You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas, and the Liberals are teaming with vermin.

You're trying to portray that the WWP is a small fringe group within the Liberal organizations. Yours is just a real-life reenactment of "Animal Farm."

The pigs have hijacked the party. You're just too dull-headed to see it.

Yes, and in Animal Farm, the Stalinist Pigs looked just like the rightwing Imperialists, both brutal and exploitive.

I love how conservatives love to quote Orwell, but fail to recognize that he condemned both capitalist and Stalinist exploitation and brutality.

I found out about you through WND
I encountered the WWP in the early 80's in Baltimore I found them very dogmatic and hard to work with Back then they also had the All Peoples Congress. I was a member of a Johns Hopkins U student group and has to deal with them.
It is kind of worrisome to think they convinced the NLG to release that statement and that they have grown in influence.

Hi Nathan:

1)I'm the author of the piece you're discussing. You might want to check your email files, since I did contact you for comment several months ago when I began working on this. In a return email you declined to comment any further. A correction on your part would be appreciated.

2) For clarification I'm a freelancer, so can't speak for WND on your comment "I wonder how many exposes WND has done on these." But I can say, that my own archive at wnd.com and other pieces I've written elsewhere testify that I go after the right as much as the left.

3) Internet writing allows freedom from space constraints that mainstream pubs are under, and so I feel writing on subjects like this, while they might not be deemed of interest to big media editors, is always of value, since precision, clarification, and behind-the-scenes experiences add a fuller, more complete picture of political and activist dynamics.

4) Given that you have spent so much time addressing the issue I addressed in this article, it seems odd for you to say " the rightwing is kind of silly to itself spend *too much time* talking breathlessly about fringe groups, when it tolerates Klan allies and abortion doctors in its midst." First of all, in the interest of you avoiding the very errors you typically rail against, get your facts clear before making ideological assumptions which you use to stigmatize and stereotype. I'm not a right-winger or conservative. I'm a libertarian and registered independent voter who has written a number of scathing articles about the Bush administration. In addition, not everyone who writes for WND is of the same ideological composition. The brilliant libertarian Ilana Mercer, Ellen Ratner's "Liberal & Proud" column, and Bill Press's column come to mind as do Paul Sperry's extensive scathing exposes on the Bush administration and his book, "Crude Politics: How Bush's Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terror" -incidentally published by WND Books. And I certainly don't tolerate "Klan allies" and the like. Your making of this statement in direct conjunction with my article is amateurish and um, shabby. In addition, the underlying lietmotif is that only those of a certain, and approved ideological composition ought to be allowed to make such criticisms.

Other than that, the rest of your post was ok. Lol.

I think you mean "tolerate...abortion-doctor *MURDERERS*, not "abortion doctors" : )

Ms. Gossett--

Newman was the primary focus of the piece, and quoted liberally. You say you sent him a single e-mail several months ago and didn't get a response? That's pretty lame.

You also try to present WorldNetDaily as a non-ideological institution. I just visited the website, which promotes the current issue of "Whistleblower Magazine," which WND publishes. The current issue of Whistleblower focuses on the Democratic Party, "The Party of Treason." The teaser promises that the magazine will expose how the Democrats steal elections, corrupts morals, and aids America's enemies.

Yeah, I guess WND isn't a bunch of right-wing whackos. Now pull the other leg, it plays Jingle Bells.

'Given that you have spent so much time addressing the issue I addressed in this article, it seems odd for you to say " the rightwing is kind of silly to itself spend *too much time* talking breathlessly about fringe groups, when it tolerates Klan allies and abortion doctors in its midst."'

On the contrary: Mr Newman is a left-winger who has criticised dangerous left-wing fringe groups. He is calling on the right wing to follow his example by criticising their own fellow travellers -- especially when, as your article suggests, they are engaging in terrorism.

You know, the article repeatedly mentions other people "refused to comment" when contacted by WND.

Sherrie, why exactly doesn't it say that about Nathan Newman, if he refused to comment also?

You quoted him extensively but didn't mention that he declined to be interviewed for the article? Huh? This is journalism?

--Kynn

Gordo:

I said that Newman declined comment. Not that he never responded. Big difference. As it was, he hardly needed to be quoted MORE in the piece. I doubt he has been quoted as extensively in *any* piece mentioning him.

Secondly, I spoke for my own ideological leanings as I made clear. I wrote the piece as a freelancer which I also made clear. In addition my other comments stated that not everyone published by WND is of the same ideological composition, another point that I made clear but that you are trying to divert and muddy. BTW- the next issue of Whistleblower is on the failings of the Republican party. Of course you knew that, didn't you?

Kynn:
All quotes attributed to Mr Newman were accurate, whether they were from email or from when he addressed supporters in writing. They are all part of the public record as you well know. It shouldn't surprise you that journalists are not restricted to either the spoken or written word in articles. In this case, Mr. Newman's decision to not comment did not affect the piece, since there was so much material available on the record about this incident. I wrote that the PCJ did not respond -because there was also no written material (statement, formal response)to refer to. Other than that it seems like you're whining -over what? An accurate article, that faithfully expressed some activists' views and gave a wider voice to them.

Mohammed Atta saw that 911 could work when
he saw the "D.C. Kamikaze" (a
conservative, no doubt) fly into the
White House in the late 90's.
The fact is, there was no terrorism in
our country except for the right-wing,
the southern faction of which is historically
violent. So, I'll go ahead and say it,
if Nathan won't; conservatives have no
right to accuse us of treason, treachery, or
even mild wimpiness, for that matter.
As to feeble attempts to cast us in such
a light; LOL

Sherrie-- I now vaguely remember that email-- and it was more than "a few months ago"-- it was last year. And if you had said, "I'm going to extensively quote you, do you want to put it in context", I probably would have said something more. But the lamest part is that I've written rather extensively on the issue since then, see here where I compared the WWP folks to the Bush administration.

The piece isn't terrible, as I noted, but when someone has themselves written extensively about an issue, selectively quoting them is inherently slanted, especially when you omit criticisms of the Right while keeping the criticisms of the fringe left.

Reuster,
I don't think you want to discuss violence.
Heck, someone could pull out some crime rates and the places that they're more likely to occur (read: Democratic districts).

Heaven forbid that a verdict come down that Democratic constituents don't like...

One good point about the left: they had the good sense to kick out Cynthia McKinney from their midst.
Nathan, who tolerates the Klan? Any hint of race-baiting is the kiss of death for any politician (ask Trent Lott).
Well, for GOP politicians, that is. Democrats will choose you to speak at their convention (isn't that right Mr. Sharpton?).

I doubt the crime rate in, say, D.C., is
disproportionately higher due to it's
constituents belief in democratic ideals.
Furthermore, I bet the violent degenerates
to which you refer don't even bother to
vote. But, I bet you my life most klan
members, neo-nazi's, child-raping cult
leaders, and gaybashers make it a point
every year to register and cast their
vote for whichever candidate will advance
their sick agenda, and who can seriously
doubt that those candidates are republicans?