and blessed in life. Interesting. Didn't say I had a problem with Ben and his rantings. I support his blog, it puts another face on the wing of the party that has successfully run off the entire moderate, critical thinking wing of the party (except for the 43 I mentioned). Didn't propose that the world would come to an end. I believe that is a theory proposed by factions of the GOP. You take care, avoid assumptions and try to love your country more than the GOP.

Posted by: slamkitty | March 22, 2006 09:13 PM

This is really unfair. If Mr. Red America is in bed with Abramoff, they BOTH should have a, uh, bi-line. (Pun intended.)

Posted by: robert in mass. | March 22, 2006 09:19 PM

Here's and idea....

hire Bennie to blog for the Post...as an volunteer recruit in the Army infantry. Bennie could serve his country, and the Post could provide a first hand look at what happens when a spoiled rich white suburban chickenhawk actually has to do more than give lip service to the Iraq war.....

Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 22, 2006 09:21 PM

FOX claims to do fair and balanced new reporting, but they do not. You are lowering the news standards of a renowned paper. I expect higher standards from The Washington Post.

Posted by: Sher Sheldon | March 22, 2006 09:23 PM

no, having ben in such a high-profile job is good. it keeps the abramoff pot boiling (ben's dad was the bush transistion's liaison to intrerior!)

Posted by: benjoya | March 22, 2006 09:23 PM

As an in-house move, the appointment of Ben Domenech as an implicit or overt counterpoint to Dan Froomkin is a blood insult. You are a NEWSpaper. Froomkin is an astute journalist and critic who brings credit to your paper and a measure of dignity to your otherwise ugly enabling of a Constitutionally hostile administration. Domenech, meanwhile, just fell off a turnip truck bound for the White House kitchen.

Hey, but what's a little morale problem among comrades?

Posted by: Jon Johannson | March 22, 2006 09:32 PM

I can't believe that "The Post" has sunken this low. Someone will have to tell me what the outcome is because I certainly won't be reading it in any Washington newspapers.

Posted by: Jack Abgott | March 22, 2006 09:38 PM

I am appalled and outraged that the Washington Post has stooped to the low level of dignity reached when Domenech became a columnist at the W. Post. This paper has always held a high place in my heart, mind and soul. A paper that avoided heretics, fanatics and extremists for years. A paper so reputable it was used as a informational resource that was used in high school and college debates because its reputation was one of respect and unbiased. A paper that became a national hero during Watergate. A paper so many today could look to for a fresh of fair reporting. Jackboots, communists, damn if this excrement doesn't reek of the smell of the McCarthy years.

Hopefully, someone fell asleep at the wheel at the Washington Post and has now awakened.

Posted by: golfnow99 | March 22, 2006 09:44 PM

Ok, that did it: You have finally confirmed your position as the vehicle for this administration's propoganda machine.

The Post will no longer be made available in the lobby of my business. The 50,000 customers that sit in that lobby will be provided with non-fiction publications.

Steve Anderson

Posted by: Steve | March 22, 2006 09:44 PM

The Post is really slipping. Today, as usual, I saw things in the hard print version that I saw on the internet days ago. That's not an uncommon event.

The paper's position on Iraq is unconscionable. I recently dug out a 1965 Post editorial that urged the US to stay the course in Vietnam. I'll be blunt about this. If the skin color of the people the US is fighting does not match that of the Post editorial board, they don't give a damn. Put another way, would we have invaded a country with a white population based on the flimsy premises advanced by the Bush team, and embraced by the Post editorial board?

So now we have this guy Domenech, whose father apparently (acording to a fine piece of reporting by Susan Schmidt of the Post) was a conduit for the sleaze going on at Interior. Is the Post's reportage on Abramoff et al. now to be trusted? I think not.

This is a sad day for I paper I always respected, even when I disgareed with it. I can think of other conservative speakers who could give mature viewpoints from the right side of the plate. Jim Bacon, the VA blogger at Bacon's Rebellion, is a moderate/right person who writes about things like runaway spending after actually looking at budgets.

Ask yourself this, Mr. Hiatt. How can you be sure that Doug Domenech isn't going to be writing some of his son's blogs?

Until Mr. Domenech leaves, I'm not subscribing anymore. I'll place the cancel call in the morning.

Posted by: Peter Metrinko | March 22, 2006 09:53 PM

I eagerly await Blue America's launch. I recommend Melissa McEwan, proprietor of the blog Shakespeare's Sister (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/). She's an incredible writer with her finger on the pulse of issues that matter to real Americans.

Posted by: shamanic | March 22, 2006 09:54 PM

Your new right-wing columnist is awful. Please don't cave in to outside, reactionary pressures.

Posted by: Richard Rabin | March 22, 2006 09:57 PM

Red * America?? This is it - the communits fascists _have_ taken over America! Faux News - and WaPo is Pravda!

Posted by: MKrueger | March 22, 2006 10:01 PM

As a former journalist, I have only this to say about The Washington Post's new column "Red America." I quote from the movie Crash: "You embarrass me; you embarrass yourself."

Posted by: Maureen Fielding | March 22, 2006 10:03 PM

How sad, how very sad that they feel that they have to pander to the far right. What happened to the paper that, many years ago, challenged a sitting right wing president and brought down his crooked administration?
And now this??? Sad, very sad.
I wait to see if a liberal "Blue America" is brought on for some balance.

Posted by: Dennis | March 22, 2006 10:05 PM

Please hear my cry of anguish. I had so hoped that the Post would focus on reporting the truth about the Bush administration at long last. I have felt strongly that the media has let the country down until recently. And now the Post has gone totally backwards, hiring a right-wing hack like Ben Domenech. If you are going to give what is basically a column to a Bush partisan, then give one to a progressive critic. And, very importantly, allow your professional journalists to do their job of accurate reporting. Without a free press that doesn’t cave to pressure, our democracy is really in trouble.

Posted by: Martha in Oklahoma | March 22, 2006 10:06 PM

This guy needs a pair of boots and an M16.Stand up and practice what you preach.Iraq awaits!

Posted by: DMM | March 22, 2006 10:07 PM

Here's a free clue: if you're considering hiring someone with the name "Michelle Malkin" somewhere in his resume, you might want to think again.

Posted by: Chris Neal | March 22, 2006 10:08 PM

PARTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE QUESTION OF HOW CLOSELY THE CONCEPT "AUGUSTINE" IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MIND OF BEN DOMENECH:

bendomenech.com search:

Search Results from Bendomenech.com (search string "Augustine")

Prayer for the Day
God of life, there are days when the burdens we carry chafe our shoulders and weigh us down; when the road seems dreary and endless, the skies grey and threatening; when our lives have no music in them, and our...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on September 15, 2004 02:04 PM


For the Day
I have read in Plato and Cicero sayings that are wise and very beautiful; but I have never read in either of them: "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden." St. Augustine...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on July 11, 2004 07:44 PM


Hold Life Cheap
Accordingly this seems to me to be one principal reason why the good are chastised along with the wicked, when God is pleased to visit with temporal punishments the profligate manners of a community. They are punished together, not because...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on January 30, 2004 08:09 AM


A Matter of Influences
The American Conservative has a cover article worth reading on the death of fusionism. I'd argue it's been dead and buried for a while. The problem with this article is that it accepts the same definition of "libertarian" that existed...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on December 8, 2003 08:06 AM


The Rundown
Now they've really gone and done it. The Archbishop of Canterbury is royally pissed. And you know how awkward that can be for everyone at the annual Christmas parties... Update: I'm planning on holding out til Plano. Gray Davis's fate...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on August 8, 2003 09:00 AM


The Family Enemy
Where virtue is the slave of pleasure it no longer deserves the name of virtue. Yet even this disgraceful distortion has found some philosophers to patronize and defend it. St. Augustine The marriage amendment that is getting talked about nowadays...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on July 5, 2003 10:54 PM


Reading and the Child's Mind
Eve Tushnet linked to an interesting piece in Crisis Magazine that she published last year on children's literature. It's well worth the read, and it reminded me that I wanted to say a few words about the new Harry Potter...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on June 26, 2003 11:30 PM


One Last Thing Before I Go
One Last Thing Before I Leave "Thou O Lord hast made us unto Thyself, and our hearts are restless, until they find rest in Thee." Saint Augustine's description of the power of a spiritual relationship with God parallels in many...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on January 23, 2003 11:39 AM


The Rundown
The Rundown (circumnavigation) Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark is a dark horse, in this field of candidates? The way things are going for the Democrats at this point, they should be nominating him tomorrow, before he has...


Posted in Bendomenech.com on November 18, 2002 08:31 AM
Year One: Greatest Hits
Year One: Greatest Hits There must be a reckoning. The 2001 Bendomenech.com Awards Gilmore Will Resign Mark Warner's Big Lie Calling the Super Bowl Download This, Michael Greene Profiling for Good Oscar Watching Top Five Albums Top Five Presidents Top...


Posted in Bendomenech.com on July 11, 2002 07:48 AM
Things I Know But Cannot Prove
Things I Know But Cannot Prove Some people should just give up and realize that they're white. The National Building Museum is the most beautiful unknown building in D.C. Caffeine is our modern ambrosia -- it drives us, fulfills us,...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on July 8, 2002 06:27 PM


In Rod We Trust
In Rod We Trust NRO's Rod Dreher, who in the past has admitted to (1) Never reading any St. Augustine and (2) Being too papist to understand protestantism, now has the gall to (3) Refer to Dr Pepper as "vile."...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on July 8, 2002 12:20 PM


St. Augustine in the Classroom
St. Augustine in the Classroom Thus a man must be instructed in the methods of teaching before he can gain understanding of truth. St. Augustine I get a fairly steady number of emails asking me about my experiences as a...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on May 14, 2002 11:36 AM


The Rundown (the few, the proud)
The Rundown (the few, the proud) In case people missed it on Friday, my interview with Jon Stewart now has some pics and details added. St. Augustine knew how to deal with sin in the church leadership. He did it...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on April 28, 2002 03:46 PM


Blog Watch IV
Blog Watch IV New! Improved! Official Gale Norton Mugs! [*** Editorial Picks] Patrick Ruffini's Rants: Condie Rice 2008 Gear!; Bittersweet day at the White House; Sullivan reneges; France goes off the deep end; the real Axis of Evil; ***President No....
Posted in Bendomenech.com on April 24, 2002 02:01 AM


TOP FIVE PRESIDENTS
TOP FIVE PRESIDENTS other top five lists... other presidential rankings... I have always believed that the measure of true presidential greatness is principled and successful national leadership at a time of great national crisis. Thus, in terms of the academic...


Posted in Bendomenech.com on April 12, 2002 10:08 PM
After requests from legions of
After requests from legions of fans, I've launched an Official Online Store. You can buy t-shirts, sweatshirts, hats, tote-bags, mouse pads and mugs. There's the infamous "mmm...pie..." t-shirt. There's a Radical Chic jersey, celebrating my most controversial article. There's a...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on March 27, 2002 01:58 AM


Last night's dinner with Jody
Last night's dinner with Jody Williams was good, if a little dull. Williams reputation for hard-nosed boomer activism is well-deserved, but she's not exactly a very charming dinner guest, especially in the small company of about eight professors and grad...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on February 28, 2002 03:48 PM


It's official: John Madden was
It's official: John Madden was released from his Fox contract, meaning that pencil-necked Cris Collinsworth is likely to take over for the great famous sports announcer. Couldn't they at least put someone a little more fun? Even Howie Long would...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on February 28, 2002 01:19 AM


How many freaking bloggers have
How many freaking bloggers have taken the Ethical Philosophy Selector Test? It seems like the whole realm of bloggerdom is doing it. They did it here, and here, and here, and here, and here...you get the drift. Every single one...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on February 26, 2002 02:00 AM


President Bush and Tony Blair
President Bush and Tony Blair have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Talk about a step up from Kofi Annan. Antonin Scalia openly questioned the Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty today, proving once again that he is...
Posted in Bendomenech.com on February 5, 2002 05:40 PM

Posted by: S.O.S. in MA | March 22, 2006 10:10 PM

I have finally made up my mind. For thirty years I have subscribed to this rag and have been a faithful reader through thick and thin.

I quit. No more WaPo for me.

Lets see how well the Red Staters can accept and support the "New RedPo".

And I encourage other people to stop complaining and dump these morons. Fred and Lenny have been the ruination of this newspaper and if Donald Graham can't see that then to hell with him to.

There are now many other sources for the same information without the daily soap opera and Bush Co. whitewash.

Decision made. I feel much better now.

Nevis

Posted by: Nevis | March 22, 2006 10:13 PM

While I am still unclear on the premise which requires the balance offered by Mr. Domenech in the Post's commentary, I find the tone of many of my non-Right-Wing-peers to be on par with the same people calling us "moon bats" in their 'rebuttals' above.

Staying on topic and offerring some feedback to the Post and Mr. Domenech; examine what you are stating and ensure it to be fact, do not allow yourself to be drawn into speculation unless it is stated that is what you are doing, do not regurgitate what passes for news from many of the current 'sources', fact and spell check your articles and finally, as one other person noted above, I look forward to enlightened converse with any other person on these and other topics. But it should include facts, observations, hypothesis and be above reproach. Otherwise, you do no better of a job than the Star® or the Enquirer®.

While I am saddened to see the post succumb to what appears to be pressure from outside sources I wish you both luck and hope to see your credibilty rise. For only as we as a nation and united people succeed will we be able to rise above the petty name calling and attacks that have pervaded our political discourse for the last 12 years.

"A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand"
Abraham Lincoln
June 1858

Cheers,
Deacon

Posted by: Deacon Blue | March 22, 2006 10:14 PM

Dear Post,

You have disgraced your name and brand.

Leaving partisan issues aside, it's pretty clear now that Ben Domenech is about as close to a racist as you can get, without actually stepping over the line.

Did you bother to read his old blog posts and comments?

As someone not white, I am deeply and powerfully offended by your decision.

It doesn't just speak to a thorough lack of managerial competence, insight, and strategic understanding; it also speaks to a lack of basic character and ethics.

Rest assured I will be contacting your advertisers to make it clear you implicitly condone racism by your new hire.

Posted by: uh | March 22, 2006 10:16 PM

Earlier this week we saw that after President Bush responded to Helen Thomas with several lies the reporters in the room knew to be lies not one had the integrity to speak truth to power. No one with the courage to say "But sir, Saddam did not force the inspectors to leave Iraq . They left only when it was clear that you had ordered an attack." With all this sniveling attitude toward power do you need another right wing cheer leader for Bush?

Posted by: John Talbutt | March 22, 2006 10:18 PM

Ben Domenech

you're kidding right? this is some kind of deep, subtle project--you figure if strange ugly things are enticed to crawl out into the light, then they'll be recognized for what they are and put to death, right?

Posted by: T Darling | March 22, 2006 10:24 PM

It's one thing for a writer to give opinions based on reason and logic. However, what Domenech does is simply attack and call names.

The Washington Post is a great paper, with a lot of influence all over the world. Many people will be reading Domenech's fringe views, and assuming they are credible. If you must have a conservative columnist, why not William F. Buckley or George Will? As a progressive, I disagree with their views, but I do respect the manner in which they express themselves. Attacking and name-calling is not journalism.

Posted by: Alison Koerner | March 22, 2006 10:25 PM

Domenech does not balance anything at the Post. He his not a journalist by anyones imagination, and giving him space is simply showing right wing bias on the part of the Post. Shame on you.

Posted by: Sam | March 22, 2006 10:26 PM

I just counted -- thus far, not counting this post, there's 31 (thirty-one) occurrences of the phrase

blue america

in this string.

Kindly add this InfoSnippet to the Free Clue you are being handed today, dear Washington Post...

Posted by: S.O.S. in MA | March 22, 2006 10:27 PM

You can be a leader in the industry of journalism truth (which is near non existent) or you can cave in and be another mouth piece for this corrupt administration. Shame on you for not being a continual voice of the real truth.

Posted by: DIane & Tom Binder | March 22, 2006 10:28 PM

First, let me say that it is wonderful to see the revulsion to the Post's decision to run 'what's his name's' column delivered with such delicious wit.

This is how I expressed it to the editor-in-chief:

Mr. Brady,

What a disappointment that you feel that conservatives need a 'helping hand' from you in getting their message out. And what an odd choice in Ben Domenech; but I guess having little journalistic experience as a
prerequisite pales to insignificance before the importance of that 18-34 male demographic that your money people so eagerly lust after.

The truth is, your paper has been a lackey to Bush and his crowd all along, and if you had been interested in journalistic integrity as you claim, we wouldn't be feeling the wrath of the Republican agenda
everyday out here in the real world, and would still have a Constitution - because Bush would never have been President. But I guess that is the real problem for your paper - stockholders or the Constitution - profit or the truth....hmm, let's see, which will it be....

When we have a permanent Republican King instead of a government by consensus some day soon, who will you blame? A little pip-squeak like me? Sorry, I care about your Constitution, even if you don't.

Sincerely,
Todd Schneider
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio

Posted by: Todd Schneider | March 22, 2006 10:32 PM

I had never heard of Ben Domenech before the WP.com hired him and had only a vague familiarity with RedState. I am now extremely disappointed with the WaPo for introducing me to this guy and his writings.

This is what you think represents an important "conservative voice?" I have to say, I may disagree with other conservative voices on the paper (there are so many - I'll use Krauthammer as an example). I may disagree with Krauthammer (frequently) but I never finish his column wondering why he earns his paycheck or how he even functions in the real world.

Not so with the WaPo's recent addition. His knowledge of 80s films notwithstanding (anyone see the irony of his 1st post on "RedAmerica" referencing an anti-communist movie?), I am appalled at his opinions, but of course he is certainly entitled to them. What has moved me to post here is that his absence of logic and mistaken "knowledge" he uses to back up his assertions are actually painful to witness (see his views on Coretta Scott King and civil rights, judicial independence and its importance to democracy, the environment, evolution, etc).

When K. Graham wrote that the Washington Times was an "important conservative voice," I don't think she intended for it to be echoed in her own paper. Certainly one such voice in the city is enough? Certainly you owe your readers exposure to more than one side of the debate?

Posted by: L. Chalmers | March 22, 2006 10:34 PM

I came here to vomit my disgust on the lap of this little boy named Ben, or is it Augustine? Does the WP agree that Coretta Scott King is a "Commie" as Ben Boy advocates?

Posted by: Wayne Perkins | March 22, 2006 10:37 PM

Finally!!!

We all know that facts have a liberal, Bush-hating bias.

So it's great to see that there's now someone to balance out all the factal information in the Washington Post!


Just get rid of those few remaining bits of news, and you'll be almost as good as Limbaugh!

Posted by: dude | March 22, 2006 10:41 PM


Bush must be in more trouble than I thought,
because apparently it's time to
bring out the Hitler Youth!

Posted by: ex-Post reader | March 22, 2006 10:43 PM


How about adding a daily Ann Coulter pinup, too?

Posted by: writing off the Post | March 22, 2006 10:46 PM

Coretta Scott King is a communist? Oh, please. Here we go again with the labeling, the name calling; the slime. of what use is this man's voice. How does it serve our Democracy?

If you feel that you need balance by bringing on a new voice, why not bring real conservatives on board, the ones who have ideas, and can stand on those ideas, they do not have to resort to demeaning those who disagree with them; REAL conservatives. Do you even remember who they are? They are lost in this paper’s absurdity. Their voices have been silenced along with left these days.

Let us talk about balance. I do not get it. Where is the liberal/blue blog? I am just giving up on the Washington Post. I cannot believe that this is the paper that held Nixon accountable for his crimes.

This paper is clearly not interested in investigative journalism. America is dying, and the media is responsible.
It is yet another sad day for our once great country.

Posted by: Gary M. Cole | March 22, 2006 10:48 PM

What's the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times? One is called the Washington Post and one is called the Washington Times. Ha ha! Burn on you, libruls!

Posted by: All-Righty Then | March 22, 2006 10:49 PM


It is a sad day for America--and Katherine Graham must be whirling in her grave--as her newspaper gives in to the right wing, and joins the march toward fascism in our beloved country. For shame.

Are you making any plans to run a similar propaganda column for the left?

Ira Skutch

Posted by: Ira Skutch | March 22, 2006 10:51 PM

Can someone elaborate on the connection between Jack Abramoff and Ben Domenech's father? And will the Post speak about this connection?
Also, earlier today Howard Kurtz told us that the Post has a liberal blogger. Can Howard tell us who the Post's liberal blogger is?

Thank you.

Posted by: Chris Ck NY | March 22, 2006 10:51 PM

an earlier commenter in here observed that to balance out a rightwing whackjob like Ben you'd have to have a Maoist blogger !

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 22, 2006 10:55 PM

Echoing Gary M. Cole (posted March 22, 2006 10:48 PM)

"If you feel that you need balance by bringing on a new voice, why not bring real conservatives on board, the ones who have ideas, and can stand on those ideas, they do not have to resort to demeaning those who disagree with them; REAL conservatives. Do you even remember who they are?"

*I* haven't forgotten (as I'm sure Gary M. Cole hasn't either). Men whom I've disagreed with for a lifetime, but nevertheless men of stature and intellect like Wm. F. Buckley and Francis Fukuyama.

OhWait, they have jumped ship from BushCo and have renounced their former fealty, declaring that we are headed for disaster unless we change course. No chance that THEY could be tapped for WaPo duty, nope no way. Gotta hire some still-unenlightened suckup who is thankfully immune from noticing those troublesome facts.

Posted by: S.O.S. in MA | March 22, 2006 11:00 PM

I just love to hear the sound and see the sight of liberals heads exploding when faced with the truth.

Posted by: Phobos | March 22, 2006 11:02 PM

Wow, Casto's favorite news paper hires a guy who doesn't think a brutal communist dictatorship is the best way to go in America and the Left goes nuts.

The paper goes from 98% liberal to 97% liberal and the anti-American Left, frothing at the mouth, steps out on the ledge. JUMP, JUMP, JUMP!!!!!!

Posted by: Right | March 22, 2006 11:05 PM

If the WaPo editors think that this is the expected liberal reaction to the appointment of a conservative blogger, they should look at the case of Andrew Sullivan. I do not remember anyone complaining when he was hired by Time.

Posted by: lib | March 22, 2006 11:12 PM

Oh noooo, my favorite newspaper has actually hired a wet-behind-the ears blogger who reeks of hostility? Why would you even consider any blogger who complained that Bush went to "that Communist funeral for Coretta King" And hello, are you actually ok with his sneering at the MSM,which obviously includes your newspaper? Are you suffering some kind of "Battered MSM Syndrome?" Froomkin,Kurtz,and Milbank are all real journalists! You have completely dumbed down the reputation of your paper. What's next? Hiring Judith Miller?

Posted by: Nancy/Ca | March 22, 2006 11:14 PM

Re Dolmenach column: It appears you've given up any aspiration to be considered a "paper of record." Giving hack writers spewing venom a mouthpiece from which to foam does not constitute "balance" between right and left. The entire American media have skewed so drastically to the right in recent years that balanced journalism exists only outside US borders. This is a sad day when the once-great Washington Post stoops so low.

Posted by: Madolin Wells | March 22, 2006 11:15 PM

I respectfully suggest that you fire Ben Domenech immediately. The very idea! Have you lost your senses? A man who can call Coretta King a communist is either extremely devious or delusional. Where's the balance in that?

Posted by: proud liberal | March 22, 2006 11:16 PM

"Can someone elaborate on the connection between Jack Abramoff and Ben Domenech's father? And will the Post speak about this connection?...

Chris Ck NY | March 22, 2006 10:51 PM"

Aah, the Internet & Google. What would we do without them...?

http://tinyurl.com/jdhjx

Check it out -- it's all there.

I give Domenech _fils_ a week, probably no more. And if he outlasts THAT, then as soon as Abramoff's trial begins and he starts singing like Tweety-bird, that'll be BenD's swan-song, you should please pardon the interspecies pun...

I feel secure in saying that his tenure at the WaPo is in its last throes, if you will... :-)

Posted by: S.O.S. in MA | March 22, 2006 11:18 PM

wow!
Really going down the tube,this newspaper
sad.

Posted by: emorgine | March 22, 2006 11:21 PM

Love the new blog. Refreshing read. I'll be back! (never thought I'd bookmark the WaPo)

Posted by: LayLo | March 22, 2006 11:34 PM

From Howie Kurtz [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html]:

"I don't get it. One conservative blogger? It's not like The Post doesn't have a left-leaning blogger, or liberal columnists. Is the New York Times a GOP mouthpiece because it employs David Brooks and John Tierney?"

Maybe Mr. Kurtz could stop by this blog and respond since no one else at the Post cares to.

Mr. Kurtz could let us know who exactly the left-leaning blogger is. I see some writers here who have extensive experience in journalism writing online columns that question the administration. If this is what he meant, could he explain why the post would not hire a conservative with a background in journalism?

I think what Mr. Kurtz is missing is what Josh Marshall (at talkingpointsmemo.com) stated:

to 'balance' Froomkin, who may be a commentator with liberal tendencies, the Post goes out and gets a high octane Republican political activist who hits the ground running with a tirade of Red State America revanchism and even journalism itself.

That's balance. That's the Post's balance.

Managing perceptions is the death of good journalism, especially manufactured perceptions, and even more those manufactured for the easily cowed.

I'm embarrassed for the Post. Embarrassed by the Post.

Their explanation doesn't cut it. If they want to make a blogger Crossfire with a firebreather on the left and on the right, they should do it. It might even be interesting. But here they've just been played by bullies and played for fools.

Jump! How high?

I can think of more than a few actual journalists at the Post who must feel a bit embarrassed too.

Posted by: John | March 22, 2006 11:35 PM

The Post does not have any liberal blogger. Froomkin is a professional journalist, who happens to be on a tear saying what most everyone in Washington refuses to acknowledge about the WH press corps -- that the Emperor has no clothes. But he is a career journalist, with an outstanding vitae.

On the other hand, the Post already had conservative bloggers. For instance, Ron Nessen is an old Nixon/Ford hand. And let's not get into the rest of the crew like Susan Schmidt, Deborah Howell, Jim Brady, Howard Kurtz, Jim VandeHei -- who reportedly has a shrine to Bush in his home office. To the extent that Froomkin leans left, he does not even begin to balance out these people -- nor the editorial board that produced that toxic stream of pro-war editorials (when a plurality of Americans opposed it).

Domenech grew up in the most privileged and sheltered environment in Washington, DC. His father is a high-level Republican operative and a pal of Jack Abramoff. Ben doesn't hail from 'Red America', he is the ultimate product of the Washington hard-right Republican elite -- profoundly disconnected from the rest of the country.

He also has a troubling track record of racist pronouncements and, from a purely stylistic point of view, writes awfully poorly. It seems that nobody in Washington even bats an eye any more at even the most blatant cases of cronyism and nepotism.

Posted by: mike | March 22, 2006 11:36 PM

I am saddened by the Post's cowardly decision to toady to the Right in a misguided effort to "balance" energetic watchdog coverage of the Bush Administration's acts of malfeasance, deceit and policy failure.

"Red America" is nothing more than Right Wing diatribe. The Washington Post must reconsider the decision to offer such an important pulpit to right-wing hack opinion. This absurd column of distorted invective against the media and the Left is hardly an appropriate "balance" to fair reporting. Fair, balanced reporting does not require a vehicle for unedited, unchallenged response from the apologists for those whose actions are correctly and accurately disclosed and critiqued. If the Post determines to print political commentary, you should provide your readers with a balancing progressive voice as well.

Don't apologize, by your words or your actions, for finally doing some good, sound reporting. Katherine Graham must be spinning in her grave like a gyroscope, and Ben Bradlee may well wish he were already in his and didn't have to witness the Post's sad journalistic decline. Please resurrect the proud tradition of courageous, unapologetic service to the truth, wherever that may lead, and send the message that the truth does not require a "balancing" point of view.

Posted by: Binnie | March 22, 2006 11:42 PM

What is wrong with you people. Hasn't Bush ruined this country enough already?
Did you have to go and hire Ben Domenech, to spew his hatred and biased opinions.
We already have the drug addict Rush Limbaugh and the loud mouth O'Reilly lying
to our country. Let the 37% of the people who still think Bush is great watch Fox News.
It would only be fair if you let Michael Moore or someone of his intelligence and honesty to respond daily with a column to give their opinions of Domenech's lies and biased opinions of the worst president this country has ever had. God help our wonderful country.

Posted by: Mary | March 22, 2006 11:46 PM

Reading this right-winger makes me even gladder I got out of the United States and emigrated to Australia. (I'm a nurse, so I could get work and an immigration visa here.) Sadly, there are a lot of people who think the way Domenech does (even thought most of them are not smart enough to read newspapers.) People like him are why the U.S. is becoming a fascist state. You will find that put when the next two elections are stolen like the ones in 2000 and 2004. Then there won't be any more, until the economic implosion and dissolution of the United States. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Domenech and his ilk will continue saying everything is going just great through it all.

Posted by: Bukko | March 22, 2006 11:49 PM

The Washington Post is doing a severe disservice by printing “Red America,” a column by Ben Domenech. It's wrong to "balance" real watchdog journalism with right-wing hackery.  If you want to print partisan political columns, you should also give progressives a voice.

Posted by: Louise Calabro | March 22, 2006 11:50 PM

Because the conservatives have no access to power or media? The Wall Street Journal does not see any reason to put progressive writers in their op ed stable- why do you pander to the right wing fundamentalists?

(At least the WSJ is a great paper - only their editorial are infuriating)

Posted by: Sheila | March 22, 2006 11:50 PM

Judging by how the number of comments in this thread keeps going up and down, it looks like the Washington Post censor is working on the late shift. It's almost midnight, go home kid, get some sleep!

Posted by: mike | March 22, 2006 11:51 PM

I see the sign that comments are being deleted as a good thing. Someone at the Post is reading this site. Hey you! Mr. or Ms. Middle-of-the-Night-Comment-Deletor! Why don't you respond to some of the questions here? Your bosses are screwing up big time by not answering. Break the silence. Even if you're just an intern. Be a journalist! Share the truth! Respond to our questions.

Posted by: | March 22, 2006 11:52 PM

Since Mr. Domenech is such a powerful patriot, when will he be resigning his position here and at Regnery and announcing he has joined the Army to serve in Iraq, a war he finds very much worth fighting?

Or is he the kind of "patriot" like his president who found "all day pool volleyball games with ambitious secretaries" preferable to the possibility of meeting John McCain in the Hanoi Hilton? Or is he a believer in defending his country like his vice president, who took five deferments and has said he "had other priorities" during Vietnam? Or is he like his good buddy Tom DeLay, who wanted to serve but found the Army had no room for a patriotic white boy like him because so many minorities were volunteering "for the benefits"?

Or is he just the usual standard-issue right wing coward I used to run across back in the day, disrupting meetings I spoke at until I asked when they were going to quit school like their fathers had and join up to serve? Shut them up every time.

And perhaps the next time Mr. Domenech wants to look at medical malpractice with regard to when it comes to "pulling the plug," he'll look at Texas, where a woman was taken off her ventilator last year because of lack of ability to pay, despite her protests, and died 10 days later.

But then again, asking a red state hypocrite to be anything but the mini-putz he is is really probably asking for too much.

And I have cancelled my subscription. You're no longer the paper who saved the country in 1973-74, you corporate coward illiterates.

Posted by: Tom Cleaver | March 23, 2006 12:04 AM

This is disappointing.

When did the newspaper get into the business of sponsoring blogs (just online columns really) that are neither researched nor humorous? I thought it was a long, hard journey to have one's opinions (and precious little else) stamped with the logo of a "prestigious" paper. That, or it is who you know, so maybe this guy knows somebody. Or perhaps this paper does not deserve the prestige I had attributed it.

Also, if "Red America" really is a majority--I'm taking issue with that sugggestion but no matter--it is a joke to think it can be summed up by one guy and what seems to catch his fancy throughout the day.

Other than to cause a ruckus, I have no idea what value the Post thinks it will find in one person's take on what "Red America" thinks. It is a mockery of the views of many of those who are conservative; it is a sign of weakness on the part of this paper. This isn't even worth being angry about.

Posted by: kat | March 23, 2006 12:06 AM

Thank you, thank you Jim --can I call you "Jim," I feel like I know you from forever and own you soooooooooo much--, you really know how to elevate the debate by hiring a fair-balanced-unbiased-unpartisan-uncolored real journalist as Mr. Domenech (a.k.a. Augustine) for the new WP blog, Red America, I even celebrate the name, soooooooo patriotic and color-blind, like the America the really-real-truly Americans are proud of.

Next move, listen and follow Mr. Augustine's (a.k.a. Domenech) wisdom and fired those unfair-unbalanced-biased-partisan pseudo-journalist like Froomkin, Will, Broder, Milbank, and Co. Together we can shout down the unpatriotic liberal media like... The Washington Post (oops, sorry it was a lapses).

Posted by: Rodolfo | March 23, 2006 12:07 AM

Like we need another Right-Wing perspective in the media. The Washington Post is turning into FOX.

Posted by: Mike in Fallbrook, CA | March 23, 2006 12:11 AM

The Washington Post hired a guy who called Coretta Scott King a communist the day she was buried?

What Dick Cheney said to Patrick Leahy a couple of years ago? That says it best.

You guys at the Post are really racing to the bottom. Disgusting.

Posted by: Romprelos | March 23, 2006 12:11 AM

Ben Domenech's post, 3/21:
"Apparently, this violent testosterone-fueled psychological imperitive - not a coherent and just strategy for defending America in response to the first major attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor - is the real reason for our war in Iraq."

Ben, I find it difficult to offer this advice to an obviously techically-savvy twenty-something blogger, but may I suggest you try completing a spelling check before posting? Just a suggestion . . .

Posted by: bamaky | March 23, 2006 12:12 AM

Hundreds of comments! The Post certainly hit a nerve, and marketing might be thinking that this is a welcome development. But I doubt that these people will be picking up the paper or logging in. I certainly won't.

Domenech's few supporters in this thread are telling themselves that the rest of us are unhinged because we lefties can't accept a dissenting voice. They're wrong. I read conservative analysts from time to time, conservative "pundits" less often. But Domenech? You're embarrassing yourselves.

Posted by: adimock@stanford.edu | March 23, 2006 12:15 AM

Why do this? If you are going to attempt balance, head for the side that is not well represented-The progressives. There are enough right wing hacks out there already and so few are allowed to contradict them. Please get a spine and offer a voice to those of us who believe in treating people with dignity and helping those less fortunate, and who do not believe that "my team right or wrong" offers any hope of making this country great again.

Posted by: Thomas | March 23, 2006 12:16 AM

I used to regard the Post as the same. Now you give voice to a self-promoting conservative stooge? Who's next - Dick Cheney?

What an embarassment for the Post. I'll direct my subscription to a more credible publication.

Posted by: Colorblind | March 23, 2006 12:20 AM

Thank God! Conservatives who have long been denied a voice in public affairs, aside from the Presidency, the Senate, the House of Representaties, the Supreme Court, FOX News, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times, now finally have a way to express their viewpoints! At long last, a place at the Post for us readers to find bigoted, xenophobic and close-minded opinions.

What a great day!

Posted by: Michael | March 23, 2006 12:33 AM

This seems more appropriate than ever: The Washington Post Factor

(Dear censor working the late night shift: this is topical satire, and most appropriate given the issues being discussed in this thread. Please don't delete it like the other 50-odd comments that have already disapeared.)

Posted by: In Jesus' Army | March 23, 2006 12:33 AM

Looks like the Post's system scrubs html tags... Here's the link:

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_patriotboy_archive.html#113775248538758969

Posted by: In Jesus' Army | March 23, 2006 12:34 AM

Is it "Red America" because you're so embarrassed by the failures of Bush Co.?

Posted by: Scareeeguy | March 23, 2006 12:44 AM

Better Dead than Red

Posted by: Kelso Doug | March 23, 2006 12:52 AM

Ben Domenech's "Red America" is really a bunch of garbage. Why no opposing point of view? Why no aggressive exposure and analysis of the facts! What facts? How about Bush's latest lying spree, for starters?

Plenty of whoppers to choose from. A couple of the biggest?

The reason he invaded Iraq was because the world wanted him to because Saddam wouldn't allow the UNSCOM inspectors back into Iraq!

Referring to the ongoing inspections in March 2003 Hans Blix said in the Financial Times "It would not take years, nor weeks, but months."

Another Bush whopper? He said that he didn't want to go to war.

There is plenty of evidence, including the various "Downing Street Memos", that he was planning to go to war from the beginning of his first term but besides that there was the eye-witness report that just before he went on the air to announce that the invasion had officially started, he pumped his fist, winked and smirked as he said "I feel good."
Hardly the actions of anyone who wasn't totally enjoying going to war. What a lying creep. He insults our intelligence every time he opens his mouth and you give him a pass and give us this Ben Domenech.

No thanks!

Posted by: Crimsonwolf 23 | March 23, 2006 12:54 AM

Haha,

The New York Times must be laughing their heads off right now.

I can see why the Post would try to steal conservative reader marketshares from the Wash Times. But at the expense of pushing its liberal readers to the NYTimes??? Somebody in the Business Developement office forgot to balance the other end of the equation.

It's like CNN trying to compete against FOX News by becoming like foxnews. Look where that strategy got them.

Posted by: Jing | March 23, 2006 01:00 AM

For God'a sake- stop the insanity!!
As we descend into outright fascism- why not put another "log on the fire"!!
This creep is just another clone ala-Coulter; Limbaugh; O'Reilly, etc.!!
Throw the bum out!!

Posted by: geojazz46 | March 23, 2006 01:01 AM

WaPo knows people will read this sick little man. Look at all the eyes here now. And we'll come back to see what other crazy s!!t he says. And our panties will wad. And we will argue about why Coretta Scott was not a communist.and on an on....we will mourn the loss of the fourth estate, and argue some more about how Joe McCarthy wasn't a great guy. All this will be happenning while some of the most important decisions in our lifetime are being made by delusional maniacs.
On these boards we will do our fiddling, be our fiddling, with Mr. Domenech our muse

Posted by: nathan arizona | March 23, 2006 01:06 AM

Dear Friends,

Concerning the new hate mongering "opinion" column written by Ben Domenech, I would like to address this new mouthpiece for the lie filled "regime" in Washington.
As his bio calls him "the youngest political appointee of President George W. Bush"—as speech writer for a Bush cabinet secretary. He is co-founder of RedState, a right-wing Internet site, and an editor at Regnery Press, which publishes right-wing books. His only journalistic credential is dabbling in right-wing movement publications.

To prove he represents the very far right fringe, Domenech made sure to reference "jackbooted communist thugs."

Domenech didn't just say it, but in a full-frontal illusion of grandeur he quoted himself saying it!

What's truly tragic is the Washington Post chose to "balance" legitimate journalists who hold politicians accountable with an extreme right-wing propagandist. Today, media watchdog group Media Matters reports Domenach recently wrote online about Coretta Scott King's funeral and titled his comment, "The President visits the funeral of a Communist."1

Domenech's fringe views are now being given a forum in a news outlet with great influence on national opinion. Many Americans around the country read the Washington Post online—and they'll now read Domenech's opinions assuming they are credible, and without any progressive balance.

The Washington Post caved to the right wing and struck a blow to strong watchdog journalism.

Won't you please at least consider a balancing column from the left?

How about offering this position to William Rivers Pitt, or Noam Chomsky, or Seymour Hersh?

Thank you for your ear today,

Sincerely,

lazydog

The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines,
boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements,
and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day.
~ Theodore Roosevelt

The War in Iraq Costs
$249,250,787,569
See the cost in your community

Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best,
"The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."

Posted by: lazydog | March 23, 2006 01:09 AM

So, being that you, "Augustine" are so passionate about the Iraq war, might I ask: when were you planning to join our armed forces, and be of material help in fighting the war? After all, a boy of your age and eargerness to have others fight should be helping with the recruiting problem instead of hiding out in Loudon County gettin yur book learnin along with your vittles.

www.goarmy.com.

Posted by: Red the Chickenhawk | March 23, 2006 01:23 AM

WaPo knows people will read this sick little man. Look at all the eyes here now. And we'll come back to see what other crazy s!!t he says. And our panties will wad. And we will argue about why Coretta Scott was not a communist.and on an on....we will mourn the loss of the fourth estate, and argue some more about how Joe McCarthy wasn't a great guy. All this will be happenning while some of the most important decisions in our lifetime are being made by delusional maniacs.
On these boards we will do our fiddling, with Mr. Domenech our muse.

Bush did change the tone in washington, as promised. He also changed the reality. If the murrow boys were around now - sevaried would be trying to convince malkin that japanese interment camps were not so great, They would be screaming at each other on hardball while the president eavesdropps on americans unchecked.

The post should be ashamed. They are playing right into hands of the blame the messenger, blame the message, change-the-reality, then change it again, right-wingers.

They are wounded, and more dangerous than ever. Show some integrity and boot this unqualified partisan hack who adds nothing to substantive debate.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 01:25 AM

Apologies to Kimberly Stone and all other fire breathers here. I was willing to give Domenech the benefit of the doubt. Particularly after his "Comment on Comments" post. Civil political discourse is barely a fond memory in this country and Bens call for civility resonated. So what does Mr. Domenech do next? Why post a rant portraying Democrats as infanticide supporters. The gloves are off and this guy must go down!!!

In Response:
"Sackcloth and Ashes: What's Wrong With Infanticide?"

At long last Sir, have you no shame?

It is unfortunate that you have chosen to politicize what is clearly a non-partisan issue - and I quote "there are enough Democrat doctors in America that they could've removed old Strom Thurmond from office a long time ago". You Sir are not off to a good start with this "Red America" project when you just re-hash some "Red State" unreasoned rant.

How dare you, how dare you, how dare you intimate that Democrats somehow love there children less simply because their political view differs from yours!

At long last Sir, you have no shame!

The fact that this is an opinion piece does not give you free reign to simply spew whatever vitriol comes to mind, there must be some basis in reality to your rants. What evidence do you have that the doctors or judges in this case were "demon" liberals?

You show your true colors, as in the Schiavo case, in not caring for or about this child, his or his families future except as a convenient political tool. Once again the most extreme wing of the Republican party chooses to ignore the facts and use, as in the Schiavo case, a family and their suffering, and for nothing more then a dig at the Democrats and momentary, fleeting political capitol.

Realizing that your ilk rarely lets facts get in your way I still must take the time to remind you of the fact that the judges and the husband in the Schiavo case, as may be in this case, were mainly conservatives. Facts are no matter to you as you throw a side of beef in the lions den of bible thumping, foaming at the mouth, wild eyed, reactionary, fundamentalist, religious tools. What was it your your fathers friend Mike Scanlon called them? Oh yeah, "religious whackos", but an easily outraged, easily manipulated bunch of "religious whackos".

In your previous post "Comments about comments" you allude to a breakdown in political discourse and how you hope to use this forum in a positive way and that is an admirable goal. Then your very next post accuses Democrats of being in favor of infanticide. I'm at a loss to explain your hypocrisy.

I am saddened by the fact that you had the chance to tell this tragic story and give it the attention it deserves, solicit sympathy, engage a large spectrum of people to: sign a condolence card to the family, write a letter to the judges, the doctors, raise some money, to create something positive from a tragedy. Instead you chose to use this tragedy as nothing more then political fodder. This family has suffered through a lot but they were never victims until you decided to use them for your own narrow political gain.

The Washington Post has given you a forum in which to do good or harm. While I understand that you are very young, limited in education and possess little experience I must remind you that being a Republican pundit does not obligate or limit you to only doing harm.

Posted by: rudgrl | March 23, 2006 01:30 AM

What a bunch of sniveling, whiny babies commenting here! BWAHAHAAAAA!!!
See, we (you know, us Rethuglicans) have been snickering about how you leftards would show your posteriors for the world if there were comments at Red America, and they'd certainly not be suitable for all ages. (Kind of like the email you send to Michelle Malkin.) I'm guessing that when Red America opens comments, they won't stay open for long once advertisers start bailing out because of the stench coming from the feces-flinging monkeys.

You want balance? That IS balance. Only a deranged fringe leftist would think the Washington Post is a "conservative" publication (DC has the Washington Times for a right-winger's newspaper), and besides, Domenech is clearly in the OPINION section. You just don't like the WaPo because it's not the New York Slimes. Go on back to your Indymedia "news" and GROW UP.

And this, in the previous comment from "lazydog" sums up the leftard reaction quite well (except it's lacking the usual XXX-rated expletives):

"Many Americans around the country read the Washington Post online—and they'll now read Domenech's opinions assuming they are credible, and without any progressive balance."

Typical arrogant (yet laughably clueless) "progressive" (HA!) attitude. Only YOU "progressives" (HA!) are savvy enough to navigate a web site, much less an area designated as "opinion." You clowns freaking out are either mind-bendingly stupid, or you think everyone else is. Get off the pipe and join the real world, kiddies.


2008 JEB BUSH FOR PRESIDENT!

VOTE BUSH/ASHCROFT 2008!

::smirk::

"Progressive" ! HA!

Posted by: Beth | March 23, 2006 01:32 AM

How can you have a column such as “Red America” in the guise of balance?! It is time that we take back America from Bush & the right wing.

Posted by: Roger Moore | March 23, 2006 01:34 AM

What a shame. I used to hold the Post in such high regard, too.

No more.

Posted by: Tod | March 23, 2006 01:40 AM

The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, not to suck at the Administration's words in order to best increase your share price.

Posted by: jerry | March 23, 2006 01:42 AM

Apologies to Kimberly Stone and all other fire breathers here. I was willing to give Domenech the benefit of the doubt. Particularly after his "Comment on Comments" post. Civil political discourse is barely a fond memory in this country and Bens call for reasonable discourse resonated. So what does Mr. Domenech do next? Why post a rant portraying Democrats as infanticide supporters. The gloves are off and this guy must go down!!!

In Response:
"Sackcloth and Ashes: What's Wrong With Infanticide?"

At long last Sir, have you no shame?

It is unfortunate that you have chosen to politicize what is clearly a non-partisan issue - and I quote "there are enough Democrat doctors in America that they could've removed old Strom Thurmond from office a long time ago". You Sir are not off to a good start with this "Red America" project when you just re-hash some "Red State" unreasoned rant.

How dare you, how dare you, how dare you intimate that Democrats somehow love there children less simply because their political view differs from yours!

At long last Sir, you have no shame!

The fact that this is an opinion piece does not give you free reign to simply spew whatever vitriol comes to mind, there must be some basis in reality to your rants. What evidence do you have that the doctors or judges in this case were "demon" liberals?

You show your true colors, as in the Schiavo case, in not caring for or about this child, his or his families future except as a convenient political tool. Once again the most extreme wing of the Republican party chooses to ignore the facts and use, as in the Schiavo case, a family and their suffering, and for nothing more then a dig at the Democrats and momentary, fleeting political capitol.

Realizing that your ilk rarely lets facts get in your way I still must take the time to remind you of the fact that the judges in the Schiavo case, as may be in this case, were mainly conservatives. Facts are no matter to you as you throw a side of beef into the lions den of bible thumping, foaming at the mouth, wild eyed, reactionary, fundamentalist, religious tools. What was it your your fathers friend Mike Scanlon called them? Oh yeah, "religious whackos", but an easily outraged, easily manipulated bunch of "religious whackos".

In your previous post "Comments about comments" you allude to a breakdown in political discourse and how you hope to use this forum in a positive way and that is an admirable goal. Then your very next post accuses Democrats of supporting infanticide.

I am saddened by the fact that you had the chance to tell this tragic story and give it the attention it deserves, solicit sympathy, engage a large spectrum of people to: sign a condolence card to the family, write a letter to the judges, the doctors, raise some money, to create something positive from a tragedy. Instead you chose to use this tragedy as nothing more then political fodder. This family has suffered through a lot but they were never victims until you decided to use them for your own narrow political purpose.

The Washington Post has given you a forum in which to do good, or harm. While I understand that you are very young, limited in education and possess little experience I must remind you that being a Republican pundit does not obligate or limit you to only doing harm.

Posted by: rudgrl | March 23, 2006 01:45 AM

I am deeply disappointed that the vital role of the American Press has slipped yet again in more obsequious pandering to the Far Right.

Your paper should be ashamed of itself. We have finally begun to expose the Administration for the corrupt, cowardly carpetbaggers
that they are, and you appoint yet another hack.

I caught a snippet of George Bush talking about the need for a government that listened to it's people. Sadly, of course,
he was talking about his imperial delusions for Iraq, not here.

Do your job. Tell the truth. Or get the hell out of the way.


James P. Moriarty
Attorney At Law


Posted by: James P. Moriarty | March 23, 2006 09:22 AM

You guys at the Post must be delusional.
When nearly 80% of this country is against Bush and all the Neocon wimps, you guys bring in a snot nosed little Hitler to add comment.
What is wrong with this picture?

Posted by: Arliss | March 23, 2006 09:41 AM

The Washington Post's announcement of its willing association with Ben Domenech brings to mind the Nine Inch Nails album and song, "The Downward Spiral". Fittingly, the first song on the album is "Mr. Self Destruct."

Thank you, Washington Post. Now I can remove your once fine publication from my daily reading list.

Posted by: Aaron Adams | March 23, 2006 09:42 AM

Why are we still posting? Hasn't WaPost.com done enough to forfeit our respect? They don't care whether we criticize as long as we participate (i.e., register hits). Do the equivalent of dropping your print subscription and go elsewhere. Call it a boycott or whatever it takes; the Internet is a big place and there are certainly better sites out there, even among the MSM. Let's pick a date/time and quit!

Posted by: Tony | March 23, 2006 09:42 AM

...please reconsider using Domenech as a columnist with your respected newspaper...he seems to be more of a propagandist than a reasonable analyst...Dick Landback, Farmington, MI...

Posted by: Dick Landback | March 23, 2006 09:59 AM

I agree. I'm outta here.

Posted by: Jim | March 23, 2006 10:01 AM

Bring back the draft

Posted by: George | March 23, 2006 10:01 AM

I find it interesting that most of the comments are from liberals, thus proving the left leaning tendency of the media. They are so used to having all liberals to read that the 'intrusion' of a conservative ignites unintellible rage in them. They spew phrases about openmindedness and understanding, but fail to understand that theirs is not the only view held in the US or the world. I've started reading the WaPo because of the addition of Domenech.

Posted by: Josh | March 23, 2006 10:16 AM

The Washington Post, is one of the most powerful and widely-read newspapers in America. It is sickening to see such a prestigious publication cave in to the right wing, dealing a blow to strong watchdog journalism by “balancing” that with “Red America,” a right-wing hate column by Ben Domenech. I was heartened recently by the media seeming to wake up and resume its job of holding power accountable. But when the right-wingers got angry (they can‘t handle the truth), the Post backed down and allowed Domenech, who evidently has no real journalistic credentials, to use it as a platform to trash the left and the media. If The Post is going to publish partisan propaganda posing as “news,” then you need to also give progressives a voice to assure real “balance.” Papers like the Post are the last hope that Americans will hear the truth about what is going on that those in power don’t want us to know. Get rid of "Red America"!

Posted by: patvic | March 23, 2006 10:16 AM

Excuse me, but when was WaPo a respected and powerful paper?

this is about business and profit (something Americans know better than any).

Griping about 'balance' and that crap shows who's living in a dream world

Im not sure of the metrics of success, but i imagine that the "red america/coward" blog will boost sales, and therefore make the Post more successful.

For those of you who thought that its about 'journalism' and not profit... wake up and smell your own s!!t.

Posted by: dave in toronto | March 23, 2006 10:23 AM

The Post ought to do this more often. It's like the liberal sewer got backed up and it all dumped into the comment section. Sun Tzu said that you must know the enemy, so bon apetit.

Posted by: joe | March 23, 2006 10:26 AM

I don't want to even think about what else you folks are doing to "get with" the conservatives. What is clear is that you are forming a caravan of the gutless, with your editors trotting along with the dogs yelling "gazoontight" to the uber-righties in the shotgun seats. Listen up dumbies: IQ and shoe size should be different numbers. Make that happen could 'ya? We don't need more wimps.

Posted by: Phill Sawyer | March 23, 2006 10:27 AM

Is Red America blog tongue-in-cheek? It couldn't be serious, could it? Except for the occasional dropping of contemporary names, scans like 1950s right wing blarney. What a waste of cyber space.

Posted by: Encke | March 23, 2006 10:30 AM

The left is a joke. Getting all pissy about a blog. Sheesh. You've lost all the major debates so now you go after a blogger. pathetic.

Oh, and by the way, we are out breeding you.

Posted by: The Roe Effect | March 23, 2006 10:31 AM

Truth and intelligent commentary is not “balanced” by lies and propaganda! As Daniel Moynihan said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion- but not their own facts”! Enough pandering to the lowest common denominator; we the people demand more and will find other sources that refuse to bow to fascist pressures.

Posted by: Cindy Knope | March 23, 2006 10:33 AM

I'm a 59-year-old church-going suburban matron (familiar with the term "sackcloth and ashes") and political Independent (e.g., having voted for both Reagan and Clinton).

Since 1979 (before Mr. Domenech was born), I've subscribed to the Post for news, opinion and store coupons. It's one of this nation's leading newspapers, so I've always expected the highest standards of accuracy, fairness and insight.

Perhaps naively, I thought we were all "red, white and blue"--but have just learned from Mr. Domenech's blog, that a "majority" has gone "red." And "it's time (for the "minority," presumably) to start paying attention to what they believe and why."

My goodness! Why, I've been paying attention for decades, young man. But at last you've arrived, ready to dispense the "official blog advice of Red America." (And to think that the Post has bowed to give you a forum!)

Posted by: Sophie | March 23, 2006 10:37 AM

Ben appears to be drowning already.

In four posts, he's gone from capering over the corpse of the Dem party and declaring the emergence of Bobo Erectus as America's dominant political species, to some rather tepid and bloodless noodling on warmed-over Schiavo themes.

If Ben continues on this arc, we can shortly expect a thoughtful polyphonic fugue on school vouchers, followed perhaps by a vigorous assault on the evil of zoning easements and a thunderous free-trade broadside entitled, "Smoot-Hawley: What Were We Thinking?"

I hate to say it, but if the Post is serious about challenging vanguard online political journals like "The Rant" and "FrontPage," casting an untested unknown ain't gonna cut it. They need to bite the bullet and commit to publishing a reliable, name-brand, Nimitz-class loon like Alan Keyes.

Posted by: Rotwang | March 23, 2006 10:38 AM

Oh, and by the way, we are out breeding you.

Posted by: The Roe Effect | March 23, 2006 10:31 AM

yeah, but you should start looking outside your immediate family for mates

Posted by: cbl | March 23, 2006 10:40 AM

and might I suggest opposable thumbs in the future ?

Posted by: cbl | March 23, 2006 10:43 AM

Dear Sirs:

I am at a loss to understand the Post’s decision to allow Ben Domenech, a person who completely lacks journalistic credentials, but openly professes a partisan objective, to publish under the banner of the Washington Post. I understand that a blog spot is not necessarily held to the same standards of journalism as most sections of a newspaper, but the credibility of a newspaper is entirely determined by what is published in its name. Newspapers must obviously honor and uphold the first amendment, which guarantees Ben Domenech the right to speak his mind; but there is no right, Constitutional or otherwise, for anyone to speak under the banner of the Washington Post.

The standard practices of journalism have been eroded more than enough under the influence of the current White House administration. We have all witnessed a “reporter” with no credentials be mysteriously admitted into the White House press corps (I was disappointed at the time that no one investigated under what directive the Secret Service approved entry to this man, who, it turns out, could not attain an entry level security clearance.) We have seen the press shut out or misdirected to an extent rivaled only by, perhaps, Nixon. The entire media have been forced to adopt a more conservative voice, or risk being ridiculed as irrelevant members of the “liberal press.” The Post has been no exception to this migration, yet all of us have been forced to rely on the few media outlets that at least made a plausible, though shamefully diminished, attempt to remain objective and informed.

For the Post to now open its breadth of influence, and its reputation, to the published opinions of an unqualified person of no import defies logic. I Understand that the opinions expressed in this blog are in no way endorsed by the publisher and editors of the Post, but by providing Domenech this space, the Post is explicitly endorsing his qualifications to publish under the Post name, and is implicitly stating that his opinions are sufficiently supported, reasoned and original to be associated with the Post name. My understanding is that a person must have specific insight, experience or knowledge of an issue to comment on it for the Post. How does Domenech fulfill any of these requirements? Have the standards at the Post dropped so low, or is the Post so frightened of being marginalized, that any mouthy fool with a cause can now get published within its domain? If so, sign me up – I can assure you that I, like millions of others, can provide better researched, better reasoned and more insightful commentary than Ben Domenech.

After so many years of reading the Post, I find it sad that I have to admit that the Washington Post is allowing itself to fall further and further into a habit of guileless, unreliable and incredible hack journalism. At a minimum, give your readers some published justification for doing something so offensive and irrational. There are far too few trustworthy news organizations remaining in America. Please think long and hard before you discredit one of the last remainders.

Posted by: ACK | March 23, 2006 10:43 AM

Please ... more red blogs! Squash out thought, stamp out debate, serve up talking points on a plate!

If they think they must be commies
If they blink they must be scared
never let anyone see you bare!
Cheney plus H'burton equals Power Pair!

GOoOH RED!

Posted by: Red plus Red makes Blue | March 23, 2006 10:48 AM

..and we're happier. There's a reason why you are referred to as "blue" staters.

Posted by: Roe Effect | March 23, 2006 10:50 AM

Ben-

Your father is a close confidant of Jack Abramoff and an as-yet unindicted criminal who laundered illegal money for the RNC from Tom DeLay in Texas. Do you think you "earned" this blog spot?

Posted by: clayton | March 23, 2006 10:50 AM

jim and debbie, your new boy toy is a doozy! why just look what the little feller left out of his resume:

"People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag. Stated so bluntly, many readers might find that way of putting the matter morally problematic. The extermination of anti-social elements does, after all, have a somewhat controversial history. One thinks, perhaps inevitably, of the Holocaust, but it did not start or stop there. Six years ago, economist Steven Levitt and law professor John Donohue sparked a brouhaha with their claim that abortion is probably the greatest crime-prevention measure ever invented. Now that argument has received renewed currency in the bestselling book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Levitt and his co-author Stephen Dubner. In recent years there has been a 30- to 50-percent drop in crime, and many explanations are offered: new policing methods, more than two million people behind bars, the drop-off in the use of crack, and on and on. But a careful analysis of the data, say Levitt and company, indicates that the biggest factor, far and away, is that the millions of young men most likely to commit crimes were killed early on. A refreshing note of candor in the current discussion is that nobody is denying that all those fetuses killed in the womb were really human beings. So it seems the question of when human life begins has been settled once and for all. The dramatic decline in crime began eighteen years after Roe v. Wade, and a few years earlier in those states that liberalized their abortion law. Of course, most of the commentaries steer away from a too-explicit reference to race, although everybody is aware of the astonishingly inordinate incidence of crimes committed by young male blacks and the equally inordinate incidence of abortions procured by black women. In one interview, Levitt said his findings had little or nothing to do with race; his research on the correlation between crime and unstable family situations was based on Scandinavian research. Well yes, but nobody to my knowledge has suggested that the problem of crime in the United States is significantly related to the problem of Swedish immigration. Levitt, like Donohue, is also careful to say that he is not a supporter of the unlimited abortion license. I notice that many other commentators make a point of saying that this discussion is not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime. I do not question the research or logic of Levitt’s argument. If a specifiable group is inordinately responsible for a social problem, it follows that eliminating a large number of people belonging to that group will reduce the problem. It is hard to argue with that. What is morally odious is the cool and disinterested way in which the commentariat is discussing what might fairly be described as racial cleansing. It’s too bad about all those dead babies, but it is a kind of solution to the crime problem, if not a final solution. Meanwhile, those who style themselves black leaders, especially political leaders, are overwhelmingly in support of the unlimited abortion license, thus maintaining their distinction of being the only ethnic or racial leadership in history to actively collaborate in dramatically reducing the number of people they claim to lead. If they had been allowed to live, there would be about twenty million more blacks in America. White racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership. In another lifetime, before he succumbed to national ambitions, Jesse Jackson regularly declared that the war on poverty had been replaced by a war on the poor. There is more than a little to that. Having despaired of preparing young blacks to enter into the opportunities and responsibilities of American life, the society apparently decided to eliminate them before they had a chance to become a threat. The story of the Exodus plays a large and understandable part in black history: "Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, `When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him.’ But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live." Today’s black leaders are more compliant, much to the satisfaction of those who think we would all be better off with fewer black people."

Posted by: medaka メダカ | March 23, 2006 10:52 AM

do you think a nation's cowardice is proportionate to the size of its army?

Posted by: daver | March 23, 2006 10:53 AM

LOL! This is priceless! Some two-bit punk shmuck whose father was appointed by another two-bit shmuck is writing for the Washington Post?!?! LOL! You guys kill me!

Posted by: Chris | March 23, 2006 10:55 AM

Over 1000+ comments and no one at the Post is willing to explain why they had to 'balance' Froomkin, went out and got a high octane Republican political activist. Why is the Post insulting it's readers by not explaining itself?

Posted by: Steph | March 23, 2006 10:55 AM

Roe Effect: "happier"?

-i'd say ignorant, inward, afraid of questioning, and just plain incurious

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 10:56 AM

I'm a lifelong reader of the Washington Post. Over the years, I have enjoyed the paper because of its journalistic integrity and the fact that it has avoided falling prey to the politically-correct line about "fair and balanced" news reporting necessitating the hire of a cadre of right-wing frat boys. Guess I was wrong about that.

Posted by: FedUp. | March 23, 2006 10:57 AM

Hey, any Toronto Maple Leafs fans here?

Posted by: Chris | March 23, 2006 11:01 AM

Wow, the lefties are awfully afraid of a diversity of OPINION. They are the most likely to want to censor and protest those with different ideas. Heaven forbid that someone with a conservative viewpoint is allowed to express it.

It's so much easier to insult and deride than to provide an intelligent, factual response. Too bad the lazy left is not up to it.

Thank you for something worth reading in the WaPo.

Posted by: kenc | March 23, 2006 11:01 AM

Leafs are taking Stanley this year (if they can steal it from the team that wins it)!

Posted by: dave in toronto | March 23, 2006 11:03 AM

Dave, youre smoking rope mon ami. The best thing that can happen to the Leafs is for them NOT to make the playoffs. Get rid of Quinn and only then can you build this franchise to what it should be.
Their best player, Sundin, would be a third liner on the Senators.
I knew hockey would hi-jack this thread. It always does.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 11:07 AM

Josh:
"I find it interesting that most of the comments are from liberals, thus proving the left leaning tendency of the media"

Better head back and finish that degree. Statistically, it proves nothing. Your statement is what is known as a 'false dichotomy,' and it is a well-worn tool of the modern conservative. It is also a logical fallacy.

Another example of a false dichotomy would be, oh, I don't know, that to oppose the war is to support the terrorists.

A false dichotomy exists when the spectrum of choices in a situation are reduced to two possibilities, usually at extremes. You may believe this or other logical fallacies, but sadly, that does not make them sound arguments.

In this case, you have equated antagonistic viewpoints as strictly liberal viewpoints, which cannot be confirmed. It is not inconceivable that readers of all political persuasions would object to an inexperienced and non-representative political operative being given prime real estate to spew division. Seems I caught a couple of oldline, Goldwater conservatives upthread objecting to this decision, as well as a few real 'heartland' conserviatives wondering about the wisdom. Of all things Ben Domenech is, a salt of the earth middle American conservative he is not.

Further, you have equated the volume of antagonistic comments as representative of the total readership, which is also not necessarily the case. Even the Post, diminished as it is, would say that statistically, the outrage represents a volume of READERS unhappy with the decision, but that there is no sound way to affirm how REPRESENTATIVE POLITICALLY this sample of readers is with respect to all Post readers.

How ever would you account for all the conservatives that choose not to post their undying support of the Post for making this decision? How about conservatives that do not support the decision and choose not to invite criticism from other conservatives by refraining from making a post?

When you support logical fallacies, the terrorists win.

Posted by: Ben, but not that Ben or the other not-Ben | March 23, 2006 11:10 AM

rope smoker...YES! (this is Canada, after all)

indeed Sundin would be 3rd on Sens, but, then, as yuo know, the sens will be playing golf before Mats can dust off his balls

Posted by: dave in toronto | March 23, 2006 11:10 AM

Ben you racist pig.

I am, of course, referring to your post (as 'Augustine') where you come very close to advocating the genocide of Americans who are poor and black in the name of crime prevention.

Been taking notes from Bill Bennett? Hoping to get on his new CNN show?

You need to get out more, and focus on meeting people outside of your normal group, church, age, & income bracket. I think you'll find that there are plenty of good people who happen to be poor and black. Plenty of smart people who happen to be poor and black.

Plenty of people who deserve better than to be judged by the color of their skin and their tax returns.

All of whom, I might add, deserve a fair and public trial in which they can defend themselves against charges and statistics, (I really doubt any statistics you quote on this issue would stand up to even light scrutiny) based upon race and income, before being put to death for their 'crime'.

Whatever happenned to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS?

Your small minded bigotry is dragging the WaPo down further than I had ever imagined. How sad. Whoever hired you should be shown the door immediately. You will undoubtedly hang yourself soon enough - on that point I'm quite confident.

Bigot.

Posted by: Redwretch | March 23, 2006 11:11 AM

Add me to the list of longtime readers who are again disappointed by the sort of "balance" that's been going on here lately. Adding the Red State blog was a terrible decision. How does this enhance the website or better business? It doesn't. It alienates fair-minded readers like myself, without question. A terrible decision! All this guy is going to do is mock real journalism. Is he supposed to "balance" Froomkin or something?!? I'm a conservative myself, and even I think this is ridiculous. What a shame. I'm embarrassed for you, washingtonpost.com. I really am. Take this firestorm of commentary to heart, will you? This is your audience! Look what you've done!!

Posted by: Disappointed | March 23, 2006 11:14 AM

I was more than a bit miffed after finding out that the Washington Post editors gave a right-wing hack his own online column called "Red America."


As a long-time reader of the post, and a past subscriber when I lived in the DC area, I think this is more bad news for the American media.

It's just plain wrong to "balance" real watchdog journalism with right wing hackery. If the Post wants partisan political columns, they should also give progressives a voice.

Posted by: sickened in Montana | March 23, 2006 11:14 AM

Is Domenech also known as "Augustine" at RedState? If so, you have a lot of 'splainin' to do.

Why didn't you just go and hire David Duke?

Your idea of "balance" is a lot like the former Soviet agency Tass's idea of "news"

Just how low can the WaPo go?

Posted by: Kevster | March 23, 2006 11:15 AM

I came over to see what the bru-ha-ha was about. I have been amused by the RedBlogger comments here, "Oh the libruls have their panties in a wad"..and "Blogging is the opposite of work."
Well it's darn shure the opposite the way that guys like your boy are doing it. It's hard work to research and find facts, when so much of the media is wingnut shills.
That is the one thing that turned me off of "conservative" blogs. Mean, nasty, racist and wrong. Emoting, not fact finding.
I am a fiscal conservative, and being a Christian, am socially concious. I seek facts. Emotion is fine when it is a commentary on facts. That's what turned me to blogs other than RedState. Precious little work involved there. It's no wonder that the "conservatives" think blogging is not work. For them, it isn't.
Here's hoping that the true conservatives will find their brains, and start to use them, instead of projectile vomiting the pap they've been fed by the insane people who control our government.

Posted by: Wandering in the haze. | March 23, 2006 11:15 AM

Audience, Shmaudience

this is about profit, Disappointed

you're a conservative... you should know

Posted by: dave | March 23, 2006 11:16 AM

HA! I wouldn't count on that. The Sens are taking it this year. Be nice to see two Canadian teams play for it.
I'm at Vic Park and Steeles at the moment. You in TO also?
Boy, these Americans sure could learn a thing or two from us, eh?

Posted by: Chris | March 23, 2006 11:16 AM

Josh, I hope my answer was not too nuanced. Sometimes reality is more complicated than a bumper sticker.

Posted by: Ben, but not that Ben or the other not-Ben | March 23, 2006 11:16 AM

How tolerant you lefties are! Why, I can only imagine how you'd welcome a black conservative to opine in your hallowed Post.

cause at heart, we know lefties don't like minorities and jews.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 11:17 AM

Chris, what can people learn from someone who thinks the Sens will win?

you are as delusional as Dubya

get back on the rope, homey!

Posted by: dave | March 23, 2006 11:20 AM

Whaa? There Canadians in here? I didn't know America Jr. read the Post.

Posted by: 51st stater | March 23, 2006 11:21 AM

I like Jews...mmmmm pan-fried kreplach with apples. Verenkies with onins and sour cream...hmmmm delicious jewish goodness.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 11:21 AM

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable, that Mr. Brady hired this guy. Wow. I'm almost speechless; where does one start? I guess I can't blame the Post for crawling under a rock at this point and not answering any questions. (We never got an answer on precisely who Mr. Red State is balancing, nor if Mr. Brady has been aware of Mr. Red State's "extracurricular" writings, which are positively ghoulish, and I don't expect readers will get straight answers.) What a colossal screw up. And it keeps getting worse... I thought I'd seen the worst, but I really didn't expect this from a major paper.

If the slide were just incompetence it would be more benign, but it all slants in one direction, indicating bias. The internally manufactured Froomkin flap, Howell's disingenuous bungling, now this...


Posted by: chris from new york | March 23, 2006 11:23 AM

America jr. my arse, skippy.

Posted by: Captain Canuck | March 23, 2006 11:23 AM

yeah, but you should start looking outside your immediate family for mates

Posted by: cbl | March 23, 2006 10:40 AM

yeah, but hey, a vote's a vote. Time is on our side....

Posted by: Roe Effect | March 23, 2006 11:23 AM

no canadains here...

we're just draft dodgers

Posted by: dave | March 23, 2006 11:23 AM

LOL! Dubya can't spell delusional unless Karl Rove gets premission from Dick Cheney to allow Dubya to spell.

Posted by: Chris | March 23, 2006 11:26 AM

You're really going to regret this hire.

Posted by: Pat | March 23, 2006 11:30 AM

Some examples of right-wing rational and civil discourse on this blog:
"What a bunch of sniveling, whiny babies commenting here! BWAHAHAAAAA!!!
See, we (you know, us Rethuglicans) have been snickering about how you leftards would show your posteriors for the world if there were comments at Red America, and they'd certainly not be suitable for all ages. (Kind of like the email you send to Michelle Malkin.) I'm guessing that when Red America opens comments, they won't stay open for long once advertisers start bailing out because of the stench coming from the feces-flinging monkeys.

You want balance? That IS balance. Only a deranged fringe leftist would think the Washington Post is a "conservative" publication (DC has the Washington Times for a right-winger's newspaper), and besides, Domenech is clearly in the OPINION section. You just don't like the WaPo because it's not the New York Slimes. Go on back to your Indymedia "news" and GROW UP.

And this, in the previous comment from "lazydog" sums up the leftard reaction quite well (except it's lacking the usual XXX-rated expletives):

"Many Americans around the country read the Washington Post online—and they'll now read Domenech's opinions assuming they are credible, and without any progressive balance."

Typical arrogant (yet laughably clueless) "progressive" (HA!) attitude. Only YOU "progressives" (HA!) are savvy enough to navigate a web site, much less an area designated as "opinion." You clowns freaking out are either mind-bendingly stupid, or you think everyone else is. Get off the pipe and join the real world, kiddies.


2008 JEB BUSH FOR PRESIDENT!

VOTE BUSH/ASHCROFT 2008!

::smirk::

"Progressive" ! HA!

Posted by: Beth | March 23, 2006 01:32 AM'

Thanks Beth for making the point for me!

Posted by: Tom | March 23, 2006 11:34 AM

Ben endorsed the following statement on his blog. Do you, Red Staters? Do you, Washington Post?

People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag. Stated so bluntly, many readers might find that way of putting the matter morally problematic. The extermination of anti-social elements does, after all, have a somewhat controversial history. One thinks, perhaps inevitably, of the Holocaust, but it did not start or stop there. Six years ago, economist Steven Levitt and law professor John Donohue sparked a brouhaha with their claim that abortion is probably the greatest crime-prevention measure ever invented. Now that argument has received renewed currency in the bestselling book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Levitt and his co-author Stephen Dubner. In recent years there has been a 30- to 50-percent drop in crime, and many explanations are offered: new policing methods, more than two million people behind bars, the drop-off in the use of crack, and on and on. But a careful analysis of the data, say Levitt and company, indicates that the biggest factor, far and away, is that the millions of young men most likely to commit crimes were killed early on. A refreshing note of candor in the current discussion is that nobody is denying that all those fetuses killed in the womb were really human beings. So it seems the question of when human life begins has been settled once and for all. The dramatic decline in crime began eighteen years after Roe v. Wade, and a few years earlier in those states that liberalized their abortion law. Of course, most of the commentaries steer away from a too-explicit reference to race, although everybody is aware of the astonishingly inordinate incidence of crimes committed by young male blacks and the equally inordinate incidence of abortions procured by black women. In one interview, Levitt said his findings had little or nothing to do with race; his research on the correlation between crime and unstable family situations was based on Scandinavian research. Well yes, but nobody to my knowledge has suggested that the problem of crime in the United States is significantly related to the problem of Swedish immigration. Levitt, like Donohue, is also careful to say that he is not a supporter of the unlimited abortion license. I notice that many other commentators make a point of saying that this discussion is not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime. I do not question the research or logic of Levitt’s argument. If a specifiable group is inordinately responsible for a social problem, it follows that eliminating a large number of people belonging to that group will reduce the problem. It is hard to argue with that. What is morally odious is the cool and disinterested way in which the commentariat is discussing what might fairly be described as racial cleansing. It’s too bad about all those dead babies, but it is a kind of solution to the crime problem, if not a final solution. Meanwhile, those who style themselves black leaders, especially political leaders, are overwhelmingly in support of the unlimited abortion license, thus maintaining their distinction of being the only ethnic or racial leadership in history to actively collaborate in dramatically reducing the number of people they claim to lead. If they had been allowed to live, there would be about twenty million more blacks in America. White racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership. In another lifetime, before he succumbed to national ambitions, Jesse Jackson regularly declared that the war on poverty had been replaced by a war on the poor. There is more than a little to that. Having despaired of preparing young blacks to enter into the opportunities and responsibilities of American life, the society apparently decided to eliminate them before they had a chance to become a threat. The story of the Exodus plays a large and understandable part in black history: "Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, `When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him.’ But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live." Today’s black leaders are more compliant, much to the satisfaction of those who think we would all be better off with fewer black people.

Posted by: Reader | March 23, 2006 11:35 AM

I will make this brief and to the point. Ben Domenech is simply Bill O"Reilly and Rush Limbaugh in one nasty package.
If the Post is for people who think for themselves and expect only the news delivered with intelligence, you have dumbed down to the level of this Administration. God help us!

Posted by: Madigan of Montana | March 23, 2006 11:36 AM

it appears that the censors are at work again, deleting some of the more offensive comments from the thread.

Now, there were offensive, non-constructive comments ---- and the Post was right to delete them.

I just think that Brady should try and find the people who posted those offensive, pointless comments, because they would provide a perfect "balance" for the offensive and pointless drivel that Ben Domenech is infamous for.

Posted by: p. lukasiak | March 23, 2006 11:36 AM

WaPo just jumped the red shark.

Posted by: Tim | March 23, 2006 11:38 AM

If this doesn't tell the WP what they are enabling, God help us. The nation is in a death spiral it will not get out of. The WP has joined the drive to take us to hell.

This is really a sign of dishonest cult-likr mind.

http://edcone.typepad.com/wordup/2006/03/unintended_iron.html

From WaPo blogger Ben Domenech's third post, a shot at commenters who partake of "ridiculous hyperbole...or unintentionally hilarious name-calling."

From his first post: "Democrats...the shrieking denizens of their increasingly extreme base...the unhinged elements of their base, motivated by partisan rage."

Ridiculous hyperbole, unintentionally hilarious name-calling -- they guy certainly knows whereof he speaks.

Posted by: Ann | March 23, 2006 11:39 AM

Whats with the censorship? If you don't like what he says, don't read it. Or are you that insecure about your own beliefs that you think he'll lead some fellow travelers astray?

Posted by: Benito | March 23, 2006 11:43 AM

What's next, George Deutsch penning a Science and Nature column? Or that guy who used to be Bush's travel supervisor replacing Stephen Barr on Federal Diary?

If the Post really wanted to prove its journalistic credentials, it would send Mr. Domenech over to Iraq as an "embedded" journalist. He's young, he's healthy--he might actually do some freedom fighting while he's there. It's hardly as if he's going to do any unbiased reporting of the war or anything.

Posted by: Martin | March 23, 2006 11:43 AM

"Fellow travelers" nice McCarthy reference Benito.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 11:44 AM

Benito,

So the Post should print the blogs of, say, a Klansman, too? And if you don't like it, don't read it?

After all, we need balance, right, so print all sorts of hatemongering. And pay the bloggers for it.

Posted by: Taniwha | March 23, 2006 11:45 AM

This is as telling to fair-minded Americans as the Democratic Senators' inability to act decisively on censure. We are seeing the truth out here.

You are clinging to the past. You can no longer foist this kind of voice on us and expect us to accept it.
We don't like this blog. We expect facts and an attempt at truth from one of the greatest papers in the land and you give us this mean-spirited emotional blather.

Why are you so afraid of truth?
We're dying for it our here.

Posted by: Marilyn in Oregon | March 23, 2006 11:50 AM

Martin-

That is priceless!

Posted by: clayton | March 23, 2006 11:50 AM

taniwha-

Let the market decide. If he doesn't work out, let him go. But don't censor him outright. particularly hypocritical coming from the left, isn't it?

And equating Ben with a Klansman? Is that the only thing you guys are capable of is tossing out the "He's a racist" refrain when you disagree with someone?

Posted by: Benito | March 23, 2006 11:56 AM

If you guys are going to give a right wing hack like Ben Domenech a weekly editorial column, then at the very least you should also give a left wing hack a weekly editorial column for balance. Perhaps you could call it "Blue America." To prevent a "Hannity & Whoever" type situation I would suggest you get one of the prominent left wing bloggers to write for you such as Markos Alberto Moulitsas Zúniga from the DailyKos.

Cheers!

Posted by: jschultz | March 23, 2006 11:57 AM

We can now see clearly that the Washington Post has "come out of the closet"... the Neo-Fascist closet. They've finally dropped all pretense at "balance", a word they use in some Orwellian sense that lacks any regard fro truth, or even facts.

Doublethink and Newspeak has arrived at its Post.... post-1984.

Domenech chose his column name wisely; Red State is exactly what we have now, and where his comments are coming from.

Totalitarianism is despotism no matter what label one tries to put on it, fascism, communism ... all same... all same.

Posted by: Jere Hough | March 23, 2006 11:59 AM

yes, you mean the guy who basically said "screw them" when he heard about the four american contractors who were killed, burned, dismembered and hung off a bridge?

Thats your leftist counterbalance to Ben? lol.

nutjobs.

Posted by: Benito | March 23, 2006 11:59 AM

http://www.redstate.com/print/2005/9/30/123649/894

"People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag.... "

(and this is actually representative of the whole piece....)

this was posted by "Augustine" (i.e. Ben) on Red State on 9-30-2005. He's actually posting (without any comment) something that someone else wrote in a "religious" publication called First Things.

(Hat Tip to Steve Gilliard)

Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 23, 2006 12:00 PM

Why is there such dissent against this new blog? If you don't like it, then don't click on it. For those of you who say that there is no comparable liberal blogger, I would disagree. Joel Achenbach is no friend of President Bush. Neither is Gene Weingarten. Nor is Dan Froomkin and Dana Milbank. Please don't say that they are journalists who don't pick any side because that is an insult to them and to me. They are happy to give their opinions and you are happy to comment and echo those opinions. Now there is a blog intended to increase conservative views. What is the harm in that?

Posted by: GitRDone | March 23, 2006 12:01 PM

Dear Sir:

Of course you have a "right" to hire whomever you choose.

I even applaud your attempt to present a diversity of opinions, including those which advocate a conservative perspective.

However, as a life-long Christian and member of the Republican Party (though, I will admit, I am so aggrieved at the direction it has taken in recent years that I crossed party lines for the first time in my life in 2004 and voted for John Kerry), I would suggest there is a plethora of more well qualified genuinely conservative commentators who would be honored to write for the Washington Post.

Please reconsider your decision to hire Ben Domenech and immediately hire someone who reflects genuine conservative values.

Thank you.

Posted by: saddened by this | March 23, 2006 12:02 PM

While I disagree with most of what they write, columnists like George Will and Charles Krauthammer are intelligent men who present their case reasonably and without namecalling and without distorting their facts. I disagree with them, but I respect them and their right to a different opinion.

To hire an O'Reilly/Limbaugh wannabe to write for the Post does a disservice to Will, Krauthammer, Froomkin (accountability is a left wing trait?),as well as to the Post.

Posted by: Jim in Austin | March 23, 2006 12:05 PM

Red America by Ben Domenech makes a mockery of journalism and is far beneath the Washington Post's high standards. I urge The Post to abandon this direction. I don't even suggest balancing it with a Blue America column; rather stay above the fray where publications of high regard should stay.

Posted by: hope | March 23, 2006 12:06 PM

Don't like it, don't read it. Don't censor it. Only shows your true stripes to the world.

Posted by: Harriet | March 23, 2006 12:07 PM

Oh yes, just a few more questions:

Hasn't the job of the "Fourth Estate" always been to present truth and facts to the American public?

Since when has it become fashionable to consider "balancing" facts with fiction, truth with lies, or reality with fantasy?

Is that the Post's version of a sense of "balance"?

When did making money replace principled education and information as the primary role of news organizations?

Can a democracy survive in an era where disinformation is the main function of a newspaper?

Posted by: Jere Hough | March 23, 2006 12:13 PM

Is this your sense of balance? Hiring the person who wrote this? Omigosh, you WashPost people are sick.
********

People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag. Stated so bluntly, many readers might find that way of putting the matter morally problematic. The extermination of anti-social elements does, after all, have a somewhat controversial history. One thinks, perhaps inevitably, of the Holocaust, but it did not start or stop there. Six years ago, economist Steven Levitt and law professor John Donohue sparked a brouhaha with their claim that abortion is probably the greatest crime-prevention measure ever invented. Now that argument has received renewed currency in the bestselling book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Levitt and his co-author Stephen Dubner. In recent years there has been a 30- to 50-percent drop in crime, and many explanations are offered: new policing methods, more than two million people behind bars, the drop-off in the use of crack, and on and on. But a careful analysis of the data, say Levitt and company, indicates that the biggest factor, far and away, is that the millions of young men most likely to commit crimes were killed early on. A refreshing note of candor in the current discussion is that nobody is denying that all those fetuses killed in the womb were really human beings. So it seems the question of when human life begins has been settled once and for all. The dramatic decline in crime began eighteen years after Roe v. Wade, and a few years earlier in those states that liberalized their abortion law. Of course, most of the commentaries steer away from a too-explicit reference to race, although everybody is aware of the astonishingly inordinate incidence of crimes committed by young male blacks and the equally inordinate incidence of abortions procured by black women. In one interview, Levitt said his findings had little or nothing to do with race; his research on the correlation between crime and unstable family situations was based on Scandinavian research. Well yes, but nobody to my knowledge has suggested that the problem of crime in the United States is significantly related to the problem of Swedish immigration. Levitt, like Donohue, is also careful to say that he is not a supporter of the unlimited abortion license. I notice that many other commentators make a point of saying that this discussion is not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime. I do not question the research or logic of Levitt’s argument. If a specifiable group is inordinately responsible for a social problem, it follows that eliminating a large number of people belonging to that group will reduce the problem. It is hard to argue with that. What is morally odious is the cool and disinterested way in which the commentariat is discussing what might fairly be described as racial cleansing. It’s too bad about all those dead babies, but it is a kind of solution to the crime problem, if not a final solution. Meanwhile, those who style themselves black leaders, especially political leaders, are overwhelmingly in support of the unlimited abortion license, thus maintaining their distinction of being the only ethnic or racial leadership in history to actively collaborate in dramatically reducing the number of people they claim to lead. If they had been allowed to live, there would be about twenty million more blacks in America. White racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership. In another lifetime, before he succumbed to national ambitions, Jesse Jackson regularly declared that the war on poverty had been replaced by a war on the poor. There is more than a little to that. Having despaired of preparing young blacks to enter into the opportunities and responsibilities of American life, the society apparently decided to eliminate them before they had a chance to become a threat. The story of the Exodus plays a large and understandable part in black history: "Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, `When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him.’ But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live." Today’s black leaders are more compliant, much to the satisfaction of those who think we would all be better off with fewer black people.

Posted by: Rusty | March 23, 2006 12:15 PM

Ah, but is it true? Or have you embelished it? tarring someone a racist is an oldy lefty trick

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 12:17 PM

Sigh. How many times do we have to say it? "Balance" is not achieved by adding right (or left, but that's not in question, is it?) wing commentary to supposedly middle-of-the-road or "straight" or "neutral" news reporting. As I've frequently said to representatives of public radio and television, if you get somebody to speak for justice, you don't achieve "balance" by getting somebody to advocate injustice. But they try. And so does the WaPo.

Posted by: Linda Maloney | March 23, 2006 12:22 PM

When you have an administration as corrupt as the present one, I guess you need a Republican shill to provide "balance" to the inconvenient facts, which never seem to go their way.

That said, how about this for a novel idea: Make your reporters report facts, not spin, and let readers choose between the Red America and Blue America blogs for spin. You *are* planning to add a Blue America blog, right?


Posted by: Kevin | March 23, 2006 12:25 PM

Congratulations, you guys are now nuts.

Posted by: california_reality_check | March 23, 2006 12:26 PM

Thanks, Rusty, for posting the quote from Ben, when he disquises himself as "Augustine", so that we can see what washingtonpost.com has become

A clearinghouse for upfront racists to legitimize themselves

Washington, DC is city with a large population of color, especially African Americans, and quite a number of them live near the poverty line

What do they think about the Post hiring someone who believes that it would have been preferable if they had never been born?

And, where is Jim Brady in all this? This scumbag works for you. Did you hire him? Did you know about this when you did? Can we assume, because he works for you, that you personally share his views, or, at least, believe that there is a positive public purpose to giving him respectability, and a platform to disseminate such perspectives under the Post banner?

Inquiring minds would like to know. By the way, here are some off the cuff ideas about how people should respond to this situation.

(1) Do not visit washingtonpost.com for any reason, except to shine a light on its embrace of bigotry towards African Americans in this forum

(2) NEVER, and I mean NEVER buy this newspaper in hard copy form

(3) Inform as many people as you can about this, especially people who advertise in this newspaper and on this website, and let them know, that they are advertising in a publication that has consciously hired someone who believes that African Americans should be aborted

(4) Do not participate in any social settings in which Washington Post respresentatives are involved, and explain why (see above).

(5) Pass around the new advertising slogan for washingtonpost.com: THE SOURCE for bigoted and homophobic opinion in the greater DC area.

Posted by: Richard Estes | March 23, 2006 12:27 PM

Hi, it's me again. I've been watching this growing comment thread with fascination, but not much surprise. A LOT of eyes are on you guys, and conservatives all over the world are watching you show your true nature. Well, again, no surprises, but you guys are textbook, and we absolutely love this spectacle you are treating us to. You see, this is what is known as a moonbat frenzy. You guys are going into orbit over what, the Washington Post sponsoring a conservative blog?! Freedom of speech in a blog, which is associated with the OPINION section?! Views contrary to yours?!

Go right on, my rabid friends. You are priceless!

Small-c in Canuckistan
(born and raised in Anacostia)

Posted by: Small-c in Canuckistan | March 23, 2006 12:27 PM

I am not a Republican, but most of my relatives are. Most of them are decent, wonderful people, not racists. Please don't tell me that their point of view is being represented by an advocate for genocide of African-Americans like Mr. Domenech.

Posted by: Alexandra | March 23, 2006 12:28 PM

Is Ben Domenech really Augustine?

Posted by: Wow | March 23, 2006 12:30 PM

Dear Sirs,
There are well-informed, reasonable voices on the Right. Ben Domenach is not one.
What kind of a "journalist" is he??? It sounds like he has rabies. His kind of ranting can only lower the reputation of the Washington Post.
If you really have to have a Right-wing column to "balance" the facts, get a right-winger who also looks at the facts and isn't blinded by hatred of anyone who doesn't think like him.

Posted by: Cathy Lester | March 23, 2006 12:31 PM

Ben Domenench is really Bruce Wayne!

Posted by: Taniwha | March 23, 2006 12:33 PM

Right wing blogs across the blogosphere are posting a link to your moonbat frenzy (thats how I got here). Thanks for confirming to the world what most of us suspected.

really, the RNC should be cutting you guys a check.

Posted by: Ari | March 23, 2006 12:35 PM

I do not mind reading the well reasoned opinion of a conservative commentator. A coherent and well argued point of view is always refreshing to read, no matter the political persuasion of the author.

But this pap? The whimpering rants of a child of privilege and access whose cultural highpoint is a piece of rah-rah fantasia that finds an equivalent only in the heads of those challenged by reality? Who decries the lack of civil discourse in one post and descends to the Lee Atwater / Karl Rove school smear tactics in the next? Are you guys for real?

You must be off your collective rockers at WaPo. Or is the kindergarten discourse of Ben Domenech representative of modern conservative (wishful) thinking? This demented drivel is supposed to balance the sourced reporting of journalists like Dan Froomkin? Since when does Ben Bradley sell bridges in Brooklyn?

At least recognize the lousy grammar, syntax and structure of Mr. Domenechs� rants and place him at the heel of George Will. Perhaps his spelling will improve by proximity to Mr. Will. But for logic � now that is known as a lost cause.

In fact stuff it � if this is where the WaPo sees its� future I may as well cancel my subscription and get the Spectator out of the UK instead.


Pathetic.

Posted by: Julian Sauget | March 23, 2006 12:40 PM

...and you know what's REALLY priceless?--to us conservatives, at least?

It's the way you leftists are dragging your party, your leaders, your institutions, your media, as far to the left as you can, thereby alienating an ever-growing portion of the free-thinking people in this country. Washington Post a conservative mouthpiece? Really, now! And am I worried that you will correct your collision course with permanent irrelevance, now that I have revealed the secret? Not in the least--you folks are way too arrogant to listen and learn, and you aren't going to change any time soon.

Ha ha ha!!!
Or should I say:
"Bwahahaa! Mwahaahaahaa!!"
...there, that sounds much better.

Love,
Small-c in Canuckistan
(born and raised in Anacostia)

Posted by: Small-c in Canuckistan | March 23, 2006 12:40 PM

Katherine Graham is not turning over in her grave, she is spinning so fast she could dig her way to China. I don't see how you can do any worse than hiring this tiny idiot Domenech, but that's what I thought when I heard the first words out of the mouth of L'il Debbie.

Either you guys are evil or, in the words of Ray Stevens, "I've heard of some people who are so dumb they don't know nothin'. You're so stupid you don't even suspect nothin'."

Posted by: Argonaut | March 23, 2006 12:42 PM

Dear Sirs,

I enjoy reading the well reasoned opinion of a conservative commentator. A coherent and well argued point of view is always refreshing to read, no matter the political persuasion of the author.

But this pap? The whimpering rants of a child of privilege and access whose cultural highpoint is a piece of rah-rah fantasia that finds an equivalent only in the heads of those challenged by reality? Who decries the lack of civil discourse in one post and descends to the Lee Atwater - Karl Rove school of smear tactics in the next? Are you guys for real?

You must be off your collective rockers at WaPo. Or is the kindergarten discourse of Ben Domenech representative of modern conservative (wishful) thinking? This manic drivel is supposed to balance the sourced reporting of journalists like Dan Froomkin? Since when does Ben Bradley sell bridges in Brooklyn?

At least recognize the lousy grammar, syntax and structure of Mr. Domenechs' rants and place him at the heel of George Will. Perhaps his spelling will improve by proximity to Mr. Will. But for logic -- now that's what is known as a lost cause.

In fact stuff it -- if this is where the WaPo sees its' future I may as well cancel my subscription and get the Spectator out of the UK instead.


Pathetic.

Posted by: Julian Sauget | March 23, 2006 12:50 PM

someone wrote: "Thanks, Rusty, for posting the quote from Ben, when he disquises himself as "Augustine", so that we can see what washingtonpost.com has become"

Ben didn't write that. He posted it, without comment, in his "Diary" at Red State.

Now, some folks say that its not really racist, that its really an argument about abortion. That, of course is BS....

THIS statement...

"People who are poor [] are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor [people] non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag."

instead, the author wrote about "poor blacks" --- not just "poor people." .... the author then goes on to accuse black leaders of "racial cleasing" if they support a woman's right to choose....

That's racism. And that is what Ben Domenech approves of.

Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 23, 2006 12:53 PM

I wouldn't mind the "blog" so much if there was an opportunity to talk back. The new column reads like one-way spew and there is no "liberal" counterpart that at the Washington Post can point with regard to "balance." Red states already have Fox News and the Bush Administration itself as a propaganda outlet. They don't need the Washington Post, too.

Posted by: Sara | March 23, 2006 12:53 PM

A counter-point to Red America? Dudes, you have the rest of the paper. What are you so afraid of?

Posted by: Benito | March 23, 2006 12:56 PM

when is Ben gonna sign up to fight in his holy war???

i smell a chickenhawk ----- just like his pResident?????

Posted by: ppirt | March 23, 2006 12:56 PM

At this point, The Post is Republican paper. Consider:

The string of pro-war editorials before the war, when a plurality of the public was against it.

Howard Kurtz -- consistently 'buys' into Republican talking points, wife is McCain operative.

Jim VandeHei -- consistently promotes Republican talking points, wife is DeLay operative, is know to have a shrine to Bush at home.

Susan Schmidt -- her notion of journalism is to put to print what and only what jolly Rove and gay Mehlman tell her.

Ron Nessen -- old Ford-Nixon hand, had a role in the pardoning of some of the people now in charge of this train-wreck.

And then Jim Brady, Deborah Howell (her career was mostly in right-wing papers and has no idea of what an Ombudsman is supposed to do), etc., etc.

They got into a fit because right-wing blogs complained that one of their bloggers leaned liberal (when in fact he's simply a no-b.s. factchecker, something that really hurts the truthiness squad), because this might hurt the paper's credibility... No worries about Ron Nessen et al., of course.

Their response? You can't make this up: they hire a young racist blogger out of the Washington hard-right Republican elites, the 24-year old son of DeLay's moneybag man and Abramoff's pal. Nepotism, cronyism, corruption -- the Washington Post is now deep into the toxic Republican mud that has covered Washington, DC, and apparently enjoying it like a pig.

Posted by: mz | March 23, 2006 12:57 PM

Small c, I am going to resort to the Karl Rove method of arguing:
You're an ideologue who loves the terrorists.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 01:11 PM

It is interesting how angry some are that the Post would dare to give Ben a voice and allow him to speak on things that he feels are important to the Right. What exactly are you afraid of people?

Posted by: Defense Guy | March 23, 2006 01:13 PM

As I continue to read this thread, I am seeing a more common conservative response: if you don't like it, don't read it, but don't take it away because *you* don't like it.

I have a similar opinion on the topic of abortion: if you think you shouldn't have one, don't have one, but don't take away a woman's right to choose one for herself.

Conservatives, commence rationalizing this apparent similarity of opinion.

I also find Small-c in Canuckistan's comment that 'we' are dragging the Democratic Party so far to the left as to be out of the mainstream amusing. The conservatives have been on a 20 year mission to move the center ever more to the right, to the point where the media is not debating *whether* the President should have authority to conduct warrantless wiretap and physical searches, but *how fast* Congress should give him authority to do so. Expect the White House to have wonderful summer of legal smackdowns on this issue.

Posted by: Ben, but not that Ben or the other not-Ben | March 23, 2006 01:16 PM

Why isn't this creep in Iraq fighting for our country? Surely Rummy has lowered the standards enough to let in home-schoolers.

The Post is over. One reader gone here.

Posted by: Greg | March 23, 2006 01:16 PM

Afraid of? No, more "disgusted by" the idea that a formerly honest newspaper would lower itself to paying for the opinions of shrill, neofascist chickenhawk hack. He's not being prevented from spewing his hate speech at his own blog, but to bring his amateurish hatemongering into the Post's arms in some disingenuous attempt to "balance out" the supposedly-horribly-leftist columns of moderates who criticize the presidency...

That is an insult to journalism, an insult to the reading public, and a show of political bias from what SHOULD be a separate Fourth Estate, not a Fifth Column. Dig it?

Posted by: Taniwha | March 23, 2006 01:18 PM

Is Ben Domenech really the racist Red State poster "Augustine"?

Posted by: William Gibson | March 23, 2006 01:19 PM

Also, D-Fens guy, do you think that only the Right should have its voice at the Post? I'm fine with Homeschool Runner having his little blog about Red Murrkuh here, as long as the post recognizes the need to have the voice of the left (aka Real America) as well, and puts up a Blue America blog.

Posted by: Taniwha | March 23, 2006 01:19 PM

What kind of "balance" is this guy supposed to provide? The Washington Post is not exactly a liberal paper -- not only did you support the war, but you have all sorts of conservative columnists. Froomkin does media analysis, but he is not a blogger in the way that this Domenech fellow is. Nor is Froomkin a party operative, nor he is extreme. The Washington Post should be embarrassed to put its imprimature on the Domenech blog. The quality is poor, the opinions are extreme and divisive. From what I have been reading on this thread, Ben Domenech is both arch-conservative and a columnist with truly foul beliefs about African Americans.

Posted by: Nina_in_MSP | March 23, 2006 01:26 PM

Post Editors:

Also, will you be finding someone to balance Howie Kurtz -- perhaps someone who isn't up to their eyeballs in journalistic ethics? How about a balance to Charles Krauthammer? Oh, yeah, that's right, he's already conservative.

Ok, let's try this: get a well-respected conservative with some journalistic experience to run commentary . . . oh, yeah, you've got George Will.

Ok, I'm out of ideas!

Posted by: Necromancer | March 23, 2006 01:29 PM

that was supposed to read "up to their eyeballs in journialistic ethics PROBLEMS"

sorry for the omission.

Posted by: Necromancer | March 23, 2006 01:30 PM

How about Mark Steyn? The man is brilliant. And funny. Which is something you don't find on the left anymore.

Posted by: Benito | March 23, 2006 01:36 PM

What is this kid supposed to balance? Hard facts with his opinions? He can do that on his own blog. The Post used to have integrity. I guess now everything is spin.

Posted by: SadState | March 23, 2006 01:40 PM

I just hope that Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity will soon have blogs on TWP online so some REAL facts/view points can be stated!!

Posted by: Behind Bush 4ever | March 23, 2006 01:50 PM

and bye-bye Post. I have no need to read Republican talking points, when I have three cable news networks feeding me words straight from Ken Mehlman's mouth. Why doesn't this paper just go back to ginning up support for a nice war? Or maybe the next one?

Personally, I think Froomkin's too good for this paper, along with whatever other few journalists may still be toiling away.

Posted by: Unbelievable | March 23, 2006 01:50 PM

makes sense that the Post hired someone with his lack of everything.

They are following the Fox News model.

At least, Brady is trying to. I wonder what his history is....

Posted by: moi | March 23, 2006 01:50 PM

I just heard you've hired Ben Domenech to write for WashingtonPost.com. So I went and read his posts. I'm surprised you've decided to hire him for three reasons:

> Why is he associated with the Washington Post? I really, really, don't get it.

> His first sentence, "This is a blog for the majority of Americans." Does the Washington Post really believe this?

> He's not going for substance, he's trying to push hot buttons to get some sort of argument started. Are we supposed to be mad? Or just reading the news and forming opinions here? Why not make a point and prove it with facts like Washington Post journalists do?

The Internet is a huge, wide-open space that has plenty of room for guys who want to get their opinions out.

I really, really, really can't say this enough: Why is he on www.washingtonpost.com?

Posted by: Laura | March 23, 2006 01:53 PM

Where's the Claude Allen blog?

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 01:57 PM

Wow. One of RedAmerica's first posts contains this gem:

"that ought to serve as one of the ever-growing number of signs of the apocalypse "
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redamerica/2006/03/sackcloth_and_ashes.html

Presented not-at-all tongue-in-cheek-ily.

Good game, Washington Post: don't you know the end-timers don't believe the future is worth saving? Under their world view, the entire enterprise of the paper is ultimately meaningless.

Should attract a lot of readers though.

Oh, wait - they're too busy devouring LaHaye and Jenkins to be bothered.

Posted by: John. | March 23, 2006 02:03 PM

I don't want to get anyone's hopes up, but....

Its now been over 25 hours since the last entry on Red America (timestamped 1:07 PM EST yesterday).

maybe Ben is on his way to being history....

After all, Ben's a White Male, his Daddy works for the White House, and he was probably recommended by John Harris's good friend (and GOP operative) Patrick Ruffini, so Little/Brady/Harris et all probably didn't really look at his background too closely.

....but "the internets" aren't that careless --- and now that Ben has been exposed for the bigoted, unqualified, whiny jerk that he is, the Post is having second thoughts....


Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 23, 2006 02:18 PM

yeah, don't get your hopes up.

Posted by: BB | March 23, 2006 02:19 PM

After all, don't you guys get tired of losing?

Posted by: BB | March 23, 2006 02:20 PM

Is this guy really the blogger "Augustine"? If that's so, you are either the most racist paper in the world, you the most incompetent. Here's more about "Augustine" http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/03/23/an-open-letter-to-jim-brady-who-is-augustine/#more-1528

Posted by: Incredulous | March 23, 2006 02:21 PM

Fox News is at least smart enough to hire blue eyed dumb blondes females who are nice to look at.

Posted by: lib | March 23, 2006 02:28 PM

Doesn't look like your little blog is doing so well. Want a little advice?

Although you're somewhat protected from Bush administration vindictiveness, don't forget what happened to CBS for showing off too much of their boob.

Posted by: tbob | March 23, 2006 02:37 PM

FINALLY! I knew the stars in Old Glory had been replaced by the likes of Fox News, Enron, and Haliburton and now, thank God, "Washington Post" is on the bandwagon too.

Finally, they're coming to their senses. Balanced journalism is obsolete. Hooray for "Washington Post." You finally recognized that.

Posted by: $$$$ = Patriot | March 23, 2006 02:39 PM

To hell with Newfies... you Americans are hilarious!

Posted by: dave | March 23, 2006 02:43 PM

The left's reaction to the Post hiring a rightwing blogger is too funny. It is also amazing to read that the posters on this page believe Fromkin and Milbank are not on the left. Why does the left believe it speaks for the majority of Americans when it has not received the majority of votes in a presidential election since Jimmy Carter garnered 50.1% of the votes?
A robust debate of ideas is necessary in any society. For all the left's complaints about GWB using strawmen, the Post's hiring of a person with views in opposition to the majority of editorial writers at the Post would seem like a great idea. Or maybe the left believes Froomkin and Milbank do a credibly job of presenting unbiased opinions from both sides.? And if that is the case, please point me in the direction of latest positive article related to the GOP or GWB.

Posted by: Chad | March 23, 2006 02:45 PM

What are you guys trying to do with hiring this racist little sod - wreck what little is left of your company?

Posted by: mark | March 23, 2006 02:46 PM

Whoever was responsible for hiring a wet-behind-the-ears radical-rightwing hack to write a blog for "balance" should be ridden out of town on a rail wearing a lovely suit of tar and feathers.
It is embarassing to read such unmitigated drivel in a paper which used to represent some of the best American journalism. Lo, how the mighty are fallen---the Post is apparently run by people to whom journalism is a foreign concept, but who are very comfortable carrying water for the extremists who have taken over the Republican party.
And where is the Blue America blogger to "balance" the mewling crap spewed out by Domenech? The last thing your paper needs is even more far-right wingnuttery---there is enough on your pitiful editorial page already. Red State is a deeply superficial and nasty exercise in sophistry being practiced by someone who can't even write a simple declarative sentence with any coherence.
Katherine Graham is spinning like a whirling dervish.

Posted by: shbish | March 23, 2006 02:50 PM

T

What I "dig" is that you seem angry. Overly angry for such a small thing as giving this man a voice in an area designated for opinion. If it really is the 'hate speech' that you claim, then it will be clear to all and will be answered by well reasoned speech to counter it. That is the American way. We don't hide from those things we disagree with.

I think a 'blue state' blog would be a good idea as well. Let the readers decide for themselves which speech is more appealling.

Posted by: Defense Guy | March 23, 2006 02:54 PM

So where is today's installment from Fascist America? No link no where to be found - curious, no? No word from Herr Brady no where to be found neither - curiouser, no? No word, no blog, no fascism, no red. Dang, just when it were startin' to get interestin' and the big chicken s***s are a no show. Curious, yes! Ya gots to give it to Herr Brady though, he sure can f*** things up with the best of 'em...

Harty, Cache Valley, Utah

Posted by: harty | March 23, 2006 02:59 PM

"Benito" wrote:

Whats with the censorship? If you don't like what he says, don't read it. Or are you that insecure about your own beliefs that you think he'll lead some fellow travelers astray?

Posted by: Benito | March 23, 2006 11:43 AM

"Fellow Travelers"? Why is it that that that the constant litany coming out of the neo-fascist right wingnuts that are taking over our nation always slander the messenger and never address the message?

Now let's see.... Ben Domenech, Benito, Benito Mussolini.... Nah... the fascists can't be returning from their graves now.

Or can they?

Posted by: Jere Hough | March 23, 2006 03:17 PM

to Ben, not that Ben or the other Ben,

You're right. I was making my comment more from a casual observation + a little emotion. I liked ur riposte, u are a scholar and a gentleman. You didn't attack me personally and didn't try to demean my opinion. You pointed out my "fallacy", which i admit, now in retrospect, is a fallacy. But there has to be a correlation to the readership of the WaPo, and the amount of "antagonistic comments". You seem well educated in formulaic thought and statistics...are you a teacher? Thank you for pointing out my mistake without being TOO mean! :)
If all debates were as genial as ours, I think the political polarization that exists now, would be reduced. Don't you?

Posted by: josh | March 23, 2006 03:18 PM

How about equal time for an equally ridiculous left-winger? Fair is fair! Oh, I forgot: where would the Post find a liberal with no journalistic credentials who would be willing to pretend s/he has such?

Posted by: amr | March 23, 2006 03:21 PM

Rule #1 of your discussion guidelines state, "...Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, or that is otherwise inappropriate."

Is the Post going to hold little Ben to the same rules?

Posted by: Tom | March 23, 2006 03:26 PM

Ben Domenech has posted a couple "quick notes" addressing the storm his column has started -- he's too busy to do anything more, doing what, though, I don't know.

As did Deborah Howell in her belated and terse replies to her critics, he takes a "nyah, nyah" tone. Howell smugly refused to address logical criticism, instead flaunting that she had a contract and couldn't be fired.

Domenech -- sort of Ann Coulter-style -- implies that raising strong negative perceptions in a lot of people actually means he's "right."

He says he'll allow comments now. Hopefully he'll read them and address the ones that make sense (even though they're critical of him), instead of, like Howell, just waving around a handful of nasty/profane ones and saying "poor me, I'm a martyr."

Posted by: Septimus | March 23, 2006 03:28 PM

Oh yes,

And speaking out against one of America's major journalistic institutions giving voice to the kind of extremist venom that is Mr. Domenech's trademark is NOT "censorship". Calling it so is simply one additional "straw man" tactic from the radical right.

Posted by: Jere Hough | March 23, 2006 03:30 PM

well, it turns out that Ben can add "plagarist" to his list of qualifications now....

http://yourlogohere.blogspot.com/2006/03/nail-meet-coffin.html

Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 23, 2006 03:36 PM

Five bucks and a large Tim's says America implodes. Er wait, its already happening.
Nevermind.

Posted by: Pete Mahovlich | March 23, 2006 03:44 PM

he aint gone folks...just playin'hard to get(find). Below is a link to today's contribution for the puke bag:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redamerica/

aint it fun to have yer very own whipping boy? and he just keeps commin' back fer more.

Well I say: bring it on, pal - from the looks of the all the comments, there seems to be no dearth of folks willin' and ready to bring it back at ya.

Posted by: harty | March 23, 2006 03:46 PM

AmeriKKKan honkey death culture sucks!
Ben Domenech should be in Iraq breathing in some of that U-236 from the D.U. shells.

GO TO THIS LINK NOW!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12452.htm

Posted by: Ricki Dickerson | March 23, 2006 03:49 PM

To balance Ben's blog, I suggest you install TheRudePundit at WaPo as well.

Posted by: kathleen | March 23, 2006 03:51 PM

DRAFT BEN'S LAME ASS.

Posted by: Ricki Dickerson | March 23, 2006 03:52 PM

I'm not sure which is worse: that Ben Domenech is apparently a plagiarist, or that he plagiarized P. J. O'Rourke. Surely he could found someone a little funnier to steal jokes from. . .

(Oh, and I wonder what William and Mary, Domenech's (and my) alma mater, would think about this -- does its honor code, the country's oldest, apply to the student newspaper?)

-K.Ai.-

Posted by: Krotos | March 23, 2006 03:52 PM

Oooo! I got a response in a super-de-duper international arena! How pleased do you think that makes me?!

Ben, but not that Ben or the other not-Ben said:

"As I continue to read this thread, I am seeing a more common conservative response: if you don't like it, don't read it, but don't take it away because *you* don't like it.

"I have a similar opinion on the topic of abortion: if you think you shouldn't have one, don't have one, but don't take away a woman's right to choose one for herself.

"[blah blah blah]

"I also find Small-c in Canuckistan's comment that 'we' are dragging the Democratic Party so far to the left as to be out of the mainstream amusing. The conservatives have been on a 20 year mission to move the center ever more to the right, to the point where the media is not debating *whether* the President should have authority to conduct warrantless wiretap and physical searches, but *how fast* Congress should give him authority to do so. [blah blah blah]"

Well, here goes...

Abortion:
Buddy, you are making the same mistake as always; you are very conveniently forgetting THE LIFE OF THE CHILD!!! (As in, "LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness") Sheesh, you guys stun me with your logical falacies. What the hell does THAT have to do with conservative views on Red America???

Shuffle to the Left/Shuffle to the Right:
Heh! (TM)
Well, win the senate, house, and white house buddy! Oh yeah, and get your spineless senators and congressmen to actually put their votes where their whining mouths are. Censure George W. "The Rock" Bush? Go right ahead! The American public will eat them for lunch if they do. (But they sure do talk a fine talk!) Pull out the troops, eh? Come on, loud-mouths! We'll take you on where it really counts--in congress. Investigate the NSA for monitoring terrorists' calls to Americans? Oooo, that's taking a stand! Let's see your guys bragging about THAT platform this autumn! And you clowns whine about how were the Jihadis able to pull off 9-11, and the FBI should have known, and... If they had been monitoring, they might have known!

But you think the media leans right? Oh, my, my!

You, my friend, are not only hopeless (being of the gloomy moonbat disposition), but you are clueless too!

Love,
Small-c in Canuckistan
(formerly from Anacostia)

Posted by: Small-c in Canuckistan | March 23, 2006 04:01 PM

Why doesn't that whiny bloviator Ben Domenech "put his money where his mouth is" and join the Marine's and go fight in that war he has so ardently supported? A side benefit for a stint with the Marines: maybe he would develop a spine - he seems be just another gutless "boy wonder" with his gutless "no comments" policy on the "Red America" blog.

Replace him with a 19 year old who just completed a tour in Anbar province. That kid would have far more to say about "Red America" than shrieking-denizen-of-the-Far-Right Domenech will ever know in his whole spineless, useless life, the whole purpose of which appears to be farting on the American public by spewing out obnoxious gases of divisiveness, lies, misleading innnuendos and insinuations, fear-mongering and hate. Don't we have enough of his ilk already in Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and all their hangers-on and wannabees? Why legitimize his rantings?

Posted by: Anne | March 23, 2006 04:04 PM

"(Oh, and I wonder what William and Mary, Domenech's (and my) alma mater, would think about this -- does its honor code, the country's oldest, apply to the student newspaper?)"

Don't worry, Bennie promised to give back the scholarship money that W&M gave him because he checked "Puerto Rican" and the "William and Mary Scholar" program was an affirmative action/diversity type program. Of course, I still haven't seen where he is going to give back the scholarship money that the National Assoc of Hispanic Journalists gave him, since he would have had to have claimed Hispanic heritage for that money too. (And really, since according to Bennie it was given to him as the Ruben J Salazar Award -- and Salazar was a proud, leftist latino journalist killed by a cop while covering a Latino anti-war demonstration in Los Angeles in 1970, the NAHJ really should be first in line, what with Bennie's racist viewpoints and chickenhawk position on the current war and all....)

Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 23, 2006 04:07 PM

My what tolerant people you all are! That must be why the American people keep electing you to higher office again and again!

We're gonna eat your lunch in November.

Peace & Chicken Grease!

Posted by: BB | March 23, 2006 04:08 PM

Columns for right wing political hacks in the name of "balance" is absurd. If the Conservatives don't like the reporting of the failing Bush policies by real journalists, they should look for a more balanced president. The fact that a paper like the Washington Post feels the need to add a column for Right wing propaganda, makes me question your definition of balance.

Where is the progressive "Blue" state column?

If you want to have balanced political opinions that is the only way to do it.

Posted by: Chris | March 23, 2006 04:10 PM

Opinions are like ass holes everybody has one. He is allowed his and we are allowed to criticize his opinions.

Posted by: fat karl | March 23, 2006 04:11 PM

How sad for the Washington Post and for american journalism that Jim and Debbie don't understand the difference between a partisan political activist and a professional journalist. I haven't paid for a subscription to the Post, but you can be sure I wouldn't waste my money on one now.

Posted by: Tennessean | March 23, 2006 04:12 PM

Yeehaa - AllRiiight!!

Y'all are finely startin' to get it. Ya got my boy Augus- er, Ben, postin' on this librul rag of a paper! Augus- er, Ben's ritechous views about nigg, er colored people are gonna make the big-time!! Now, unnerstand, that Augus- er, Ben is never gonna come right out and say the word nig***, but we know what he means!! (wink,wink). And I guess y'all do too!! Good on ya!!

I got a bunch'a Confederrit flags to spare - I'm gonna ship y'all a few - hang 'em in front of yore bilding - they'll look great!!Wait til I tell all the boys at the meetin' (you know which one, wink-wink) that we can all read this here paper now. I'm gonna get you some scribers, I garontee it!!

Keep up the good work!!

Love,

FumDuck

Posted by: fumduckin Ark | March 23, 2006 04:12 PM

Red America? Are you kidding?

What happened to the Post's bottom line that required adding Domenech's bile?

Get well, soon.
-D

Posted by: Dominic | March 23, 2006 04:13 PM

What is the Washington Post thinking by publishing “Red America”? It is clearly WRONG to balance strong watchdog journalism with such venomous right-wing extremist O'Reilly-like blather. How can Ben Domenech purport to speak for a majority of Americans? Why are you publishing this column? Methinks the Washington Post has caved to the right wing. This is a blow for strong watchdog journalism –- and a sad day for progressive voices.

Posted by: Paul Wade | March 23, 2006 04:13 PM

Dear James Brady,

I was young in the Watergate days, and I fell in love with the Washington Post. I didn't live in Washington, and I didn't read the paper every day, but it meant more to me than I can easily express: truth, courage, fairness; hope in a dark time.

It's a darker time now, and this country needs the Post more than ever. The "Red America" column is breaking my heart.

Frank Dwyer

Posted by: Frank Dwyer | March 23, 2006 04:14 PM

'Red America' ? What utter crap.
Take the word 'balance' out and put 'faciest propaganda' in.

Posted by: Matt | March 23, 2006 04:14 PM

The media has struggled recently to escape the attacks on its integrity with scandals like Jason Blair. There have been calls for a more balanced perspective, but giving a forum to an unqualified columnist like Ben Domenech who represents a fringe of American thought (although he claims to represent the “majority of Americans”) is tragic and misguided.

We should have an honest debate and exchange of ideas from multiple sides of the political spectrum in our newspapers. We should not, though, give credence to mistruths, fear-mongering, and propaganda in the name of “balance” without any attempt to represent other sides of the issues.

Posted by: Laura | March 23, 2006 04:15 PM

Since the Post has made no effort to carry on that "conversation" we were promised, I guess we can't expect an answer to the question of why they have just hired a plagiarist:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/23/152531/888

Posted by: Paul Curtis | March 23, 2006 04:16 PM

Where did you the Post's management receive its journalism training? Did you miss class on the day "objectivity" was taught?

Whose viewpoints is Ben balancing? Are you claiming to be a left-wing or progressive paper? Please don't shame us by assuming those labels. You have never and will never be a progressive media source. And your decision to invite this self-hating, painfully-insecure, and unoriginal blogger proves your interests reside in someone else's pockets.

Posted by: not kidding | March 23, 2006 04:17 PM

It would be very helpful for Mr. Domenech discuss the important, and nonpartisan, issue of plagiarism in his next column. He apparently has a great deal of expertise in this area.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/23/152531/888

Posted by: Al | March 23, 2006 04:21 PM

Why?

Why, Ben, why, did you change the name of your post yesterday from 'Red America: What's wrong with infanticide' to 'Attempted Child Murder on our Side of the Pond?'

Is it because you're being edited? If that's the case, then this is not really a blog, is it? You're not really a blogger, but just a rubber suit someone gets to blow up every day, then float out with today's message.

If you're not being edited, then it must be because you're a chickenhearted squeaker possessed of fake hate. Original title workshop poorly?

Posted by: Ben, but not that Ben or the other not-Ben | March 23, 2006 04:21 PM

It is wrong to "balance" real journalism with this online hackery!! Where then is the far more needed online journalism for the "truth" of the atrocities being committed daily by the Bush Administration?

I am getting very tired of our apathetic news media too scared to counter the Bush Administration and their daliy lies. Perhaps I'll try the Mexican press?

Thank you, Anthony Espinosa
a reader and voter

Posted by: Anthony M. Espinosa | March 23, 2006 04:24 PM

Wow,
I read the first 20 comments or so(couldn't take much more than that really) and it was all lib's whining(maybe that study of the Berkly kids by the unabashed Lib wasn't so accurate after all).

Maybe it's not such a bad idea to expose you all to a different point of view, you are open minder, right? I't no like ONE lone voice on the Right will cause the sky to fall or something

Posted by: nobody con | March 23, 2006 04:26 PM

What's up with your "league" rules?
Why stack the news with opinion?
Why not investigate?
Why is your company afraid of investigative journalism?

Look, we are struggling to retain our democracy. Our country needs patriots not parrots. We need journalists, not pundits.

Red America - that pretty much says it all - No Blue No White - Imagine an all red flag with no room for the blue sky or the white of reason; it's Just covered in blood.

Posted by: Michael_Lucas | March 23, 2006 04:27 PM

Thanks for bringing back the memory of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. His voice has been missed since his death, but, now, with Ben Domenech's column, you have resurrected that whole point of view and given it voice once again.

After all, don't we have to worry about people like Coretta Scott King? and Michael Moore? Don't these people represent real threats to democracy?

Isn't it the Washington Post's responsibility to decide what is right and wrong and present that to their readers who don't have the intelligence to make their own decisions?

Isn't it important to back the President 100%, even if he has lied, spied, and abused the very Constitution that this country was built on?

You are a bona fide coward, a sycophant, and an insult to your profession. You make a mockery of everything that true journalism has stood for over the years. You should be ashamed of yourself for what you have done. Katherine Graham is turning in her grave.

Bob Mack

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 04:28 PM

Mr. Domenech has apolgized for engaging in "hyperbole" when calling Coretta King a communist. An apology is a good thing, but it does seem like this particular charge is so wrongheaded and nasty that it calls into question why anyone would want to read (or publish) such a blog. I mean, on the day of her funeral, to call Coretta King a communist on the basis of absolutely nothing just seems beyond partisan bickering. It seems horrible somehow. She and Rosa Parks and Fannie Lou Hamer and a few others were the matriarchs of the civil rights movement. When they were actively engaged in the battle, in the 1960s, it was standard practice to call them, and everyone else asking for civil rights, "communists." It was the way that bigots tried to make their demands seem unreasonable. But I thought that even their bitterest foes had given up thinking they actually were treasonous or communist or anything like it. That it was the first word that came to Mr. Domenech's mind in the heat of the moment when blogging about her funeral seems so sad to me, such a reversion to an earlier age of American history. The Post played an honorable role in a southern city in helping us get past that dark part of our nation's story. It's sad to see how easily such hard-won ground can be forgotten, though.

Posted by: bobby | March 23, 2006 04:28 PM

Just when I thought that the corporate media may finally be waking up (a little) to the disaster that is the Bush Administration, you have helped legitimize their beliefs by allowing a one-sided presentation of fanatical right-wing views. Shame on you for caving!

Although I only occasionally read your paper before, I will now relegate it to the likes of "Fox News" and know that you are neither fair nor balanced...

Posted by: Denver Doctor | March 23, 2006 04:29 PM

Now that this person has admitted to calling Coretta King a Communist, Wa Po has only one option: dismissal.

Otherwise Brady, Little et al. are RACISTS.

Posted by: lib | March 23, 2006 04:31 PM

They don't like other people playing in their sandbox. I mean, they've lost so much already, one can't help but feel sorry.

Read it or ignore it. Thats America folks. First amendment and all that.

As for a Blue State blog? brilliant idea. Get some of the Kos Kids to blog their take on things. The democratic party will sink faster than a MoveOn.org backed candidate.

Posted by: Benito | March 23, 2006 04:31 PM

It's increasingly easy to see why the left keeps losing elections: They allow themselves to be distracted by things that simply aren't important - in this instance a 24-year-old blogger (!) at The Washington Post. They simply can't focus on what is important in life and in politics. Instead, they spend all of their time (up until 2 a.m. posting on this site? about a blogger??) and energy getting all worked up over a bunch of nothing. Rest up, boys, it's an election year. You haven't won one in eight years.

Posted by: Reality Check | March 23, 2006 04:32 PM

F..... The Washington Post and all useless and passe forms of media. The Post wouldn't know a newsworthy story or how to accurately portray it if it bit them in the ass. You and you paper should be ashamed of yourselves. This president and the religious right have done more to harm America than any terrorist could. They are all a bunch of self righteous hypocrites who deserve to be exposed for what they are. All those Americans who consider themselves part of RED AMERICA are too dumb to realize they are being lied to and are too lazy to think for themselves.

Frank

Posted by: Frank | March 23, 2006 04:32 PM

I'm assuming your'll be adding a similar column for those on the other side of the table, entitled "Blue America." It seems that would help to keep things "balanced."

Posted by: I'm seeing RED | March 23, 2006 04:32 PM

I find it very interesting that the vast majority of writers here don't see the real reason for having Ben Domenech on your pages.
Money still talks and BS still walks.
A little brib here a little brib there and it is well known that the right wing wackos take their ideas straight from the mob.

Posted by: Linda Westlake | March 23, 2006 04:32 PM

As a regular reader of the Washington Post online, I find it insulting that you are legitimizing Domenech's rantings.

This kind of hackery is not the kind of quality journalism I've come to expect from the Post. In particular I have followed the articles of Walter Pincus, whose quality investigative journalism has helped to inform concerned citizens of the tomfoolery going on within our current US administration.

This is the type of quality journalism the Post needs to promote to attract readers. Many of us are young, we are savvy, and we look to the Post as a 'legitimized source' amongst the fray of sloppy internet journalism. Instead "Red America" relegates the Post into the tabloid class of non-information, inflammatory sludge. It will hurt you as both a news organization and a business, and I hope that you will remedy this before it causes more damage to your reputation and your readership.

Posted by: Steve Motola | March 23, 2006 04:35 PM

Dear sir,

In response to certain right-wing postings above:

As a Cold War veteran from the submarine service, I know a communist when I see one. US Liberals aren't communists. A communist is much, much farther left. Unfortunately, the Bush administration (they can hardly be called conservatives) is fascist. American Liberals, though really centrists on the political spectrum, seem to be far-left only because the American right has swung so far to the right.

Furthermore, those of us who served in the military know better what freedom is then those who never had to surrender it. Those of us who learned the horrors of war try harder to avoid it. It’s too bad you soft-headed fascist punks who support Bush haven’t a clue about the liberty and freedom you’re helping to destroy here and abroad.

This reactionary blog, Red America, is an insult to me as an American Veteran. This is an insult to my shipmates and fellow veterans and service men and women who depend on the need for Americans to stay well informed. Without the facts, Americans have and will continue to allow our troops to be placed in harms way for no good reason. This blog further distorts factual reporting by being included in this publication and undermines the safety of our troops and the security of our Republic. Shame on you and you short sightedness.

Posted by: Bryan | March 23, 2006 04:37 PM

Greetings,

As others have noted, the once prestigious "Washington Post" has hired a plagiarist:

http://flathat.wm.edu/November191999/opinionsstory2.html

This "original writing" can be read on the link posted above. The text actually belongs to P.J. O'Rourke.

Is the Post going to do the right thing and fire Mr. Domenech?

I am needing a new job and I don't have journalistic credentials, exactly like Domenech, when do I start?

Regards

Raul Vergara
Portland, oregon

Posted by: Raul Vergara | March 23, 2006 04:37 PM

Several of the top liberal blogs, as well as Media Matters for America, are now covering the Ben Domenech plagiarism story.

At this rate, I suppose it's only a matter of time till the Post hires Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass.

-K.Ai.-

Posted by: Krotos | March 23, 2006 04:38 PM

Dear Mr. Brady,

1. Was Coretta Scott King a Communist?

2. If not, do you consider such an assertion defamatory?

3. Would you allow someone to publish the assertion that Coretta Scott King was a Communist on this website as an employee of washingtonpost.com?

4. Does your heart swell with pride when you publish the writings of a man who believes that Coretta Scott King was a Communist? And then lies about it?

5. Which is the bigger "mistake" made by the washingtonpost.com? (a) continuing to employ a person who believes that Coretta Scott King is a communist or (b) continuing to employ someone who would hire such a person to work for the washingtonpost.com?

6. Which assertion is more laughable: (a) Deborah Howell's lie that she made a "mistake" when she falsely stated that Democrats received campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff; or (b) Bend Domenech's lie that he made a "mistake" when he asserted that Coretta Scott King was a Communist?

7. Is falsely accusing someone a Communist a "personal attack" or "other inappropriate material" according to the standards of the washingtonpost.com? Will you take steps to block such a person?


Cordially,

R.A.

Posted by: Roger Ailes (not affilated with Fox News Channel) | March 23, 2006 04:38 PM

How dare you allow a hack like Ben Domenech to be associated with your paper. You are giving him the same credibility that your legitimate reporters have. That is not balanced. If you are going to allow some right-winger in your newspaper, find one who is qualified, a real journalist not some talking head for the extreme right. The Washington Post carries a lot of weight in its efforts to hold the administration to the truth, and yet you will let someone have a online column like Red American spouting lies, Bill O’Rielly style. Shame on you.

Posted by: Steve | March 23, 2006 04:39 PM

As for this Coretta Scott King thing, when did being called a communist become synonomous with a racial slur? And why is that somehow different than the incessant Bush=Hitler meme than has become the mantra of the left these last 8 years?

Posted by: BB | March 23, 2006 04:39 PM

Dear Mr. Brady,

1. Was Coretta Scott King a Communist?

2. If not, do you consider such an assertion defamatory?

3. Would you allow someone to publish the assertion that Coretta Scott King was a Communist on this website as an employee of washingtonpost.com?

4. Does your heart swell with pride when you publish the writings of a man who believes that Coretta Scott King was a Communist? And then lies about it?

5. Which is the bigger "mistake" made by the washingtonpost.com? (a) continuing to employ a person who believes that Coretta Scott King is a communist or (b) continuing to employ someone who would hire such a person to work for the washingtonpost.com?

6. Which assertion is more laughable: (a) Deborah Howell's lie that she made a "mistake" when she falsely stated that Democrats received campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff; or (b) Bend Domenech's lie that he made a "mistake" when he asserted that Coretta Scott King was a Communist?

7. Is falsely accusing someone a Communist a "personal attack" or "other inappropriate material" according to the standards of the washingtonpost.com? Will you take steps to block such a person?


Cordially,

R.A.

Posted by: Roger Ailes (not affilated with Fox News Channel) | March 23, 2006 04:39 PM

I am disturbed the recent installment of Ben Domeneche’s “Red America” column. It is wrong to "balance" real watchdog journalism with right wing hackery. If you want partisan political columns, give progressives a voice. It is truly tragic that the Washington Post chose to "balance" legitimate journalists who hold politicians accountable with an extreme right-wing propagandist. The Washington Post must do its job.

Posted by: Julie | March 23, 2006 04:40 PM

To give a column to Ben Domenech is a slap in the face to your readers. How can you support a man who within 24 hours of getting his new gig has made himself into a parody of everything people associate with crazy right-wing extremists.

Michael Moore bashing—check.
Howard Dean loathing—check.
O'Reilly-like delusion of representing the "majority of Americans"—check.

To prove he represents the very fringe, Domenech made sure to reference "jackbooted communist thugs." Domenech didn't just say it, but in a full-frontal illusion of grandeur he quoted himself saying it! 

Come on, why participate in the movement to dumb down the American public in order to replace the free press as a watchdog of government with a stenographer press that validates everything the neo-cons want to pull in order to enrich themselves and their friends?

The Washington Post has a reputation, now tarnished, of exposing lies of government and speaking truth to power. By hiring Ben the Post is showing that it has turned a corner from being a journal to being a propaganda machine.

Posted by: Rev. Judy | March 23, 2006 04:44 PM

(Washington DC) The Washington Post's newest writer, Ben Domenech, apologized today for calling civil rights leader Coretta Scott King a communist on the day after her funeral.

"Mrs. King participated in many different political causes, some of which involved associations with questionable people," Mr. Domenech stated, "Despite this, calling her a communist was hyperbole in the larger debate about whether President Bush should have attended her funeral or gone to a anti-abortion rally. My bad."

The Washington Post writer also clarified that when he posted an article that began "People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them", he really meant the opposite of that. Mr. Domenech, who posted the article to his former blog with no additional commentary, stated "I didn't think I needed to explain the idea that when I posted that black people are a drag on society, I was really showing how disgusting this thought is".

The Washington Post writer further added, "I can recommend a good reading program for people with disabilites if they didn't get this."

Mr. Domenech's editor and publisher at the Washington Post were unavailable for comment.

Posted by: Ed | March 23, 2006 04:45 PM

Hey, give this Domenech kid a break, he's only 24! I mean, we have a lot to learn from him, and the post needs to attract younger readers. As the "lone" (hee hee) conservative voice in the wapo wilderness, he will reveal stupendous new insights that will bedazzle all the monster libs and shut them up forever. Freedom is on the march!

Posted by: drofx | March 23, 2006 04:45 PM

What's he, 24? Why isn't he in uniform?

Posted by: Cheryl | March 23, 2006 04:46 PM

Domenech's extreme views are now being given a forum in a news outlet with great influence on national opinion. Many Americans around the country read the Washington Post online—and they'll now read Domenech's opinions assuming they are credible, and without any progressive balance.

It's wrong to "balance" real watchdog journalism with right wing hackery. If you want partisan political columns, you should also give progressives a voice.

Posted by: Dave | March 23, 2006 04:49 PM

(Washington DC) The Washington Post's newest writer, Ben Domenech, today was accused of being a plagerist.

The 24-year old Washington Post writer, who recently apologized for calling civil rights leader Coretta Scott King a communist, is accused of copying word for word a chapter on how to throw a real party from P.J. O'Rourke's book "Modern Manners". Mr. Domenech published the chapter under his own name in his university's humor magazine.

"We all knew he faked it at the time," said a college roommate of Mr. Domenech, who asked to remain anonymous because he had not been authorized to talk about the incident. "I mean, c'mon, Ben was never invited to parties. Of course, he'd have lie or plagerize to write an article about parties."

"Ben was more into playing Contra-3 on his Nitendo that going to parties," said another friend, who asked to remain anonymous because Ben stilled owed him money and he wanted to make sure he had a chance of getting it back.

"He had this whole theory that people who worried about bodybags in a time of war were like people who hit the reset button. Or something. He didn't go to parties. He was kind of wierd."

Mr. Domenech's editor and publisher at the Washington Post were unavailable for comment.

Posted by: Ed | March 23, 2006 04:52 PM

Let's recap.

Racist: check.

Plagiarist: check.

Resume Exaggerator: check.

Misogynist: check.


If this is the example of the standards that washingtonpost.com uses to hire a member of the staff, people like George Will, Dan Fromkin, E. J. Dionne, Dana Millbank, etc. should be emabarassed. Mr. Brady and Ms. Little: are you?


Posted by: lib | March 23, 2006 04:54 PM

Why would his views be taken any more seriously than say Froomkins anti-Bush rambling, Robinsons "You're not really Black Condi" ruminations and Given's breathless fashion descriptions of administration. Come on. Give it a rest.

Its a blog. Its not even easy to find. Sheesh, talk about getting worked up over nothing.

Posted by: Benito | March 23, 2006 04:54 PM

Just try and post some liberal statement at RedState.com..... you will be banned.

This is how they maintain their wingnut-in-a-box worldview.

I wonder if the boy wonder here knows that (4th century) Saint Augustine, the 1st patron saint of the Catholic Church, decided that abortion was ok until the time of quickening. Obviously the home-schooled wizard never heard of research before he adopted the screen name.

Posted by: vafireball | March 23, 2006 04:57 PM

It's becoming apparent that there in fact may be a PATTERN of plagiarism by Domenech. In addition to apparently plagiarizing O'Rourke, Domenech seems to have copied material from Salon.com's Stephanie Zacharek (discovered by DKos contributer "silence"):

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/3/23/152531/888/61#61

Posted by: Paul Curtis | March 23, 2006 04:58 PM

You're right, Benito. The Post should be allowed to hired and let post anyone they want, regardless of their hatefilled sick degeneracy and plagiarism.

But when they do that, they give up any shred of intellectual decency and journalistic integrity.

You can either report the real news, or be a mouth piece for a fascist state. You can't be both.

Posted by: Taniwha | March 23, 2006 05:00 PM

Wow.

I'm in my mid-30s. I'm a newspaper editor out in the "heartland." I do what I do in large part because I saw "All the President's Men" when it came out when I was 6 or 7.

I grew up wanting to be a journalist and I thought that the WaPo was the Gold Standard.

In fact, in the early 90s I was "loaned" to work at a national newspaper based in the DC area. You know what I though was really cool about that opportunity? I was getting to work in the same city as the WaPo. And that to a 22 year old was very exciting.

I never applied for a job at the WaPo, and certainly would never have done so at age 22. I never felt I was good enough for the best newspaper in the country.

But apparently your standards have slipped.

As a 22 year old back then, I certainly had far more journalism experience than your newest blogger, Box Turtle Ben.

Wow, what an idiot I was. I should have applied for a job with you all 13 years ago. I was far above the standard that you seem to feel is "qualified."

I would have loved to have been able to spout my ill-informed opinions with the imprimatur of and paychecks from the WaPo. What a dream job that would have been!

And since I'm a "liberal" -- that is somebody to the left of Hitler -- and since Clinton was president, I could have hacked away for the Clinton administration, too!

It saddens me to observe that you have internalized the Right's complaint about the "Liberal Media" to the point that you are willing to ruin yourselves.

You see, giving Box Turtle Ben such a coveted online presence will not end the "liberal media" charges.

You could just only print photos of Pres. Bush with the troops, unedited White House and GOP press releases, daily Bible devotions and excerpts of "Mein Kampf," and guess what? The Right would still accuse you of being liberal.

You need to stop alienating your "liberal" and "moderate" readers in the vain quest to win readers you will never be able to get no matter what you do.

And what do we want? News stories that don't accept GOP talking points unchallenged, White House coverage that isn't more than just glorified stenography, investigative journalism, and well-reasoned, thoughtful columnists and commentators from all over the political spectrum.

Please start doing all those things again. Restore my faith.

Box Turtle Ben doesn't.

Posted by: Shawn | March 23, 2006 05:04 PM

To give a confirmed Radical Right Wing sycophant, like Ben Domenech, a place to spew his vitrolic opinions, and act like he represents the majority of Americans, is the height of hypocrisy if you are trying to publish a fair and balanced newspaper. If Domenech is to be published, let it come from where everything he says comes from anyhow ... the White House.

Posted by: Dick Bestwick | March 23, 2006 05:05 PM

The Church of the Perpetually Offended.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 05:05 PM

Red America? Sounds like communism to me.
Are you guys communists?

Posted by: Ron | March 23, 2006 05:07 PM

The newest pride of the WaPo,HAHAHAHA!
Alex,I'll take white sheets and burning crosses for $500.00!

Posted by: DMM | March 23, 2006 05:09 PM

Benito is right!

Let's not get all "worked up" by a wet-behind-the-ears-neo-fascist hate-monger. After all, free speech is important if fascism is ever to prevail in this country.

How otherwise would Benito's namesake or my good friend Adolph ever have come to power. Ben is in training for prepartion of his own version of "Mein Kampf" so give the boy a break.

Posted by: Josef G. | March 23, 2006 05:09 PM

Somewhere, Janet Cooke is smiling.

Posted by: Jon Meltzer | March 23, 2006 05:10 PM

It just gets funnier by the minute.

An intrepid Daily Kos reader ("silence") has found another example of plagiarism by Ben Domenech, in his review of the movie "Bringing Out the Dead."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/23/152531/888

(In the comments, about 3/4 of the way down.)

Stephanie Zacharek's review of "Bringing Out the Dead" was published in Salon.com on 22 October 1999. Ben Domenech's review of the movie was published in the _Flat Hat_, William and Mary's student newspaper, on 29 October. The reviews can be found respectively at

http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/movies/review/1999/10/22/dead/index.xml

and

http://flathat.wm.edu/October291999/reviewsstory7.html

Here are some comparative quotes from the two reviews. The first two are from the DailyKos post by "silence":

Zacharek: "Instead of allowing for the incredible nuance that Cage always brings to his performances, the character of Frank sews it all up for him. ... But there are those moments that allow Cage to do what he does best. When he's trying to revive Mary's father, the man's family fanned out around him in the living room in frozen semi-circle, he blurts out, "Do you have any music?""

Domenech: "Instead of allowing for the incredible nuances that Cage always brings to his performances, the character of Frank sews it all up for him. But there are those moments that allow Cage to do what he does best. When he's trying to revive Mary's father, the man's family fanned out around him in the living room in frozen semi-circle, he blurts out, "Do you have any music?""

Here's some more that I found:

Zacharek: "Against Johnny Thunders' "You Can't Put Your Arms Around a Memory," Frank and Larry whiz down the city streets as if they were trying to run down the buzzing neon around them."

Domenech: "Against Johnny Thunders' "You Can't Put Your Arms Around a Memory," Frank and Larry whiz down the city streets as if they were trying to run down the buzzing lights around them."

Zacharek: "He shows us a suffering drug dealer, impaled on a spike, taking delight in a "fireworks" display set against the city skyline, as Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" swells up from nowhere. The fireworks aren't really fireworks at all: A group of policemen are trying to free the man with the help of blowtorches, and what he's seeing are flying sparks. It's just one example of Scorsese's amazing knack for making a frightening or queasy-making moment extraordinary -- in this case, extraordinarily beautiful."

Domenech: "At one point, we see a suffering drug dealer, impaled on a spike, taking delight in a "fireworks" display set against the city skyline, and Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" swells up from nowhere. The fireworks aren't really fireworks at all (they're actually a group of policemen are trying to free the man with the help of blowtorches), and what he's seeing are flying sparks. Scorsese possesses an unbelievable power to make a frightening moment extraordinary -- in this case, extraordinarily beautiful."

Zacharek: "Frank Pierce (Nicolas Cage) is a New York City medic who's haunted by the ghosts of the people he couldn't save, particularly that of a young girl named Rose. Her face appears everywhere he looks; her voice speaks to him from bodies that are nothing like hers."

Domenech: "Frank Pierce (Nicolas Cage) is a New York City medic who is constantly confronted by the ghosts of the people he couldn't save, particularly that of a young girl named Rose. Her face appears everywhere he looks and her voice emanates from dead bodies."

-K.Ai.-

Posted by: Krotos | March 23, 2006 05:11 PM

Benito is actually a spanish name but don't let that get in the way of your "everyone to the right of me = Hitler" analogy.

Its so, "adult"

Posted by: Benito | March 23, 2006 05:14 PM

Wow. Did he really state that Blacks should be exterminated? "People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag. Stated so bluntly, many readers might find that way of putting the matter morally problematic. The extermination of anti-social elements does, after all, have a somewhat controversial history." (via Steve Gilliard and Firedoglake.com)

Elimination a race? Yes, it is somewhat problematic.

Posted by: Sue | March 23, 2006 05:14 PM

I can't believe the Washington Post has caved to the Extreme Right Wing fringe and has allowed "Red America" to be published in your (formerly?) superb newspaper. What insanity is this to lend these rantings the credibility inherent in being published in the Washington Post?

Is this the same paper that uncovered Watergate? Is this the same bastion of real journalism, a fast-disappearing feature of our democracy?

Have you lost your minds ... or only your courage and conviction?

Why would you need to "balance" accurate and fair journalism with the biased, opinionated, extremist ravings of an unqualified hack?

Come to your senses. Dump the bum and get back to business. Your country needs you ... the real you!

Michael R. Scolnick, P.C.
Attorney at Law
175 Burrows Lane
Blauvelt, NY 10913
845-354-9339
fax: 845-365-1506

Posted by: Michael Scolnick | March 23, 2006 05:15 PM

Hey, I've been banned at RedState too! I posted a Bush speech that contradicted what they said, they pulled the post and banned me! Silly Freepers -- Politics ain't for kids!

Posted by: BannedatRedState | March 23, 2006 05:15 PM

Kos Kids in the House! We're 0-19! But we represent true america!

Posted by: Peace Blossum | March 23, 2006 05:18 PM

Ben Domenech - Plagiarist.

This young punk must be fired NOW.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/23/152531/888

Posted by: B Bigelow | March 23, 2006 05:18 PM

(Washington DC) The Washington Post's newest writer, Ben Domenech, defended his description of federal U.S. judges as being "worse then the KKK."

"Judges allow abortions," stated the 24-year old Washington Post writer, who recently apologized for calling civil rights leader Coretta Scott King a communist and faces accusations of plagerism.

"Unlike the KKK, they don't even use the vile pretense of skin color. They dismiss the value of all unborn lives, not just the lives of ethnic minorities."

Mr. Domenech also defended his description of Washington Post Dan Froomkin as a "a lying weasel-faced Democrat shill."

"I mean, come on, look at him," stated Mr. Domenech, "Tell me he doesn't look like a weasel or at least a ferret."

Mr. Domenech's editor and publisher at the Washington Post were unavailable for comment.

Posted by: Ed | March 23, 2006 05:18 PM

Plagiarism, Ben? Gotta explain yourself. You too, Jim Brady.

Posted by: Earl | March 23, 2006 05:21 PM

"Red America" is not a piece of honest journalism. It is a rhetorical distortion of fact and non-stop mean-spirited rant. A publication as allegedly respectible as the Washington Post should refrain from publishing and endorsing such low-standard trash.

It is simply wrong to attempt to "balance" real watchdog journalism with right wing butchery. If you want to present partisan political columns, you should also give progressives a fair voice. But, please don't include any pseudo-journalism from any side. It's an insult to any sensient human's intelligence. It also violates journalistic standards.

Posted by: Michel Karp | March 23, 2006 05:21 PM

PJ O'Rourke has bigger chunks in his stool than Ben.

Plagiarism....now that's not very Christian.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 05:27 PM

(Washington DC) The Washington Post's newest writer, Ben Domenech, defended his practice of making money selling U.S. Marine Corp themed mugs.

"No, I would never join the Marines," stated the 24-year old Washington Post writer, who recently apologized for calling civil rights leader Coretta Scott King a communist and faces accusations of plagerism.

Until recently, Mr. Domenech sold mugs online bearing the phrase: "Marine Sniper: You Can Run But You Die Tired,"

"Look, I support the Marines. I don't think you have to be in the Marines to make money off the Marines," stated Mr. Domenech, "You think all those people selling 'PornStar' shirts are in that business?"

Mr. Domenech's editor and publisher at the Washington Post were unavailable for comment.

Posted by: Ed | March 23, 2006 05:29 PM

Wow. What a wacko this guy is. I'm so tired of right-wing drivel and hatemongering. I've never in my life heard of such a selfish philosophy, never mind one that thrives on ignorance.

God save America from the American Taliban Christian fundies. Evolution is not only real, but it obviously works both ways. Look at 'em go.

Posted by: Andrew Bacon | March 23, 2006 05:29 PM

Washingtonpost.com,

You just got the perfect excuse to withdraw from this debacle and fire this clown.

Plagiarism is unacceptable. Fire this dishonest guy and let's all move on.

Thanks
Sean

Posted by: Sean | March 23, 2006 05:30 PM

Great job pal! You've installed a bona fide plagiarist as a conservative blogger at WaPo and then seem to vanish from sight when sh*t hits the fan - and it's a flyin' everywhere. Go check out the 1,2000 plus comments posted since Tuesday afternoon if you still think you made a good choice in sanctioning this bigoted, plagiarizing liar. Go check out MediaMatters.org to see how far this blossoming movement has gone in just a few days. Imagine what it will be like in a few weeks - 'cause it has only just begun and you are going to get sh*t all over you. Although it is quite fun reading all the comments. On second thought, why don't you dig in your heels and keep that racist liar. I could use a good laugh at your expense - How's all that sh*t matching up with your nice silk suit? Does it taste good? Enjoy!

Posted by: harty | March 23, 2006 05:31 PM

Plagiarism: the new cutting-edge journalistic outsourcing that's great for the bottom line, or still the mark of a hack?

Posted by: joe76 | March 23, 2006 05:31 PM

I'm disgusted by your granting of a Washington Post blog to the RedState bloggers.

How arrogant for the Post to claim that America is Republican! What do you accomplish with this dreck? This is not Red America. This is *our* America.

You've hired a racist, homophobic, sexist neanderthal to run your blog-- not an independent-minded grassroots blogger by any means, but rather a Republican party insider hack. This is balance? What kind of "balance" is it where objective, non-biased, professional reporting is "balanced" by rabid right-wingers? Where exactly is this mythical "center"?

This is a dark day for the Post. You've "jumped the shark" as they say in blog-land.

You could have instead hired some thoughtful, professional, intelligent progressives and right-wingers to spar in an online blog, or to write columns showing several sides of an issue, and maybe even advance the quality of both your newspaper properties and the state of online debate, all at the same time. For example, Josh Marshall would fit in well with the Post's style on the progressive side, and John Cole is perhaps an equally excellent, thoughtful blogger on the right-wing side. But no. Instead we get the RedState guys, showboating away, the blogging equivalent of Michael Moore. This is not "balance". This is garbage.

Please terminate this "Red America" experiment as soon as possible. It's an embarassment to your newspaper, an embarassment to the newspaper business, an embarassment to the online community, and an embarassment to America.

Posted by: goatchowder | March 23, 2006 05:32 PM

Oh Lordy.

The blogosphere is coming up with so many instances of Ben's plagiarism, it isn't funny any more.

Is Ben going to claim that that the plagiarism was when he was drinking, that he no longer drinks so he shouldn't be taken to task for youthful indiscretions?

Nope. That excuse already used by someone else.

Is Ben going to say that he's been born again and has answered to God and was forgiven for past mistakes?

Sorry, that one's been used also.

Is he going to point out that he plagiarized Democrats as well as Republicans?

Uh uh. That one's in use too.

What's Ben going to say?

Posted by: Libby Sosume | March 23, 2006 05:32 PM

OK, you've been taken in by Comedy Central in a promotional gag to plug their fake news hour. This is really Stephen Colbert, right?

Posted by: tangledupinblue | March 23, 2006 05:34 PM

News report: Earth is round.

Washington Post hires President of the Flat Earth Society to "balance" news reports...

Posted by: A Hermit | March 23, 2006 05:34 PM

So Domenech really has no sense of decency, neither the Post' I guess, more plagiarism examples:

- From Salon.com:

"Instead of allowing for the incredible nuance that Cage always brings to his performances, the character of Frank sews it all up for him. You see his spikiness, and his liquid softness, coming from a mile away. But there are those moments that allow Cage to do what he does best. When he's trying to revive Mary's father, the man's family fanned out around him in the living room in frozen semi-circle, he blurts out, "Do you have any music?"

* Link:

http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/movies/review/1999/10/22/dead/index.xml

Ben's "original text":

"Instead of allowing for the incredible nuance that Cage always brings to his performances, the character of Frank sews it all up for him. You see his spikiness, and his liquid softness, coming from a mile away. But there are those moments that allow Cage to do what he does best. When he's trying to revive Mary's father, the man's family fanned out around him in the living room in frozen semi-circle, he blurts out, "Do you have any music?"

- Link:

http://flathat.wm.edu/October291999/reviewsstory7.html

Are these the "values" of real America?

Are "red staters" really a bunch of people without moral standards or ethics, as the Post' seems to think?

Posted by: Raul Vergara | March 23, 2006 05:35 PM

I'm splitting my sides!! A plagerist conservative! Who would'a thunk it! Via Atrios -

Ben Domenech:


"One night, Frank meets Mary Burke (Patricia Arquette), whose father has suffered a heart attack. Mary, a former junkie, hasn't spoken to her father in three years, but she becomes deeply troubled when she realizes he's so close to death. Frank is even more concerned for her than he is for her father. He begins to fall deeply in love with her, checks up on her at her apartment, invites her to have a piece of pizza at the hospital with him. He's as gentle as a lamb with her, but he's an exhausted one, all bruised and battered."

Zacharek in Salon:


"In the line of duty one night, Frank meets Mary Burke (Patricia Arquette), whose father has suffered a heart attack. Mary is a former junkie who seems to have just barely pulled her life together. She hasn't spoken to her father in three years, but she becomes troubled when she realizes he's so close to death. Frank is just as concerned for her as he is for her father. He begins to fall deeply in love with her, checking up on her at her apartment, inviting her to have a piece of pizza at the hospital with him. He's as gentle with her a spring lamb, but he's an exhausted one, all bruised and buffeted."

Yikes! DailyKos has more. There's a motherlode.

Posted by: Sue | March 23, 2006 05:35 PM

A racist and a plagiarist. You got yourself a winner this time.

Posted by: JR | March 23, 2006 05:36 PM

Luuuuuuucy! Weeee've got plaiiiiiigarism

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/23/152531/888

http://yourlogohere.blogspot.com/2006/03/nail-meet-coffin.html

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/3/23/152531/888/61#61

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_03_19_atrios_archive.html#114315207785058384

Amusingly, Google's hits of Domenech and Plagiarism are mostly from the WaPo's golden boy berating others. That's going to change faster than you can yell, Ben! You're fired!

Posted by: Pacific John | March 23, 2006 05:36 PM

Are you a journalistic publication or a forum for Right Wing (or Left Wing) propaganda? Please remind your subscribers what they are paying for until we get disgusted and stop, like right around now. There are plenty of free propaganda blogsites already. Please, stick to reality-based journalism if you don't want to lose readers like me.

Posted by: Brian | March 23, 2006 05:38 PM

Looks like the WaPo has its equivalent to Jayson Blair now. Wow, this might qualify for corporate media screw-up of the year.

Posted by: laughing | March 23, 2006 05:39 PM

Ben has a new one up:

"The Plight of the Minority Republican"

Not as shrill as his first couple of posts, more just a confused mess of sophomoric thinking.

I wonder who wrote it?

Posted by: A Hermit | March 23, 2006 05:41 PM

Go NOW to Kos, Atrios and Your Loge Here for the frivolity.

Posted by: Pacific John | March 23, 2006 05:43 PM

I think this might meet Time Magazine's criteria for Blog of the Year.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 05:45 PM

I see sme people are demanding that Ben be fired. I hope that doesn't happen too soon, The Onion's been a bit stale lately and I do enjoy a good laugh...

Posted by: A Hermit | March 23, 2006 05:46 PM

Hey c'mon people give these guys a break. This is them just exhibiting their usual level of investigative reporting. I am sure Debra Howell personally vetted this guy and he represents the kind of journalism she wants to bring to the WP. Given her history this is her kind of guy

Posted by: TexasLiberal | March 23, 2006 05:46 PM

Even More:

Ben D:
"The most important co-stars in the Bond movies are the spy's toys. These films usually have the audience applauding for the stunts and this episode of the superspy saga is no different. There's plenty of action and vehicles to enjoy, like the helicopter with a super-sized chainsaw attached, which cuts through cars and buildings, and a sleek, one-man boat with jet afterburners that looks like something custom-made for Batman."

Steve Rhodes:

"The most important costars in the Bond movies are the spy's toys. These films usually have the audience applauding for the stunts, and this episode of the superspy saga is no different.

The best of the bunch in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH is a sleek, one-man, black boat complete with jet afterburners, which looks like something custom-made for Batman. The vehicle even has the ability to dive underwater briefly while the driver holds his breath. It can turn into a car as well, all the better to engage in a typical Bond demolition derby."

Somebody stop me! See Atrios.blogspot.com for the links.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 05:46 PM

To the Paper Which Used To Matter:

I'm so sad. You people used to be important.

Posted by: jayt | March 23, 2006 05:47 PM

I was going to show my wife the movie "All the President's Men", which she has never seen. Now I'm thinking about skipping it. I don't want to get her hopes up about the power of the media to hold government accountable. Those days are over.

If she wanted 24/7 government propoganda from her "news" outlets, my wife would just go back home to Vietnam.

Shame on you.

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 23, 2006 05:50 PM

I'm amazed that most of these comments posted regarding RedState are about 100% negative. Just what one needs to succeed in the media, if one is conservative. How long did Dennis Miller stay on the air even though his ratings were lower than those of Phil Donahue, who was off the air in a matter of weeks? Why is it that the WP has succumbed to this "need" for balance and I'm still waiting for Fox News to have Al Franken on the O'Reilly show.

Posted by: Martin | March 23, 2006 05:52 PM

Please get rid of Red America blog. I read your paper online every day and I'm shocked you would stoop to pandering to the right-wing extremists.

This obviously right- winged perspective does not belong in The Washington Post.

Jana McBride
Portland Oregon

Posted by: Jana McBride | March 23, 2006 05:53 PM

The New York Times stumbles its way to the sidelines, leaving the Paper-of-Record mantle yours for the taking. Amazingly, you (specifically you, Mr. Brady) decline, preferring instead to compete with them for the Most-Discredited-Paper award.

Posted by: Incredulous | March 23, 2006 05:57 PM

shame on you washington post! honest media is integral to any healthy democracy and your latest addition of the "red america" blog is just another sign of its corrosion. Deciding to give extremist political propaganda a podium in the name of providing "balanced" journalism shows an utter disregard for truth. Do not be a mouthpiece for extremists; ones that care not for truth nor facts but only for the desemination of their ideals.

Posted by: incredulous | March 23, 2006 05:57 PM

People, people, people.....why so angry? Why so afraid? Your reactions smack of book burning, facist fear mongers. Do you think that maybe, just maybe deep in the recesses of your minds that you think he might be right? And that you might (horrors!) be wrong? That could explain the angst-ridden, over-the-top reactions to a simple blog. Wapo--I am Red America--sign me up for a subscription!

Posted by: What a hoot! | March 23, 2006 05:58 PM

Red America...not bad for a plagiarist. Good to see the post has high standards.

Posted by: darth | March 23, 2006 05:58 PM

So if any of your employees on the print side of the paper were discovered to have plagiarized entire articles published under their byline in their college papers, would they 1) be hired in the first place; 2) if hired, summarily fired immediately?

Anyone? Jim?? Debbie??? Buellar????

Posted by: dave | March 23, 2006 05:58 PM

Ben Domenech represents a terrible mean of unbalanced news provided by the Washington Post ever yet. Domenech is NOT even worthy of writing for a newspaper, and from my point-of-view, what Domenech is doing here in The Washington Post is totally evil--He's NOT balancing out the political spectrum, he's giving right-wingers unfair advantage, and if that's the case, I'd rather see a PROGRESSIVE write "Red America" instead of Domenech--Domenech is NOT qualified to write for a Washington Post article under any circumstances, and by placing Domenech as editor for Red America, Washington Post is doing a DANGEROUS JOB of balancing real watchdog journalism with right-wing hackery. Should Washington Post want partisan political columns, they need to give Progressives a voice as I consider giving Progressives a voice a condition of reading the Washington Post.

The Washington Post is committing SUICIDE for "balancing" real watchdog journalism with one of the most dangerously right-wing columnists (Ben Domenech) to write for Red America.

Posted by: The Mysterious One | March 23, 2006 06:00 PM

To: executive.editor@washingtonpost.com

Your "Red America" is only a Right Wing Hackery (RWH), and it is only a pure Nazi-like Propaganda Machine.


Please notice that you are surely going to get a big hit on your bottom line for abandoning your best costumers, 75% of the US population, due to your ridiculous support of RWH and Nazi-like Propaganda.

It's wrong to "balance" real watchdog journalism with Right Wing Hackery.

If you want partisan political columns, then you should also give progressives (75% of USA) a voice.

I Used to like Washington Post (WP) before it became Washington Propaganda Post (WPP)!!!

Very disillusioned,

FFD

Posted by: FFD | March 23, 2006 06:00 PM

Is Ben a racist and plagiarist? If so, he
exceeds the normal qualifications for writing a "balanced" blog for WaPo.

Posted by: Lee | March 23, 2006 06:01 PM

The issue is not that Domenech is a conservative.

Here are the issues:

1) The author is unqualified for the job.

2) Two instances of plagiarism have already come to light from his days in college.

3) He is not a journalist, nor does he pretend to be one. He is quite simply a radical ideologue, without good ideas at his helm.

This is an embarrassing day for the Washington Post and for journalism in general.

Posted by: Michael | March 23, 2006 06:03 PM

(Washington DC) Washington Post.com Opinions editor, Hal Straus, recently defended the hiring of conservative writer Ben Domenech. Mr. Domenech, the Washington Post's newest writer, is accused of having plagerized several articles while attending William and Mary University.

"When WP.com launched Opinions we said we wanted this new area to be about a variety of voices across a broad spectrum of political and cultural thought," Strauss stated. "We never said that it was about original thoughts or opinions. If our writers copy and paste from other writers, that's fine with me."

"Ben Domenech is an Internet pioneer," continued Mr. Strauss. "Ben is an accomplished writer and someone who is willing to challenge sloppy thinking even if, occasionally, he plagerizes it from other writers.

Washington Post publisher Caroline Little and exective editor James Brady were both unavailable for comment.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 06:03 PM

I only regret that I can only cancel WP on-line once.

Posted by: Larry Brennis | March 23, 2006 06:04 PM

I could care less if you decide to have 'liberal' or 'conservative' blogs - but writers who plagiarize, that's where someone needs to draw the line.

Journalistic integrity should be maintained at the highest standards.

Surely there is another 'conservative' blogger who is less controversial and writes his own material?

Posted by: Mallory | March 23, 2006 06:04 PM

Even I can see that this is a bad decision on the part of the Post.

At least I'm educated--this kid barely made it through college.

Posted by: Bill O'Reilly | March 23, 2006 06:05 PM

Why do you feel that journalists finally starting to do their job in holding our politicians accountable for their actions needs to be "balanced" by devoting a column to right-wing propaganda. The column you have just started called "Red America" by Ben Domenech is just a mouthpiece for the GOP. The media's retreat from challenging and scrutinizing our politicians following the September 11th attacks had just started to wear off and now this. You should praise and commend those journalists who are finally starting to look critically at our elected officials. By saying that you need to "balance" real journalism with a column devoted to a known right-wing mouthpiece is in essence saying that these journalists are writing purely left-wing propaganda. Doing watchdog journalism is not partisan and doesn't need to be "balanced". If articles written by these journalists are critical of our administration, it is because this is their job. Do you want to go back to the days when the media outlets where so intimidated by the prospect of being labeled unpatriotic that you all caved in to the administration and never challenged a thing they did? President Bush is in power now and his ideas and the job he has done so far should be looked at critically. The fact that President Bush and the Republicans are finally starting to be held accountable for their actions is because they are in power right now and have been for some time. There is no need to "balance" watchdog journalism. The facts are the facts. If the journalists are reputable and are getting their facts straight, they do not need to be "balanced". If the Washington Post wants to run partisan political columns, you need to give progressive voices a column too.

Posted by: Mark | March 23, 2006 06:06 PM

Ooh, another one (found by Athenae at Eschaton) (http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=atrios&comment=114315309309171206#7507129):

Ben:

At its best, "The Bachelor" skews the absurdity of any human relationships ‹ even the successful ones. As terrified as Jimmie is of losing his freedom, Anne is equally worried about becoming like her parents ‹ who, it turns out, are an older couple nauseatingly and demonstratively still in love with each other.

Salon:

At its best, it skews the absurdity of any human relationships -- even the successful ones. As terrified as Jimmie is of losing his freedom, Anne is equally worried about becoming like her parents -- who, it turns out, are an older couple nauseatingly, demonstratively, still in love with each other.

A.
Athenae | Homepage | 03.23.06 - 5:56 pm | #

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 06:07 PM

In this time of extreme divisivness in our country, indeed, the world, what we need is reasoned, informed, fact-checked and experienced journalists. Shame on the Post for pandering to the lowest common denominator with this new hire, "Ben".

Posted by: Peggy | March 23, 2006 06:07 PM

Previous posting was by me. Inadvertently posted without entering my name.

Posted by: Paul Curtis | March 23, 2006 06:07 PM

Dear Ben, I am posting this message on the comment board because I want to be certain you see it.

It has been painfully clear after reading your blogs the past four days that your training in English composition, grammar, etc. has been substantially lacking. Apparently, you either missed bonehead English at Wiiliam and Mary and/or your home school. Consequently, this letter also should be seen by your mother.

I have taken the liberty of appointing myself as your editor for today (and doing all those little things that you seem unable to do for yourself, i.e. fact- checking, spell-checking, word useage, grammar, etc.)

Your most recent blog is being returned -- edited -- for your review and consideration for future reference. Being generous, I have decided you should be awared a grade of D+, but only on the basis that you do show some promise.

I undedrstand that you edited a recent book by Michelle Malkin; that may explain the very bad reviews that book received by
critics. May I offer the suggestion that before you offer to edit any more books that you consider learning how to write?

I did not edit your paper for style, strength of argument, or content;

Here is your edited paper:

The Plight of the Minority Republican
I remember driving in my car on Election Day [sic -capitalization inappropriate, not a holiday in U. S.] 2004, and Big John Thompson -- Georgetown coach, radio host, announcer, and a man with a voice so deep that it makes Johnny Cash sound like a soprano -- was on WTEM Sportstalk 980 talking to his white Democrat [sic – Democratic is the appropriate usage] co-host, Al Koken, about how hard it is to vote for a Republican. Coach Thompson told the story of his voting experience earlier in the morning in his majority Democrat district, when he'd asked for the GOP sample ballot. The fur-coat wearing white woman standing in line in front of him huffed that she couln't [sic –misspelling] believe she got that ballot, adding: Don't you know who you're voting for? [sic – quotes call for quotation marks]
"Lady," I recall Coach Thompson saying, "my skin color doesn't mean I have to pull one lever. It's none of your business who I'm voting for."


Thompson pulled the lever for Bush, overwhelmingly [sic - inappropriate adverb] because he doubted John Kerry's positions on national defense (as the coach has told Koken on more than one occasion: You don't fight "crazy" with board meetings or diplomacy: [sic – make up your mind about quotations; it is or it isn’t] "you fight crazy with crazy.")
If exit polls are to be believed, more than a few minority voters followed the same reasoning (Bush pollster Matthew Dowd had more on this in a post-election memo). But as the elections of 2006 and 2008 near and the mismanagement of the post-war situation in Iraq becomes clear, Republicans are worried that four years of arguing for the just nature of military action is wearing thin. They worry that it won't be enough to convince the pro-American minority and immigrant voters to pull that lever again.

They have good reason to be worried.
Over the past few years, Republicans [if you must use “Democrat” above, then use “Republic” here to be consistent] have made significant inroads in ethnic communities outside of their traditional white base largely because of disagreements between minority faith communities [sic – communities of faith - to clarify that faith is not the minority whereof you are speaking] and liberal Democrats. Domestic policy issues like same-sex marriage and partial-birth abortion have helped bring more Latino and black churches into the fold, and the grassroots base of the party has done a better job of self-policing, breaking up the small pockets of neo-Confederates and race-baiters [any factual evidence to support this claim considering the fact of documented voter suppression by Republican activists in a number of states?] that who've [sic – inappropriate contraction for "who have"] hung around since the pre-Reagan years. In many states, the tide has turned: in Louisiana's gubernatorial race, it was supporters of the Democrat -- not the Republican -- who ran a race-baiting ad in the final weeks of the campaign against now-Congressman Bobby Jindal [any evidence to support this claim].

Yet Republican leadership in Washington has missed some of the critical lessons of recent elections: they still seem to believe that minorities all care about the same issues, and for the same reasons.
In point of fact, the opposite is true. The ongoing and increasingly tense fight over immigration reform, which pits single-issue people like Congressman Tom Tancredo against the pro-globalism portion of the party and the GOP leadership, illustrates how Republican leaders are convinced that relaxing immigration standards or creating a form of earned amnesty for illegal immigrants is the best way to lock up the support of Hispanic voters.

But the truth is that Hispanics, like all minority communities, are hardly a monolithic group. While many Mexican and South American immigrant families would welcome a change in policy, my own Puerto Rican family simply doesn't care about the issue (since more people of Puerto Rican descent live on the American mainland than on the island now, that's hardly surprising [why is that “not surprising’? Could it be that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens and therefore have the right to emigrate to the U. S. without being subject to immigration quotas or other restrictions?]). And [never begin a sentence with the word “and”] members of Latino communities who have been in America for generations and workers want the taxpayers to pay for employee health care.

The best way for Republican leadership to reach out to minorities on domestic policy issues is to talk to them, to treat them as individuals who care about the economy, health and education. But don't adopt irresponsible positions on issues like [sic] immigration simply because the pollsters say it sells with the right demographics.

As Coach Thompson discovered, it's tough to be a minority who votes Republican. It's tougher still when the GOP leadership treats you like a statistic, not a constituent.

By Ben Domenech | March 23, 2006; 02:15 PM ET | Email a Comment

Best of luck, Ben!

Posted by: Tom | March 23, 2006 06:10 PM

When is wasingtonpost.com going to tell us the real and complete story behind the hiring of Mr. Domenech?

We know of his White House ties. Is this a "favor" being called in by the Bush Family Consiglieri, Karl Rove?

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 23, 2006 06:13 PM

It's wrong to "balance" real watchdog journalism with right wing hackery. If the Post wants partisan political columns, it should also give progressives a voice.

Posted by: susan | March 23, 2006 06:14 PM

An utterly depressing move by the Post.

How can an organization that once yielded so much authority in the world of journalism denigrate itself by hiring a simple-minded boob?

Posted by: Depressing | March 23, 2006 06:14 PM

Unless you've hired Mao Tse-Tung or Che Guevara to write for your paper, I don't understand the "balancing" position that Domenech now holds. This is an outrageous and cowardly response to the right-wing "leftwing media bias" song and dance. Why not just provide a compendium of neocon blogs and websites every week in your paper instead of paying some raving wingnut to spew anti-progressive rhetoric in print?

Posted by: Lau | March 23, 2006 06:17 PM

The first of thefull rules for posting here:

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party and that you will remove the same should you discover that you have violated this provision.

Posted by: joe76 | March 23, 2006 06:19 PM

I read your new column titled “Red America”. I was appalled. Ben Domenech is inarguably a solid member of the lunatic right fringe. While I believe that everyone has a right to free speech, I’m concerned that the Washington Post gave a raving loon, with no journalistic credentials, his own column but failed to represent those with opposing views in a similar column written by a progressive individual.

I’ve read the Washington Post for years because I thought that it had the integrity to ask tough questions of those in power, whether they were members of the Right or of the Left. This departure from journalistic integrity gives me pause and makes me wonder whether your leadership has not just shown itself to be seriously wanting. There is a difference between “loudness” and factual reporting. Maybe it’s time that the Washing Post reconsiders whether it wants to be a newspaper or a rag.


Posted by: David | March 23, 2006 06:20 PM

I'm sure you must have been biased towards the right when reporting on Clinton's Lewinsky ordeal, so why didn't you "balance" your writing staff with a far-left "Moonbat"'s column?

I know, it was different times. 9/11 changed everything.

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 23, 2006 06:21 PM

see link to those rules under "Post a Comment" at bottom of this page.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/delphi/delphirules.htm

Posted by: joe76 | March 23, 2006 06:21 PM

Hah, the outraged shrieks from the loony left are comedy gold! Brad DeLong (who bans any conservative commenters on his blog) wants us all to know that Red Dawn is selling about as well as the Don Knotts Reluctant Hero package. Wooot! Considering Knotts just passed away, spurring interest in his films, that's a heck of a rebuttal, Brad!

Posted by: Brainster | March 23, 2006 06:22 PM

So has Box Turtle Ben, that adorable little plagerizer, been fired yet? Just asking.

Posted by: calipygian | March 23, 2006 06:22 PM

Ben didn't plagiarize.

His evil twin did.

Posted by: skybluewater | March 23, 2006 06:23 PM

Wow, the lefties are awfully afraid of a diversity of OPINION. They are the most likely to want to censor and protest those with different ideas. Heaven forbid that someone with a conservative viewpoint is allowed to express it.

----------------------------

Yeah. . .I always notice such a plethora of diversity in opinoin on "conservative" web sites. . .well, at least for about five minutes until the posts are removed.

Let's ask Faux News, The Washington Times, and. . .well, now apparently the Post what constitutes a "diversity" of opinion. One wingnut, nothing else = the conservative view of "diversity."

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 06:24 PM

That does it. Instead of finding someone who can provide sound, well thought-out commentary on the ideology of the right, the Post has given precious space to another right-wing hack, whose idea of "debate" is name-calling and insults. Oops, I forgot. The recent strategy of the right is precisely this - spewing opinions and hatred and asserting them as facts. But then these self-appointed right-wing spokespersons aren't known for their intellects. I thought the Post could do better, but maybe it can't given the pool from which it has to draw.

Posted by: Carole | March 23, 2006 06:25 PM

Teresa Heinz Kerry looks like an "oddly shaped egotistical ketchup-colored muppet."

Michael Moore is "fatty fat fat fat," a "blimp that crashed into the Fleet Center [causing] nearly $16 million in damage."

Andrew Sullivan, who is gay, "needs a woman to give him some stability."

Pat Robertson is "a whacked out loon."

Cartoonist Ted Rall is "a steaming bag of pus."

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site.

Do the rules apply to personal attacks penned by the WaPo employee? Just asking.

Posted by: Calipygian | March 23, 2006 06:25 PM

If you really need to "balance" your right-wing reporting, please do so with a professional. It's not as if there aren't thousands of conservative pundits who couldn't handle this blog. Racism, sexism, etc. is not necessary to "counterbalance" a left-wing or progressive worldview, it's just plain nasty.

Posted by: Karen | March 23, 2006 06:25 PM

Who is Tommie Thompson?

Posted by: laughing even harder | March 23, 2006 06:28 PM

Now Redguy's concerned about the African American vote. A noble concern...one spade of earth toward the doppleganger "Augustine"'s proper burial.

Posted by: DC | March 23, 2006 06:29 PM

You libs are so biased, and outraged, it's funny! I love seeing your squirmy reactions , "it's not FAIR!" wwell you've had your media ruling time and you won't cede ONE INCH to realy American opinion unless it is forced, glad wapo is finally realizing that elite left opinion isn't selling. Go Ben, Go Bush and Go Troops!

Posted by: Team USA | March 23, 2006 06:29 PM


I would like to say that I think that "Red America" is a terrible addition to The Washington Post's lineup. Ben Domenech is to Journalism what Hulk Hogan is to wrestling! I'm sure he'll make a lot of money, but is it real? I'm sorry that you and the Publishers of The Washington Post cannot see that far from "balancing out" the political climate you are throwing it even more out and the "wobble" is becoming unbearable. I challenge all of the decision makers at your publication to question what this does to the journalistic value of your newspaper and to journalism itself and to consider correcting this mistake. I know many people who do not trust anything that they read or hear anymore even from the most well respected sources of Journalism in America. I think that decisions like allowing "Red America" to see the light of day are why this is happening. I do not subscribe to those that suggest that the correction for this is to start a Liberal blog, I'm tired of the extremes running the show. Please leave this phony Journalism where it belongs, namely on the Fox "news" network. Pick yourself up out of the slime and remove this column from under your mast head.

Thank you,

Posted by: Peter | March 23, 2006 06:29 PM

How do you mistakenly call Coretta Scott King a communist??!! That shows he is too immature and ignorant to be be speaking to the public.

You can't just say "mea culpa,"and make it alright. This shows to me how the GOP panders for votes from black citizens but never really respects them. In the eyes of GOP, they are just puppets to be swayed to vote then forgotten.

I don't think the Washington Post should allow a forum for a racist.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 06:30 PM

heh!

Posted by: tee hee | March 23, 2006 06:30 PM

Stop spouting partisan propaganda!

The Post is morally corrupt

Posted by: Drew | March 23, 2006 06:30 PM

After it was discovered that Armstrong Williams was paid by the Bush administration to support them, right wing columnists lost all credibility. I wonder how much they're paying Domenech.

Posted by: Jeff | March 23, 2006 06:31 PM

Now Hunter, on the main page at Dailykos.com has noted that:

Washington Post's New Conservative Voice a Plagiarist: It's Now a Blood Bath

He's pulled some of the more egregious samples - with more coming out hourly.

Posted by: Sue | March 23, 2006 06:31 PM

"Red America" = Yellow Journalism. What's balanced about it? It's right-wing hate speech with no comparable left-wing blogger.

But don't "fix it" by jetting a left wing blogger: Get rid of this pathetic column now

Posted by: BentLiberal | March 23, 2006 06:32 PM

Since we've been told the good news from Iraq is "not" being reported....
Which FULL month is Ben going to BLOG from Iraq?
First hand knowledge from a Rightie blogger would be welcomed...He can take his battery powered laptop out into the countryside of Iraq and not be confined to his balcony of his hotel room.

Don't you all agree?

What FULL month are you going to Iraq?

Posted by: Here in DC | March 23, 2006 06:32 PM

Guys, can we save some of these comments in a ...uhh...safer place?

http://www.bendomenechfanclub.blogspot.com

Posted by: BDFC | March 23, 2006 06:32 PM

haha i'll lt my subscription expire.

Posted by: Jim Markinson | March 23, 2006 06:33 PM

Here's a nice intellectual piece by the politically well connected Domenech---

http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/archives/000904.html

Nearly twice as many Americans believe in creationism as in evolution (the theory which Derb subscribes to – in my opinion, that positive belief is actually worse than the negative belief on creation). It’s been that way for more than a decade. I don't necessarily subscribe to all Creationist theories, but I do take Genesis literally. And I believe the commonly taught theory of evolution is a total crock.


Posted by: Peter M. | March 23, 2006 06:34 PM

Team America - What do Ben, Bush and the Troops have to do with each other? The only thing Ben knows about the troops (despite the fact he is PRIME fighting age) is what he learned playing Contra 3 and watching Red Dawn. And we all know how much Bush loves the troops. He loves the troops soooo much he cut VA spending as thousands come home maimed and injured from an optional war he started. Go Troops!

Posted by: calipygian | March 23, 2006 06:34 PM

Atrios and his commenters are also having a plagiarism-discovery-fest with Domenech's "work." Why does the Washington Post hire plagiarists? This guy makes Jayson Blair look like Edward R. Murrow. See http://atrios.blogspot.com for the lowdown (and http://www.dailykos.com as mentioned above).

Posted by: Frederick | March 23, 2006 06:35 PM

The imbalance of having Domenach without a leftwinger to balance him is ridiculous enough. That, plus his history of plagarism, makes his hire totally ridiculous. Not to mention calling a great civil rights leader a communist on the day of her funeral. Way to elevate the discourse.

The Washington Post was pro-Iraq War, pro-Social Security phase-out (there's still a section of the website dedicated to the latter). You need a blogger who is explictly left-wing to balance this out. The fact that Froomkin criticizes Bush does not mean he fills this role; everyone criticizes Bush nowadays.

Sad.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 06:35 PM

P L A G I A R I S M

Let's spell it correctly, folks !
It's a word that is used frequently in here describing the writing skills of "Box Turtle Ben" so let's get it right...

P L A G I A R I S T

P L A G I A R I Z E

Those are words being hung around the neck of the Washington Post. Spell them correctly !

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 06:35 PM

You libs have NOTHING but whining and hate. Keep it up, I love feeling your pain, we just love the end of bias in site! Libs have no facts or logic, just anger!

Posted by: Team USA | March 23, 2006 06:36 PM

I wonder what happened to good ol' fashioned investigative journalism? This blog seems a terribly transparent attempt at neo-conservative propaganda. If the Post would really like to provide "balance" then they're going about it in truly the wrong way. First, I fail to see the "liberal" bias that this guy is supposed to be balancing. Second, he has no credentials to be blogging for a national news outlet (that would like to remaim even marginally dedicated to the ethics of journalism). Third, he fails to offer any type of sourcing--i.e. this is pure opinion, which begs the question, why isn't his blog more clearly marked with the big "opinion" label? And Finally (though I could probably keep going with this list), as many posters before me have pointed out, he fails to live up to the Post's own standards for posting, which clearly says no "profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments." As far as I can tell, RedState is nothing more than personal attacks and inappropriate comments, so I'm surprised it hasn't been removed from the site.

Posted by: ADS | March 23, 2006 06:37 PM

I can't add anything that hasn't already been said, but I'll reiterate my disappointment with WaPo online over "Red America". And I reiterate what other bloggers have posted here: you are a news organization but can only hold credibility as long as you report news. This is not the arena for Domenech's personal essays, nor an arena to invite a progessive counterpart for so called balance. It is a news organization. Please remember that.

Posted by: Fearlessness | March 23, 2006 06:37 PM

we have anger, hate and evidence of plagerism by the Post's newest blogger. Hows that for a logical fact!

Posted by: calipygian | March 23, 2006 06:37 PM

I, too, want to be a right-wing blogger on this site. Look at all the Republican "buzz words" I know:

pro-life, cut-and-run, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, death tax, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, homosexual agenda, strict constructionist, Sadam Hussein, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, Muslim extremists, liberal media, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, war on terror, commander in chief, inherent powers, activist judges, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.

When do I start?

Posted by: Craig | March 23, 2006 06:39 PM

Another plagiarism scandal for Howie Kurtz to write about!

Jack Kelley must be so proud!

And James Guckert too!

Remember, "thou shalt not steal" doesn't apply if you're a Republican. (TSNSDNAIYAR.)

Wolverines, baby!

Posted by: Roger Ailes (not affiliated with Fox News Channel) | March 23, 2006 06:43 PM

Posted by: calipygian | March 23, 2006 06:37 PM

It is spelled P L A G I A R I S M. Please check your spelling and repost, please!

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 06:43 PM

Well, Debbie and Jim, we now have _four separate acts of plagiarism_, and people are just getting started doing, uh, the investigative reporting.

Want to comment now? Please?

Posted by: Jon Meltzer | March 23, 2006 06:43 PM

Ha ha, you libs are so funny, can't stand to be wrong, can you? Well, moral values and faith are back! And Ben is a great journalist, you are envious that he worked hard and got a good job and you are all loosers.

Posted by: Team USA | March 23, 2006 06:45 PM

WaPo,

I am an educated, professional, male in his mid-20s.

One might think that a paper likes yours would desire business from someone with a demographic like mine.

Unfortunately, I'm also liberal. And it's clear by your actions that your publiction has no interest in my money.

Posted by: Eric | March 23, 2006 06:46 PM

what am I a looser of, pray tell?

Posted by: calipygian | March 23, 2006 06:47 PM

Liberal shrieking is in full roar. Keep it up, show your hate, and we'll see how that gets you re-elected, NOT!

Posted by: FREEDOM IS A NOUN | March 23, 2006 06:47 PM

Ben Domenech is a propagandist who has no place writing for your newspaper; especially not in connection with so-called balanced journalism. Please rethink this mistake. Better yet, retract it!

Posted by: Debra Greene, Ph.D. | March 23, 2006 06:48 PM

ed, ed, ed !
You are doing wonderful work writing those news stories but please, please, please do spell it correctly: P L A G I A R I Z E .

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 06:48 PM

Does the Washington Post support plagiarism?

Posted by: EconAtheist | March 23, 2006 06:48 PM

You lefties are simply afraid of Ben's bold, take-no-prisoners approach to appropriating the written-word resources of other (read: lesser; read: lefty!) writers in service of the great cause of representing Real America.

Face it, 'original' writing is a communist, occult practice. Recycling pre-generated talking points through the medium of blogging is the new communications paradigm for the post-9/11 era. The fact that Ben applied the principles of this paradigm to humor columns and movie reviews just shows what a bold, out-of-the-box thinker he is, and history will vindicate him and his bold, maverick vision.

Silly liberals.

Posted by: Dimadorus Stickulus | March 23, 2006 06:49 PM

Has anyone at the Post read David Brock's book? Do they *anything* about the bogus Regnery Press? Heeellooo?! Anybody? Bueller? Hello?

Ed Board, you've just lent your "objective" endorsement to the right-wing smear machine. Here we go...don't expect any verifiable facts to come out of the Red America blog; just huge stinkin' piles of bullcr*p opinion with no basis in reality.

And you want us to *pay* for this?!

Posted by: FedUp | March 23, 2006 06:51 PM

Are we in a time warp here? I’ve read Domenech’s reference to "jackbooted communist thugs" and thinking why am I wasting my time reading your paper; or did you tongue-in-cheek bring this fellow in to demonstrate how some misguided right-wingers are still holding on to those golden Sen. Joe McCarthy years? You’re kidding, right?!?

Posted by: Richard Kennedy | March 23, 2006 06:51 PM

LOL

Chimpeachment is all you've come up with since losing real power in 1994, and you've been whining ever since.

I think the turd that conducted that study saying the whiny kids grew up to be conservatives never met anyone from the much-vaunted but always beaten Netroots.

BWAHAHAAHAH!

Posted by: LIBS R LOSERS | March 23, 2006 06:53 PM

The Washington Post gives room and board to a blogger who is so out of tune with reality that he thinks Genesis is literal.

...Time magazine had a cover story a month ago, asking Is America Flunking Science? Apparently "is" is not the question...

Posted by: cautiousmaniac | March 23, 2006 06:55 PM

Greetings to "Team USA" amd other "conservatives" posting and defending young Ben here today, YOU ARE RIGHT, we 'liberals' are fed up, angry, and about to take back this country, and the media will have to like it, because WE ARE REAL AMERICANS.

Posted by: Raul V. | March 23, 2006 06:56 PM

Real nice job, WaPo. Great hire you just made.

Firedoglake is all over this like stink on Rove.

Posted by: Samantha | March 23, 2006 06:57 PM

Keep Ben around. His intellectual light-weight incoherence, which we now learn he compensates for with a (characteristically conservative) knack for lying, amuses me to no end.

Let him be a poster child for boorish crypto-facist republican intellectual laziness, and a monument to the Post's decline into irrelevance.

Posted by: Transmission | March 23, 2006 06:59 PM

Why did the washington post feel they needed a plagarist as their blogger???

Posted by: knotIookin | March 23, 2006 06:59 PM

Plagiarism is sooo pre-9/11. Along with the Constitution. Welcome to the fold, WaPo.

Posted by: Red Raider | March 23, 2006 06:59 PM

Dear Raul V-

Over 12 years since you lost the House, and the only thing you've come up with since is CHIMPEACHMENT.

In order to CHIMPEACH the president for exercising all of his tools to protect America, you've GOT TO WIN AN ELECTION FIRST.

Please, please PLEASE send us that idiotic senator from Wisconsin. Feingold! Give us a gift and nominate FEINGOLD!

BWAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHH

Posted by: LMFAO@RAUL V. | March 23, 2006 07:00 PM

WHINE, NETROOTS, WHINE!!!

LOL.

Give us Feingold! Give us Feingold! Give us Feingold!

Hey, maybe you can put Hillary for the V.P. slot and really make CERTAIN that the Democratic Party loses all 50 in 2008.

GO CONDI!

Posted by: WHINY KIDS=NETROOTS | March 23, 2006 07:03 PM

ed's posts are hilarious.

ben miss-spells even when he speaks!

Posted by: lib | March 23, 2006 07:03 PM

Why? Why does the Right Wing whine and scream like a spoiled brat until they get their way? The last that I heard, most of Americans were against the Republican side. Why do I get the feeling that time is turning back to more confined, more ignorant times, as though censorship were being conducted? The only true way to have a fair debate is to listen to all sides, and Bob Domenech is sure as hell going to bring more bias to the media. "Liberal-biased"? I hardly think so; liberals do not stay so much to one view- they at least try to bring out the whole story, unlike those whose minds seem to be stuck in the 1950s.

Posted by: Sam | March 23, 2006 07:04 PM

Thanks "unnamed guy" (brave as usual) and Ben too for giving us the opportunity to show what type of "people" you right-wingers really are.

As your boy in the White House says "bring it on...", November will find ME laughing at your huge defeat and, thanks to Ben, it is going to be really sweet!

I pray to the Post' to keep Ben around.

Posted by: RaulV. | March 23, 2006 07:06 PM

Nice job Post hiring a plagiarist who can't even write his own movie reviews and has to copy Salon's. Also plagiarized P.J. O' Rourke.
Your ending up with omelet all over your face.
Guess after you fire Ben's butt you'll head over to Free Republic for your next Red State Blogger.
Happy to say if you ever check out Democratic blogs there's far more honesty with enough talent plagiarism is unnecessary.

Posted by: Ramboliberal | March 23, 2006 07:06 PM

I never thought I would see the day when the Washington Post would stop following the fair and balanced media laws put in place in the 1940s. Just because the FCC took them down in the 1980s does not mean that your educated readers accept this lesser standard. I find it hard to believe that your organization would invite a right or left extremist entertainer to masquerade as a journalist and mislead readers. Are you planning to add a Blue America column with equal word count and publish disclaimers for both columns, stating that they do not meet your usual standards for sources, citation and factual information?

I see the dilution of journalism as a huge threat to our society and democratic government. Please reply to me and address these issues specifically.

Thanks,

Posted by: Sara-Lynne Simpson | March 23, 2006 07:07 PM

The Netroots are here!

Bring out the WAAAAAAHmbulance! Somebody, quick, take the pulse of the Democratic Party! Here's a IV injection of netroot power! Patient? DOA!

WHINE LIBS WHINE

Posted by: BWAHAHAHA! | March 23, 2006 07:07 PM

At least Ben steals from P. J. O'Rourke.

If you're gonna write for WaPo, you'd better cut-and-paste from the best!

Posted by: Rotwang | March 23, 2006 07:07 PM

thank you RamboLiberal for spelling correctly P L A G I A R I S M . That word is going to be the Washington Post's "Word of the Year" ...

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 07:10 PM

So lets see...the netroots are out in full force, led by a clown living in Berkeley who thinks he can show the way to make the Democrapic Party competitive in all 50 states again?

LOL. Yes, you read that right. Markos knows what it takes to win! He's the conscience of the Democrapic Party, living in a place that after 9/11, got mad because the fire fighters there actually had the audacity to fly Old Glory off their fire engines.

Posted by: BERKELEY SUCKS | March 23, 2006 07:10 PM

Libs wonder why people think they're traitors.

The simple reason? Because they ARE.

Posted by: LIBS ARE TRAITORS | March 23, 2006 07:12 PM

Disgraceful that a paper of the Post's caliber has become a turncoat to truth in the press. This act is reprehensible. The Post is no longer on my reading list, and I will not buy from the advertisers who appear on the paper either. As the paper that brought the Watergate coverup to light the Post is held to a higher accountability by the public, who have no other voice than the media. If the media fails to report the news accurately and fairly then we might as well live in a Communist state, because the truth has been deliberately hidden from everyday people for political gain.

Posted by: Marta | March 23, 2006 07:12 PM

The more I read about Ben Domenech, the more I'm reminded of another young hotshot writer -- Stephen Glass.

Posted by: Lidane | March 23, 2006 07:12 PM

BEN WILL BE FIRED, AND I STILL WON'T BUY THE PIECE OF SHI'ITE WAPO.

You'd better listen to your whiny netroots children and cancel Ben's column, because hiring him doesn't make up for you bias, and you won't get a dime from me.

LOL

Posted by: WaPo STILL sucks | March 23, 2006 07:15 PM

If the Washington Post hopes to maintain any semblance of credibility it will fire this plagiarist immediately. As a journalism student I am embarrassed by my future profession.

Posted by: mraker | March 23, 2006 07:15 PM

why are all the really nasty posts on this blog coming from supporters of the plagarist blogger? Is this what the washingtom post has come to? how pitiful for this once GREAT American newspaper.

Posted by: staranise | March 23, 2006 07:15 PM

Big mistake for three reasons, dear Post. First, Ben D. unbalances your offerings. I agree with other posters that the obvious solution is to find a true "Blue State" blogger--or just stop this silliness and do away with his blog. Second, the kid has plagiarized others apparently. I'm sure you'll check it out. If it's true, his presence drags down the integrity of the Post. Third, his stuff is hate-filled--not worthy of you or the so-called conservative viewpoint.

Posted by: Texas Ed | March 23, 2006 07:19 PM

Is anyone at WP going to respond? Or is everyone at the awards dinner?

Posted by: Barry | March 23, 2006 07:19 PM

Eat it libs! Ben is here to stay, and he represents the MAJORITY, OK? WE WON, YOU LOST! Nobody cares about your whining and "chimpeachment", we are strong for our troops and the heartland. Your hate of capitalism is very funny, you prefer the state own everything and wipe your bum, right? And you want to outlaw religion and God, which is what makes America THE BEST? Try it, bring it, in YOUR FACE, Libs! You SUUUUUUUCCCK!!!!

Posted by: USA for Freedom | March 23, 2006 07:19 PM

Dear Sir(s),

I was surprised to learned that you hired an unqualified partisan to write this column but I thought this could be a new source of comedy, so I wasn't too upset.

Now I find that young Ben writes articles the Jeff Gannon way - he plagiarizes them. This is quite a bit more serious than a mere disagreement with Ben's politcs and calls into question the judgment of the WaPo at the highest levels.

Posted by: Steven Jandreau | March 23, 2006 07:19 PM

I thought it was a joke that you had hired a real gosh dern plagiarist as your new washington post blogmaster so I actually came to the blog to see if it was true and WOW the washington post HAS hired a real gosh dern Plagiarist...A PLAGIARIST....I guess the joke is now the Washington Post...to funny...a real plagiarist wow. I never thought I would see the day that the great washington post would sink THIS low.

Posted by: CitizenAdvocate | March 23, 2006 07:21 PM

AARGH! "to learn"

I'd ask for a preview button but I'd rarely use it.

:-(

Posted by: Steven Jandreau | March 23, 2006 07:21 PM

Hate?

If you want hate, go to www.dailykos.com.

Now THERE are some really sick people.

Note to Demtards-if you want to win, don't take advice from a guy that lives in BERKELEY.

That I even need to say that shows how sad the left has become.

Posted by: LIBS R HATEFUL | March 23, 2006 07:21 PM

WAPO's new wingnut posterboy is said to be home-schooled.

By the looks of things, Homey's getting schooled right now.

As Mr. Lincoln said (wouldn't want to plagiarize, you know), "you can't fool all the people all of the time".

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 23, 2006 07:22 PM

Liberals are traitors and want us to surrender to the Islamists. We need to win and beat terrorism, not cut and run and coddle terrorists. Liberals are terrorists, period.


Michael
Boise, ID

Posted by: Michael McGroity | March 23, 2006 07:22 PM

It's a dreamy, slow-motion cartoon of a giant safe plummeting towards 15th Street, and at the bottom after Impact,the limbs of Jim Brady sprawled in all the directions of the compass. Tweety birds doing orbits around the recently fallen Ben-Domenech-shaped block of steel.In the cartoon, Brady can get up and dust himself off and say nasty things about the mean public who don't care for his way of doing business, but at least we come up with our criticisms ourselves, without the help of already published and un-credited works.Ok, I lifted the idea of the above from Warner Bros for the most part, but other than that it's all me . I can't see The Boss or anyone else complaining too strenuously about me getting a laugh out of it all and sharing it with other readers, I'm just enjoying the cartoon along with everyone else...
Tell me when the stretchy car gets stuck on the railway tracks , I love that part...

Posted by: A.Scott | March 23, 2006 07:23 PM

I have been a reader of the Wash Post for many years and have been greatly influenced by what was your fair and even balance between the right conservatives and the left progressives. We are terribly disappointed by your being influenced by Ben Domenech - by his own words "..."the youngest political appointee of President George W. Bush". This is a man who online titles his comments about George Bush's attendance at Coretta Scott King's funeral ""The President visits the funeral of a Communist."

It is so hard to believe that your newpaper has chosen to allow Domenech such a prominent position in the Post - a medium that is so influential to national opinion.

We ask that if you choose to allow Donenech a forum, then allow a counterpart to have an equally influential forum.

I certainly hope that your days of watchdog journalism are not over.
If you continue your unblanced commentators, we will no longer read your newspaper

Emmanuela Raquelle
Boulder Creek, CA 95006


Posted by: Emmanuela Raquelle | March 23, 2006 07:24 PM

Netroots = Berkeley?

Is this really the path back to power, libtards?

Seriously, you're listening to a guy from BERKELEY?

It tickles me red to know that you are so angry, active, and just aren't going to take it any more.

Maybe in 2008, you can rival Dukakis' or Mondale's humiliating defeat.

What a joke.

Posted by: BERKELEY? LOL | March 23, 2006 07:24 PM

for those kiddies all hating on Markos : at least he served honorably in the U.S. armed forces, unlike your Chickenhawk Ben. You wingnuts need to check out http://goarmy.com
Signup and fight the IslamoFascists over there in Iraq so your Mommy doesn't have to fight them here !

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 07:26 PM

To staranize:

"why are all the really nasty posts on this blog coming from supporters of the plagarist blogger? Is this what the washingtom post has come to?"

That is your question and the answer is simple, they are afraid, cowardly hiding behind God, the troops and the flag, instead of showing their bigotry and ignorance in a more open way.

You see, they were pathetic losers before, now they are pathetic "winners", a very dangerous combination.

Posted by: Raul V | March 23, 2006 07:26 PM

I've reconsidered, After demonstrating that the Post simply has no judgement and has lost all credibility, it might be ther very best move for them to simply drop pretense and institute plagarism as the new journalism.

Why fight it ?

Posted by: Patrick ONeill | March 23, 2006 07:26 PM

But Coretta Scott King WAS a communist.

Check the records. So was her husband.

Doesn't mean I don't admire and respect the both of them. But facts are facts.

Posted by: Liberals hate facts. | March 23, 2006 07:27 PM

And now it seems to be the news out on the net that your “Red State” guy Ben Domenech plagiarized from a book by P.J. O'Rourke.

Perhaps if you had launched this with both a Red State and a Blue State blog nobody would have been angry enough to start background searches and find out you'd hired a plagiarist.

Posted by: Dennis in AZ | March 23, 2006 07:27 PM

The Post's new blogger plagiarized from O'Rourke and Salon. And he posts patently racist diatribes with approval. What does one have to do to be fired from the Post? What does one have to do to get hired? How many other Post contributers plagiarize? How many others would be openly racist if they did not feel the scrutiny of writing for a large newspaper?

I can't trust the Washington Post any more with a plagiarist on staff.

Posted by: Joel | March 23, 2006 07:29 PM

You want to know why the right-wingnuts are over here posting like mad about Berkeley? They smell a a scandal brewing and want to change the subject to protect the guilty.

That's how it always is with the Bush cult. When you're in trouble, raise a terror alert.

I'm afriad the wildfires are catching too quickly now, and Karl Rove is too busy keeping his butt out of the slammer to fight them. The scam's falling down around your ears, fratboys.

Posted by: Libby Sosume | March 23, 2006 07:29 PM

Dear Raul V-

I'd rather hide behind the troops and the flag than spit on them and burn it.

Posted by: LIBS R TRAITORS | March 23, 2006 07:30 PM

Posted by: Patrick ONeill | March 23, 2006 07:26 PM

Dammit Patrick! Do it right! the word is P L A G I A R I S M . Otherwise, good comment!

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 07:30 PM

And the goodness just keeps coming.

At least one review Domenech wrote for the _National Review_ was plagiarized.

I'd post the links, but I'm not a _professional investigative journalist_.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 07:30 PM

WAPO has stumbled across a brilliant new business strategy: Antagonize the vast majority of your readers.

Let us know how it works out.

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 23, 2006 07:31 PM

I'm also still waiting for Deb H and the rest of the WaPo clowns to cough up those docs that prove Abramoff directed funds to Dems through Casino Clients. In case JB is stuck under that big safe for the time being , let DH know we are still waiting. Didn't forget. Not gonna.

0 Credibility.

Posted by: A.Scott | March 23, 2006 07:32 PM

Here's a movie review that Ben Domenech published in the National Review which is particularly obvious.

Ben Domenech wrote:

Translucent and glowing, they ooze up from the ground and float through solid walls, splaying their tentacles and snapping their jaws, dripping a discomfiting acidic ooze. They're known as the Phantoms, otherworldly beings who, for three decades, have been literally sucking the life out of the earthlings of the human. They are swollen, insectoid, the nightmare descendents of Lovecraftian grotesque — if only the filmmakers had created a plot that was as memorable.


Steve Murray, writing for the Cox News Service, wrote:

Translucent and glowing, they ooze up from the ground and float through solid walls, wriggling countless tentacles and snapping their jaws. They're known as the Phantoms, alien thingies that, for three decades, have been sucking the life out of the earthlings of “Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.” Swollen nightmares from a petri dish, they're the kind of grotesque whatsits horror writer H.P. Lovecraft would have kept as pets in his basement.

Via silence on Dailykos.com

Posted by: Sue | March 23, 2006 07:32 PM

What a newspaper. Hiring a mouth-breathing, home-schooled, racist, Republican operative as a blogger. Oops, forgot that he's also a plagiarist. Got any more right-wing freaks ready for the Washington Post stamp of approval?

I assume personal attacks are ok, as they are little Ben's stock-in-trade? If he can call Coretta Scott King a communist, I can call him a freak, right? After all, you want to be "balanced."

Posted by: MikeR | March 23, 2006 07:32 PM

Troops voted overwhelmingly for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Check the data. Gore knew this and tried to have the absentee ballots of servicemembers thrown out in 2000.

The reason we don't have more running for office right now is because they're still serving.

I'm serving. Conservatives are serving. The question is, where are the libs?

Posted by: Libs hate America. | March 23, 2006 07:33 PM

When will the Post and/or Mr. Domenech respond to the myriad accusations of plagarism committed by Mr. Domenech on other websites. The evidence suggests that he has extensively stolen from many journalists and other bloggers. The Post must respond to this issue.

Posted by: AdamDC | March 23, 2006 07:34 PM

but ChickenHawk Ben sure ain't serving!
http://goarmy.com

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 07:35 PM

WAPO, aren't you ashamed that progressive bloggers have greater investigative jounalism skills than you?

Or did you know about this guy's wretched background and still hired him?

Heckuvajob Bennie!

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 23, 2006 07:36 PM

Well, after all these revelations, surely Ben gets a medal?

Posted by: ProudDem | March 23, 2006 07:37 PM

What's up with the affirmative action for home-schooled college dropouts--especially homeschooled college dropout plagiarists--anyway? If this is the most qualified so-called conservative available for this position, I think the Right-Wing should worry a bit.

Posted by: Karl the Grouchy Medievalist | March 23, 2006 07:37 PM

this Red America thing is freaking ridiculous. Have y'all lost your minds?

fyi: i canceled my subscription earlier today. good luck earning that back...

Posted by: OnShakedown | March 23, 2006 07:37 PM

Posted by: AdamDC | March 23, 2006 07:34 PM

P L A G I A R I S M
P L A G I A R I S M
P L A G I A R I S M
P L A G I A R I S M
P L A G I A R I S M

Please spell the Washington Post's new albatross correctly !

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 07:38 PM

P L A G I A R I S M

Will the Post please explain to Ben that you cannot copy other people's writing without giving them credit. Seems like Journalism 101 to me. Mr. Brady, paging Mr. Brady.

Posted by: Scott | March 23, 2006 07:38 PM

I write today to request that you terminate Ben Domenech's employment and affiliation with the Washington Post. He has shown himself to be a racist, untruthful,and homophobic. Surely you can find someone on the right that is not this unethical and extreme.

Posted by: Peter Medicie | March 23, 2006 07:38 PM

LMFAO at these posts!

So this is Markos' newest little netroots project, huh? Hope it is as successful as his others have been.

Posted by: CRY LIB CRY | March 23, 2006 07:39 PM

Could not have said it better myself: (thanks Disgustedwithmedia)

WAPO has stumbled across a brilliant new business strategy: Antagonize the vast majority of your readers.

Let us know how it works out.

Posted by: YouAreDeadToMe | March 23, 2006 07:41 PM

Tecumseh,

I'm sure you'll agree that the only way you're allowed to have an opinion on a topic is if you've actually experienced it.

Since only people who have served in the military are apparently allowed to talk about it (note, I've served), maybe you'll agree to not talk about having sex with hot chicks or making money.

Deal?

Posted by: Tecumseh = Tool | March 23, 2006 07:42 PM

Cons hide behind the troops. Libs spit on them.

Cons hide behind the flag. Libs burn it.

Both suck, in my opinion.

Posted by: Purple | March 23, 2006 07:43 PM

Jim Brady must go.

Posted by: Semblance | March 23, 2006 07:43 PM

He, the "patriotic Conservatives" are about explode!

You know (is hard for you to add up numbers, we know) but me think that liberals are a LOT MORE than you, and the polls show that too.

Your "fake Texan boy" and Ben really deserve each other. I hear that he was just hired to help the "Preznit" on media affairs...ha, ha, ha.

A C- President and a home schooled plagiarist working together...ha, ha, ha.

Posted by: Raul-V | March 23, 2006 07:44 PM

The saddest thing about all this is wondering whether Mr. and Mrs. Doug Domenech are home now, silently weeping, wondering where they went wrong with all those years of home-schooling. Perhaps it was the cheap Chinese rip-off "Hooked on Phonics" lesson they purchased after getting a spam email offer. After they diligently spent hours on E-Bay searching for flash cards to enhance their teaching abilities, no one could blame them now, could they, if they forgot to count the cards first to see if they'd been cheated? One must also feel Mrs. Ben's pain, as she watches her husband getting ripped to shreds here. I wonder if she will home-school her own children? Oh the humanity of it all...

How long will we have to wait, for one of the young Santorum's, home-schooled as well, to pick up some of Ben's slack?

These are the things on my mind, as I fight back the sympathetic tears of anguish...

Posted by: Philip | March 23, 2006 07:45 PM

To be fair, I imagine the thought that goes through most non net citizens minds when they read threads like this is simply:

I can't believe these people live in the same country as I do.

Having said that, I'd just like to add that if these hate filled screeds from the left are any indication of what we can expect from the Democrats in this Novembers election, you can look forward to even more losing. Do not be fooled by the polls. Again. I can say this with the full confidence that you will pay it no mind, because, after all, the polls are telling you that you are on the right path. Again.

As to my friends on the right, if these charges of plagiarism are true then Ben deserves to be fired.

But then, if these comments are to be believed, as a supporter of the GOP I am apparently every evil thing under the sun, and then some. Wow. Who knew?

Posted by: Defense Guy | March 23, 2006 07:47 PM

P L A G I A R I S M

Hey Ben, if you're not fired, does this mean we'll need to google each of your Red America posts to find the original source? Since clearly your work is mostly based on the magic of cut and paste?

Oh, and to those clowns attacking "libs" in the comments, get over yourselves --- don't take Red Dawn Ben's side on this one, you only end up looking as ethically challenged as he clearly is.

Thanks for the laughs, see you in the funny pages,
Slim

Posted by: Slim | March 23, 2006 07:47 PM

Uh-oh! Looks like Ben even plagiarized the Post!:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/3/23/152531/888/208#208

That's gotta hurt!

Posted by: Paul Curtis | March 23, 2006 07:52 PM


Serial plagiarism is simply unacceptable.

-- and this in a context where lies and baloney exist in demonstrably large quantities.

If the Post MUST pretend to be balanced by publishing a right-winger, at least get one that makes up his own stuff.

Blogs are supposed to be web logs, you can quote and attribute whatever you want... why claim it as yours in your web log if you're just cutting and pasting?

On the news of this blog, I was resolved to largely ignore it but now I think we have to respectably request someone who makes up his own stuff.

I would love to see an honest old school Republican, if today's Repubs weren't largely corrupt liars with a radical agenda I would probably be one.

I dress conservatively, drive a conservative car, and I yearn for the days when the Gov spent less than it took in. I remember when "family values" were something you lived, not something you pretended to believe in to snooker gullible voters.

The hippies were right about Viet Nam and today's peaceniks are right about Iraq. It's a shame "W" never learned to listen to conservative wisdom, it would have told him to stay out of the middle east.

Now we are trillions in debt and the party small government has passed the biggest pork bill in the history of the Great Experiment. Such would not happen if there were any real Republicans around.

Did Ike ever warn us about some kind of military-industrial thingy?

A party that caters to the majority makes good sense. A party dedicated to the oppression of minorities is a disease.

There's a difference there, get it?

Posted by: Sharky | March 23, 2006 07:54 PM

I bet good ol' Ben even plagiarized himself, at some point, ha, ha...

I wonder, does the Washington Post going to address the ethical implications of his hiring?

Or are they going to pull a "McClellan" on their readers? (Scottie usual "I don't answer to your comments, you little liberals...")

They are GOP operatives now, I am guessing they will be happy to keep Ben. Poor Nixon, he had to deal with the real Post' instead of this joke of a paper.

Posted by: Raul.V | March 23, 2006 07:57 PM

I'm a conservative, and agree that Ben should be fired if he really is guilty of plagiarism. I'm sure he would have expected nothing less of Jayson Blair.

However, this is just a tactic. If there were another effective conservative blogging here, the goal would have remained the same-exercise the demon so that the left continues to monopolize the WaPo.

Fact is, subscriptions are down, and MSM is dying. With it, the Democratic Party is quickly losing its greatest defender and cheerleader.

The Kossacks are tactically right to wage this battle, and maybe they'll win it. But they've lost the war. Fox News dominates cable news, and the handful of readers of dailykos is a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers who watch O'Reilly every night.

Facts are facts. Listening to a guy from Berkeley, as other posters have pointed out, is hardly a winning strategy.

Posted by: If a plagiarist, fire him | March 23, 2006 07:57 PM

Political partisanship has no use in a news agency. This is the first - and last - time this reader will visit this or any politically-motivated blog published by a "reputable" news agency.

I am disappointed by the Post, which apparently is succumbing to the profit motive of its corporate owner, as it edges towards "infotainment", and dousing fuel onto partisan fires currently burning in this country.

Shame on the Post.

Posted by: tom | March 23, 2006 07:59 PM

He does, of course bring out the idiots in full force to defend him. But serial plagiarism while developing as a writer should probably disqualify him from continued employment at your distiguished organization.

IMHO

Posted by: Paul Dirks | March 23, 2006 08:01 PM

Ben is meant to balance others in the MSM who claim that Bush makes them want to puke (actual quote from some liberal clown at ABC).

Posted by: GOT DIEBOLD? LOL | March 23, 2006 08:03 PM

Please accept my post as the latest edition of "Irony Watch.

'Hal Straus has written, "Ben Domenech brings an original and authentically conservative voice to the site's Opinions area, where we're committed to presenting the most provocative, informed and ideologically diverse policy debate on the web."'

Given the numerous examples of blatant, and I mean blatant, plagiarism by Mr. Domenech that have now been documented, the word 'original' has me rolling on the floor.

Thank you, Washington Post. It's now my next stop right after 'The Onion'.

Rich. Oh how wonderfully rich. Mmmmm....

Posted by: aldorossi | March 23, 2006 08:04 PM

I think the vetting process on Mr. Domenech didn't work. Someone besides Mr. Domenech should be held responsible. This paper and its legacy deserve better.

Posted by: David | March 23, 2006 08:04 PM

Wow.

Two days.

I'm siitng here trying to put myself in the shoes of whoever hired Ben. It sure doesn't feel good. What a collossal screw up!

I really don't mean to be mean, and I hope this isn't taken that way. But somebody needs to resign. I used to work in John Hayes' office at American Express. He was what they called "The Steward of the Brand".

Ilearned that brands are built up over a period of years. That trustworthiness, strength and honesty are emotional tie-ins that bind people to products.

Ben, and I should say the entire mau-mauing dishonest political right, represents a full-on assault against your brand. I'm not sure if it reaches the level of Jason Blair - after all, Ben is web only and hasn't seen any time on your front page - but he's hurting you amongst some of your most loyal readers.

The fix? Fire Ben. Announce the sorrowful resignation of whoever hired him. Forget about the notion of hosting ideologically motivated blogs; that's not the job of a news provider.

One last suggestion... Instead of looking at the liberal bloggers as enemies, try to listen to the substance of their criticism. It's often spot-on and will often improve the quality of your product if given a fair hearing.

Posted by: Mike Stark | March 23, 2006 08:04 PM

I'm sure Ben won't mind resigning and trusting the market with his career, now that he's been exposed as a serial plagiarist?

Sounds he'd be a great fit for Fox News.

Posted by: Theo Potter | March 23, 2006 08:05 PM

Nice job Augustine (thanks for owning up to that by the way..haha)
I am utterly stunned that yet another repug has found a way to completely humiliate himself. It's bad enough you lack the mirror neurons necessary to understand anyone or anything other than your own personal short term gain, but to so blatantly copy others' work... pitiful. I wish I could be so clever and end my posts like you with some fanciful saying... let me try..
I hope this fool never has a son to teach
or perhaps this one...
This story shall the Plagiarist hide from his son

Posted by: whatever | March 23, 2006 08:05 PM

MSM IS DYING!

Democrats are going to have to find another mechanism for winning elections after their propoganda arm has disintegrated due to that horrible, terrible profit motive!

If only the state controlled the media, eh Komerad?

Posted by: LIBS R FASCISTS | March 23, 2006 08:06 PM

The Washington Post used to be a news organization. Now it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Karl Rove's media operation.

The Washington Post is paying big bucks to the plagiarist Domenech. They won't fire Domenech for his plagiarism, they will probably promote him to editor-in-chier.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 08:07 PM

Shorter Right : we think it's cool the WAPO hired a bigot and a thief, he agrees with us .And the left can cry about it, we're putting the US back in USA , or some such blather .

Fellas, please address the grievous charges of transgression against the most basic tenants of Journalism . Or are you all that ok with a plagiarist speaking for you ?

Posted by: A.Scott | March 23, 2006 08:09 PM

Plagiarist and racist- truly what's next for the Washington Post?

I work for a mid-size southern university; and I'm the only caucasian in my department, the rest of my co-workers being African-American.

Tomorrow I plan to introduce them to the WP's newest columnist, and what a disgraceful day for journalism that will be.

----

"People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag."

snip

"It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime. I do not question the research or logic of Levitt's argument. If a specifiable group is inordinately responsible for a social problem, it follows that eliminating a large number of people belonging to that group will reduce the problem."

What monsters these republicans are.

Posted by: Border State Southerner | March 23, 2006 08:10 PM

wow! so many great comments here! I don't know which ones to cut and paste and present as my own first!

Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 23, 2006 08:10 PM

p.lukasiak... thanks for the laugh.. that was absolutely hysterical

Posted by: whatever | March 23, 2006 08:12 PM

What say you, Washington Post?

Is this plagiarism story about Ben true or not? It should take all of five minutes for your investigative journalists to check this out and own up, or provide the defense.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: JL | March 23, 2006 08:14 PM

NEWSFLASH!

RACIST BLOGGER BUSTED IN SERIAL SWIPE-FEST

WAPO WEEPS: "WE WERE DUPED"

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: "WHY WON'T BEN STEAL FROM ME?"

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 08:14 PM

Can I take the fifth?

Posted by: bendy | March 23, 2006 08:16 PM

I have now perused several other blogs and discovered that this sad young man is a serial plagiarist who sanctions the most retrograde racist tripe one can find in the blogosphere. I support honest and open discourse on the Internet and respect the opinions of thoughtful and reasoned writers, even those with whom I dramatically disagree. But what this kid has written is neither thoughtful nor reasoned; it is the pathetic manifestation of a neurotic personality. For his own good, he needs to be asked to resign his position at the Post and seek medical help.

Posted by: Cidbob | March 23, 2006 08:19 PM

I am saddened to see the Post commit such an obvious breach of journalistic ethics. "Red America" is nothing but neo-con propoganda, and it has no place in an actual newspaper. I hope that they will correct this mistake, with a full retraction and apology. Someone needs to stand up and show Americans what a real newspaper with real journalism looks like, and it would be good if the Post could do that.

Posted by: Ben Richey | March 23, 2006 08:19 PM

You morons don't deserve your jobs.
Plagiarism!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
You all are a disgrace to your profession.
Phony impostors!
Bush water-carriers. AHAHAHAHAHA
What a bunch of suckers!
Bush and the idiot cheney are playing you for fools because you are fools.
If you had any...ANY shame, you would resign immediately.

Posted by: beyond paranoid | March 23, 2006 08:20 PM

It has become the thing on issues programs nowadays to "balance" truth with lies -- in the interest of fairness (to liars, I suppose). No less absurd and tragic is the decision of the Washington Post to "balance" responsible journalism with this "Red America" garbage is no balance at all. It's mixing debased material with precious material. True balance is acheived by allowing all real journalism, no matter what it turns up. Please get rid of Ben Domenech. His column is an insult.

Posted by: Bob Brown | March 23, 2006 08:20 PM

Is this really you, Ben?:

"wow! so many great comments here! I don't know which ones to cut and paste and present as my own first!"

Are you unable to come up with a single original joke too???

Posted by: Raul/V | March 23, 2006 08:22 PM

In the weeks and months leading up to the invasion of Iraq you rolled over like dogs and did nothing to report the lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction. Now that these heartless republicans have full power over this country you try to "balance" this power by kneeling to them once again with this pathetic excuse of a blogger? The washington post makes me sick. I hope the republican party raises the cost of newspaper supplies. Get a job as you obviously suck as journalists.

Posted by: Ben | March 23, 2006 08:22 PM

wow! so many great comments here! I don't know which ones to cut and paste and present as my own first!

Damn! p.lukasiak beat me to that one. Not that it seems to matter to the braintrust at the WaPo hiring committee. Surely I'm qualified for a position with my cut and paste skills?

Posted by: Gary Frazier | March 23, 2006 08:25 PM

I am rather discomforted by your use of Mr. Ben Domenech as a blogger without offering someone to balance his hack journalism. I have read his material and find him a blogger hack. He is apt to check facts with ineptitude and brings no credibility to your institution.

Considering how poorly your newspaper is rating as of late, I think you made a real poor choice in this matter. Please reconsider.

Posted by: Scott Lumry | March 23, 2006 08:25 PM

Another one bites the dust.

bwahahahaha

Posted by: Blue Jersey | March 23, 2006 08:26 PM

All the right-wingnuts can do is lob insults and platitudes that only rile each other to more chest puffing triumphalism...and yet none offers any solution to any issue raised here . We Won U Lost ...oh and Cry Lefties Cry...why on earth would the left being crying over the hilarious slipping-on-a-banana-comedy Jim Brady has provided us? Nothing to cry about here , and so far as tears go , I think Mr B and Mr Dom are more likely to need a hanky in the coming days.
And the State-Power Authoritarians ( I remember a conservative movement who were deeply suspicious of Government and it's salesmen) show up to moon us and ignore the very serious and possibly far-reaching charges of Plagiarism now landing on their doorstep .
Very impressed however by the real conservatives who show up to speak reasonably about the need for the Post to jettison this hack and fast , if only for what remains of the credibility of the right in the US. I can't wait to welcome those people back to the helm of the Republican party , once the Cleptocratic Wing is done with it or is properly indicted.

Posted by: A.Scott | March 23, 2006 08:26 PM

Although they undoubtedly did it for the wrong reasons, the Washington Post has done the country a favor by giving Ben a pulpit. Just when everyone may have forgotten the bellyful of Republican thug-triumphalism they got in the wake of 2000 and 2004, here's Ben to make sure that, as 2006 wears on toward November, we remember...

Posted by: Faber | March 23, 2006 08:27 PM

apropos: Posted by: Raul/V | March 23, 2006 08:22 PM

that was just me, mocking Box Turtle Ben's proclivity for plagiarism ...
Paul Lukasiak's original comment was too brilliant not to plagiarize.

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 08:28 PM

So this Ben Domeneche plagiarized regularly when on staff at William & Mary's FlatHat--looks like at least 4 times according to the last tally I read at Eschaton. What does that say about him that here he criticizes the Flat Hat in an editorial:

http://flathat.wm.edu/December082000/opinionsstory6.html

This guy has some serious issues to deal with, I think. Really, Washington Post, please stick to trying to report the news with excellent standards. Leave the partisan hacks to the tabloids. Stick to professionals. Please live up to the standards of your readers!

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 08:29 PM

Ben Domenech? Here's what you've done for me, a moderate who does not belong to any political party: I'm done with the WaPo, especially the online version.

This guy is full of hate, calling Mrs. King a communist on the *day of her funeral*! Etc., etc.

Plus, it appears the guy is a blatant plagiarist!

Why would you want a "red state" person anyway, unless you were hiring a "blue state" person at the same time? Is that fair? Are you kowtowing to the people in power that obviously now?

Is this really the kind of person you want on staff at the WaPo?

Yes? Then count me out. Bye!

Posted by: RCrane | March 23, 2006 08:31 PM

The gift that keeps on giving:

"Jayson Does Not Apologize

Jayson Blair refuses to have any sense of guilt over his actions at the New York Times. He says he received no preferential treatment. He says he deserves to be hailed as a genius for his elaborate lies. He says he laughed at the sheer inaccuracy of his cliched description of Jessica Lynch's West Virginia family home.

Jayson Blair is just one more journalistic pezzonovante amidst a crowd of his peers. The only difference is, he's unashamed of his pretty little lies. In fact, he's proud of them.

The ultimate insult that we could pay towards this wretch would be to forget him. He deserves no more of our time."

Written by Ben himself.

Oh! sweet delicious irony...

Thank you, thank you, thank you Washington Post!

Posted by: Aldorossi | March 23, 2006 08:31 PM

Admit you made a mistake, and fire the young plagiarist.

Posted by: Dan | March 23, 2006 08:32 PM

I hear Deb H. has documents that show Ben stole work from Democrats and Republicans alike , so ...you know ...

Posted by: A.Scott | March 23, 2006 08:33 PM

From Woodstein to Domenech.

Nice job, Editors!

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 08:35 PM

" It should take all of five minutes for your investigative journalists to check this out and own up, or provide the defense."


Shhh ... don't tell them about Goog....

Posted by: raboof | March 23, 2006 08:36 PM

You sick-in-the-head bush supporters are a disgrace to our country.
I can understand the gullible religious morons getting duped by these idiots.
But, dammmmmm, for all you people to turn yourselves into water-carriers for the bush neocon extremists, is disgusting!
Repulsive sell-outs, all of you.
Stinking up the place with your foul disgusting flag waving for bush.
Idiots.

Posted by: beyond paranoid | March 23, 2006 08:36 PM

Aldorossi says above : "Written by Ben himself." Are you really really sure? The kid himself does have a tendency to plagiarize, ya know!

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 08:38 PM

Washingtonpost.com "Red State" blogger Ben Domenich wrote the following:

People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag. Stated so bluntly, many readers might find that way of putting the matter morally problematic. The extermination of anti-social elements does, after all, have a somewhat controversial history. One thinks, perhaps inevitably, of the Holocaust, but it did not start or stop there. Six years ago, economist Steven Levitt and law professor John Donohue sparked a brouhaha with their claim that abortion is probably the greatest crime-prevention measure ever invented. Now that argument has received renewed currency in the bestselling book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Levitt and his co-author Stephen Dubner. In recent years there has been a 30- to 50-percent drop in crime, and many explanations are offered: new policing methods, more than two million people behind bars, the drop-off in the use of crack, and on and on. But a careful analysis of the data, say Levitt and company, indicates that the biggest factor, far and away, is that the millions of young men most likely to commit crimes were killed early on. A refreshing note of candor in the current discussion is that nobody is denying that all those fetuses killed in the womb were really human beings. So it seems the question of when human life begins has been settled once and for all. The dramatic decline in crime began eighteen years after Roe v. Wade, and a few years earlier in those states that liberalized their abortion law. Of course, most of the commentaries steer away from a too-explicit reference to race, although everybody is aware of the astonishingly inordinate incidence of crimes committed by young male blacks and the equally inordinate incidence of abortions procured by black women. In one interview, Levitt said his findings had little or nothing to do with race; his research on the correlation between crime and unstable family situations was based on Scandinavian research. Well yes, but nobody to my knowledge has suggested that the problem of crime in the United States is significantly related to the problem of Swedish immigration. Levitt, like Donohue, is also careful to say that he is not a supporter of the unlimited abortion license. I notice that many other commentators make a point of saying that this discussion is not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime. I do not question the research or logic of Levitt’s argument. If a specifiable group is inordinately responsible for a social problem, it follows that eliminating a large number of people belonging to that group will reduce the problem. It is hard to argue with that. What is morally odious is the cool and disinterested way in which the commentariat is discussing what might fairly be described as racial cleansing. It’s too bad about all those dead babies, but it is a kind of solution to the crime problem, if not a final solution. Meanwhile, those who style themselves black leaders, especially political leaders, are overwhelmingly in support of the unlimited abortion license, thus maintaining their distinction of being the only ethnic or racial leadership in history to actively collaborate in dramatically reducing the number of people they claim to lead. If they had been allowed to live, there would be about twenty million more blacks in America. White racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership. In another lifetime, before he succumbed to national ambitions, Jesse Jackson regularly declared that the war on poverty had been replaced by a war on the poor. There is more than a little to that. Having despaired of preparing young blacks to enter into the opportunities and responsibilities of American life, the society apparently decided to eliminate them before they had a chance to become a threat. The story of the Exodus plays a large and understandable part in black history: "Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, `When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him.’ But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live." Today’s black leaders are more compliant, much to the satisfaction of those who think we would all be better off with fewer black people.

Posted by: neurophius | March 23, 2006 08:40 PM

Does the Washington Post know the difference between editorial opinion (plagiarized or not) and objective journalism? Apparently not, if it thinks that the addition of this Repug sycophant gives the WP greater credibility as balanced and objective. C'mon, WP. Aren't there enough foaming-at-the-mouth wingnuts on the internet without giving one a voice in what was once in the misty past a respected newspaper?

Oh, and before any self-righteous conservatives get on my case, I am a church-going Christian who is trying to figure out what bombing innocent people, trashing the environment, and stepping on the poor have to do with Christian values.

Posted by: Mad | March 23, 2006 08:41 PM

Ben, you a plagerizer. Period. If you have any shame left, you will resign this column before you get whomever the idiot was that hired you fired.

Posted by: Joe | March 23, 2006 08:42 PM

joe! joe! joe!

Get it right, please

P L A G I A R I Z E R

That word is the new buzz at the Washington Post so please spell it correctly.

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 08:45 PM

Tough week, huh guys? Man, I'll bet Rove didn't mention Ben being a little light in the originality department when he phoned to let you know you'd be hiring him. That's just like him; he's such a practical joker.

Don't worry too much though, I'm sure he'll be calling any minute to give you advice on how to handle it...something along the lines of:

1) Ignore it and hope it blows over.

2) Attack those who are attacking our young plagiarist; you know, maybe accuse them of plagiarizing their third grade book report, thereby proving it's a bipartisan thing...everyone plagiarizes.

3) Hey, it was college, everyone plagiarizes in college. Besides, he was probably tripping when he did it. He's sober now.

4) Hell, if worse comes to worst, just toss the rascal overboard. He'll be okay -- his dad will find him a job fleecing Indians from the Department of the Interior.

5) Don't worry; there are more where he came from.

Posted by: The Venerable Ed | March 23, 2006 08:50 PM

Plagarism...its what's for dinner at RedState.

Looks like lil' Benny's had quite a few helpings.

Way to go, WaPo. Stellar.

Hey, Ben...why haven't you enlisted? Scared?

Posted by: ThunderHawk | March 23, 2006 08:50 PM

Re: Callow Young Ben

Heckuva job, WaPo.

Posted by: Maryland Reader | March 23, 2006 08:51 PM

Box Turtle Ben represents "Real America"?

Let's see:
1. Grew up in Northern Virgina (suburban DC!)
2. Has a wealthy father.
3. Family's wealth and privilege allowed mother to home-school the kids (no second income needed in that family).
4. Was able to afford to attend an expensive college.
5. Father's political connections allowed him to get a government job (sucking off the public teat).
6. Has never had a job that didn't involve getting paid for by taxpayers or right-wing funding.
7. Wife works for a public official (there's the public teat thing again).

Sorry, but I live in Red America, and this is what I see around me:
1. People not living in gated communities or other wealthy enclaves of "Blue areas."
2. People whose parents aren't wealthy and whose parents both have to work to make ends meet.
3. Have no choice but to attend underfunded public schools (parents can't afford to home-school or send kids to private schools).
4. People who can barely afford community college, if that.
5. Lucky if daddy can help them get hired at the same factory he works at.
6. Don't work for the government.
7. Spouses don't work for the government.

Box Turtle Ben not only is the antithesis of "Real Americans," he's probably never even met any!

Posted by: I love box turtles | March 23, 2006 08:52 PM

I have always read and admired the Washington Post for the honest, unbiased reporting it has done over the years. That is no longer the case. “Red America” with Ben Domenech is an insult to the Washington Post and their loyal readers.

Ben Domenech has been quoted as saying such things as:

· He believes people should be "pissed" that President Bush attended "the funeral of a Communist"—referring to the funeral for Coretta Scott King. As you know, labeling the King family "communists" was a favorite tool of the racists who opposed them.

· In another RedState post, Domenech compared "the Judiciary" unfavorably to the Ku Klux Klan.

· In still another RedState comment, Domenech posted without comment an article stating that "[i]t just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime" and that "[w]hite racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership" because black leaders "are overwhelmingly in support" of abortion rights.

· In yet another, Domenech said that conservative blogger/journalist Andrew Sullivan, who is gay, "needs a woman to give him some stability."

Those are just a few of the many bigoted remarks of an ignorant man that you, the Washington Post, is supporting. How can this type of journalism be supported by your paper?

If this man is left to spew this kind of bias garbage you will lose many loyal readers.

Please reconsider your choice in journalists.

Posted by: Leslie P. | March 23, 2006 08:53 PM

You know, Mr. Brady and Mr. Harris and Ms. Howell have really taken against "the liberal blogs". But it's a liberal blog's commenter, not one of the investigative reporters or even the Post's HR department, that in TWO DAYS found numerous examples of plagiarism by this new Post.com columnist.

In other words, there's more solid investigative journalism going on in that liberal blog, huh? Maybe instead of hiring some opinionated columnist of either political stripe, the Post ought to be hiring this Kos commenter who at least knows how to use Google and Nexus.

It's just embarrassing that the Post was caught out like this. Yeah, Ms. Howell can sniff and say, "That's the post.com, not the Post." (And Mr. Brady, keep that in mind next time she tries to intimidate you-- she claims not to be associated at all with your side of the company.)

The truth is, you have to be more careful hiring when you don't go the standard route. Due diligence, all that. If you hire a real journalist who has been at other newspapers, who has been edited, who has been scrutinized by thousands of readers, you have considerably more confidence that they are what they say they are, and that they actually wrote what they say they wrote.

All I can assume is that post.com hired someone without checking on him, in its unholy haste to propitiate someone or other (Ms. Howell, I suspect, who did think it was indeed her job to intervene with Dan Froomkin, whose great crime wasn't plagiarism at all, but insufficient politesse to Bush).

It's not that hard to discover plagiarism. Not sure why Mr. Brady or whoever hired this young man didn't check on that first, plagiarism being (unfortunately) a rather common sin of youngsters who seem to rise very quickly in the biz.

Posted by: lilia | March 23, 2006 08:54 PM

Once more into the breach ...

P L A G I A R I S M

(sheeesh! can't you guys get it right?)

The spellcheckers on all the internal memos and Emails today within the WaPoo Empire catch such spelling errors...

Posted by: T | March 23, 2006 08:55 PM

I am old enough to remember when the Washington Post was an excellent newspaper. How sad for our country that it has degenerated to such a pathetic state. Did the WP editors actually read some of the stuff Ben Domenich has written? I am so sick of insult-hurlers and partisan spinners. Can't you devote more resources to the actual news instead of wasting money on this garbage?? How about an in-depth analysis of an important issue once in a while? Or (gasp!) a piece of first-rate investigative journalism?

Posted by: Margaret | March 23, 2006 08:55 PM

So, has he been fired yet?
Nah, that would be too embarrassing to those in charge here.
They'll probably just try to blame those angry liberals for being so mean to him and using bad words.

Posted by: Tom | March 23, 2006 08:55 PM

The sad part of this is that three days ago was probably the greatest day in Ben's life. Unfortunately for Ben, he has been sheltered and protected from the real world his whole life. He was 15 and working for Human Events despite no formal education. I am sure he got the job on his merits -not daddy's connections. He went to college for three years, did not graduate and was rewarded with an appointment from the President of the United States. Of course, he would cheat. His moralism is fake. He fails to disclose that his daddy is at the center of the Abramoff WH scandal. He touts his PR heritage after he is exposed for calling a Civil Rights activist a communist. He decries Democrats as the Party of Death -yet has no problems in supporting a Presidency that lied into war. In Ben's mind its Contra III. He probably thinks he can get away with this too. If anyone at the Washington Post actually was looking at this like a human being would, they would take Ben aside, fire him, and explain to him that he has been extremely lucky. In the real world, a person doesnt usually allow 24 year old college dropouts to 1) be the youngest ever political appointee and 2) carry the masthead for a once venerated Institution. Ben has been blessed. What has he done with that blessing is piss all over it and expects his daddy's connections to excuse his sins. Someone at the Washington Post should tell Ben to leave and grow up.

Posted by: Mark S | March 23, 2006 08:56 PM

Promise, no more copying.
Also, I truly enjoy hearing conservative ideas, but you neocons are nuts. I don't see any similiarity what so ever.

mkelch

Posted by: mkelch | March 23, 2006 08:59 PM

So, what do Washingtonpost.com readers think of that moonbat racist screed by our friend Ben, in his "Augustine" disguise, that I posted above at

Posted by: neurophius | March 23, 2006 08:40 PM

?

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 08:59 PM

let's not forget Daddy Douglas Domenech was executive director of a national Home Schooling foundation -- now we see what an advertisement Plagiarizer Ben has turned out to be for his tutelage. The parents should be extremely ashamed.

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 09:02 PM

Washington Post = P L A G I A R I S M

Nice branding...

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 09:04 PM

gracias, pach !

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 09:05 PM

given Ben's tendency to plagiarize, I wonder if there is something more to the story of why he decided to quit going to William and Mary (despite having a scholarship that paid his full tuition) at the end of his junior year....

HIS version can be found at http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/archives/000331.html

but would anyone be surprised to hear that he'd gotten caught, um, submitting work that was not his own for grades?

Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 23, 2006 09:06 PM

I'm not too worried for poor ol' Ben. With his resume he'll land via family parachute in the Lincoln Group writing lifted press snips from Rush...oh , no , wait , what am I saying ...that's working in Iraq!Forget it...never mind.

I know , maybe he can ...gonavy!

Posted by: A.Scott | March 23, 2006 09:06 PM

I don't see why the Washington Post, which has no real liberals on its payroll, needs any "conservatives" to "balance" the liberals it doesn't have working for it. That said, if you for some reason felt the need to hire a conservative blogger, you could have hired someone with integrity, writing ability, reasoning ability, etc. like Dan Drezner rather than a hatemongering plagiarist hack like Domenech.

Posted by: Frederick | March 23, 2006 09:07 PM

I protest the addition of Ben Domenech to the Washington Post’s op-ed pages.

While a do not agree with his viewpoints, I respect his right to hold them. However, I do not think The Washington Post is the appropriate place for someone whose expression of his opinions is as shallow, unthinking and inflammatory as his. If The Post insists on giving conservatives yet another outlet in the American media they already dominate, surely there must be someone more thoughtful, reasoned and understanding than this Bush shill. I frequently disagreed with William Safire in the New York Times, for example, but I never questioned his intellect or his intelligence in expressing his opinions. However, when he retired, the Times brought in two far lesser conservatives, David Brooks and John Tierney, who together don't add up to half of Safire's depth. Sadly, Mr. Domenech makes those two look like intellectuals.

To quote Chubby Checker, "how low can you go?" Obviously, the Post has found a new bottom.

Posted by: LiberalAndBalanced | March 23, 2006 09:10 PM

This is the last straw. I intend to cancel my subscription to the Post today (I have subscribed for over 15 years).

When are you folks in the so-called mainstream media (MSM) going to realize that there are not two equally valid sides to every story. This administration is obectively bad, it breaks the law and it kills people in faraway lands almost indiscriminately. I don't want my son to have to die for Dick Cheney's pathetic, narrow worldview. There is no reason for one more American Soldier, Marine, Airman or Sailor to die for this President and the right-wing cabal that has taken over our country.

I don't need fair and balanced when fair will do.

Throw the bums out, and take back our country!

Posted by: Robin Farley | March 23, 2006 09:13 PM

I have been a reader, and a great fan, of the Wash Post for years, and for the last two years I have been a fan of the WashPost.com. The Post's failure since 2002 to exercise their investigative and critical facilities vis-a-vis the Bush administration has been a great disappointment. Your addition of Red State as "balance" is incredible.

Posted by: carolyn cox cohan | March 23, 2006 09:15 PM

neuro....

Ben didn't write that. He quoted it without comment (i.e. in an approving fashion) as "Augustine". Firedoglake has all the details.... or you can find them somewhere up above among the hundreds of other comments.

Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 23, 2006 09:15 PM

I like the Jane's Addiction song...

"BEN Caught Stealing"

Posted by: wtf | March 23, 2006 09:16 PM

A racist blogger for the Post. Ha. I live in the Virginia exurbs among a number of these ignorant racist scumbags with their Christianist, jingo pieties.
Disgusting. Shame on you.
The little coward should be in the Army on his third tour in Iraq. Then he might have something to write about.
Just another yellow elephant.

Posted by: John | March 23, 2006 09:17 PM

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

I wrote that myself. Can I have a column too?


Posted by: Honest Bill | March 23, 2006 09:18 PM

All very interesting comments, with the usual tags from conservative blog-people ("you guys are showing your true colors," "you can't take freedom of the press when it is conservative," etc. I look to the Post as a fairly balanced paper as it is today. They have, in my opinion, comer very conservative writers on staff as it is. I can barely read Charles Krauthhammer, who never saw a policy come out of the Bush White House he didn't like, and equated people who attended the march against the war in D.C. last fall as Al Queda accomplices. It is a sad statement that the Post has to feel that it needs this so called "balance", while in reality it is following a dubious path. I'll look elsewhere for my news.

Posted by: Whitney | March 23, 2006 09:23 PM

Well, what did any of you expect when WAPO took this guy on?

And don't forget, this is the best and brightest from Conservative America.

He is representative of all that they stand for these days.

Morally bankrupt, if you ask me. The culture of corruption, personified. And they've really raised the tone of political discourse, haven't they?

They pour $billions every year and pump these young enemies of democracy out from their college Republican groups and conservative stink tanks every day. And the media, especially the punditry, has been stocked with them. Yet the media has a "Librul" bias. Yeah...right.

You know who they really represent. Follow the money of the ownership. And check out this punk's family background. Certainly not the real working class.

And remember Karl Rove's stated goal: to create a permanent Republican majority. Hmmm, now that sounds like a healthy democracy, doesn't it. Ever wonder how Karl and the GOP plan to go about it?

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 23, 2006 09:24 PM

Fire the On-line editor.

I think two strikes is enough. He's clearly over his hid. Get rid of this kid and put a real journalist in charge of this section.

Posted by: john | March 23, 2006 09:25 PM

When Fox News pretends to "balance" the news, they essentially mock the left. the anemic Colmes is designed to be a foil for robust Hannerty, a parody of the weak wimpy liberal point of view.
I suppose that is what the Post is doing by planting this hate-monger as representative of the right. Trouble is, this is not journalism, it is pamphleteering. I cannot believe the Post, with it's heritage of Graham and Bradley would sink so low.
If I want parody I will watch the Colbert Report. In fact, why not let Steve Colbert represent the "red states"? He is much more articulte and much less hateful.
Count me out on this blog and on Washington Post Credibility.

Hugh MacDonald

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 09:26 PM

I've been a Washington Post reader since the 1960s and a subscriber since the 1980s. There was a time when I considered it the best newspaper in the country. Today, I cancelled my subscription. I'd been thinking about it for some time--but despite its deteriorating quality, I was still in the habit of reading the Washington Post seven days a week. However, I cannot in any way support a company whose idea of "balance" is to hire someone who is a racist, a homophobe, and serial plagiarizer. I don't object to "balance" or even to the idea of Republican blogger. I object to the Post lowering its standards to *this* degree. I'm embarrassed for the paper and for its many longtime admirers. Whose bright idea was this?

I know that your idiotic ombudsman will write a column this Sunday scolding us for not knowing the difference between the Post newspaper and "washingtonpost.com." Hence, I intend to make it easy on myself by avoiding the Post, the website, and the Express. I further urge my fellow Washingtonians to boycott the Washington Post and its advertisers.

Posted by: Pompeii | March 23, 2006 09:30 PM

wow. that's all I can say - wow.

Is the Los Angeles Times still a decent paper? Anybody left?

Posted by: bryan | March 23, 2006 09:32 PM

Why didn't post.com see the red flags on this guy's career path? He didn't graduate from college and yet he gets a job-- coming off his junior year in college-- at the White House???? Well, it helps that his dad is a cabinet official, I guess, but still... so much for the land of opportunity, I guess. But then, let's face it. George Bush is hardly one to have anything against nepotism.

But post.com should exercise a bit of skepticiem. Instead of oohing and ahing that this guy got a great job so young, why didn't they ask WHY he got a great job so young?

It is so funny to see sons of privilege like this declaim against affirmative action. I guess there's one kind of affirmative action that they approve of-- affirmatively giving their own kind a boot up that ladder.

Posted by: alia | March 23, 2006 09:38 PM

Well, the San Jose Mercury used to be good. But with the Knight-Ridder sale, who knows what's going to happen.

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 23, 2006 09:38 PM

Wash. Post - Did you find Ben yet?

(psst, according to the latest rumors, you'll be finding him, um, under his bed.)

Let me guess - he has decided to spend more time with his family?

Posted by: JL | March 23, 2006 09:39 PM

Will Ben Domenech be plagarizing all of the obligatory conservative venom about "liberals," "feminazis," and George Soros from, say, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Michelle Malkin?

He's got the experience, after all.

Great hire, WaPO.

Posted by: Just sayin' | March 23, 2006 09:39 PM

maybe ChickenHawk Ben decided to take our advice and enlisted in the military to actually fight in the War he loves so much?

( http://goarmy.com )

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 09:41 PM

P L A G I A R I Z I N G

why is this word so hard to spell for some folk here? sheeesh!

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 09:44 PM

NY Times is now the "Old Gray Madame" and WaPo is now the White House Ho.

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 23, 2006 09:46 PM

Correction "Old GOP Madame" for the NY Times.

Posted by: DisgustedWithMedia | March 23, 2006 09:49 PM

It's really never been my habit to intrude,
But it don't take a rocket scientist,
To see we're bein' screwed.
So just raise your voices.
Don't be afraid of bein' rude.
There must be,
50 ways to dump the Dubya.

teocawki.blogspot.com

Posted by: SubwaySerenade | March 23, 2006 09:50 PM

One wonders how long it will take The Post to rectify its most recent mind-numbing error. I have lived in this city for 25 years; I once loved The Post.

Posted by: Mike Meyer | March 23, 2006 09:50 PM

The Washington Post needs to do some serious self-examination. What's wrong with you?

Posted by: cfk | March 23, 2006 09:50 PM

Over on Atrios, everybody's been finding example after example of how lil' Ben has been plagiarising lots of his stuff--

You boys gonna swing with this, just because Box Turtle is a Bush appointee, like his dad? it sure makes you look stupid!
Wiley

Posted by: wiley | March 23, 2006 09:51 PM

Hey Tecumseh46201,

Does anal-retentive really have a hyphen?

Did you know that "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

C'mon, lighten up!

Posted by: Righteous Dewd | March 23, 2006 09:51 PM

Ben is Nixon's revenge on Washington Post.

Posted by: lib | March 23, 2006 09:52 PM

I am not normally a spelling-nazi but it is fun to remind the Washington Post that they have a
PLAGIARISM PROBLEM to deal with - swiftly! It's bad enough that ChickenHawk Ben is a racist homophobe but also a thief : LOL !

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 09:56 PM

PLAGARISM is wrong.

PLAGARISTS are not to be trusted.

Newspapers that hire PLAGARISTS are not to be trusted either.

Posted by: N.M. | March 23, 2006 10:05 PM

Conservatives are pathetic in that reality ALWAYS disproves their theories.

Tell me, Ben (or any of his apologists), what have conservatives ever done to move this country forward?

Nothing. Not a thing. The founders of this nation were Enlightenment Liberals, and Liberals have moved this nation forward ever since. Liberals created the middle class, they won WWII, they ended senior poverty with SS. Clean water. Safe food. Roads. Space. Science. Fairly regulated, fantastically functioning markets. Worker protection. Living wages. Civil Rights. National Parks (Yeah, Teddy was Lib like that). You name it, those "filthy libs" got it done...(before conservatives rolled a lot of it back).

The conservative ideology has been unleashed upon the world and is failing as spectacularly as communism failed, in a fraction of the time.

As far as I can tell, conservatives are unthinking liars and cheats devoid of original thought, motivated by the basest instincts of greed, fear, and hate. Its OK though, we'll clean up your mess once again and move humanity forward. Its the way things have always been done.

I'm still waiting for a self-avowed conservative to tell me ONE THING that's improved under Bush. ONE THING. I've been waiting 5 years now. Silence.


Posted by: ThunderHawk | March 23, 2006 10:06 PM

Feingold for President!

LOL.

As a conservative, I hope you idiots, drunk off of any little victory you might get here at WaPo, actually succeed in getting Feingold to be your party's standardbearer.

Can you say, "Mondale-style asswhupping?" I knew you could!

Posted by: WINNING ELECTIONS | March 23, 2006 10:07 PM

P L A G I A R I S M
P L A G I A R I S T S
please get it right !

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 10:07 PM

This is delicious: an antiracist rant by a racist blooger named Ben Domenech:

Quote:

Soft Bigotry

Many colleges deal with problems of homogeneity in their student populations by setting up artificial guidelines designed to create a more multicultural student body. The Center for Equal Opportunity, headed by Linda Chavez, amasses vast amounts of data on the subject, if you're interested in digging through their archives. According to a new report by C.E.O., UVA and W&M's law schools are two of the worst offenders in creating a biased admissions process:


At William and Mary, there was also strong evidence of pronounced discrimination favoring black Americans. The odds ratio favoring blacks over whites there was 168 to 1 in 1999 and 351 to 1 in 1998. Thus, in 1999, if you had an LSAT of 155 and an undergraduate GPA of 3.0, your chances of getting in were 84 percent if you were black but only 3 percent if you were white. The black-white gap in GPA during the first-year of law school was greatest at William and Mary: six-tenths of a point on a 4-point scale.


Just to put this in perspective, GMU law school's black-white odds ratio in 1998 was 2.9 to 1 -- statistically significant, but meaningless in relative terms.


While it isn't mentioned in this report, the problems of racial population at the undergraduate level at W&M are particularly bad. Note W&M's depressingly low admission figures for non-Whites. The total Latino population at W&M is 156 (out of 5,585 total undergrads). That means I've had at least three classes with more students in them then the entirety of the Latino population on campus.


I don't mind that being Puerto Rican probably helped me get in to this school. I had the grades, SAT scores, and (especially) extracurriculars to ensure that I was admitted Early Decision. But I was also designated a William & Mary Scholar. This scholarship isn't publicized by W&M -- I'd never heard about it during the admissions process, and you have to search all over W&M's website for any mention of the program. It wasn't mentioned on the financial aid site at all when I was admitted, though they've since added a short definition:

William and Mary Scholars Award - Available to 20-25 entering students who will bring diversity to the student body. Awards are equal to the value of Virginia tuition and fees for four years. Selection is made from all those who apply for admission; no separate application is required. Notification will be made in March.


For my year (class of 2003), only 20 students were given the award. One of them turned out to live in my freshman dorm -- an out of state student who'd come from a wealthy family, she told me that nothing she'd done in high school could've justified the award in her mind. Then I found out that she was 1/8th Native American, and started to get suspicious.


The single moment when I lost the most respect for William & Mary's administration was when an administrator inadvertently confirmed to me that W&M Scholars are only designated based on their ethnicity -- that they choose a certain number of Latinos, Blacks, Native Americans, etc.


Without this scholarship, I would've had to go into enormous amounts of debt in order to come here. In fact, I probably wouldn't have been able to come here at all. But confronted by the thought that I only got the scholarship because I'm Puerto Rican -- not because I got an article published in the Washington Post when I was 16, or won multiple awards for my writing, but simply because I could check that box in the ethnic category that said "Hispanic" (a silly word invented by the census office) -- I could feel nothing but disgust.


Someday, when I can stand on my own two feet financially, I will pay back the College for their scholarship. I will cut those dependent strings. If the administration wants more Latinos at W&M, they should actively recruit them from area schools. They should go into the ethnic populations in Northern Virginia and make the case for W&M. They should help the Hispanic Cultural Organization do what it is meant to do, not become an umbrella for petty leftism. But they shouldn't hand out racist little carrots, glorious prizes awarded in a filthy manner, their recipients secretly chosen based not on academic merit or performance, but only on the color of a student's skin.


There was someone else who hated this idea. He gave a speech once, where he talked about it. He said:


I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.


Someday. Someday.

Posted by: Ironic | March 23, 2006 10:08 PM

from http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/03/23/box-turtle-bigot/

Ben is an idiot, but this mess is Jim Brady’s creation. Even Deborah Howell is taking pains to distance the Washington Post itself. This is the auto-respond she is sending out:

The Post didn’t hire Domenech. The website, washingtonpost.com, and the paper are under different management. He will not write for the Post.
Please send your complaint to executive.editor@wpni.com

The Executive Editor of the WPNI? That would be Jim Brady. They’re dumping this one in his lap, right where it belongs.

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 10:12 PM

Apparently conservatives posting here are missing the point. I'm not angry. Ashamed, but not angry. Journalism, my chosen field, requires not only a degree but an original writing voice and something real to say.

Ben has none of these things. Now to discover from these posts that he's also a plagiarist? That's just beyond the pale.

Maybe you don't understand what separates journalists from hacks. Don't make the mistake of thinking everyone else has that same failing.

Actually, you should be ashamed, as well. Ben is here to represent your views and who you are. Is a fullscale shallow unoriginal thief your idea of looking in the mirror? I hope not.

Posted by: I'mNotAngry | March 23, 2006 10:14 PM

What Wapo wrote: "We've launched Red America, a new blog by Ben Domenech that will offer a daily mix of commentary, analysis and cultural criticism."

What Wapo should have written: "We've launched Red America, a new blog by Ben Domenech that will offer a daily mix of commentary by P.J. O'Rourke, analysis by Salon, and cultural criticism by Steve Rhodes."

Posted by: Plagiarists Never Prosper | March 23, 2006 10:14 PM

Liberals are traitors and want us to surrender to the Islamists. We need to win and beat terrorism, not cut and run and coddle terrorists. Liberals are terrorists, period.


Michael
Boise, ID

Posted by: Michael McGroity | March 23, 2006 07:22 PM

*****

I'd LOVE for you to say that to my face.

I distinctly remember Mr. Kerry stating, repeatedly, his intent to "kill Al Qaida." Which would expose you, unsurprisingly, as a typical wingnut liar, loser, and waste of gray matter.

Posted by: ThunderHawk | March 23, 2006 10:18 PM

Ben does not "plagiarize."

He is merely "channeling the zeitgeist" of America's long-ignored scary-crazy bobo "majority."

Awash in a sea of media voices, it is sometimes difficult for him to distinguish which one is his own. Like a fisherman of ideas, he casts out his line and reels in a meme. Or a trope. Or occasionally a whole paragraph, maybe two.

But let us not call his work "derivative." let us, rather, say that it is "synthetic."

Think of Ben as a right-wing rapper who "samples" other writers' riffs and hooks, not with any felonious intent, but as an homage to their greatness.

Yeah. That's the ticket.

Posted by: Rotwang | March 23, 2006 10:18 PM

hey, DisgustedWithMedia, check out this, "Big Dem donor to fund Knight-Ridder worker buyout?" McClatchy wants to unload the San Jose Mercury News, and 11 others papers, and the Newspaper Guild has a plan for an employee buyout.

Posted by: jtpoole | March 23, 2006 10:19 PM

Thunderhawk, I like it. Great diagnosis.

I do enjoy seeing this recent "positive news" blitz the propagandists are currently engaging in, no shame.

Benji, pack it up...NOW!

WAPO, apologize.

Posted by: That's it! | March 23, 2006 10:20 PM

Tecumseh46201, is the "46201" in your handle a reference to the number of times you intend to correct misspellings of "plagiarism" in this thread? I deplore bad spelling too, but get a life.

Posted by: Frederick | March 23, 2006 10:20 PM

He plagarizes the WaPo! Hilarious!

Domenech:

Officials representing the Justice Department announced Wednesday Attorney General Janet Reno had decided someone from outside the department and the FBI should lead a new investigation into the actions of the FBI prior to the assault on the compound.

WaPo:

...officials said Attorney General Janet Reno had decided that someone from outside the department and the FBI should lead a new investigation into the use of potentially incendiary tear gas cartridges by federal agents during the final assault on the compound.

Domenech:

An FBI official also said that on a videotape obtained from the headquarters of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team in Quantico, a team member is heard being granted permission by a superior to fire flammable military tear gas into the compound more than four hours before it burst into flames, killing 76 people inside.

WaPo:

An FBI official said that on a videotape, a Hostage Rescue Team member is heard seeking and being granted permission by a superior to fire potentially flammable military tear gas more than four hours before the Branch Davidian compound burst into flames, killing 76 people.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/3/23/181857/404/167#c167

Posted by: nik | March 23, 2006 10:23 PM

Think again, putz.

Posted by: STEALING ELECTIONS | March 23, 2006 10:24 PM

New blog....hummmm....I get this deja-vu feeling when I read it....

Posted by: tarminian | March 23, 2006 10:26 PM

I'm just trying to help the WaPo in its rebranding effort. If people associate PLAGIARISM with the Post, they know they will be getting snippets of the best writing from many other sources for free!
hmmm... The Washington Plagiarist? let's see what the focus groups say...

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 10:26 PM

Hey "WINNING ELECTIONS",

Enjoy it while you can, bud. Time's a runnin' out. Can you feel it?

Posted by: Blue Jersey | March 23, 2006 10:27 PM

Stealing Elections: How many times can you snort derisively at the endless failings of the party not in power while so smugly and ignorantly ignoring the litany of just these sorts of blunders, stumbles, corruptions, and errors that will be the long entry in the Big Book of Fact ( which you will demean as biased)next to the entry Republicans 2000-2010 .
Other than stripping women of their rights and botching America's largest natural disaster , not to even being to mention the firestorm in Iraq, I can see what you have to be so bloated over .
Another propagandised duped storm-trooping the infallablity of state power.

Posted by: A.Scott | March 23, 2006 10:28 PM

David Broder, the dean of the Washington Press Corp and long time WaPo staffer and columnist, on plagiarism at THe New York Times:


washingtonpost.com
The Perils Of Press Arrogance

By David S. Broder

Wednesday, June 11, 2003


The series of fabrications that resulted last week in the resignations of the top two editors of the New York Times is a calamity for all of American journalism.

Executive Editor Howell Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd were more than the leaders of a distinguished and influential newspaper. They are friends of many of us who are roughly their contemporaries, colleagues on past assignments and role models for a whole generation of younger journalists.

Anyone who can gloat at their discomfiture is worse than a fool. This is far more than a personal embarrassment or a black eye for the Times. It is a serious blow to the credibility of the press, and it comes at a time when public trust is fragile.

Those of us who work at The Post know what our friends at the Times are going through. In 1980 a talented colleague of ours, Janet Cooke, concocted a story about an 8-year-old heroin addict, which The Post played prominently on the front page. It was not until the story was awarded a Pulitzer Prize that it and its author were exposed as phony.

We live with that legacy every day. No matter how much distinguished work is done by this staff -- and there is a wealth of it -- it does not erase the enormity of the failure to prevent the Janet Cooke fiasco.

It reflected on all of us -- the editors who ignored the warning signals and, almost equally, us veteran reporters who failed to impart to this young woman the same sound journalistic values, starting with respect for the facts, that had been pounded into us by old-timers when we were starting. Editing and internal communication changed at The Post after that.

If the Times' leadership is wise, it will recognize this institutional disaster for what it is and reflect on the culture that produced it. It will not simply change editors but change attitudes.

The besetting sin of big-time journalism is arrogance -- the belief in our own omniscience, that we know so much we don't have to listen to criticism. And the Times as an institution leads the league in arrogance.

More than 35 years ago, as a newcomer to The Post, I recognized that we were dangerously cut off from the forces that were reshaping this country. In the 1968 presidential campaign, we were (and I definitely include myself) slow to pick up on the anti-establishment movements that propelled such different candidates as Eugene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy, George Wallace and Richard Nixon.

The next year, I was on sabbatical at the Institute of Politics at Harvard when elite students trashed Harvard Square in an antiwar demonstration and forced the university to shut down weeks early.

Returning to the paper, I showed no special wisdom in suggesting to Executive Editor Ben Bradlee and Publisher Katharine Graham that any institution as large and visible as The Post could expect to be targeted by anti-establishment forces. It was one of many factors that led them to hire the first ombudsman at The Post -- a professional journalist whose sole responsibility is to respond to reader complaints and provide an independent critique of the paper's performance.

When the Janet Cooke story exploded, the ombudsman on duty, Bill Green, conducted his own investigation, and his detailed report to readers was the first crucial step toward restoring the paper's reputation.

By contrast, the Times management has consistently rejected having an ombudsman or readers' representative, asserting that it would enforce its own standards, thank you very much. When Jayson Blair turned out to be a serial Janet Cooke, Times reporters were assigned to produce a lengthy "what happened" piece. But it never fixed responsibility and it failed to clear the air -- because the Times staff was, in effect, investigating itself. Chronically, readers found themselves unable to communicate with the Times' bureaucracy, and those who worked in the Times' newsroom were equally frustrated by their inability to talk to their bosses.

That is not an isolated example of institutional arrogance. It was arrogant of Publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. to move Raines from editor of the editorial page, where he was a particularly acerbic critic of Republicans and conservatives, and put him in charge of the Times' news coverage.

In another, not unrelated manifestation, the arrogance showed when Sulzberger, whose family had been invited into a partnership with The Post on the distinguished International Herald Tribune by a generous Katharine Graham, forced The Post out of the partnership recently -- because he wanted the prestigious European franchise for himself.

The Times has had its comeuppance. Its sins are symptomatic of the press's inflated self-importance. The Times can lead the way back to trust -- if its publisher will.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Posted by: Seeker of the Truth | March 23, 2006 10:31 PM

oops, here's the URL that didn't post to: "Big Dem donor to fund Knight-Ridder worker buyout?":

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/18/13376/9256

p.s. Post editors, the apparent examples of plagiarism the blogs are digging from Ben Domenech's keyboard do look bad, very bad.

p.p.s. it would be nice to have a "Preview" function?

Posted by: jtpoole | March 23, 2006 10:35 PM

The so called "liberal media" has been tripping over themselves trying to prove they are anything but.

Chickenhawk Ben will be the last nail in WaPo's coffin. Way to go.

Posted by: vietvet | March 23, 2006 10:36 PM

I'm republican, hence the name, just being honest. I steal, lie and plagiarize my way to the top. I flush the nation down the toilet after wiping then I shred the Times, the Post and all that used to matter.
It goes back to the home school of my formative years.

My parents are against education and I am their pride and joy.

Big Bad Bushie Ben(stealing elections)

Posted by: STEALING ELECTIONS | March 23, 2006 10:37 PM

here's the URL that didn't post to "Big Dem donor to fund Knight-Ridder worker buyout?":

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/18/13376/9256

(a Preview function would be nice).

the examples of apparent plagiarism the blogs are digging up look bad, very bad.


Posted by: jtpoole | March 23, 2006 10:39 PM

Domenech's plagiarism is now the lead story on Salon.com. Poetic justice, I suppose.

-K.Ai.-

Posted by: Krotos | March 23, 2006 10:39 PM

here's the URL that didn't post to "Big Dem donor to fund Knight-Ridder worker buyout?":

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/18/13376/9256

(a Preview function would be nice).

the examples of apparent plagiarism by Ben Domenech the blogs are digging up look bad, very bad.


Posted by: jtpoole | March 23, 2006 10:39 PM

WINNING ELECTIONS:

So what have you won?

A war you won't fight and can't win; Skyrocketing government spending and debt; waste, fraud and corruption; and the coup de grace- The. Worst. President. Ever.

Congratulations- you're still managing to fool 37% of the people.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 10:44 PM

Most Republicans are Fascist Racists so having Domenech represent the Radical Right and the Washington Post is too funny.

And, now, we have the added bonus -- he is a PLAGIARIST!

Jesus if I didn't cite a sentence in a college term paper I would have been thrown out on my tuckus in 2.4 seconds.

NOW THIS 10 YEAR OLD RACIST PLAGIARIST IS HIRED BY THE WASHINGTON POST????

Why don't you give him a medal while your at it.

The world of journalism is just f---ed up.

Posted by: GregNYC | March 23, 2006 10:46 PM

Dear Wapo.com Sirs:

Will you be balancing out the plagiarist blogger with an honest blogger?

Instead of "Right" and "Left," the great divide these days is simply "Lies" and "Truth" (respectively).

It's a terrific irony that a lefty like myself, who was once an avid reader of postmodernists like Foucault, who questioned whether there was any such thing as objective truth, would see the great Platonic light and realize, yes, there is objective truth -- not everything can be spun into right-wing truthiness. I'm no longer a relativist.

The incessant spin and lying from the Right has had a bizarre effect -- it's turned radical, critical-theory-loving postmodernists into classical philosophers. The Truth is indeed out there -- it's just not on WaPo.com

Posted by: Balance This | March 23, 2006 10:46 PM

The National Review Online about the Post hiring Ben Domenech:

Media Blog
Stephen Spruiell Reporting

The Markup

WaPo's New Conservative Blog

Why did the WaPo launch Red America, the new conservative blog written by Ben Domenech? Is it a good business decision to attract conservatives to Washingtonpost.com? Is it because Ben is a good writer who will probably generate a lot of traffic?

No. Obviously, it's a "sop to the paper's right-wing critics" which, according to Tapped's Greg Sargent, is a result of our mafia-like "protection racket":

Indeed, one way to think about the right's "media-is-liberal" campaign is as a kind of crude protection racket. The analogy isn't perfect, but the idea is this: The right-wing criticism effectively says to the MSM, "Look, there are a lot of pretty pissed off people out there who think you're too liberal. You need to hire some of us to protect you against them and the too-liberal charge."

So the MSM hires a few conservatives — witness CNN's recent hiring of Glenn Beck and Bill Bennett — desperately hoping to avoid the "liberal" label, as the Post obviously was. Of course, the whole thing's a scam job. Once hired, the goons proceed to trash the place — they just keep on bashing the media as liberal. Exactly as Domenech did.
Wrong. Domenech didn't "bash" the media for being liberal. He simply pointed out what this Pew poll demonstrated in 2004:

About a third of national journalists (34%) and somewhat fewer local journalists (23%) describe themselves as liberals; that compares with 19% of the public in a May survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, there is a relatively small number of conservatives at national and local news organizations. Just 7% of national news people and 12% of local journalists describe themselves as conservatives, compared with a third of all Americans.

This is the disparity Domenech is describing when he talks about the "pachyderms in the mist" attitude — a description that fits the mindset of a newspaper that would create a "conservative beat," as the NYT has. It's the disparity that led the WaPo to give Domenech the Red America blog rather than a spot on the news pages. Maybe if Domenech had worked for The New Republic — like Post reporters Dana Milbank and Charles Lane — he'd be eligible to cover the White House or the Supreme Court. But, like Post columnist George Will, Domenech worked for National Review. He's only qualified to write opinions.

Essentially, what the WaPo has done is add another conservative columnist to its roster — only this one has a blog instead of a space on the op-ed page. I can understand why that annoys liberals, but I can't understand why it should invite comparisons of conservatives to the mafia.

No Help Here!

Posted by: Seeker of Truth | March 23, 2006 10:46 PM

With apologies to Hall and Oates, here is Ben Domenench's new theme song:

I see you, you see me
Watch me stealin’ the lines and I'm making a scene
Oh WaPo, you’ve got to know
What my head overlooks
Google will show that I stole
When it’s watching for lies
You can’t escape when I
Plagiarize
We're watching you
We see your every paste
Plagiarize
We're watching you...
Plagiarize!

We're watching you watching you watching you watching you

You play with words you steal from O'Rourke
You can twist it around Benny that ain’t enough
Cause kid, we're gonna know
If you’re making it up or thieving as you go
Don’t lie when you’re cheating inside
’cause you can’t escape your lies
Plagiarize
We're watching you
We see your every move
Plagiarize
We're watching you
Plagiarize...

We're watching you watching you watching you watching you

Posted by: AnnaBanana | March 23, 2006 10:48 PM

from Salon http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/03/24/domenech_blog/
The Post may be deaf to complaints about overheated rhetoric and insults to a civil rights hero, but the plagiarism and quote-fabrication charges can't be ignored. It's hard to imagine Domenech will survive this, but whatever happens next, the Post's failure to adequately vet its new hire in its fretful search for "balance" could damage its credibility substantially. For now it looks like the paper hired the love child of Janet Cooke and Donald Segretti.

Posted by: Tecumseh46201 | March 23, 2006 10:50 PM

BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!

Oh, my sides. Washington Post you have outdone yourself. I thought hiring a 24-year-old political appointee who began his blog praising "Red Dawn" was the best.

How wrong I was. Now it turns out he's got a history of both plagiarism and racist comments?

Kudos to you sirs! I might question the wisdom of throwing your already battered reputation completely away, but that just makes the joke all the more daring.

What will we find out by Saturday? I can hardly wait.

Posted by: Robert | March 23, 2006 10:56 PM

Doesn't Ben know that the USMC needs riflemen? In this noble cause America needs him in Iraq more than we need him representing the Washington Post. Come on Ben, the Corps will make you a man. Semper Fi.

Posted by: Rufus | March 23, 2006 10:56 PM

The whole SAlon article by Conason:

A portrait of the blogger as a young plagiarist
As a college student Ben Domenech lifted arts criticism; as a GOP henchman, he was accused of fabricating a Tim Russert quote. What was the Washington Post thinking?

By Joe Conason

Print EmailFont: S / S+ / S++


Photo: bendomenech.com

Ben Domenech

March 24, 2006 | Does the Washington Post intend to maintain journalistic standards in the brave new blogosphere? Or are those standards incompatible with the Post company's ambitions for WashingtonPost.com?

Those questions arise from the Post's hiring of Ben Domenech -- best known as a founder of RedState.com, but also known as a Bush appointee, and the son of a Bush appointee, and as a contributor to National Review Online -- to write a daily blog on the newspaper's Web site. That decision by Post management has provoked much speculation about its motive for employing Domenech. Many observers surmise that Domenech was brought on to "balance" Dan Froomkin, the popular White House Briefing blogger on WashingtonPost.com whose skepticism and wit have provoked whining from the right -- and defensive reactions from certain Post reporters worried by accusations of "liberal bias" at the paper.

Media watchers will remember that the Post's internal thrashing over Froomkin's column led to the Web site's last major public stumble, when it removed blog comments from a post by the paper's ombudswoman, Deborah Howell. In their eagerness to appease critics on the right, the Post editors have blundered again. Whatever Froomkin's political views may be, he is a veteran reporter with a long résumé of newspaper jobs, including a decade at the Post. Domenech is a partisan operative with no newsroom experience of any kind, no training in journalistic standards and ethics, and nothing to guide him except home schooling and Republican reflexes.

Almost immediately the liberal blogosphere exploded with outrage over Domenech's hiring by the Post. But by Thursday bloggers had more than ideological reasons to oppose the Post's move, as he plagiarized film critic Stephanie Zacharek, and Mary Elizabeth Williams, writing about television.

Neither Domenech nor Post editors replied to requests for comment, and as of this writing, it's not clear whether those plagiarism revelations will be enough to end the right-wing blogger's MSM career. His defenders may say Domenech was only a college student when he made those mistakes. But there's at least one instance in his post-college career when the blogger was accused of another major ethical breach -- a charge that he fabricated a quote by "Meet The Press" host Tim Russert back in June 2002, in an attempt to get his hero, President Bush, out of a political jam.

Back then, the world of Washington journalism was roiled by a debate over whether President Bush had said during the 2000 campaign that despite his commitment to a balanced budget, he might permit federal deficits in time of "war, recession, or national emergency." The president and his spokesmen insisted that he had referred to such a "trifecta" of disaster during a campaign stop in Chicago, but no text or recording existed to prove their point. (That was before the Iraq invasion, when Bush could still hope to maintain his reputation as a "straight shooter.")

As the "trifecta" dispute boiled up on the Sunday-morning talk shows and on blogs, Domenech leapt to Bush's defense on his own blog, the Ben File. In a post dated June 16, 2002, he brashly upbraided two of the president's critics on the deficit issue, Jonathan Chait of the New Republic and Tim Russert, NBC bureau chief and the host of "Meet the Press":

"The bigger issue," wrote Domenech, "is that Russert and Chait both claim the President never made caveats about deficits during times of crisis, that he's creating political cover out of thin air. They're wrong. Indeed, President Bush expressed his deficit views very [word missing] during the first New Hampshire debate on January 7, 2000 -- moderated by none other than Tim Russert: 'This is not only no new taxes, this is tax cuts, so help me God' -- Bush said, brushing away the prospect that national emergencies, such as war, might get in the way. Such developments would be 'extreme hypotheticals,' he said. 'If I ever commit troops, I'm going to do so with one thing in mind, and that's to win,' Bush said. 'And spend what it takes? Even if it means deficits?' asked the moderator, NBC's Tim Russert. 'Absolutely,' Bush replied, 'if we go to war.'" (AP, from Boston Globe)

"Does that refresh your memory, Tim?" he concluded mockingly.

Unfortunately for Domenech, his June 16 post drew the attention of Brendan Nyhan, one of the trio who then ran Spinsanity.org, the (now lamentably defunct) political fact-checking Web site. With a series of simple searches on Nexis and Westlaw, Nyhan learned that the electronic archives contained no such article. There were versions of an AP story that resembled the article cited by Domenech -- but none of them included that crucial question attributed to Russert: "Even if it means deficits?"

Challenged by Nyhan to produce proof that this story had ever been published, Domenech responded with a series of feeble non-answers.

"For anyone who doubts the veracity of the original quotes I posted from the AP article, I'm not currently at a computer that has WestLaw access, so I can't post the thing in its entirety at the moment (I've only got a printed copy)," he wrote. "And while it's not like I have a taped copy of the debate to check the article against, I tend to trust the AP, especially when there's no official MSNBC transcript." Then came an update acknowledging that he may have misquoted Russert, blaming the AP: "I've listened to the online version of the [New Hampshire] debate now, and I don't hear the second part of Russert's question as printed in the AP article. Considering that most accounts of the debate don't include this part of the question either, I'm close to believing that the AP article I have is inaccurate. I've been taken in by faulty reporting before, but never by the AP. Either way, I'll post the article tonight." Domenech then posted a second update that he claimed was a link to "the [Globe] article." He added, "Still, I think that it's an unreliable source." He linked to another page on his site that showed a very peculiar version of what was supposed to be an AP article in the Boston Globe on the New Hampshire debate, dated Jan. 7, 2000.

Among the various problems in this strange saga is that the Globe sent its own reporters, Jill Zuckman and Michael Kranish, to cover that New Hampshire debate. They filed a Jan. 7 story that accurately reflected what Russert had asked. Nexis shows no AP story in the Globe or anywhere else that includes the quote used by Domenech.

Was this an honest mistake? Or did Domenech fabricate a quote in order to attack Russert and other Bush critics? As Nyhan noted the other day, readers can draw their own conclusions.

But the examples of plagiarism that surfaced Thursday certainly add to the reasons to believe the earlier allegation. Even before the plagiarism story emerged, Media Matters was calling on the Post to terminate Domenech, because of the Russert quote-fabrication charge as well as an ugly post on Redstate.com referring to Coretta Scott King as a "communist" and other obnoxious commentary.

The Post may be deaf to complaints about overheated rhetoric and insults to a civil rights hero, but the plagiarism and quote-fabrication charges can't be ignored. It's hard to imagine Domenech will survive this, but whatever happens next, the Post's failure to adequately vet its new hire in its fretful search for "balance" could damage its credibility substantially. For now it looks like the paper hired the love child of Janet Cooke and Donald Segretti.

Posted by: Delicious | March 23, 2006 10:57 PM

Dear Washington Post:

I used to love the Washington Post. Now, I see you have a column called “Red America” which is completely biased and not at all balanced. If you’re going to have this column, then you need a progressive column to stay balanced. I will never buy another Washington Post again if this is the direction the paper is headed. We have enough news sources that are fakes. I hate to see you fall too.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

William McMullin


Posted by: William McMullin | March 23, 2006 10:59 PM

" The Post didn?t hire Domenech. The website, washingtonpost.com, and the paper are under different management. He will not write for the Post.
Please send your complaint to executive.editor@wpni.com
"

Don't look now Jim, but they're cutting you loose.

Posted by: Red Right Hand | March 23, 2006 11:00 PM

As long as this plagiarist is on your staff I will not be buying the washington post. Where's the integrity?

Posted by: lost reader | March 23, 2006 11:00 PM

I write for a living, but I frequently don't have time to deal with the hassle of coming up with my own words.

That's why I'm thrilled with the performance of my new BenDoMatic Online Text Sampler.

All I do is type in two or three subject key words, and my BenDoMatic sifts through thousands of pages of published articles on the Web. Within seconds, it delivers dozens of lyrical prose nuggets apropos of the topic at hand, right to my desktop.

All I have to do is cut, paste and "synthesize."

Truth is -- I now write faster (and better) than I ever did when I was slavishly aiming to be "original."

Thank you, BenDoMatic!

Posted by: RunningDogLackey | March 23, 2006 11:02 PM

Congratulations, Ben - the WaPo made a wise choice with Red America - and we at redstate.com are just proud to be part of the crowd that can say we knew you before you turned the Post upside down.

Posted by: krempasky | March 23, 2006 11:06 PM

What is going on with one of the country’s major papers?

What’s with the Red State blog?

Where is your backbone?

If you stand up and tell the truth, it will sometimes harm Democrats, and sometimes harm Republicans, but it will always HELP the good people of this country. The truth NEVER needs balancing.

By adding a right-wing blog to your site, you are making either or both of the following bizarre admissions:

The truth hurts the right more than the left, and therefore you want to appease the right with a place for them to rant,

OR

Screw America. All that matters is who pays for the ads, and the right is where it’s at.

If it’s the former, shame on you. Let the truth stand. Let the chips fall where they may.

If it’s the latter, screw you too.

Posted by: Real History Lisa | March 23, 2006 11:07 PM

Dear Editor,

Please, in the future, provide links to the original works from which Ben's writings are, ummmm, derived instead of publishing his, errrr, words. It will save much time and allow your readers access to the orginal author's full material.

Thank you.

Posted by: sizzzzlerz | March 23, 2006 11:10 PM

The RedStater's plagiarism wasn't limited to college newspapers.

He plagiarized for the National Review, too.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/3/23/181857/404/136#c136

What kind of home school did he go to, anyway?

Posted by: Uh oh | March 23, 2006 11:15 PM

Mr. Dwyer's post expresses my thoughts on the matter very well:

"Dear James Brady,

I was young in the Watergate days, and I fell in love with the Washington Post. I didn't live in Washington, and I didn't read the paper every day, but it meant more to me than I can easily express: truth, courage, fairness; hope in a dark time.

It's a darker time now, and this country needs the Post more than ever. The "Red America" column is breaking my heart.

Frank Dwyer"


I appreciate well-written opinion from a conservative point of view as well as from other points of view. But a racist and a plagiarist is not worthy of The Washington Post. I would hope, that if you want to include blogs in your site, that they could be written by people who are ethical.


And I also don't understand why a 24 year-old who believes we should be fighting in Iraq has not joined the military.

Posted by: eve | March 23, 2006 11:16 PM

I was surprised - and, frankly disgusted - when I heard the Washington Post was going to help partisan hack Ben Domenech to bring his "Red America" vitriol to a national audience. As one of the premier journalistic institutions in the nation, if not the world, I believe the Post has an obligation to provide objective writing that is based on facts rather than unsupported ideology. That the Post should instead lend it's good name to a man so far out on the lunatic fringe that he referred to Coretta Scott King as a Communist - the sort of accusation more typically leveled by members of "white pride" organizations such as the KKK - is reprehensible. "Balance" has nothing to do with it - the Post needs to immediately reconsider it's ill thought-out support of Ben Domenech.

Posted by: McSnatherson | March 23, 2006 11:20 PM

Dear WashingtonPost.com,

I was so looking forward to Red America. Ben would've saved me the time from having to read so many other journalists because I know he would've just used their words as his own. It could have been such a market--the WashingtonPost for Dummies by Ben. Oh wait, the Dummies series properly cites their material...never mind.

Posted by: laughing hyena | March 23, 2006 11:21 PM

given who you gave a blog to I was wondering just how many other serial plagiarists are employeed by the washington post and if you employee anyone who actually writes the words under their byline?

Posted by: innocence | March 23, 2006 11:25 PM

Mr. Brady:

I hope you know what you are getting into messing with bloggers. Remember what bloggers did to Dan Rather and CBS over Bush's national guard records? That's nothing compared to what the left blogging community is going to do to Ben Domenich. Every word he has ever published is going to be subjected to the strictest scrutiny. It's one thing to knowingly hire a raving right wing bigot--maybe you are willing to put up with the flak you are getting from your mainstream readers over that. But a plagiarizer? Come on. You know that is not acceptable by today's journalistic standards. You are going to have to bite the bullet and cut him loose (sorry, I just mixed my metaphors). Domenich's serial plagiarism may actually be a blessing in disguise for you, however, if you have the sense to see it that way. Now you can fire him for blatant violation of one of journalism's most sacred proscriptions, instead of admitting what a horrible mistake you made hiring a hateful,obnoxious, immature, talentless right wing kook. Better luck next time.

Posted by: | March 23, 2006 11:26 PM

As much as he might deserve some serious slagging, young Ben is what he is. However, whatever numbskull hired this guy without bothering to use Google for twenty minutes to find out that he is a racist and a plagiarist really needs to be looking for a new job.

Posted by: Dave Latchaw | March 23, 2006 11:32 PM

I love it. Hoist by their own petard. When is Mr. Brady going to get fired for this baloney?

Posted by: susan calvin | March 23, 2006 11:32 PM

I was just reading some other recent online commentary by Ben Domenech in which he wrote (presumable wrote and didn't steal from someone else's work): "People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag." Later in that post, he writes, "It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime....If a specifiable group is inordinately responsible for a social problem, it follows that eliminating a large number of people belonging to that group will reduce the problem."

I have been wondering, will you keep him on staff - writing and stealing from other writers - even if he starts killing black children with his own hands instead of just advocating the mass murder of them?

Thanks. Hope to hear from you soon.

Posted by: DM White | March 23, 2006 11:35 PM

extra wow
You LIBS are out there.
By all these proud LIBS commenting, doesn't that indicate the Wapo may be a little LIB?

Guessing by the billion LIB comments so far, you all aren't reading any of the previous comments or contributing anything to the discussion, just a bunch of name calling which indicates you all lost the argument.

All the best you LIB election Big L l00000sers.

Posted by: nobodycon | March 23, 2006 11:40 PM

Sorry, didn't mean to post anonymously above (Posted by: | March 23, 2006 11:26 PM)

Posted by: neurophius | March 23, 2006 11:40 PM

Dear Mr Brady:

I would like to apply for a job as one of your high profile bloggers. I know that me and my library card will blow your doors off with our ALL ORIGINAL postings. I have a feeling that you ain't seen nothing like what I can do. Sometimes I write like Shakespeare and other times like Mark Twainand, sometimes when I feel poetic, I write just like Robert Frost. Call me Ishmael and send me an email if you want a writing sample. I have this great original story about an old man and the sea. You'll love it! I guarantee it!

Cheers!

Posted by: Vinny From Indy | March 23, 2006 11:44 PM

What exactly does Jim Brady have to do to get fired?

Maybe when The Post folds, we can have an actual debate about his complete failure and lack of judgment.

Until then, I urge every reader (or ex-reader) to boycott every advertiser, print or online, still supporting this insane mockery of journalism.

Every writer employed by The Post should walk out in protest. But, you'd all have to get your balls back from The White House first, so I guess that will never happen. (Getting the balls back, I mean.)

Posted by: Matthew K | March 23, 2006 11:46 PM

vinny from indie, that was priceless.

Posted by: beyond paranoid | March 23, 2006 11:55 PM

yo man,
I backed up and read (yep, us redstaters can read, as opposed to those fine public schools in the blue states. What the NYC 65% HS Grad rate?)
Anyway, the US military(the finest in the world) is a VOLUNTEER outfit. Don't be impling that the 24 year old bloger here should join up instead of contributing to the USA with his penmanship.
Plus don't you LIBS hate the US military?? Say it ain't so.

'nuff said for now

I predict there will be lots of name calling in the next 2 dozen LIB comments

victory, out

Posted by: nobodycon | March 23, 2006 11:58 PM

So the Washington Post has cowardly given into to the Right wing and gave Ben Domenech a column. Why not just let the Village Idiot in the White House take over and decide what to print. That way the bashing of the left can continue unabated.
As you now have lost all meaning and relevance as an important newspaper, you might as well
let the right do as they usually do when confronted with the truth.
Tell lies, spread falsehoods about people, slander, and basically silence any that would point out what it is that they are doing and have done to this country.
You will be held culpable in assisting the downfall of the middle class and the subjugation of the lower classes.
And Domenech is a hack. No credentials, no experience in news writing. At least you should allow a voice for the left in to counter the shrill noise coming from the right.
Alas, poor Washington Post, I knew it well, when it was a paper of integrity and class, its passing shall be mourned.

Posted by: power Leyba | March 24, 2006 12:02 AM

Anyone else thinking that if poor Mr. Brady gets fired, bloggers will once more be blamed? After all, if no blogger ever looked into Ben's background, everything would be fine and hunky-dory!

Too bad those darned bloggers actually did some investigative journalism! What gall!

Posted by: pip | March 24, 2006 12:03 AM

Reading Ben is so Deja Vu.

You know that feeling, as you're reading something, you sense that you've read it before?

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 12:06 AM

From the "you could choke on the irony and DIE" files
*****************

From Box Turtle Ben's May 15, 2003 edition of The Rundown

"Jayson Blair sells his story, a fact that upsets me even more than Stephen Glass’s return through The Fabulist. Glass at least served a period of penance, like Marv Albert or something. Blair wants to go straight from getting shredded in the NYTimes to climbing the NYTimes bestseller list. While I’m not quite on the same level as Goldberg's righteous anger, I do feel that there should be no quarter given to Blair's vile lies. And I think that this whole affair finally signals that the New York Times deserves to be ignored as a source for legitimate news -- the Washington Post can replace it as the newspaper of record. "

*********
(does anyone else get the feeling that the main reason Ben is madder about Blair than Glass is that Glass was a white guy, and Blair was, well.... not.?)

Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 24, 2006 12:12 AM

PS... the url for the above Ben quote is
http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/archives/000917.html

PPS... vinny from indie, that was priceless.

(I mean, why even bother coming up with an original compliment in this thread at this point....)

Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 24, 2006 12:16 AM

Mr. Domenech has now been plainly proven to be a plagiarist, and not a subtle one. This is to leave aside the obvious fact that he is a partisan activist, in no sense a journalist, and that the Post has no other partisan activist writing a regular column for the paper or the website.

Your move. The Post's flagging reputation is in tatters. Don't you guys know about Google?

Posted by: A. Fox | March 24, 2006 12:20 AM

WARNING TO ALL WASHINGTON POST WRITERS-

Ben Domenech is waiting to recycle your words -- make sure your writing is good -- he needs good material.

He stole from you once and as our wingnut friends remind us -- criminals repeat their crimes.

Posted by: concernedamerican | March 24, 2006 12:25 AM

I don't know what you're all squawking about: Mr Domenech is as least as welll qualified for his job as Jim Brady and Deborah Howell are for theirs. And isn't he every bit as insightful and rational as Charles Krauthammer and Fred Hiatt. This is not your father's Washington Post, or Donnie Graham's momma's either.

If people like Donnie G., Downie, Howell, Hiatt and Brady had been in charge of this paper thirty five years ago, Woodward and Bernstein would have been fired and the Pentagon Papers would have been promptly returned to Bob Haldeman.

What a loathesome incompetent little crew you are. The sad thing is, Bob Woodward now fits in so well with the rest.

Posted by: Jim | March 24, 2006 12:26 AM

I actually read through most of these comments hoping to find some explination from the washington post as to why they opened this blog and gave it to a known plagiarist. to my dismay there was not one word in the way of an explination or a denial that Ben Domenech did not steal the work of so many other writers and claim it for his own. Either Mr Domenech is a plagiarist or he isnt but I think it behooves the Washington Post, which is sponsering this boys blog and lending their credibility to his words and his work to make some kind of public statement about the accusations of plagiarism.

Posted by: shocked and awed | March 24, 2006 12:32 AM

Is Mr Domenech really connected with William Regnery, the same regnery who's grandfather helped found the American Fascist Movement? Surely this can't be true? Why would the Washington Post want to give this person a platform to spread that kind of hatred to a wider audience and one that does not choose to be bombarded with Fascist Hatred when they open their NEWS sources online?

What was the Washington Post thinking?

Posted by: astonished | March 24, 2006 12:37 AM

Has anyone noticed that Ben's second post from today about John Thompson has been removed? Why is that?

Posted by: Mark S | March 24, 2006 12:38 AM

You all are wacky,
So I got clicked into this blog from the greatist blog on the planet, NRO (yep, they are city boys who don't own enough firearms,'cept for the Derb) but any how....
how do you live with your knickers in a twist your whole life like this?? The blogger Ben,here used to work for the greatist, NRO, and is now here, aparently puting a stick int you LIBS eye. So far his posts have been thoughtful and worth contemplating and you LIBS turn into a sputtering Tasmanian Devel whirling about.
As a regular NRO reader I don't recall any of his writings (sorry Ben) but you act like it is superman...you guesed it... Karl Rove.

I'm here enjoying a Coors beverage in the best part ( the West) of the greatist country ( hint...USA) on the planet, learning how blue staters pass the time.

comence with the name calling

victory out

Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 12:45 AM

Why is the Washington Post making fun of the right wing with this Red State blog? I admit it is pretty funny and I do find myself chuckling. Are you just trying to get liberals to read your newspaper for a laugh? I mean writing like the whole right wing are idiots is an old joke. Aren't you worried about pissing off your right wing readers? You don't have any? Oh, I forgot the liberal press and all. Still, you should make the same kind of fun at liberals.

Posted by: Stop making fun | March 24, 2006 12:46 AM

Shut up libs! You have nothing. Ben rules, and you have monopolized discussion for too long. Balance is back, and you can EAT IT!

Posted by: USA for VICTORY | March 24, 2006 12:47 AM

Mr. Jim Brady,

At this point, I think you should start worrying about your own job.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/sept99/waco2.htm

"...officials said Attorney General Janet Reno had decided that someone from outside the department and the FBI should lead a new investigation into the use of potentially incendiary tear gas cartridges by federal agents during the final assault on the compound."


http://flathat.wm.edu/September031999/beyondtheburg.html

"Officials representing the Justice Department announced Wednesday Attorney General Janet Reno had decided someone from outside the department and the FBI should lead a new investigation into the actions of the FBI prior to the assault on the compound."

So, the guy publishes copyrighted material of the Washington Post under his own name and you hire him as reward?

Fantastic bit of wanking, Jim. You've really outdone yourself.

Posted by: manyoso | March 24, 2006 12:53 AM

Red America? I live in Red America (Iowa), and the CBS affiliate just had a poll that showed that Kerry would beat Bush 49-41 if Iowans could vote again.

So Xerox Ben needs to scratch at least one allegedly Red State from his "majority."

Posted by: ThunderHawk | March 24, 2006 12:58 AM

Bringing on Domenech on to your site as a so-called provider of Balance. That's like putting a 300 pound kid on one end of the teeter totter, and a teacup poodle on the other end. Yeah, that's balanced. Talk about another fine paper taking a headlong race to the bottom.

Posted by: baircub | March 24, 2006 01:00 AM

duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude,

whoever the LIB is who is taking comments from us superior consertives and re-posting then under the name Ben Domenech................ you remind me of

a) that guy at university who was always wanting to arm wrestle after he had a few beers

or

b)that greatful dead/phish groupie who always started his sentences with - whoa-
and smelled of dirty underpants


whatever

victory out

Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 01:00 AM

The most hilarious plagarism is his list of favorite albums of 2000.

here's his list copied from this guy.

Posted by: an eschatonian | March 24, 2006 01:01 AM

The Post is toast.

Posted by: PostToastie | March 24, 2006 01:02 AM

http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/music/music-holiday120900.shtml and

http://www.crosswalk.com/541366.html

Posted by: links from above | March 24, 2006 01:03 AM

Has anyone noticed that Ben's second post from today about John Thompson has been removed? Why is that?


Is there some scrubbing going on?

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 01:03 AM

Mark S....

GOOD catch! It is missing!

Luckily a commenter here named Tom edited the post for Box Turtle Ben before it got disappeared. To ensure that it is saved for posterity, I've copied it, and posted it over at firedoglake

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/firedoglake/1539/#420190

although (at least for the time being) Tom's version can be found above (it was posted at 6:10 PM tonight)

Posted by: p. lukasiak | March 24, 2006 01:05 AM

sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo,

re-poster phantom

you reposted my comment.

That is handy.

What next "an I know you are but what am I?"

The LIB is quite humorous.


victory out
peace is what follows victory

Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 01:09 AM

If Krauthammer has a column, why not some 24 year old kid? I'm glad to see this guy get a column, though the Post might come to regret it. The Post won't regret it as much as it regrets endorsing the war in Iraq, but odds are the Post is not going to look back and judge this to be one of it's smartest moves--but not one of the dumbest either. While I'm here I'd like to say,

Hat's off to Dan Froomkin!!! And to the WashingtonPost.com for publishing Froomkin!

Posted by: CowDad | March 24, 2006 01:13 AM

"Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site."

Those are the Post's ground rules (you see Ben, is not that hard), are they going to block Ben? He uses "personal attacks" and he has made "inappropiate comments", plus he is a PLAGIARIST.

Can I apply for his job?

Posted by: Raul V | March 24, 2006 01:13 AM

Ben Domenech is a co-founder of RedState, the web's leading Republican community blog. He began his career as a political journalist covering Capitol Hill, writing for numerous publications and working as a contributing editor to National Review Online. After 9/11, he abandoned the journalism field for a taxpayer-funded life and was sworn in as the youngest political appointee of President George W. Bush. Following a year as a speechwriter for HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson and two as the chief speechwriter for Texas Senator John Cornyn, Ben is now a book editor for Regnery Publishing, where he has edited multiple bestsellers and books by Michelle Malkin, Ramesh Ponnuru, and Hugh Hewitt. Ben is also a serial plagiarist who, incredibly, took copyrighted material from this very newspaper and passed it off as his own.

Posted by: manyoso | March 24, 2006 01:15 AM

yo man,
I backed up and read (yep, us redstaters can read,
nobodycon
___________________________

Yes, you can read. But can you capitalize?

.

Posted by: somebodylib | March 24, 2006 01:17 AM

Anyone see a similarity here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/shooting/stories/capitol072698.htm

From the front page of the Washington Post:
-----
In his shirtsleeves, Frist gets out of the car and sprints onto the Capitol grounds, past police and camera crews, tourists and reporters, and into a ground-floor door.

A security guard puts his hand up to stop Frist, then realizes who he is.

A man is being wheeled out on a stretcher.

"This was Chestnut," Frist recalls. The officer has massive head trauma. His heart has stopped. He can't breathe. The Capitol physicians have put in a breathing tube.

"You've got to get air into the lungs, you have to compress on the chest," Frist remembers. "I had a medic compressing on the chest, as I was ventilating through the breathing tube, squeezing the bag."

By now, Frist is in the ambulance with his patient, stabilizing him, getting his heart beating again. Three medics are there by now, so Frist sends the ambulance off. He already knows it is a losing battle. "This severe a head trauma, I have seen nobody survive," Frist recalls.
-----

http://www.nypress.com/14/29/news&columns/feature.cfm

Ben Domenech:
-----
In his shirtsleeves, Frist got out of the car and sprinted onto the Capitol grounds, past police and camera crews, tourists and reporters, and into a ground-floor door. A security guard put his hand up to stop him, then realized who he was.

"Where is it?" asked Frist.

The Senator looked down the hallway into unadulterated carnage. Desperate staffers were tending to an officer with a gaping gunshot wound in his chest, blood pooled on the floor. Frist noticed another man being wheeled out of the Document Entrance on a stretcher. It was Chestnut. Frist, helping the medics carry the stretcher out the door, became a doctor, not a politician, and saw: massive head trauma, a stopped heart, the man unable breathe.

"You've got to get air into the lungs, you have to compress on the chest," he yelled over the sirens. The Capitol physicians put in a breathing tube. A medic started compressing Chestnut's bloodstained chest as Frist ventilated air through the breathing tube, squeezing the bag. He helped them load the stretcher into the ambulance, then stayed until Chestnut was stabilized. Frist sent the ambulance off knowing that Chestnut was fighting a losing battle.

"This severe a head trauma, I have seen nobody survive," Frist would tell The Washington Post afterward.
-----
Does that count as a cite? I don't think so...

Posted by: Pb | March 24, 2006 01:17 AM

Quite flattered here

Really don't know what to speak of.

This echo is much unusual.

Question?? So being a superior minded LIB.......... are you the arm wrestler or dirty underpants man from university?

victory out

Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 01:19 AM

It's so interesting hearing nobodycon/bendomenech make such a below the belt punch at progressives for "hating the military", when it was George W. Bush who decided to cut pay and benefits for the military. Boy talk about supporting the troops there. Yeah, I'm really impressed. Talk about total hypocrisy right there. You can't squirm away from that one Ben..Put on your big girl panties and deal with it.

Posted by: baircub | March 24, 2006 01:27 AM

Dearest SomebodyLIB

Are you sort of coping my idea for my posting Name?? shame on you.

Secondly for my English teacher who showed up here, I've always been a free--former, what do you thing I should CAPITALIZE??????????????

Has this become///// target nobodycon ////or was there an issue you all were whining about?

again
victory out

Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 01:30 AM

I received reliable info that nobodycon in not bendomench.

And I have no proof that my hero GWB cut pay for the military, it was a voice inside my head


Posted by: baircub | March 24, 2006 01:37 AM

This sounds like a great idea.. lets have a mouthpiece of the Bush administration pose as a legitimate political analyst.

Posted by: Funk | March 24, 2006 01:46 AM

I know that your idiotic ombudsman will write a column this Sunday scolding us for not knowing the difference between the Post newspaper and "washingtonpost.com." Hence, I intend to make it easy on myself by avoiding the Post, the website, and the Express. I further urge my fellow Washingtonians to boycott the Washington Post and its advertisers.

Posted by: Donna Neach | March 24, 2006 01:46 AM

nobodycon here

baircub--I'm guessing you are lacking knowledge on the greatist miltary in the world (USA)
Answer these questions and I will continue to joust or get them incorrect and I'll pass on by like a cowboy passing a pack of mangy coyotes

1) a US Army Major is the same rank as a US Nayy....??

2) The curent issue sidearm for the US Military is...??

dude speak for yourself. big girl panties are what you find under you bed after the beer gogles are placed in service

victory out

Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 01:50 AM

So, Mr. Brady. Getting any sleep tonight? Are you going to let Benji post on his blog tomorrow? Or will the Red Dawn, er, I mean, Red America, blog even exist tomorrow? We're dying to see it so we can run it through the plagiarism drill.

Posted by: William Allen White | March 24, 2006 01:56 AM

Janet Cooke, Ben Domenech.

Posted by: rct5 | March 24, 2006 01:57 AM

It occurred to me-- is this just plagiarism or could it also be copyright infringement? If Ben were creating derivative works belonging to someone else (say, salon.com) and distributing it (say, via his blog) without permission and not as "fair use" (which frequently has some kind of attribution to the source), it would appear this could potentially be grounds for a lawsuit by the copyright owners, would it not? I believe the penalty for copyright infringement is very severe these days thanks to heavy lobbying from intellectual property holders. According to http://www.alangiana.com/copyright.html , statutory infringement is $500-$20,000. Willful infringement may result in penalties as high as $100,000 PER EACH ACT. An individual can get five years of prison and a fine of $250,000 if you make ten or more copies within certain parameters...

Ben writes at http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/archives/001120.html

"What I want to know is what intellectual property actually is. Someone? Anyone?"

Maybe someone shoulda told him. He continues a few lines later...

"Until I do get an answer, I remain convinced that this vague notion has no place in our common parlance. Leave the undefinable terms to the lawyers, thank you."

Ben, the above quotes are fair use :)

SB

(Not that I'm a big fan of intellectual property law or its use/abuse in the US. These penalties are ludicrious IMO. But that's another story.)

Posted by: Some Blogger | March 24, 2006 02:02 AM

Hi Ben this is Ben,

I know you all think conservatives are perfect but, yep, I'm not a super speller, or typest esp. after enjoyong a great sipping beverage like Coors. So nit pick on the minors but when it all ends up, you LIBS sorts lost the debate on ideas. Sorry mate. Besides this is raw data spell chchs (get it) are for my supervisor. You all haven;t earned it so far

Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 02:06 AM

I am waiting for the Washington Post organization to announce that to atone for his crimes against humanity as stenographer and apologist for the Bush Administration, Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward is being reassigned to monitor Ben Domenech's washingtonpost.com blog, "Red America." Uh oh, sorry, I forgot. Mr. Domenech is no longer going to be writing for washingtonpost.com. Maybe Mr. Woodward can take his place writing for the blog.

Posted by: neurophius | March 24, 2006 02:16 AM

George W. Bush RULES!!! I would go fight in IRAQ today if only I were brave enough. But instead, I just type words. GO USA MILITARY (the greatest in the world, I might add) Words make me feel POWERFUL. We cons OWN you! (and all my previous posts contain spelling errors because I INTENDED to spell them incorrectly...stupid LIBS)

Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 02:16 AM

zooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo,

pre-roster phantom

you prepostered my comment.

That is condi.

What next "an I know you are but i'm not sure you think that what i said is what u mean?"

The BILE is quite humorous.

war is peace.
freedom is slavery.
ignorance is strength.
peace is what follows victory
mission accomplished

Posted by: Bon Demonic | March 24, 2006 02:22 AM

Kurtz writes:

"Domenech has called cartoonist Ted Rall a "steaming bag of pus"; said Teresa Heinz Kerry looks like an "oddly shaped egotistical ketchup-colored muppet"; called Pat Robertson a "senile, crazy old fool"; and described Post.com's "White House Briefing" columnist Dan Froomkin as "an embarrassment."

Wow! So why are we getting the watered down version of Benny boy here on WaPo?

Can we rename the blog "Blood Red America" and let him really show his stuff?

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 02:24 AM

sorry mate,

Not much to say after all that, right? You superior spellers and typists really got me, eh? I wish I had the grammer of a LIB. I would feel so whole again.

To whoever pirated my handle at 2:16AM, I did serve the greatist country on the planet (hint ..the USA). I note you didn't answer my question to baircub.

victory out

Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 02:44 AM

PB--

didn't you get the memo? plagiarism is no big deal.

Posted by: james | March 24, 2006 03:01 AM

Never understood this, but you LIBS always attack the person never the idea.

For example if a conservative said that they could fly (or lay golden eggs,whatever), you all would charge ahead with a story that he worked as a dishwasher in college and ignor (sp, ha,ah) his or her comment about flying, golden egggs , etc.
Secondly LIBS seem to have lost touch with common sense. how did that happen?

victory out

Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 03:10 AM

Never understood this, but you LIBS always attack the person never the idea.

For example if a conservative said that they could fly (or lay golden eggs,whatever), you all would charge ahead with a story that he worked as a dishwasher in college and ignor (sp, ha,ah) his or her comment about flying, golden egggs , etc.
Secondly LIBS seem to have lost touch with common sense. how did that happen?

victory out

Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 03:11 AM

I have to at least give the Post credit for honesty because of its decision to allow a raving right-wing lunatic to have a regular column in it newspaper. For years, I have been skeptical of its claim to journalistic objectivity as a result of a consistent failure to allow any real socialist or other perspective at odds with the orthodox American (i.e., pro-private ownership, anti-environment, anti-internationalist) view to creep into their coverage of the issues of the day. The bias in the way the Post has presented Bush vs. Saddam Hussein, Condoleeza Rice vs. Hugo Chavez, Cheney vs. Assad, or Sharon vs. Arafat has long been apparent. Worse has been the bias in the things they have chosen not to cover -- no stories about the on-going deaths from unexploded ordinance left over from the "secret war" in Laos and the US refusal to pay for clean up, no stories about the massacre of the PKI in Indonesia by the CIA, no stories about Sept 11 (1973), no stories about how ordinary Nicaraguans have suffered since the Americans managed to re-install a puppet government in 1989, and no stories about the steady improvements in education, distribution of wealth, health care, etc. in countries like Viet Nam, Botswana, Argentina, Cuba and Venezuela that have rejected the American "free enterprise" model.

But now that they've launched "Red America", and not felt compelled to launch a balancing viewpoint or make even the slightest pretence of even acknowleding the existence of alternative view (and of course the "alternative" we are talking about -- Socialism -- is not only the largest poltical force today, but is of course responsible for the quality of life we live thanks to the sacrifices dedicated Socialists made to defeat fascists -- like the one writing "Red America" -- in the last century) the Post can at least claim they are finally being honest with themselves and their readers about their bias.

Posted by: True Red | March 24, 2006 03:30 AM

Here's a question:

* Where are all of Ben's friends?
* Where are the conservatives that his column was supposed to bring to the paper?
* Where is his crew that knows he didn't really steal half his published stuff?

The Executive Editor already put in a good word on the record. That shows Ben was brought in at that top -- just as the critics have charged. Is there no other person out there willing to back Ben up in person?

(Why am I reminded of that cat that fell 80 feet from a tree . . . something about going out on a limb?)

Posted by: bloodsport | March 24, 2006 03:34 AM

It was a challenge, as the lone conserative here tonight.
What a show.
You LIBS really can stick it to the conservative until you boomers get tired. Face it the youth of the USA are waaaaaaaaaaaaay more conservative than their boomer parents.

All you LIBS remenber........
"The good people can sleep well tonight because rough men are willing to do violence on their behalf to keep them safe.

As a conservative, I'm done with all this. You LIBS are quite boring in the debate. Tell the Wapo good luck, but there is a reason newspaper sales are down. we'll see if you smartypants can figure out why.

LIBS=zero common sence. hint. You LIBS won't spy on Osamma's phone calls into the USA.
der

:)

nobodycon

Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 03:36 AM

Grammer = grammar [sic]
Greatist = greatest

Doesn't take a LIB to giggle at those. Allow me to give you something to think about... My language proficiencies are Slovenian, Serbian, German, English. In that order.
English is my (*gasp*) 4th language, and yet your texts make my eyes bleed. For one to successfully convey his ideas, proper writing/speech is very important. After all, that's what Domenech is being mocked for this day as well.
At least he realized his shortcommings and used other people's words. Recognizing the problem is the first step to solving it.

Posted by: giggle | March 24, 2006 03:40 AM

Why plagiarizing Salon made sense to Ben
========================================

His audience was rabidly red. THEY WOULD NEVER READ SALON. And Salon readers are equally blue. They would never read Ben.

So, a perfect choice!

Until now.

Oops!!

~

Hmm, this also suggests a wee bit of planning went into this process, right?

Or is Ben just a closeted Salon fan?

Posted by: | March 24, 2006 03:43 AM

YO mulit-linguist giggler,

I admited I was not a speller in previous posts. That does not dimish my comments. 98% of the comments on this blog have been from hysterical LIBS about the corruption of the Wapo buy a supposed right winger, new bloger.

And they have not adressed any of Ben's posts, just his supposed plagerism(did I spell it good, master??) or whatever.

Bleed you eyes out yourself. The USA Liberated/knocked the stuffing out, of the following countries in no particular order. Dutchland, slovakia, serbia,and the stinking english in 1776+/- 5 years.

Good job on your lingust skills, now tell your girlfriend to shave her pits. I can out euro trash anyone, I wore my pasport out years ago in Europe. My wife speaks notheren european languages and I can rattle around on Latin based language

Victory out

Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 04:00 AM

A 24 year old home skooled plagiarist, wingnut, and overt racist is now a part of the WP.

Need I say more?

Posted by: Graham Cracker | March 24, 2006 04:18 AM

You LIBS, don't take this the wrong way, but don't piddle yourself because of some meanie conservative challenge. You all have some shallow beliefs of yours. Really sad about that. But state the point. Don't haggle me. The average white 8th grade girl can read better than the avg. 12th grade black boy.

nobodycon

Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 04:19 AM

grahmcracker at 4:18am

State your sources. Otherwise you are a fool.

nobodycon

Posted by: n obodycon | March 24, 2006 04:21 AM

Where did you all go??
What some bully conservative pathetic speller
(me) hamered you city boys about this new blog? you all started critizing me. What ever happened to promotional education. Those skoolmates of mine din't pass me in skool.

Long live harry pitted euro hoties.

victory out.

nobodycon

Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 04:31 AM

btw
English is the second language I learned. My father spoke a Euro language until he hit the first grade. My first language is different than my fathers( non english).

nobodycon

Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 04:51 AM

Mommy lef' the 'puter on again, huh brainycon?

Posted by: mike | March 24, 2006 05:04 AM

yo mikey @5:04am,

your point is what? You are a piddle pants LIB. That is what LIBS teach right, no consequenses? Abortion on demand.

Come on you LIBS, where is your spirit. Wapo has 1 admited conservative bloger against 1ooo's of panty waist LIBS.

The Libs faded out, take your Centrum

ahoy

nobodycon


Posted by: nobodycon | March 24, 2006 05:17 AM

Washington Post: Meet nobodycon, your new target audience.

nobodycon: Meet the Washington Post, the new entrant in the very crowded niche of right-wing media.

Posted by: mz | March 24, 2006 05:19 AM

I really appreciate the Post for bringing us an unexpected sequel to the Jeff Gannon show. The first act was hard to beat but you've put in a gallant effort by hiring a plagiarizing monkey incapable of an original thought.

Ben, you should have known you were way out of your league. It's now time to find a new career. Maybe Gannon will hire you for his escort service.

Posted by: great job WP | March 24, 2006 05:20 AM

The soldier in the Abu Grabass pictures as the dog handler. He should have gotten 5 months probation it is not like the dog actually bit the terrorist, just a good scare.


You L
LIBS how much time should the dog handler get? How much time for the perv. who burried Jessica L. alive. 20 years.? Remember she was 9 years old?


Take the bait you smarty pants LIBS.

nobodycon

Po