Patterico's Pontifications

6/25/2010

The overlooked story from the Weigel kerfuffle

Filed under: General — Karl @ 5:44 pm



[Posted by Karl]

WaPo blogger Dave Weigel resigned today, after a slew of his anti-conservative comments and emails from the newly-defunct JournoList were leaked to FishbowlDC and the Daily Caller. However, by focusing on his invective and profanity, most of his detractors and defenders are overlooking Weigel’s biggest offense.

Weigel used JournoList for exactly the purpose its critics suspected it would be used, i.e., to attempt to shape media coverage for the benefit of the Left. And he did it more than once. As the DC’s Jonathan Strong reports:

After Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat, threatening to kill the health care legislation by his presence, Weigel stressed how important it was for reporters to highlight what a terrible candidate his opponent Martha Coakley had been.

“I think pointing out Coakley’s awfulness is vital, because it’s 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats,” Weigel wrote.

In addition:

After Sarah Palin claimed Obama’s health care legislation included “death panels” that would ration health care, for instance, the Huffington Post reported that many Americans believed the claim was true. Weigel suggested that reporting on the subject might be counter-productive to liberal policy aims. The Huffington Post, Weigel pointed out, ran “a picture of Sarah Palin, linking to a poll that suggests 45 percent of Americans believe her death panel lie. But as long as the top liberal-leaning news site talks about it every single hour of every day, I’m sure that number will go down.”

“Let’s move the f*** on already,” Weigel wrote.

No wonder folks at the WaPo who were backing Weigel on Thursday night were ready to accept his resignation after today’s DC piece.

The second example is particularly striking because Weigel was explcitly urging his fellow J-Listers to engage in what Weigel’s buddies and fellow travelers like to call “epistemic closure,” to operate as a closed media ecosystem that excludes competing political narratives. (It’s arguably there in the first example, too.)

So how are the bloggers that spent a decent chunk of this year complaining about “epistemic closure” reacting to Weigel’s resignation? Andrew Sullivan is on Team Weigel, natch. So is Conor Friedersdorf. So is Marc Ambinder. And all of them sidestep the worst things Weigel did. But taking the cake is the guy who mis-coined the term “epistemic closure,” Weigel’s pal, Julian Sanchez. Sanchez not only ignores Weigel’s advocacy of Lefty closure on JournoList, he manages to get in a swipe at contemporary movement conservatism, which he calls “Manichean,” and “tightly in the grip of a bunker mentality,” before conceding (as he must) that Weigel got submarined by someone on or with access to JournoList, which was closed to conservatives.

In short, the people whining the loudest about “epistemic closure” on the Right find themselves utterly blinded when Weigel advocated it for the Left, and had to resign due to the “epistemic closure” that was inherent in JournoList itself. I think there’s a hip term for that…

–Karl

160 Responses to “The overlooked story from the Weigel kerfuffle”

  1. Denial – It’s not just a river in Africa, you know.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  2. “…to attempt to shape media coverage for the benefit of the Left.”

    Obviously.

    “I’d politely encourage everyone to think twice about rewarding the Examiner with any traffic or links for a while. I know the temptation is high to follow up hot hot Byron York scoops, but please resist it.”

    Weigel is flat out asking his left wing pals not to follow up on stories originating in the Washington Examiner.

    But, hey, it was the same thing when I was a kid back in the 60’s. The MSM is now, and always has been, a propaganda arm of the Democrats.

    Dave Surls (8c37a2)

  3. Weigel the Dog and
    his friend Dirty Sanchez now
    both Munchkinian

    ColonelHaiku (181d1a)

  4. no need press purge libs
    press purge readers and viewers
    pretty damn skippy

    ColonelHaiku (181d1a)

  5. If the JournoList is so freakin’ benign, as Sanchez claims, then they have an easy way to prove it: release the archives. Oh, but that would be wrong:

    Second, as Alyssa Rosenberg points out, whatever treacherous bottom-feeder decided to leak Dave’s e-mails was either on or had access to the liberal JournoList, which raises a question of motive.

    Do it to the right, and you’re a Hero of the People for exposing the Ugly Underbelly of Capitalism and upholding the Public’s Right to Know. Do it to the left, and you’re a treacherous “ratf*cker” who has to be hunted down and neutralized.

    Why does Megan McArdle associate with these people?

    Mike G in Corvallis (fd5fcd)

  6. The fiercely independent thinking left always needs to get its talking points coordinated before it tackles any stories. Tom Maguire has written some posts with great examples of this behavior.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  7. this time next week you ask me the name of who this post is about and I’ll have to google it but I’ll remember the Macaca Post used to employ this tool whatever his name is

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  8. I won’t forget this twerp’s name, feets, I mean what self respecting libertarian goes to work for
    Indy Media, the paper mache protesting Soros outfit, and then wrangles a slot at the post as a
    psuedo conservative

    ian cormac (7bb4f2)

  9. maybe if I knew how to pronounce his stupid name it would help

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  10. Weigel made mistakes, but I felt like he got a raw deal on this. I don’t have the energy to explain why, except that I think Drudge misrepresented him a couple weeks ago and he was really smarting from that. He has exhibited some bad judgment at times, but I was shocked to see he had resigned over remarks that seemed mostly not that bad.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  11. He made a living off misrepresenting the side he was supposed to be covering, the Journolist of which
    he was a part, specialized in saturating certain memes into the infosphere, which ordinarily would
    make no sense, but repitition wore down the resistance of

    ian cormac (7bb4f2)

  12. Groupthink is more widespread, and more natural, than our liberal friends are willing to believe.

    Fritz (9c4a4d)

  13. I find him to be honest, and the backlash overdone.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  14. “I felt like he got a raw deal on this.”

    Patterico – I’m not seeing Weigel as a victim here. These blows seem self-inflicted.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  15. daley:

    I thought Drudge gave him a raw deal in his characterization of Weigel’s post about Etheridge. If you read it in context he clearly did not say it was a “hug” in a way that made it sound friendly.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  16. The hip term is karma.

    Charlie Davis (e8c753)

  17. Patterico – I did not read Drudge’s characterization of Weigel’s post about Etheridge. Weigel’s tripe was damning enough on a stand alone basis.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  18. +1 ian cormac

    I don’t think he resigned because of the remarks per se, he resigned because of what the remarks revealed about his capacity to perform his job. Namely that he no longer had any credibility to report on the political Right with anything approaching fairness.

    If Ezra Klein were to be shown to have made similar remarks on Journolist, people would not even bat an eye, because they already KNOW he’s a partisan liberal. The revelation of Weigel as a partisan liberal was a threat to the WaPo’s fig leaf efforts at balance, so he had to go.

    He never should have had this job in the first place.

    cns (27fbe3)

  19. I feel sorry for Weigel because he lost his job — that’s tough in this economy — and because an anonymous person took emails he’d written over a period of months and packaged them to make him look bad. But I don’t feel real sorry for him since he actually wrote the emails, nor would I change my mind if he had been goaded. Isn’t that what many journalists do when they’re trying to get a story? It seems to me Weigel would know what that looks like and how to handle it better than most.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  20. … the newly-defunct JournoList …

    I wonder what they changed the name to?

    What, you didn’t think it was over over, did you?

    Weigel made mistakes, but I felt like he got a raw deal on this. […] I was shocked to see he had resigned over remarks that seemed mostly not that bad.

    Lifted from a comment (not mine) on Sanchez’s defense of Weigel at Megan McArdle’s Atlantic blog:

    Weigel’s exhortion on Journolist after Martha Coakley’s loss:

    “I think pointing out Coakley’s awfulness is vital, because it’s 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats.”

    So that’s what he wrote privately. Here’s his putatively objective account of the loss in the Atlantic:

    “In the debate over how Democrats could possibly lose the race–which has major repercussions for President Obama’s agenda–Coakley herself is taking more and more of the blame.”

    Weigel and Klein aren’t journalists so much as activists and propagandists masquerading as journalists. “Journalistic integrity” means as much to them as “double-entry bookkeeping” does to my cat.

    The question for the Washington Post is whether they want the newspaper to be associated in the mind of the public with partisan propaganda rather than honest reporting.

    Mike G in Corvallis (fd5fcd)

  21. I read the hug article and thought Weigel was trying to minimize what Etheridge did. It surprised me a lot because, until then, he seemed even-handed.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  22. I find him to be honest, and the backlash overdone.

    I must be missing something here.

    Or is this a case of people schmoozing with some person, getting to know him or her on an up-close-and-personal basis, and from that moment onward — when hearing something disagreeable about that person — exclaiming: “But how can that be?! He (or she) seemed so nice and friendly!”

    This can easily lead to rationalizations and excuse-making not much more absurd that what’s symbolized by the phrase: “And other than THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

    However, by focusing on his invective and profanity, most of his detractors and defenders are overlooking Weigel’s biggest offense.

    Mark (411533)

  23. “he got a raw deal on this.”

    The minute it came out that he’d asked his colleagues to NOT follow up on stories written by Byron York…he was toast.

    The WaPo has virtually no credibilty now, except amongst leftoid fanatics. If they get busted for trying to suppress news stories because people on the WaPo staff don’t like the source of a story, then the little credibilty they have left will vanish on the breeze.

    Dave Surls (a7de8b)

  24. In the short term, the best part of this story is watching to see how off-message the liberal media will be as they struggle to put their talking points message system back together.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  25. Weigel mas mad because he thought Drudge’s headline to his story about Etheridge was misleading. Drudge’s headline said that Weigel called it not an attack, but a hug. And Weigel didn’t call it an attack. He called it a hug.

    That headline left out some nuance of Weigel’s post. Then again, just a few days earlier, in response to Jim Geraghty’s criticism that Weigel was defining “birtherism” down, Weigel tweeted: “I’ll totally cop to writing tweets that invite clicks without explaining the nuances.”

    Karl (8735a1)

  26. The term is “mendoucheous”.

    Mike Myers (3c9845)

  27. The crime of the Washington Examiner, for which he took a dig at Byron York, was their gossip columnists wrote something snarky about him dancing at McArdle’s wedding. I mean seriously… Weigel was the victim of snark? Has he ever read his own work?

    Maybee (c50b9d)

  28. Juice box blogging ain’t bean bag.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  29. Friedersdorf says:
    I’ll defend to death, however, the proposition that the work of a journalist should be the only standard by which he is measured.

    Weigel’s work includes lobbying for Democrats via JournoList. It’s the subterranean part of his work he and the likes of Friedersdorf don’t want the public to know about.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  30. Mr. P what happened to woogle is a lot like what happened to General McC really, just different

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  31. I just think it’s a pathetic situation when conervatives are satified the WaPo’s “inside the conservative movement” blogger wasn’t completely hostile. Fans of Ezra Kein were saying Weigel’s tough coverage showed respect for conservatives. Seriously! Are we such battered women that we believe that? That we don’t push for better?

    MayBee (c50b9d)

  32. but I think Karl nails the firing offense as being caught out taking part in a news-spinning dirty socialist cabal… it just looks way awful and it’s 110% inconsistent with the role they hired him to play

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  33. Hi MayBee haven’t seen you in many moons hope all is well in MayBeeland

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  34. Bradley, as a professional journalist you’re likely to be better in tune with this: Do you believe he was right to resign? Did he *have* to or could he have remained at WaPo with their credibility still in tact? Or would there be too much damage control?

    Happyfeet, both showed a tremendous lack of judgment and discretion. (It does seem that Weigel, of all people, should have known not to put anything in an email that he didn’t want made public.)

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  35. yes plus also they’re both dirty socialists what helped install bumble in office and got betrayed by their own team

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  36. The crime of the Washington Examiner, for which he took a dig at Byron York, was their gossip columnists wrote something snarky about him dancing at McArdle’s wedding. I mean seriously… Weigel was the victim of snark? Has he ever read his own work?

    I thought he was upset at them for getting personal about his girlfriend. But I worked all day so I admittedly didn’t follow this closely.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  37. Oh those commenters at Reason:

    Weigel’s exhortion on Journolist after Martha Coakley’s loss:

    “I think pointing out Coakley’s awfulness is vital, because it’s 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats.”

    So that’s what he wrote privately. Here’s his putatively objective account of the loss in the Atlantic:

    “In the debate over how Democrats could possibly lose the race–which has major repercussions for President Obama’s agenda–Coakley herself is taking more and more of the blame.”

    Karl (8735a1)

  38. that’s creepy how blatantly not-right that is

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  39. Happs!! Maybeeland is happy.

    Yes, Karl is right that it became clear he was working to manipulate news. Ido wonder what the WaPo thought of their Ezra’s part in the sordid mess.

    Patterico- Drudge didn’t get the “nuance” of WeIgel’s hug line. But Weigel’s angle on that whole story was to find a way to minimize it into a conservative meme of suspicious origins. And indeed the story was largely ignored

    MayBee (c50b9d)

  40. If I were hired to cover the Los Angeles Dodgers for the Dog Trainer — let’s say I was to write an insider’s blog about them — and it turned out that I was caught emailing my friends about what an idiot Joe Torre is and how much Casey Blake sucked and how I couldn’t stand Andre Either, do you think they would keep me in that position for very long? I don’t find much room for sympathy here, even though some on the right have said that Weigel is personally very affable and friendly.

    JVW (8aff2c)

  41. MayBee: Weigel’s fault in covering the Etheridge story was promoting the “Who are they?” distraction. I disagreed with this. I think his outrage at the Drudge distortion prevented him from seeing what he had done wrong in covering the story.

    I still respect him for standing tall against the lies of the Brad Friedmans of the world.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  42. Mr. Instapundit links the Macaca Post ombudsman’s remarks on the recent unpleasantness

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  43. The lies? He laughed with joy when Okeefe was arrested
    The getting personal about his girlfriend was mentioning her name in the article about his dancing. It wad a weird, insidery piece. His reaction was similarly weird, considering how willing he is to snark at others.

    MayBee (c50b9d)

  44. Patterico – He does deserve props on the O’Keefe smears.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  45. He strikes me as someone what is so besotted with Daily Show he thinks Rush and Palin and your other wingnuts are just cartoons, and it’s ok to say as much out loud.

    Well Mr. W they’re not just cartoons some of them are real people.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  46. But is asking somebody not to lie about what they saw or said extraordinary and praiseworthy these days? Perhaps on the left it is unusual.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  47. The comments over on Ezra’s blog announcing the end of Journolist are worth reading. My favorite is someone’s clever comparison of Weigel’s being able to objectively cover American conservatives with Dr.Robert Atkins being able to objectively cover the association of American confectioners. Zing!

    That Weigel spent his days attending Republican events and developing conservative sources for his “analysis”, while behind the scenes and in secret he was demonizing them and mocking them to his liberal buddies was most certainly just cause for him to have to leave that particular assignment. Not to defend the paper but the more I read about this the more I am starting to believe that the powers at WP got rolled by Ezra on this one– because they unblinkingly accepted his recommendation of Weigel’s credentials as being a center right/libertarian when that was clearly not the case and Klein darn well knew it.

    elissa (ababd7)

  48. elissa, the link that happyfeet provided @ #42 (the WaPo ombudsman)states that he was vetted like any other employee. It doesn’t mention Ezra Klein, but who knows…

    He said that when Weigel was hired, he was vetted in the same way that other prospective Post journalists are screened. He interviewed with a variety of top editors, his writings were reviewed and his references were checked, Narisetti said.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  49. Dana- Ezra recommended him for the job

    MayBee (c50b9d)

  50. Patterico:

    I still respect him for standing tall against the lies of the Brad Friedmans of the world.

    Yes, but given what we now know about Weigel’s efforts to squelch stories that hurt liberals, how much of his stand against Brad Friedman was principled and how much was damage control to stop a stupid liberal story from gaining traction?

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  51. Dana,
    Bradley, as a professional journalist you’re likely to be better in tune with this: Do you believe he was right to resign?

    Yes. He’s got very little credibility left as a conservative chronicler. By resigning, Weigel takes responsibility for his bad actions. That’s better than trying to brazen it out. He might be able to rehabilitate himself. Or else he can follow the path of Eric Boehlert, give up any pretense of journalism and go work for Media Matters. His choice.

    Did he *have* to or could he have remained at WaPo with their credibility still intact?

    WaPo itself has little credibility with many conservatives, and with yours truly. It is so dreadfully sloppy and biased at times. The editors and reporters don’t seem to care, with a few exceptions. The person I respect the most there is ombudsman Andrew Alexander, who has been consistently fair-minded. Alexander pointed out the strangely undefined role of Weigel — was he a reporter? An opinionated blogger?

    Or would there be too much damage control?

    Yes. WaPo is clueless about conservatives, probably because there are no conservatives in newsroom leadership roles. From the standpoint of the ObamaCare-loving Narisetti, Weigel probably looked like a conservative because he wrote for Reason.

    As Karl pointed out, Weigel used JournoList to advance left-wing memes with his fellow lefty journalists, in secret. That’s not how journalists are supposed to act. We are supposed to be open, with our first loyalty to the public. The JournoListers seem to be more loyal to advancing a political agenda.

    Glenn Reynolds made a good point, that Weigel’s successor should not have been on JournoList.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  52. No, they knew what they were getting, you only need
    to look at what he put out on any day at the WI to know which way he was leaning

    ian cormac (7bb4f2)

  53. Yes, MayBee, he did, and that’s sort of my obscure point: Why wouldn’t the ombudsman mention Ezra Klein specifically re Weigel’s hiring? Doesn’t it seem that is an integral part of the picture considering his involvement with JournoList and obviously being privvy to Wiegel’s emails? It’s sorta like coming clean on the WaPo’s part…but not completely.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  54. BTW, I do agree with Weigel that Gingrich leaves a lot to be desired as a moral person, although “amoral” is going too far. There is Good Newt, discussing the implications of technology and society. Then there is Bad Newt, giving his first wife divorce papers as she’s in the hospital with cancer, having affairs while preaching about religion, etc.

    About Beck, I do think he’s a bit too tightly wrapped and says strange things at times, but it’s wrong to slime him as a “racist.”

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  55. Patterico:the Drudge distortion prevented him from seeing what he had done wrong in covering the story.
    ———-
    There were comments at his blog and tweets to him trying to discuss that angle with him. He focused on drudge., whom he obviously despises

    MayBee (c50b9d)

  56. “I thought he was upset at them for getting personal about his girlfriend.”

    This is what the Washington Examiner piece said about his girlfriend…

    “Weigel told Yeas & Nays he danced alone because his girlfriend wasn’t there, she lives in Alaska.”

    Weigel also claimed that the Washington Examiner gossip item gave the name and job of his girlfriend (not that there would be anything wrong with that if they did):

    “Follow-up to one hell of a day: Apparently, the Washington Examiner thought it would be fun to write up an item about my dancing at the wedding of Megan McArdle and Peter Suderman. Said item included the name and job of my girlfriend…”–Weigel

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/blogs/yeas-and-nays/Dancing-with-myself_-Weigel-likes-to-waggle-96333064.html

    But, apparently, that isn’t the case, unless the Washington Examiner changed the story or there is another Examiner story that gives Weigel’s girlfriend’s name (I searched the Examiner site…couldn’t find one).

    Personally, I think Weigel’s just lying about that…because…well, because he’s a left winger…and they ain’t honest.

    I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, though (there has to be a lefty out there somewhere who doesn’t automatically lie about everything under the sun). All Weigel (or anyone else) has to do is to produce the story that gives his girlfriend’s name and job. It won’t make what he did any more right, but at least it would show he wasn’t lying about what the Examiner story said.

    If you ask me, the only bitch Weigel has against Byron York (who had nothing to do with the above, which isn’t the least bit offensive anyway) and the Washington Examiner is is that they aren’t left wing enough to suit Weigel.

    Dave Surls (a7de8b)

  57. there’s also stale newt and climate change pansy newt and dear god why can’t Team R wipe him off their shoe newt

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  58. someone found Amanda Marcotte’s comments on Mr. Drudge they were pretty silly brb

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  59. One thing that Andrew Alexander, the WaPo‘s ombudscreature, didn’t say in his writeup of Weigel’s departure was whether he himself was on Klein’s JournoList. That might be a useful thing for the public to know, don’t you think?

    Alexander wrote that Weigel’s sin was that he “made negative comments about Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, among others.” But another thing that Alexander didn’t mention was that in addition, Weigel called the people who attend Tea Party rallies “teabaggers” and “ratf*ckers.” In fact, there’s no mention at all of “ratf*ckers” in his piece, even though it seems to have been one of Weigel’s favorite terms for people whose politics he didn’t like. Go figure!

    Klein and others at the WaPo claim that the editors had no clue about Weigels derision toward conservatives. But until Klein releases a list of the participants, we’ll never know how many “journalists” and editors at the WaPo were on the JournoList and read Weigel’s rants and schemes first-hand, and never said a word.

    Alas, it took only one listserv participant to bundle up Weigel’s archived comments and start leaking them outside the group. The result is that Weigel lost his job.

    Omertà!

    Mike G in Corvallis (fd5fcd)

  60. It’s indicative of the mental weakness that dominates the Village right now that Dave had to apologize for his remarks on Journolist, much less resign. I don’t think it’s ever smart to use suicide as a rhetorical device, precisely because it gives people an opening to act like you wished violence on them, so I agree that it was intemperate of Dave to say that Matt Drudge should set himself on fire. But no one over the age of 5 really believe Dave was being literal here, so basically he’s being punished for speaking ill of the Village god Matt Drudge. But there’s nothing incorrect about the point that Dave was making—Matt Drudge is a fucked up person, and everyone knows it. He’s a creepy little twerp whose “politics” spring less from any coherent belief system and more a combination of sadism and attention-whoring. He’s too much of a disaster of a human being to be allowed to put together the menu at a restaurant that only serves grilled cheese sandwiches, much less set the agenda of the entire DC media establishment. People who use Drudge for leads should be ashamed of themselves. Anyone who defends him should eat a shit sandwich in shame.*

    there is much much more and this is sure to be filtrated but anyway I love Mr. Drudge he is a hero I think… me and my friend T were gonna track him down in Hollywood but he moved to Florida the same time I moved out here… we are two ships, Mr. Drudge and me kinda but not really

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  61. the filtrater might could be broked

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  62. oh. it was there on my page and then when I refreshed it was gone… I don’t get how the new comment engine works yet

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  63. For Patterico, from the Daily Caller story
    In a thread with the subject line, “ACORN Ratf*cker arrested,” Journolisters discussed how James O’Keefe, whose undercover reporting showed officials from activist group ACORN willing to help a fake prostitution ring skirt the law, had been arrested in another, failed operation at Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-LA) office.
    Weigel’s response: “HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.”
    “Deep breath.”
    “HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHA.”
    “He’s either going to get a radio talk show or start a prison ministry. That’s was successful conservative ratfuckers do for their second acts,” Weigel wrote, likely alluding to Nixon aide Charles Colson who converted to Christianity after a stint in prison for obstruction of justice and founded Prison Fellowship.

    MayBee (c50b9d)

  64. I think your comment was filtered, happyfeet. I’m finding several comments there and approving them as quickly as the white-screen-of-death allows it.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  65. Maybee’s was filtered, too, but I think I’ve released them all.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  66. Dave is not nice, Maybee.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  67. thank you DRJ

    whoa. I think woogle might could be a sociopath. That’s one too many HAs for comfort.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  68. MayBee:

    That reveals contempt for O’Keefe, no doubt.

    And yet, when Brad Friedman misrepresented Weigel’s post to the detriment of O’Keefe, I contacted Weigel, and he called Friedman on his bullshit.

    He was honest even given his (totally misplaced) contempt for O’Keefe.

    Look: I’m not saying his judgment is the greatest or that he was the best pick for the job. But I think quitting was an overreaction, and I think Drudge did him wrong which upset him greatly.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  69. btw there is a super popular lunch truck what does only serve grilled cheese sammiches and Ms. Marcotte knows not of which she speaks… it is very tasty and we waited for at least a half hour in line for the tasty grilled cheeses

    oh wow they’re right up the hill tomorrow at 3! But looks like it’s $10 at the door… if I get up super early and get stuff done for reals I might wander up there with my friend P at 4 or so

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  70. Thanks DRJ!

    Crumbs, Patterico. I adore you, but we deserve more. We deserve more than being happy the conservative beat blogger thinks O keefe is a ratf****r but will correct a lie he’s been caught up in .

    MayBee (c50b9d)

  71. Patterico- do you think a guy who called OKeefe that name was legitimately upset by a misrepresention by Drudge? Or do you think perhaps even he knew that post was indefensible for someone “inside” the conservative movement?

    MayBee (c50b9d)

  72. Patterico, are you open to the possibility that in the example for which you are giving Weigel props he may just have been trying to gain street cred with an influencial right leaning blogger (you) by appearing to take on Friedman?

    elissa (ababd7)

  73. Maybe I’m misunderstanding something. I thought Weigel’s emails were written over several months, all the way back to February. If that’s true, why does it matter whether Weigel was mad/hurt/whatever at Drudge over the Etheridge story? Weigel’s inflammatory statements were written long before that.

    Of course, if the emails and everything else happened in the last few weeks, that would be different. It could have just been a fit of pique.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  74. DRJ- you are right. The emails took place before this latest drudge thing.

    MayBee (c50b9d)

  75. A snippet from Verum Serum adds some nuance to Weigel’s pique:

    “Klein tells his readers that this incident is a good example of the blurry line between public and private on the web. That may be true, but it’s worth noting that just last month Dave Weigel expressed a very concrete idea of the private/public divide when he wrote this piece about Sarah Palin:

    Sarah Palin took to her Facebook account today to inform her readers that Joe McGinniss, an award-winning reporter and author, had rented the house next door…Can somebody explain to me how this isn’t a despicable thing for Palin to do?

    Palin had complained bitterly about the intrusion into her privacy. Far from taking her side, Weigel attempted to school Sarah in how this works. Politicians, he wrote, “don’t have veto power over who gets to write about them, or how they research their stories, as long as they’re within the bounds of the law.” Okay, Dave, if you say so.

    Were any laws broken in publishing your comments from JournoList? None that I’ve seen. Then I suppose Mr. Weigel has nothing to complain about. Not unless he wants to suggest the rules are different for investigating journalists, like himself, than for ex-Governor’s like Sarah Palin.”

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  76. i can’t imagine willingly going to Universal, but then again, it isn’t City Walk, so maybee. %-)

    more likely we’ll just go over to the Eagle Rock Brewery and catch the Patty Wagon.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  77. “But I think quitting was an overreaction, and I think Drudge did him wrong which upset him greatly.”

    Oh, poor little Dave.

    You know, maybe Matt Drudge would have cut Dave Weigel some slack, if only Weigel wasn’t going around on the Internet posting crap like this:

    “I hear there’s video out there of Matt Drudge diddling an 8-year-old boy. Shocking.”–Dave Weigel, “professional” journalist

    …which is what good old Dave did a couple of months ago.

    And, what horrible act did Matt Drudge perform in response? Well, about a month after Dave Weigel accused Drudge of being a child molestor (just a little joke according to good old Dave Weigel, professional journalist), Drudge linked to a post Weigel made in regard to the Etheridge assault with the following headline “WASH POST: NOT AN ASSAULT, A ‘HUG.'”

    Oh, the horror! It’s easy to see who is in the wrong here. How dare Matt Drudge note that Weigel did use the word “hug” and didn’t use the word “assault” in regard to that little Etheridge incident? The nerve of the man.

    Any reasonable person could see why Weigel would wish death upon Matt Drudge under the circumstances.

    Sorry, Pat, but you’re way off base on this one.

    Dave Weigel is a scumbag. Dave Weigel is dishonest. Dave Weigel wouldn’t know what professional journalism was if it jumped up and bit him on his whiny little ass. And, Dave Weigel was nothing more than a left wing hack spewing propaganda on behalf of the Democrat Party.

    P.S. I haven’t noticed Matt Drudge saying anything about Weigel, but I do notice that he has links to FOUR article describing Weigel’s well-deserved downfall, so I figure Matt is having a nice little laugh at Weigel’s expense.

    Dave Surls (a7de8b)

  78. Pat —

    Drudge’s headline did make it look like Weigel (for those struggling with pronunciation, it does not alliterate with weasel but with lie dull, and has a hard g) was 100% in support of Stranglin’ Bob Etheridge.

    If you actually read Weigel’s post, it was merely 95% in support of Stranglin’ Bob. He didn’t say hug intending you to think it was a friendly embrace, but he did elide, minimize and conceal the truth of the interaction. I’m speculating, but that’s probably when the ombud first raised an eyebrow at Weigel and started asking, “Who is this guy, and why is the Post billing him as Inside the Right?

    I agree that he’s been unstable lately: the frothing flip-out over the little graf about him dancing at the McArdle/Suderman nuptials is not coming from a guy who’s on an even keel. Or even an adult, or as we called them when we were at his level of maturity, a “gwown-up.”

    And Weigel’s response to Drudge spinning a quote of his for max sensationalism (you know, the same thing Weigel does routinely to the people he “covers”): a call for Drudge to self-immolation.

    But Weigel, being the passive-aggressive moral and physical coward that he is, couldn’t actually say that to a skinny effete fellow. Hasn’t the stones. Oh, no, he put it out in his secret little He-Man-Women-Haters-Club, where his Juicebox Mafia pals could all snicker about it.

    By the way, real smart move by Juicebox Don, Ezwa Kwein: by keeping his list pure and keeping Tucker Carlson off it, he sure kept its mature and consequential deliberations off of the Daily Caller, eh? Oh, wait.

    Finally, you of all people, a gang prosecutor, should pick up on the in-group morality here. “Anything goes against outsiders, but you owe loyalty to the tribe”: how is this different from the way members of MS-13 or the Hell’s Angels are socialized?

    In the end, everyone wins. The Post gets one particular tumor cut out of its cancerous body and gets to sustain its denial of its long decline, the Huffer gains another true believer, Final Solution collaborator George Soros gains another stenographer, Weigel gets to come out of the closet and build his brand with a tale of martyrdom at the hands of eeeevil, and conservatives have one more reason not to take the calls of the Post or any of the Juiceboxers. And Drudge gets his page views, and it’s a pretty solid bet that he’ll never link Weigel again. Until Weigel says something he can get smoked for again, which, given Weigel’s immaturity, he will.

    Kevin R.C. O'Brien (11b2b7)

  79. If Weigel’s reactions towards Matt Drudge don’t indicate just how much of an ultra-liberal Weigel really is, then certainly his reaction towards James O’Keffe pretty much nails it.

    Meanwhile, notice the almost idiotic inability that the following person has in judging the socio-political biases of Weigel. This type of reaction is not too different from those who say “the media can’t be biased in favor of the left! It’s owned by big corporations!!”

    trueslant.com, John McQuaid, June 25:

    But the world outside the warm embrace of objectivity looks dangerous to those still inside it, especially if there’s any ambiguity about what team you’re on. Politico’s Ben Smith wrote a piece before Weigel’s resignation broke that basically stated: if you are one of these journalists-with-opinions, you have to choose a side. If you don’t, we’ll choose one for you. Weigel, you’re a liberal.

    This is preposterous for two reasons: first, Weigel says he’s not a liberal. (And indeed, there is little evidence for ideological liberalism in his snark; rather, it’s contempt for individuals and conservative strategy/tactics – blunt, yes, but honest.) Second, a journalist (or, for that matter, anybody) ought to be able to hold opinions without actually joining a political movement. This describes most Americans, after all.

    Mark (411533)

  80. haiku boldly say
    Kevin R.C. O’Brien’s
    post win prize for truth

    ColonelHaiku (181d1a)

  81. Regarding the things not in ombudsman Alexander’s piece that could have been there: He wrote under a tight deadline, which makes it easy to leave out stuff. I know this all too well.

    When Alexander has time to reflect on this and dig deeper, he should do a more comprehensive piece about WaPo’s institutional flaws and the blinkered views of its newsroom leadership that led to such a poor choice.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  82. Ah, nothing like a bit of schadenfreude to lighten one’s cares and concerns that are caused by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

    jakee308 (9471e1)

  83. Politico’s Ben Smith wrote a piece before Weigel’s resignation broke that basically stated: if you are one of these journalists-with-opinions, you have to choose a side.

    What a ridiculous thing for McQuaid to write. All journalists have opinions. The big question is whether they can rise above those opinions to write fairly and factually.

    As for choosing sides, Weigel did that when he joined JournoList.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  84. Personally, I believe that the anger, frustration and the feeling of helplessness that some in the country feel has been exacerbated by the KNOWN bias of the MEDIA and it’s refusal to acknowledge same.

    I would rather KNOW the bias of the journalist/reporter/blogger/essayist/pundit that I am listening to/reading. All the better to judge the accuracy of what they are saying and underlying viewpoint.

    It’s the REFUSAL to acknowledge this bias that causes EVERYONE to distrust what the MEDIA says. This leads to people believing/feeling that their side of a discussion/argument is not being heard.

    This is frustrating and induces a feeling of helplessness. It’s the reason Fox News is so popular; people feel that their side of the story is being heard and that Fox is being honest in it’s reportage.

    If this country implodes, the MEDIA will have failed as a safety outlet for the People and will have failed the mission envisioned by those who wrote the Bill Of Rights enshrining a Free Press with rights equal to the People’s.

    As the disparity between reality and falsity that the MEDIA has fostered by it’s refusal to admit to it’s bias, the people’s frustration also grows and may result in schisms politically and communally that will be difficult, if not impossible, to heal.

    jakee308 (9471e1)

  85. Weigel is a propagandist. The Post is propaganda. They were a perfect match.

    Ken Hahn (bf2232)

  86. ombudsman now frets
    wapo now lose face with right
    how lose never had?

    ColonelHaiku (181d1a)

  87. At risk of appearing to pile on, I think that a lot of Weigel’s and Klein’s (and therefore the WaPo’s) problems have to do with the age and immaturity of these guys. DaleyRocks calls them “juicebox journalists” and that is pretty close to the truth. Weigel is a class of 2004 graduate of Medill (Northwestern) and Ezra, born in 1984 just turned 26. He does not have a journalism degree. Neither has ever had a real job. Yet somehow they are writing about policy and providing analysis for Newsweek and the Washington Post among others. Think about that for a second.

    Now, I am going to assume here that quite a few of Patterico’s commenters are older than that. Many probably are 40 or more. Perhaps several are over 60. Obviously many of us have graduate and post graduate degrees. May I ask you to think back to when you were Ezra’s and Dave’s age and just getting started. Yes, you were smart, but you were probably still very much finding your way. Did you take risks and make some stupid mistakes of judgment? Did you view the world differently than you do now? Were things more black and white to you? Did you think that you knew things about people and politics that you now realize you didn’t understand very well? Did you often miss nuance and the historical context of events? Did you think a lot of your elders were stupid? Did you sometimes trust (or bait)your friends too much while striving for their respect and acceptance?

    I guess what I am trying to say is why does *anybody*, with any self respect pay attention to the regurgitations of these juicebox kids, and how did they ever get such coveted and potentially influential gigs in the first place?

    elissa (25c501)

  88. jakee308 states the problem very well. It’s not the bias, but the hidden bias, that’s the real concern. An openly disclosed bias makes the reporter confront the bias. It also gives the public useful information to spot potential flaws in stories. As such, it’s a service to readers. (I’m not saying that bias should be in the story, but just that it should be disclosed).

    I’m a reporter, but also a reader. And as a reader, I like to know about the reporter’s point of view, especially anything deliberately kept from the public. For me, that’s often the most interesting information. Reporters are in the disclosure business. So when they tell the public they don’t need to know something, it’s significant.

    Unfortunately, if Howard Kurtz reported what WaPo editor Marcus Brauchli said accurately, Brauchli doesn’t quite get it. According to Kurtz, Brauchli said:

    “Dave did excellent work for us,” Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said. But, he said, “we can’t have any tolerance for the perception that people are conflicted or bring a bias to their work. . . . There’s abundant room on our Web site for a wide range of viewpoints, and we should be transparent about everybody’s viewpoint.”

    Brauchli contradicts himself. First, he says WaPo can’t tolerate the perception of bias. Then he says WaPo should be transparent about viewpoints, which is just a euphemism for bias.

    No wonder the WaPo brass keeps stumbling.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  89. Elissa,
    At risk of appearing to pile on, I think that a lot of Weigel’s and Klein’s (and therefore the WaPo’s) problems have to do with the age and immaturity of these guys.

    Immaturity, yes, age no.
    One of my former colleagues at the North County Times, now a grizzled 24-year-old, is very mature, for any age. And there are much older journalists — paging journosaur Michael Hiltzik! — who have never matured.

    DaleyRocks calls them “juicebox journalists” and that is pretty close to the truth. Weigel is a class of 2004 graduate of Medill (Northwestern) and Ezra, born in 1984 just turned 26. He does not have a journalism degree.

    Ask Dmac about Northwestern sometime. He’s dealt with plenty of prima donnas from that august institution. Not having a journalism degree is no handicap. Indeed, considering the strident left-wing activism of certain journo professors, it is probably an advantage.

    Neither has ever had a real job. Yet somehow they are writing about policy and providing analysis for Newsweek and the Washington Post among others. Think about that for a second.

    I did, and it’s a scary thought.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  90. I agree with elissa. Even smart, well-educated 20-somethings are still kids when it comes to judgment.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  91. Yet somehow they are writing about policy and providing analysis for Newsweek and the Washington Post among others. Think about that for a second.

    Exactly.
    Ezra seems to be a wonk simply because he has declared himself a wonk. A wonk of all trades.

    Frankly, I think there is large portion of people on the left who are just a little bit in love with him.

    MayBee (c50b9d)

  92. Frankly, I think there is large portion of people on the left who are just a little bit in love with him.

    Not just the left. Did you see the love letter Hannah Giles wrote him a few weeks ago?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  93. I find him to be honest, and the backlash overdone

    He’s a garden-variety leftist who gets mileage from supposedly being on the right. In itself that’s not that big a deal or even very unusual, annoying as it is. What merits the attention is the behavior of the WaPo in hiring him in the first place, and of course the very existence of the “JournoList” – a secret forum where the lefties in the media (including Weigel, as we see) coordinate their message.

    Subotai (89c98d)

  94. From the standpoint of the ObamaCare-loving Narisetti, Weigel probably looked like a conservative because he wrote for Reason.

    If they thought he was a conservative he’d never have been on the JournoList. They knew exactly what he was – we were supposed to be the one who believed he was on the right.

    As for Reason, I’d be amazed if anyone there failed to vote for Obama last time. Libertarian, my expletive deleted.!

    Subotai (89c98d)

  95. I guess what I am trying to say is why does *anybody*, with any self respect pay attention to the regurgitations of these juicebox kids

    Because these juicebox kids have a national soapbox to voice their opinions.

    and how did they ever get such coveted and potentially influential gigs in the first place?

    Being leftwing helped, I’m sure. As did being Jewish.

    Subotai (89c98d)

  96. Re: #89…

    Bradley, two words:

    Peter Dreier

    While I agree that some younger folk are falsely brash, acting like a posturing jerk (example: consistent referencing to the unwilling romancing of rodents) is not restricted to young people.

    In many ways, it has to do with poor education. Seriously, that business with the supervisor in Wisconsin? I hate to tell you how many young men and women between the ages of 18 and 23 know literally nothing about history or how government works…but who have very certain opinions about both.

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  97. As for Reason, I’d be amazed if anyone there failed to vote for Obama last time. Libertarian, my expletive deleted.!

    Reason editor Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie say they didn’t vote for either Obama or McCain. (But might, if Obama changes his policies).

    Welch would be a good choice to succeed Weigel. He’s got the independent perspective that Weigel supposedly have, but really didn’t. From Welch and Gillespie’s article about Obama:

    Your policies are increasingly unpopular because they are no good. Take the $787 billion stimulus package. Fifty-six percent of Americans now oppose the stimulus, with only 42 percent supporting it. A year ago, those numbers were reversed. The American people have learned what economists such as Robert Barro and Valerie Ramey could have told you a long time ago: that a dollar increase in government spending results in no more (and almost certainly less) than a dollar increase in economic activity. Your estimates about how many jobs would be “created” by the stimulus package—a term of art later modified to “saved or created,” then downgraded further to “funded”—have been slippery, unconvincing, and wildly off-base. The same goes for your estimates on the unemployment rate, still in double digits and not improving despite confident predictions that the stimulus would cap the bleeding at 9 percent.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  98. You’re only young once, but you can be immature forever.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  99. Eric Blair,
    Peter Dreier

    Thanks for reminding me of another academic not to trust . . . the list is very long.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  100. and how did they ever get such coveted and potentially influential gigs in the first place?

    Being leftwing helped, I’m sure. As did being Jewish.

    I think the Jewish part misses the bullseye. Try “red diaper babies.”

    Mike G in Corvallis (fd5fcd)

  101. Weigel and Klein aren’t journalists so much as activists and propagandists masquerading as journalists.

    Weigel is a libertarian who voted for Ron Paul and defended the execrable views of Rand Paul. Hell, he defended James O’Keefe and that is verboten on the Left. the idea that he is some lefty masquerading and mis-treating conservatives is laughable.

    Karl’s just mad that his Free Ropublic/WND/Hot Air worldview was explained effortlessly by Julian Sanchez. Karl, you have a some sort of bubble calling a BP compensation fund “a shakedown” and fascinated with the “Jones Act,” instead of what 80% of people care about, i.e. getting BP to stop the oil and compensate the victims. You are Limabugh.

    You guys are closed to many facts; it’s why you hate all media coverage and avoid any source which challenges your assumptions. Constantly killing the messenger whenever something you don’t like is written is not a sign of a movement which wallows in facts.

    It would be like if someone releases Sarah Palin’s private email account, he deserves 20 years in the ‘pen, but when someone released Weigel’s private emails it’s fair ’cause he’s a “leftist.’ The weird sort of leftist who writes for Reason…..Sure the two aren’t perfectly analogous, but wrong is wrong.

    timb (449046)

  102. timb, making up stuff about Weigel. Typical of what we expect from you.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  103. “Weigel is a libertarian”

    In much the same way that I’m a tireless supporter of the Democrat Party.

    Dave Surls (b23ce7)

  104. I forgot that my favorite part of Karl’s piece is where he cherry-picks Sanchez’s defense of Weigel’s libertarianism and instead decides to take offense to Sanchez’s calling his views Manichean.

    Gee, let’s see a guy who defends Rand Paul and insults Keith Olbermann and sides with Patterico in the whole Bohlert/O’Keefe affair, and wrote for freaking Reason magazine is a leftist because he doesn’t follow Karl’s definition of a conservative means, so…..he’s not on my side which means he on the OTHER side! He’s a leftist, because he doesn’t subscribe to my parochial views.

    To dot hat and then to be offended when someone refers to conservatism as “Manichean.” Well, the irnony is so thick and obvious, I bet even half the “readers” here could recognize it….if they were so Manichean.

    Patterico’s right. Weigel got the shaft.

    don’t believe me, go read media expert and white supremacist Robert Stacy McCain

    First, having been both Dave’s professional colleague at Reason and his housemate for several years, I can say pretty confidently that he is not any sort of liberal or progressive. “Libertarian” might be closer to the mark, but the truth is that he’s just not easily classified ideologically. He’s more conservative than I am on some issues, more liberal on others. Nor has he ever pretended otherwise–certainly he’s never claimed to be any kind of party-line conservative, as anyone following his published writing or public Twitter feed would immediately realize. But contemporary movement conservatism is apparently so Manichean, and so tightly in the grip of a bunker mentality, that such fine distinctions are no longer possible. To take a dim view of the self-serving demagoguery of a handful of prominent conservatives like Matt Drudge or Newt Gingrich is apparently, now, to display contempt for conservatives as such

    timb (449046)

  105. timb claims that Weigel defended O’Keefe.

    Here is Weigel’s email about O’Keefe:

    In a thread with the subject line, “ACORN Ratf*cker arrested,” Journolisters discussed how James O’Keefe, whose undercover reporting showed officials from activist group ACORN willing to help a fake prostitution ring skirt the law, had been arrested in another, failed operation at Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-LA) office.

    Weigel’s response: “HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.”

    “Deep breath.”

    “HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHA.”

    “He’s either going to get a radio talk show or start a prison ministry. That’s was successful conservative ratfuckers do for their second acts,”

    timb confuses the difference between accessing Palin’s email account and releasing emails posted to a listserv with hundreds of participants.

    But that is because timb, who likes to claim that others ignore facts, just makes up stuff and calls them “facts”. We got a word for that, timb.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    SPQR (26be8b)

  106. SPQR, fact free as usual. Do you actually post anything that is more than just claiming facts you don’t like are lies? Besides, you deny cigarettes cause cancer and don’t believe in global warming. Your grasp of what is a fact is pretty tenuous.

    Surls, he voted for Ron Paul, wrote for Reason, and has libertarians who claim he feels like them. For Jehovah’s sake, get off your keister and follow the links to Sanchaez’s piece

    timb (449046)

  107. “…I bet even half the “readers” here…”

    Sort of like the “speller” of that post, I suppose.

    Timb is just angling to be a member of the new and improved Journolist.

    And I have a great, great idea, timb. You go walk up to R.S. McCain, and you call him a “white supremacist” to his face.

    I didn’t think so.

    But if we wait an hour or two, you will be too drunk to type again.

    Jeez, but you are boring.

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  108. “..Constantly killing the messenger whenever something you don’t like is written is not a sign of a movement which wallows in facts….”

    And did timb actually write that? I mean, given his history of posts here at Patterico? Truly?

    Get a mirror, timb. Really, dude.

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  109. timb, you are indeed simply a brazen liar which you confirm by writing more lies.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  110. I think he is drunk or stoned most of the time, SPQR. He certainly isn’t very self-aware.

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  111. Eric, he’s such a stupid liar that he’s gone from a lie about Fred Singer, which was incoherent to begin with, to morph that lie onto me. Stupid liar or lying moron – he’s too confused to figure out which he wants to be.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  112. skitter scrape scatter
    sounds of ratf*cker timb
    scurrying to hole

    ColonelHaiku (181d1a)

  113. timb, for clarity’s sake could you remind us all again which political cave you philosophically repair to? I mean, that might have some bearing on how seriously your fervent defenses of Weigel’s nuanced “libertarian conservatism” are taken.

    elissa (25c501)

  114. SP, you mean he flt something privately that was different than he wrote publicly? As a professional journalist? What a crime. He didn’t like O’Keefe, but he defended him publicly when he was accused of attending a racist event. Or, has your “mind” let that fact slip?

    Orwell, you think Stacy McCain would sock me? Well, dang it, I’m gonna have to make the trip to Virginia. I’ll take the bruise for THAT trial. Discovery would be a BLAST. Must be a point of pride for you to defend a guy who doesn’t mind a minority bank teller, but wouldn’t accept a minority sister-in-law. Different sort of epistemic closure I suppose.

    Besides, if good ol’ RSM were out to smack anyone who called him a racist, he’d be punching people 24/7 for about 18 years.

    Oh, and “eric,” if I’m so boring, why are you always here with your stirring rhetoric? I don’t notice anyone else, besides that half-wit Sptyiuyslduqr, rushing over to “refute” my claims.

    In other words, feel free to not comment. I sure as hell wouldn’t miss it.

    Oh, an addendum to that earlier post. The copied and pasted portion is from Sanchez and not McCain.

    timb (449046)

  115. timb, you are indeed simply a brazen liar which you confirm by writing more lies.

    Says the man who has yet to follow a link, to refute a single point, to show he can spell the word Reason.

    You must’ve have been awesome on the playground, but as a grown up you’re arguing skills are falling as short as Steve Malloy’s intellect

    timb (449046)

  116. haiku now O fan
    on short list to be named
    Carp Czar King of Fish

    ColonelHaiku (181d1a)

  117. tim self-anointed
    arbiter of intellect
    Dirty Sanchez fan

    ColonelHaiku (181d1a)

  118. ROFL, ColonelHaiku

    SPQR (26be8b)

  119. Timb is a creep
    Stalking mostly JD
    A dishonst liar
    With his pants on fire
    For Obama’s ****.

    nk (db4a41)

  120. Stashiu,

    I know you’ve told me not to talk to you but timb is a special case. If you don’t want to ban him, put his comments into moderation and let Patterico or or DRJ deal with it. He’s been stalking JD here for as long as I’ve been here, and contributes only bandwidth waste.

    nk (db4a41)

  121. Col Haiku, might you be willing to rework the carp czar poem including Rahm as a candidate for that job? He is from Illinois and it seems to me he already has some experience involving dead fish, does he not?

    elissa (25c501)

  122. I think everyone knows that timb is just a Nutty Deluxe kind of person. He stays away for long period of time, and then he posts furiously, snarling and slavering (usually with many misspellings, which makes his arrogance hysterically funny).

    And nk is right: he has something odd going on regarding JD.

    Anyway, like all trolls, timb tries to stir people up to play troll-games with him.

    Then he goes off on a bender again.

    Rinse and repeat.

    My favorite part of timb’s posts is his continual attacks on others for being partisan. It’s like he doesn’t read his own posts.

    Perhaps he doesn’t.

    As for you, timb, I love that when you insult people, and then you are asked, theoretically, if you would “man up” and say something to someone’s face (instead of the much safer electronic world), your first resort is legal.

    How many atomic wedgies did you get in high school? Quite a few, I would wager. Everyone has some psychological Samsonite; yours appears to be heavier than most.

    Nope. You are just a alphabetist, angry, little troll man.

    Your defense of a position Patterico took probably is making him reconsider that statement—given your track record.

    And the part that continually amazes me? Why do people like timb post repeatedly? Is it masochism? Who knows?

    And in advance, Machinist, what you are thinking about this kind of exchange is 200% correct. You remain a wiser man than me.

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  123. And this type of insult…

    “… to show he can spell …”

    …is truly humorous, given the source.

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  124. timb – So you are suggesting Weigel should have lied like a good leftist when asked about what he saw and heard about the D.C. conference O’Keefe attended, otherwise he was defending the guy? Strange standards you have over there in la-la land.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  125. Timb and I proved that Obama is far more racist the Stacey McCain so take anything else he says with a grain of salt.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  126. Getting back to Weigel, check out Ace. The guy STILL doesn’t get that he looks…bad…being snarky. Ace has a nice analysis.

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  127. daleyrocks, timb has no standards at all. Just lies.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  128. “Surls, he voted for Ron Paul”

    Sure, he did. That’s why he refers to Ron Paul supporters as “fanatics” and “Paultards”.

    Weigel claims he voted for Ron Paul?

    If he does claim that…he’s lying. Either that or he’s an insane maniac.

    “It’s all very amusing to me. Two hundred screaming Ron Paul fanatics couldn’t get their man into the Fox News New Hampshire GOP debate, but Fox News is pumping around the clock to get Paultard Tea Party people on TV.”–Dave Weigel, alleged Ron Paul supporter

    One thing that’s pretty obvious from this and other things that good old Dave has written…he’s a diehard, partisan, left wing hack who loathes anyone to the right of Joe Stalin.

    We know where the guy’s sentiments lie. When a liberal Democrat Congress-thing goes beserk and starts roughing up a couple of kids because they had the nerve to ask him a question, good old Dave (the libertarian…hardy har har) is blase as hell about it. Push a couple of kids around, steal their camera…no biog deal, that’s what statists do for a living.

    However, when Matt Drudge links to a story claiming that Barry O had an affair, Dave is instantly on Twitter claiming that Drudge is a child molestor, and wishing for Drudge’s death by fire.

    All that is because good old Dave ain’t a libertarian, but he is a rabid leftist, a whore for the Democrats, and a looneytunes Barry O supporter.

    And, it’s real, real. real obvious that that’s the case.

    Dave Surls (b23ce7)

  129. rahm approach haiku
    in shower he not Carp Czar
    he hung like minnow

    ColonelHaiku (181d1a)

  130. thank u
    haiku

    elissa (25c501)

  131. Weigel said this of his infamous “Paultard” comment:
    I stand by this, although I apologize if people find the word “Paultard” offensive. It was a neologism coined during the 2008 campaign to describe fanatical supporters of Paul — I used it in this case to convey how Fox covered those supporters in 2008.

    Oh, the dishonesty! The standard weasel non-apology apology — “if” any people found it offensive, only then does Weigel apologize. As if there were any doubt.

    On Twitter, Weigel offers another explanation:
    No, I was ironically using a term Paul-haters use. I voted for Paul in the 2008 primary

    If Weigel said that to a group of “Paultards,” that might pass muster. Saying it to a group of lefties who mostly disdain “Paultards” — no way. Telling two different and incompatible stories — neither very credible — is a sure mark of a liar.

    Reading over Weigel’s comments, I am more convinced that his approach to covering conservatives was fundamentally dishonest. Such a person is entirely capable of employing diversions such as defending Patterico to make himself more credible.

    Until Weigel comes clean about his dishonesty — like Charles Colson did — he can’t even begin to regain credibility.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  132. If timb never posts here again it would be fine. He’s rarely on-topic, frequently dishonest, and always a jerk. If that alone were enough for banning or moderation… well, he wouldn’t be alone in exile, would he? In fact, my irony meter pegged.

    Picture this next part as a patient explanation to a general audience, not a rant directed at any individual or group:

    As a personal rule, I don’t ban or recommend for or against banning someone. I only put someone in moderation if they break the rules and it usually takes more than once because I try to warn them first. If timb dishes out a lot, he receives a lot as well. His obsessions with JD and Karl are creepy, but they handle him pretty well on their own. If someone thinks he’s a waste, don’t engage him. Nobody is twisting your arm. If you do engage him, he’s shown he’s not going to wilt away and will probably come back firing. Deal with it because you reap what you sow. He’s usually very careful to avoid personal insults until someone attacks him first. General slurs against Republicans or conservatives are not personal, especially since that’s really what he thinks. Prove him wrong or ignore him. Don’t complain when he gives as good as he gets.

    Okay, explanation over. My own take? Can’t stand the twerp myself, so you never see me as a commenter address him personally anymore. Same goes for several others here (and not just those most would consider trolls.) No big loss to anyone overall and is probably much healthier for me. Some people just prove themselves not worthwhile to engage. YMMV.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  133. Gee, let’s see a guy who defends Rand Paul and insults Keith Olbermann and sides with Patterico in the whole Bohlert/O’Keefe affair, and wrote for freaking Reason magazine is a leftist

    Damn, you’re so perceptive. Okay, the jig is up. Some of us in this forum need to confess. In my case, I’m actually a registered Democrat. I enthusiastically voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Before that, I voted for John Kerry. Before him, I voted for Al Gore.

    I’ve been a liberal since pretty much I was born, and I truly believe that liberalism gives me a humane, sensible and sophisticated edge.

    I’ve tried to masquerade as a rightist on this board, and I hope I’ve fooled most people here. Even more so since I’ve been biting my tongue for months and months when reading the outrageous, nonsensical comments and blog posts of various conservatives at patterico.com.

    Oh, and I think people of the left actually are more generous in donating their time, money and blood compared with all those miserable, racist, cruel folks on the right. The info I’ve posted for several months that indicates just the opposite actually is propaganda from the RNC, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Faux News.

    Mark (411533)

  134. Yup, Weigel was not only fair minded, but mature.

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/27/no-seriously/

    Scroll down for the photo. Of course he is a fair minded journalist!

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  135. Stashiu,

    I know you’ve told me not to talk to you but timb is a special case. If you don’t want to ban him, put his comments into moderation and let Patterico or or DRJ deal with it. He’s been stalking JD here for as long as I’ve been here, and contributes only bandwidth waste.

    Weird….I addressed Karl specifically. But, nk, believe what you will.

    timb (449046)

  136. Better to say nothing, as the quotation begins…

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  137. All that is because good old Dave ain’t a libertarian, but he is a rabid leftist, a whore for the Democrats, and a looneytunes Barry O supporter

    Well, you said it, so it must be true. I mean, sure Julian Sanchez says he’s not a lefty, and there was a whole Firedoglake jihad to denounce him for his public defense of Rand Paul, and he did write for Reason for over two years…But if Dave Surls says he is a lefty for not personally liking some of the people he covered, then he must be one!

    See, daley and Dave and Karl and hapless others, this is what Sanchez wrote when he discussed epistemic closure and the Manichean nature of “modern” conservatism. You don’t like that Weigel doesn’t personally like Drudge or Gingrich or seeing Dick Armey and Grover Norquist astroturf Tea Party rallies? I’ve been reading his blog forever and he never let that interfere with covering those people.

    So, Karl has decided that not only Weigel but Sanchez and countless others who deviate from orthodoxy are “leftists.” Then he gets hacked that someone would call him “Manichean.” Just because he believes anyone who doesn’t hew to his exact worldview is called a “leftist”! I mean, I’m sure to conservative fauxtrage and all, but isn’t there any introspection? (eric, the previous sentence is the one you want to cut-n-paste and declare ironic…..because you know, you’re rubber and I’m glue, etc)

    Is Karl’s view like when one stands on the North Pole and everything in every direction is called south? He and his fellow travelers stand so far out on the right, everyone else is left and then he gets mad when someone calls him on it…

    timb (449046)

  138. Karl’s right about how woogle connived to spin the news. He disserviced his employer and he disserviced his profession. And he’s yet to meaningfully apologize.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  139. It is not the least bit surprising that some weak-minded people got caught up in Sanchez’s epistemic closure meme.

    JD (5e5cad)

  140. It was funny that Angry Tim used the word “hapless,” isn’t it? Kind of like when he criticizes others for partisanship.

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  141. Yeah, support for Obamacare is such a minor deviation from orthodoxy after all …

    timb – you really are comical.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  142. Yeah, support for Obamacare is such a minor deviation from orthodoxy after all …

    Republicans liked it when it was called Romney Care and was the brainchild of the Republican counter-attack against the Clinton plan. Were the 2008 primaries that long ago for you? Romney’s entire campaign was about the “free market solution of an insurance mandate” for god’s sake? What’s the problem? Fox News didn’t tell you to hate it then, did they spqrrr?

    That healthcare bill still hacks me off. Freaking giveaway to the insurance companies who the crux of the problem.

    On the other hand, Eric, keep going. You’re really proving the point…The point, I can only assume, being that you like to choose a word from comments and claim it refers to me, instead of the people at whom I aimed it. I believe I summarized your 32nd incantation of “Eric is rubber and Tim is glue” above. Could you move on to something more substantive? Or, at the very least, slightly new? Maybe a 300 word digression into how one of the most famous English socialists in history is a great nomme de plume for a far-right commenter in the blogosphere? Be careful or Karl will decide you’re a leftist too.

    timb (449046)

  143. Days are so much nicer after we have been treated to boilerplate leftist ranting and hatred.

    JD (04ebf2)

  144. Sooo, Eric, which side are you on in the debate? Are you on the side of the uneducated doubters or the actual experts on the subject?

    Uninterested Observer (e8af03)

  145. Then, a BUNNIES!!! comment. How special.

    JD (d05534)

  146. Is ‘bunny’ the moron’s word for rabbit?

    Uninterested Observer (e8af03)

  147. Comment by Uninterested Observer

    Stop trying to threadjack. You want to discuss pseudoscience? Even undergrads can start a blog, so give a link when you’re ready.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  148. You are certainly uninteresting.

    JD (d05534)

  149. JD. Stop threadjacking. If you have something interesting to say (highly unlikely, I know) then post it, otherwise, don’t.

    Uninterested Observer (e8af03)

  150. Comment by Uninterested Observer — 6/28/2010 @ 12:56 pm

    And with that, you are in moderation. I’m a little busy right now, but I’m sure you’ve been here before and are just posting from campus, so I’ll check for that later. Want to save me some time and tell me who you are? I doubt it, and it doesn’t matter.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  151. Well, that was quick. The next comment went into moderation. Didn’t admit being here before but gave me enough to re-ban him. Buh bye.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  152. I would love to see timmy’s list of prominent Republicans who backed RomneyCare. And from that list, I would like to know how many backed ObamaCare, after witnessing RomneyCare’s failures in Massachusetts.

    Karl (f07e38)

  153. “…Maybe a 300 word digression into how one of the most famous English socialists in history is a great nomme de plume for a far-right commenter in the blogosphere? Be careful or Karl will decide you’re a leftist too….”

    timb, you did this before. It was tiresome then. It’s tiresome now. Let me know when you have spent as long as I have reading about Orwell. That being said, no one “owns” the fellow, let alone me. And his writings, as you actually do know I’m sure, cover quite a broad range of philosophies. In fact, Orwell eschewed people what you do daily: pigeonholing others. He would be amused how different people “use” his name, including the people you call “socialists.”

    I use the name for very different reasons, as I explained to you in detail a long, long time ago.

    You are just angry again, and trying to pick a fight, as you usually do here. I don’t expect you to remember my prior explanations.

    What I am saying, and will continue to say, is that you seem to be angry at people doing things that you, well, do yourself. Which is the point.

    I don’t care to fight with you. Could you consider just going away again, please? You really are tiresome.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  154. Eric,
    It’s not worth your time or intellect.

    And it probably needs to post here to earn its paycheck from Media Matters. Trolls have to eat, too.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  155. Also, who knew I was on the “far right”? Many of my friends who are on the far Right think I’m pretty squishy. But it does carry the insult timb appears to intend.

    Eric Blair (0acba5)

  156. 😉

    Machinist (497786)

  157. Eric, to the troll, everyone to the right of Better Than Ezra is an ultraconservative.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  158. timbob arbiter
    of all that holey he light
    up room when he leave

    ColonelHaiku (9cf017)

  159. “Freaking giveaway to the insurance companies who the crux of the problem.”

    timb – Sigh. The only people spouting this meme are fringe leftard loons who don’t understand a thing about business. It requires one to accept that Obama engaged in a conspiracy to publicy denounce money grubbing insurance companies for more than a year before switching sides to hand them a huge giveaway for some unknown and sinister reason. With no teeth to enforce the mandate, the government imposing minimum loss ratios on insurers and also mandating contents of coverage and approval of price increases, I would like to have one of your leftard loon buddies explain how it is a giveaway in real life, but they never are willing to debate it.

    Somehow it makes sense in la-la-land I guess.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7070 secs.