I generally don't worry too much about how my posts go over with right wing folks. Obviously, Crooks & Liars is a political opinion site (it says so right in our commenting policy) and therefore, I'm going to give my opinion. Most of the time, John and I aren't too far off from each other in the way that we view things and I usually check with John on which posts I am doing so he knows that I'm representing his site as he would want. And I try to be careful. I don't always get things right, but for the most part, I think even if you don't agree with me, you can see where I'm coming from.
So that makes the email John got this morning in response to the post I did about The Chris Matthews Show discussing shakeups in the McCain campaign staff amusing. It seems that Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters.org (the site dedicated to "exposing & combating liberal media bias") thought that my characterization of the Chris Matthews panel glossing over McCain's campaign difficulties was "too partisan" to be acceptable publishing material for C&L.
Moi? Too partisan? (I'll ignore for the moment that Sheppard works for that hack Brent Bozell--who actually filed a suit on a Buffy TVS episode--and I work for John Amato--let's line up their statements side by side and see who has been utterly and completely wrong more often. Quick hint, Noel: It ain't John.) How about the hubris it takes for a right wing blogger to tell John Amato what he should and should not publish on his site and who should or shouldn't be a front pager? Shall we look at the kind of work Mr. Sheppard thinks is appropriately publishable for the internets? (Warning: every link gives Newsbusters a hit)
You know the old saying about people in glass houses, Noel? Maybe you should put down that rock now, because that crystal condo in which you reside looks a little fragile.