Nothing like coming home from work and finding your blog got about a thousand hits. Especially with this:
Also, you'll want to let this pro-Richardson blogger know about the change in policy. He still has the old, pro-Feingold-Reid plan posted.
Richardson took some swings at major Senate Dems at the Take Back America conference and Lizza thought the Governor "scrubbed" the website to modify for his new stance on Reid-Feingold.
Trouble is - there is no new stance.
The Governor always supported Reid-Feingold as a congressional method for ending the war. But did Lizza read up from that same document he apparently found so fascinating? No, he just did some fancy cut and paste job. Here's what a responsible journalist would have read
1. Troops Out in 2007: We should get our troops out of Iraq this year. Our continued presence there only enables the Iraqi factions to delay making the hard political choices they need to make to end the civil war.
2. No Residual Forces Left Behind: We must remove ALL of our troops. There should be no residual US forces left in Iraq. Most Iraqis, and most others in the region, believe that we are there for their oil, and this perception is exploited by both Al Qaeda and anti-American Shia groups. By announcing that we intend to remove all troops, we would deprive them of this propaganda tool.
The Governor supported Reid-Feingold but ALWAYS SAID THAT WE NEEDED TO GO FARTHER. ALWAYS.
You know why the Governor's website changed? BECAUSE THE BILL FAILED.
Why would Richardson's campaign keep supporting a bill that no longer existed? Just to please TNR? Sure they changed the text, why wouldn't they?
Also, I think this point clears the whole episode up really:
...or at least what the page looked like back on May 12, according to a cached version captured by a rival campaign...
So, can all campaigns send their oppo work to you Lizza? Or just your favorites? And also, at least asking campaigns for a response is considered good journalism. Not doing it just makes you look back-pocketed.