Ron Williams is Losing Credibility.

Filed in Delaware by on September 28, 2008

So Wrong Williams’ latest column reports on the right wing fantasy that, somehow, Joe Biden will withdraw as Barack Obama’s running mate on October 5.    The batshit crazy wingnuts on the right dreamt up this fantasy after hearing Biden say that Hillary Clinton is qualified to be Vice President, perhaps more so than he.   The fantasy also seeks to fan the flames of the dying if not dead resentment Hillary Clinton’s supporters have over her not being chosen VP, and not winning the nomination in the first place.

Of course, Ron debunks the rumor in his column with….what a shock…..facts.   But why did a false and far fetched fantasy need to be debunked in print by a respected columnist in the first place?   Don’t have anything to write about this week, Ron?   I think you do.    The financial market meltdown, perhaps?  Mike Castle’s possible role in that, as a ranking member of the Financial Services committee?   John McCain’s insane and disasterous behavior this past week?    Sarah Palin?   The splate of polls showing various landslides across the state?

No.  You decided not to discuss those topics with today’s column.  You decided to write about fantasy.   So next week, please cover the following rumor that I am just making up with no basis in fact:  John McCain is a maverick.

About the Author ()

Comments (30)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Chin Up says:

    wRong took a nice big crap on Tommy Carper, at least.

  2. Al Mascitti says:

    I’m enjoying his tub-thumping for DTR. When he and TNJ steal from us they won’t even mention the source.

  3. anon says:

    Is the WDEL stream allowed on state computers?

  4. FSP says:

    It is my understanding that the other stations got exemptions in advance of the policy to block streaming audio.

  5. whispertoo says:

    “When he and TNJ steal from us they won’t even mention the source.”

    Al,

    I live down south and don’t get WDEL. Are you saying that your newscasters don’t rip and read?

    What big stories has the NJ stolen from you guys?

  6. cassandra_m says:

    I wouldn’t worry too much about wRong — next week he’ll be covering the just as credible fantasies of McCain replacing Palin with Romney or Guiliani. Last one I read had one of these guys taking her place just before this week’s debate.

    What is sort of fun about this is the media — who frequently pooh pooh the internet as this wild and uncontrolled place — would actually treat a wild and uncontrolled internet rumor as worthy of WNJ column space. I wonder if all of this newfound internet interest means that no one in RL speaks to him anymore.

  7. Dana Garrett says:

    I don’t get the point of this post. Williams debunks a tall tale that has wide circulation among the moderately politically aware and your objection is that he didn’t cover some other matter on your political agenda?

    Did you ever ask yourself once what YOU were up to writing this post?

  8. delawaredem says:

    My objection is that he didn’t cover any of the momentous events of this past week. It has nothing to do with my political agenda. The rumor did not need debunking. It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that it was completely without merit.

    So Dana is on a roll this morning. First he defends John Atkins, and now he defends Ron Williams.

  9. cassandra_m says:

    I think that “tall tale” is the clue. This — out of all of the tall tales circulating on the internet — is what gets his attention this week?

    There was nothing else happening in the world that a columnist in the state’s largest paper could choose to get his readers to think about?

  10. Dana Garrett says:

    “There was nothing else happening in the world that a columnist in the state’s largest paper could choose to get his readers to think about?”

    You are close to the liberating insight here. Repeat “his column” and you might actually get it.

  11. plowman says:

    I love how angry you get, deldem!

  12. Dana Garrett says:

    “So Dana is on a roll this morning. First he defends John Atkins, and now he defends Ron Williams.”

    I don’t take my lessons from people who advocate mass murder.

    What was it, DD? All Repubs killed and then to show you meant no hyperbole you added the word “Seriously.” You are the one that needs defending because compared to you, RW & JA are saints.

  13. cassandra_m says:

    Well since no one here is actually disputing that he can chose what to write, you have no opportunity for the liberation implicit in arguing a point that is actually being made.

    It is a shame, however, that you can’t see that calling for the paper of record to actually step up its game is pretty liberating in itself.

  14. plowman says:

    ANGER! ANGER! ANGER!

    Maybe they should have picked Hillary. She’s a perfect vehicle for such bitter vitriol. Obama is a milquetoast!

  15. plowman says:

    “the paper of record ”

    Hahaha! I recently called and asked for mine to come on a roll…..

  16. Chin Up says:

    I don’t take my lessons from people who advocate mass murder.
    *
    Dana don’t let nothin’ go.
    🙂

  17. Chin Up says:

    I live down south and don’t get WDEL. Are you saying that your newscasters don’t rip and read?
    *
    absolutement

    all the time

    two big als and a jensuck

  18. MJ says:

    Since when has wRONg Williams been a respected columnist?

  19. delawaredem says:

    Hey Dana. I think those thick glasses blurs your vision. I apologized for that “killing Republicans” comment. Maybe you didn’t read it. Or maybe you don’t accept it. Either way, that you have chosen to attack me instead of defending your position of loving Ron Williams speaks volumes. That you think John Atkins is a saint, a man who has actually committed crimes, and think I am evil, just because I made an intemperate remark, reveals you to be a small bitter man.

  20. Dana Garrett says:

    I did miss your apology. I won’t mention the matter again.

    I am not defending Atkins. I’m defending the right of an oppressed community in DE to have a debate centered on issues that concern them–not you–them.

    Your comments about Williams are cliche. It’s cliche to attack him, but I think it’s best reserved for what he does say and not what one person would like for him to say. That’s petty.

    Sorry that you take criticism well.

  21. indigo14 says:

    Oppressed?

    Oppress: To crush or burden by abuse of power or authority.

    If the landowners can legally sell their land, and the homeowners haven’t been swindled out of anything, how is that oppression?

    I live in such a community, and “oppressed” seems like more than a bit of hyperbole. My friends and neighbors are fighting hard, but we’re not oppressed. There’s no abuse of power here. It’s just the way the market works. One can quibble with the market, but that’s the way it is.

  22. June says:

    It seems like the point trying to be made is: Why even mention something so stupid that you know isn’t true which just prolongs the rumor? I heard Allan Loudell say the same thing on his show about Joe Biden, and I was surprised that he’d even bring up something so ridiculous.

    On the other hand, there were some people on this blog who started, or passed on, a rumor shortly after Sarah Palin was nominated that she would drop out.

  23. anonone says:

    Hi June,

    Well, there are some heavyweight “very serious” right wing pundits that are suggesting Palin should drop out because she isn’t qualified. There are no comparable calls for Biden to drop out from the left.

  24. June, I am not at all surprised to hear this about Allan Loudell. He practically goes around the planet begging for de jour DEM canards to be verified.
    I find that Loudell pursues any tawdry GOPer-led DEM smut with vigor. Examples that come to mind were with some of the unsavory Obama-Clinton face-offs.

  25. Dana Garrett says:

    June, there are many people insufficiently skeptical to believe such rumors. Williams like Loudell was addressing them. Just because they didn’t provide the writers of this blog w/ something more titillating, it hardly follows that they didn’t provide something potentially worthwhile for many people.

  26. Unstable Isotope says:

    I consider myself at least moderately politically aware and I had never heard that rumor. So, the column to me was very strange – talking about something I had never heard. It seemed like a waste of space to me.

  27. jason330 says:

    Williams is pretty lost now that he can’t steal from Celia Cohen.

  28. Al Mascitti says:

    whispertoo: They aren’t big stories. But I know full well RW heard them on WDEL — the DSEA polling on charter schools, for instance. I was talking about that days before either Ron or TNJ did. If Celia had gotten it first, RW might (or might not) give her credit. Anyone else, forget it. He and I have enough of a history, and WGMD has gored enough of his GOP oxen, that I’m sure he’s pulling hard for DTR to take a bite out of both our audiences.

    What we rip and read comes from AP, a service which our newsroom, like TNJ’s, belongs to. We don’t rip them off the paper’s web site and read them; they’ve been through the AP system first.

  29. anon3 says:

    Oh are you saying that if it doesn’t come from the AP thread….it ain’t news! Haha!