In the LA Times (registration required), David Horowitz discusses the curious case of Al Franken's Harvard fellowship.

And the assertions in the book come backed with facts and figures and citations from so many sources it would take a team to produce them.

Which raises an interesting question. Where did a comedian like Al Franken get the time, research power and expertise to cover such a wide range of subject matters, almost all of which are out of his normal depth?

The answer, which Franken himself provides, is Harvard. It seems that the Kennedy School of Government there called him up and offered him a fellowship.
.    .    .
Ann Coulter has written a parallel bestseller (under her own steam, however) that attacks liberals and Democrats like Al Franken. Can anyone imagine Harvard soliciting Coulter to write her book, "Treason," by providing her with 14 graduate students to research it?

“You could call it irony, I call it bad judgment,” said Shorenstein Center Director Alex S. Jones. “It is inappropriate to use Shorenstein stationery to play a practical joke.”

But Jones said that the incident was resolved.

“Al made a big mistake, he recognized that mistake and wrote a sincere apology to everyone involved, and that ended the matter as far as we’re concerned. The only people who are pounding the drum on this are people who are trying to discredit Al’s book,” he said.

It's amusing to watch conservative pundit-types scramble to take Al Franken to task for "lying," as if there's some sort of moral or intellectual parity between the "lies" Franken used in executing a practical joke (an admittedly obnoxious and ill-conceived practical joke, sure, but, nonetheless, a JOKE, people) and the virtually truthless pap put forth by Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity etc. that they try to pass off as substantive, serious commentary about real people and events. Not to mention the almost daily howlers spoken by members of the Administration -- though I suppose some would argue that their agenda is also some sort of practical joke.

The column by Michelle Malkin that is linked in this entry is absolutely pitiful from the standpoint of intellectual honesty and substance, and it's a great example of exactly what I'm talking about. She obviously relishes the opportunity to point out even the smallest of Al's errors or "lies," but if that article is the best she can come up with, then it's what she DOESN'T say that carries the strongest message: she cannot say the substance of Franken has written is wrong.

While Horowitz may have a point that Harvard might be less likely to offer a conservative pundit the same fellowship they offered Franken, his using Coulter as an example is just plain silly on its face. Coulter, by her own actions and words, has demonstrated herself to be intellectually unserious, so why would Harvard, or any academic institution, support her "work"? Coulter's books have spawned a cottage industry of debunking and fact-checking; even those nitpickers at Spinsanity.org could find only a handful of details to complain about in Al's book.

To be fair, I do have sympathy for the discomfort of actual, thoughtful, principled conservatives who respect and understand what this country is actually about (and I know they're out there) who are being backed into a corner as it gets harder and harder to defend the words and actions of Bush & co. and their minions in the right wing of the press. The question is, at what point do these good folks speak up and say "Enough!" to those charlatans who claim to speak for them?

Sjostrom, given that Al's letter was a obvious joke, Malkin's column is a complete hack job, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual contents of his message.

And you, by association, are a hack. Peddle your bullshit elsewhere.