It’s been a while but here’s your required daily reading for today:

• The Daily Kos and Megan McCain fight about who the bigger gay marriage proponent is… PLUS: Tommy Christopher throws his two cents at Markos!
• The Judicial Confirmation Network mails out a letter to senators regarding SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor
• Caleb Howe reviews the real climate of hate over at RedState

Enjoy!

The reason you didn’t hear about it here is that I wasn’t completely comfortable sharing it publicly because he sent the little thank you through a direct message on Twitter. Which means he may not have wanted it shared publicly. So, if I didn’t post it you may be asking “how did Tommy Christopher end up with it?”.

Well, despite what his post may imply, I met Tommy at CPAC and we talk from time to time. And when I got a direct message from Karl Rove, in my excitement, I told a couple people about it. Tommy was one of them.

In hindsight I probably should have made it completely clear that I was talking strictly off the record but I really didn’t, and still don’t, see the story here. But I guess it just goes to show that you should always be careful when talking to a journalist… and I wasn’t.

Now that Tommy has written his inane piece bashing Rove I suppose it’s my duty to defend Rove a little. Especially since this is such a stupid non-story. Plus… I get the added bonus of taking apart Tommy’s cheer leading for Megsy Mac and that’s always a blast.

First, all Karl Rove said to me was “Thanks for your post. Awfully nice of you”. He was referring to this post, in which I defend him from the childish attacks of Megsy Mac. I defended him, he gave me a little thanks… how is this controversial? (click the picture to enlarge)

It’s an absurd stretch to say that Rove was somehow endorsing what I said about Megsy. No where does he say that he agrees with my assessment of Megsy. He simply appreciates me defending him a little. Seriously, that’s it. To take more from it than that screams attention baiting…

But let’s say for a second that Rove did endorse what I wrote about Megsy, as he really ought to, how would that be controversial? Apparently for Tommy its ultra cool when Megsy rips Rove due to her own misunderstanding of twitter but its totally lame dude that Rove might not respect her. What a joke.

Meghan Mccain deserves zero respect for her accomplishments or opinions because they’ve all been handed to her. The former by a media looking for another “Republican” to bash republicans and the later by slogans on T-shirts she’s seen Perez Hilton wearing.

Her “ideas” are nothing new. Don’t let Tommy fool you, Rinoism has been around far longer than either myself or Megsy and it has never been logical or successful. Republicans who pretend to be Democrats get nothing but electoral ass kickings, as Megsy’s father proved once (again) and for all.

I’m here to say that I’m a young Republican and Meghan Mccain will never speak for me, my generation, or my party.

A Washington lobbyist sued The New York Times for $27 million Tuesday over an article that she says gave the false impression she had an affair with Sen. John McCain in 1999.

Vicki L. Iseman filed the defamation suit in U.S. District Court in Richmond. It also names as defendants the Times’ executive editor, its Washington bureau chief and four reporters.

Apparently she has wanted to sue since the story was published but she waited until now because she didn’t want to become a distraction. But the lawsuit is very adamant in its charges of misconduct:

The Times was so concerned about being scooped that it printed a story “to pack the maximum sensational impact with the minimum factual support.” The lawsuit contends she suffered an “avalanche of scorn, derision, and ridicule” that damaged her health.

The lawsuit cites accounts from other media, political pundits and the Times’ public editor, Clark Hoyt, that interpreted the article as meaning that McCain and Iseman had an affair.

Despite this the NYT is standing by its story and will fight the lawsuit.

“We fully stand behind the article. We continue to believe it to be true and accurate, and that we will prevail,” the statement said. “As we said at the time, it was an important piece that raised questions about a presidential contender and the perception that he had been engaged in conflicts of interest.”

Unfortunately, even though the story they printed absolutely destroys all boundary of journalistic integrity, the NYT will probably defeat this suit. Suits against media outlets almost always lose. I’ll leave you with the thoughts of Keith Werhan:

Keith Werhan, a constitutional law professor at Tulane University, said key to Iseman’s case will be how the court defines her — as a public figure or a private figure. Public figures have to meet a higher standard of proof, and show malice by a news outlet.

Werhan also said the Times could be protected if it accurately quoted McCain’s former aides about their perceptions of his relationship with Iseman.

“If all those statements are true, then it seems to me the Times is not at fault for reporting that,” Werhan said.

“It’s essentially hard to win a defamation suit,” Werhan added. “The idea is the First Amendment has its thumb on the press’ side of scales.”

Cross posted at NewsBusters