Patterico's Pontifications

11/12/2010

Glenn Reynolds: Don’t Demand Perfection, Conservatives, Or You’ll Be Disappointed

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:02 pm



Glenn Reynolds:

[T]he circular-firing-squad warnings are well-taken, and I certainly agree with this: “When you start seeing people like Chris Christie being attacked for not being conservative enough, you know that the right is in danger of going off the rails. Or at least some parts of it.”

Don’t demand perfection, or you’ll be disappointed. Demand as good as you can get, and move ahead. Political change is a process, not an event.

Bingo. This is precisely what I have been saying for months. It’s nice to hear it from Professor Reynolds too.

We need to demand that the process move forward, no doubt. Refusing to put earmarks on the table is unacceptable. Refusing to discuss entitlement reform is unacceptable.

But demanding purity and perfection at every stage — and declaring a willingness to lose ten elections in a row as an alternative — is a recipe for disappointment . . . and expansion of the welfare state and philosopher-king judges.

Now that Glenn has said the same thing the “pragmatic” conservatives are saying, will the blogospheric demagogues who seek out Mark Levin’s favor put Glenn Reynolds on the list of “pragmatic” conservatives whom they bash on a regular basis?

I boldly predict they will not. They need his traffic. So, even if he’s saying the exact same thing as I am, they won’t bash Instapundit.

The demagogic bloggers on the right are happy to be pure when it comes to the fate of the country. But when it comes to their own self-interest, I suspect they will be a little more . . . pragmatic.

133 Responses to “Glenn Reynolds: Don’t Demand Perfection, Conservatives, Or You’ll Be Disappointed”

  1. Hear, hear.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  2. Cue dishonest narratives about how I think Obama is a good man with his policies and I didn’t want Obama to fail in 3 … 2 … 1 …

    Patterico (21a124)

  3. My point has been that, on occasion, you must take the risk of the “unelectable” conservative getting the nomination through the primary, to avoid having Republican candidates dump conservative principles in some attempt to coopt the more liberal.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  4. Cue dishonest narratives about how I think Obama is a good man with his policies and I didn’t want Obama to fail in 3 … 2 … 1 …

    I have a good faith disagreement with you on whether Obama is a good man or not. You slot most people in there by default whereas I see people as neither good nor bad and then slot people in one or the other based on their actions.

    To me, supporting radical pro-abortion causes and in some cases infanticide is decidedly bad. Palling around and therefor giving your moral support to terrorists who bombed the Pentagon and whose organization killed two Chicago police officers is bad.

    I think you dismiss too readily those of who came to the conclusion that Obama isn’t a good man. I do think you’re intellectually honest enough, however, to admit that I have good faith reasons for my conclusion.

    IF someone likes me sees Obama as “bad” (and I do: I slot more people into that category than you do because my default starting place is neutral), then as a simple exercise in logical thinking, I think you’d see where people would criticize you for saying someone is good who the other person considers to be bad. You would disagree with their criticism because you see Obama as a good man, but if I see Obama as someone who advocates for the real killing of large numbers of innocent children, perhaps you can better understand my (our) feelings, including being critical of you. And others are, of course, more critical of you than I am here.

    I understand that people make this dividing line judgement at different places and since you’re on what I consider the right side of so many issues, I let it slide.

    With reservations and disagreement.

    Also, many people believe Obama wants to transform society in a negative and destructive way. Yes, it’s terrible politics to say you want him to “fail” because that can be easily misinterpreted and used against the person making the charge. Clearly no one wants him to fail in his constitutional duties, such as protecting the United States or ensuring laws are upheld or even the political goal of improving the economy. But, Obama’s agenda includes things that will be bad for the United States, in my opinion (and yours), and so many of us want him to fail in those.

    We want Obama to fail, not the United States.

    You understand this, and I’m sure you’ve been attacked unfairly. But I also think there’s a certain percentage of people who took issue with you on those two things who weren’t being as unfair as you think they were.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  5. I don’t know if its an improvement that Christoph responds to cue.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  6. I don’t know if its an improvement that Christoph responds to cue.

    Comment by SPQR

    I think he’s been a lot better, actually, and I appreciate it and hope it continues.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  7. As I’ve long said, the saving grace that acts as a brake on him is Obama’s incompetence.

    I believe Patterico probably thinks of Obama’s incompetence mostly as a bad thing. I see Obama himself as bad and view his incompetence quite positively.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  8. Hey Glenn, where were you with this before the election when it might have mattered?

    Mark1971 (0c13f0)

  9. It would be fun if Levin and Riehl make up some baseless smear about Riehl the way they have others.

    “That Reynolds, he’s a coward, he hides behind the name Instapundit on the internet and is just another overpaid professor at UT who blogs on his employer’s dime.”

    I’m guessing we won’t see the same lazy, unresearched, uncreative crap out of him that we so far, but then again, I’ve misunderestimated Levin’s stupidity so far.

    daleyrocks (9896ff)

  10. I am not sure Reynolds really sees himself as a conservative, he is more of a libertarian, but he is right about this nonetheless.

    This silly pissing contest about who and who is not the mostest true blue conservative is getting kind of ridiculous.

    As for earmarks…I don’t like them either, but I was surprised at Inhofe supporting them when McCain does not. I am not so sure that earmarks is really about conservatism, it might be about something else. I am not really sure what, but there is no way you can say that Inhofe is not a conservative.

    Terrye (eec529)

  11. I think the point is Republicans need to compromise and get closer to Tea Party Principles. Not the other way around.

    Torquemada (a8a9b2)

  12. Some say the deficit commission’s draft proposal doesn’t cut deep enough soon enough, and have already dug in their heels against it. It’s far from perfect, but if it could be implemented and actually achieve the goals of

    “Cap[ping] revenue at or below 21% of GDP and gets spending down to 22% and eventually to 21%.
    Stabiliz[ing] debt by 2014 and reduces debt to 60% of GDP by 2024 and 40% by 2037.”

    I would be astonished at that accomplishment. It seems beyond the will or capability of our current political class. Maybe a Christie could do it, if given dictator powers.

    So yeah, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    gp (5efc80)

  13. Going after Chris Christie is just stupid and makes their judgement on anything else they say questionable. No matter how much he weighs or how big he gets, there’ll always be room in the tent for Chris Christie as far as I am concerned.

    Ultra purity on the left–Ultra purity on the right. Both are losing propositions in our country with a 50-50 electorate.

    elissa (b417e1)

  14. gp, you forgot adding to the collapse of the housing market.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  15. I saw Levin’s posts against you and like his attack on Powerline, I just don’t get it.

    Powerline and you are provide some of the most reasoned blogging on the conservative side.

    The attack on Powerline made me question Levin’s motives. The attack on you pretty much solidified my belief that it is extremely weak for a syndicated host to attack conservative bloggers because they disagree with him.

    He seems to cherish the role of bully.

    I consider myself right of Attila the Hun, but Levin’s attack on the little guys lost him a listener.

    theMachiavellian (208377)

  16. I voted for Mark Kirk in Illinois. He is a RINO. I would rather have Kirk’s 40 to 50% of being right than what I would have had with Gianoulious’ 2%.

    BT (74cbec)

  17. This was already answered, and those arguing don’t except the answer.

    1. Everybody knows you can’t elect someone that agrees 100% with you, because there are simply not enough “yous” to vote to win an election.

    2. Nobody likes voting for someone so far from what they believe that they feel they accepted 30 pieces of silver for their vote.

    3. There will always be disagreement among people of good will as to exactly where the line between #1 and #2 are. Among people of bad will, they will think whatever they want to, so let them.

    So, the answer is to listen to other’s view with our two ears, and each of us explain our own view with our one mouth. And if you don’t take the views of others seriously, don’t be surprised when they do the same in return.

    One can be forceful in voicing views and still be gracious. Those who aren’t gracious often lose the opportunity for a hearing. (Mark Levin is no longer on my local station and I’m happy with that. No matter how truthful and brilliant he may be, he is often rude when he doesn’t need to be.)

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  18. Good point, MD. I’d never thought of it like that but it doesn’t help to be rude when you don’t need to be, no matter how good your point. Unfortunately that happens all too often these days, with some people escalating the rhetoric until the original point is lost.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  19. There are some theories of group dynamics which indicate more vociferous members, in smaller numbers, can help move a group toward a decision more so than it would otherwise.

    If everyone one one side was all polite and the other side was the normal mix of people, the (artificial) ultra polite group would lost most of the time. Human social behavior and group dynamics evolved over time and I don’t think anyone’s genteel theory on how thing’s ought to be trumps that.

    You can argue it would be nice if it did, maybe, but it doesn’t.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  20. “There are some theories of group dynamics which indicate more vociferous members, in smaller numbers, can help move a group toward a decision more so than it would otherwise.”

    Christoph – There are also theories of group dynamics which indicate more vociferous members who act like assholes and tell lies in an attempt to manipulate other members of the group, lose the trust of other members of the group over time.

    You can argue that it would be nice if this were not the case, but it is true.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  21. Well, then don’t lie, daleyrocks.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  22. Christine O’Donnell – Not me honey. What are you doing tomorrow night?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  23. What if Christoph IS Christine O’Donnell?

    It makes a lot of sense.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  24. By coincidence, I’m watching this, a continuation of several of Wufa Sultan’s videos I started watching yesterday after watching Pat Condell’s brilliant newest video (his videos generally aren’t kind to Christians or Muslims, are they?) on Geert Wilders’ trial and Wafa Sultan’s testimony.

    In this interview, and you’d have to watch it all to get it, she makes much the same point I made above.

    I support free speech and speech can be offensive particularly when the truth is told in dramatic ways.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  25. Why are the hot ones so crazy?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  26. It makes a lot of sense.

    Ha. She abuses herself verbally like she’s not otherwise willing to do?

    Christoph (8ec277)

  27. I didn’t say she was sane!

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  28. The Mark Levins of the world don’t like to be challenged.

    Instead of seeing it as an opportunity to clarify, expound upon, and more importantly, perhaps persuade one to understand and even accept their argument as logically presented, they see it as a personal affront to their manhood (or ego).

    The petty self can’t resist reacting emotionally and defending at all costs. Typically it manifests itself in irrationality, rudeness, name calling and any other attack (including Facebook!)designed to put the challenger on the defensive. And to distract from the argument at hand.

    It’s a dead giveaway to the smallness and unsureness of the person. Unfortunately for Levin, he just can’t help himself – he’s just another school yard bully motivated by his own sense of fear and doubt. It’s all a designed distraction.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  29. And to distract from the argument at hand.

    Bingo. This entire freakout was actually meant to deflect. And it’s an utter failure.

    It’s a dead giveaway to the smallness and unsureness of the person.

    True. Levin’s always been trying to insinuate he was a leader in the Reagan administration for much the same reason. When someone makes a point of reducing the ‘inferiors’ they are only sharing their insight into their own inadequacy.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  30. Christoph,

    Do you believe you make your point more effectively with melodramatic or rude words? If so, does that mean the loudest voice is the most persuasive so WE SHOULD ALL TALK IN CAPS?

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  31. I must have missed something, but I wasn’t trying to instigate something with Christoph… I was making a pun based on his name and accidental sockpuppetry.

    Anyhow, DRJ was insightful when she noted rude comments say more about the person being insulting than the insulted.

    Which isn’t meant to elevate me to some high-ground, sadly, as sometimes what this maxim proves is that Dustin takes trolls way too seriously.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  32. Actually, you remember what they did to Ed Meese, back in the 80s, ran him through two independent prosecutors, in part because he was a leader in the conservative revolution, the worst they were able to find was ‘appearance of impropriety, but it was
    enough to tarnish him among the muddle, ultimately
    he was replaced Thornburgh, another one of those
    stalwart moderates, who got his head handed to him
    by Wofford in ’91; Levin remembers that well

    justin cord (82637e)

  33. If SHOUTING someone down doesn’t do the trick, then pull out the snark and smack and keep pushing back until the most clever is left standing. That is Levin’s tactic.

    And unfortunately, I see that tiresome tactic unfolding far too frequently here these days.

    Whatever salient point one may have actually had got lost long ago in the ass of their own supposed smartness. And thus rendered irrelevant.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  34. Now is the time to measure your words carefully, Christoph.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  35. All I know is that I prefer DRJ’s posts on her very worst days. Because those very worst days are more civil and insightful than any posts by the verbal bomb-throwers who are having such fun playing in Patterico’s pool at present.

    Not my blog, not my business. But I am saddened how Patterico’s experiment has turned out.

    Eric Blair (ad3ef3)

  36. Ditto Dana, too.

    Eric Blair (ad3ef3)

  37. “It’s a dead giveaway to the smallness and unsureness of the person. Unfortunately for Levin, he just can’t help himself – he’s just another school yard bully motivated by his own sense of fear and doubt. It’s all a designed distraction.”

    Dana – Bingo. I have a big problem with the factual errors. But he did work on Reagan’s presidential campaign in 1976 when he was something like 19 years old, glory days those were. It’s amazing how many times a week he reminds his listeners about that campaign. The older he gets, the more important he was!

    daleyrocks (940075)

  38. Christoph, Let me clarify- yes, people who focus on being polite often get taken advantage of/lose out.

    But I wasn’t talking about them, but people who can be tough without getting loud. (To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, I wasn’t talking about people who are “nice”, but people who are “good”.)

    Does Gen. Petraeus need to yell to get attention? Will he let himself lose an argument on behalf of his men by being too polite?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  39. I’m OK with the experiment. It opens the blog to a wide variety of voices. Those voices will still be heard, just more slowly if they are assholes. I still publish imdw comments event though he tried to publish my home address as well as false statements about it and me. That’s a serious commitment to openness and I think it is mostly good. There are few blogs I know that are this open and I am proud of that.

    Do you know any other blog that tolerates Yelverton? OK then.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  40. But I am saddened how Patterico’s experiment has turned out.

    Comment by Eric Blair

    It’s not like the place was free of jerks before the unbanning.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  41. Well back then, that was considered a crazy move, another Republican from California, who seemed extreme to the people who had vanquished Nixon, who didn’t accept the bold template of ‘detente abroad’
    and capitulation to Democrats at home, on judges, national security

    justin cord (82637e)

  42. Back to work with me. While Levin spends his time trying to tear people down, publishing Facebook posts questioning whether I am spending taxpayer money to blog and such, I will be spending this Friday night and this weekend working.

    Par for the course. Just thought it might be worth noting in light of his most recent set of misleading Facebook attacks.

    I will check in but I have some transcripts to correct for a trial next week.

    Thank God I won’t be facing Mark Levin. With his book-writing prowess and nasal, grating voice, he would kick my ass in court!!!

    Patterico (c218bd)

  43. Again, it’s not my business. Your blog, sir. And the trollage brings out the worst in me, too. I’m no Dana or DRJ. Apologies.

    Yelverton is sick, I think. And I don’t mean “sick” the way the kids do today!

    But I would point out, Patterico, that imdw has been writing repeatedly that this is not true:

    …I still publish imdw comments event though he tried to publish my home address as well as false statements about it and me…

    So…is imdw not telling the truth about publishing your personal information?

    Eric Blair (ad3ef3)

  44. I don’t have time to lay out the case fully, Eric, but I am confident he is the culprit. He stays moderated.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  45. Dana – Fortunately, not all ass is the same.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  46. I don’t know about Yelverton, Eric. But I can tell you I will not rewrite his comments and leave his name.

    This blog is more honest than that.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  47. “With his book-writing prowess and nasal, grating voice, he would kick my ass in court!!!”

    Patterico – Does Levin have to stand on a box in court so the judge can see him? Do we know if he’s even been inside a courtroom?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  48. whether I am spending taxpayer money to blog and such,

    I haven’t been paying attention to that Facebook crap, but this is a pretty crappy thing for Levin to do, completely aside from the normal bluster crap.

    If he wants to force an echo chamber, people need to stand up to him. I don’t want a blogosphere that silences successful people who probably deal with enough democrats and centrists in their day to day life outside the studio or basement. Those people naturally have to be more intellectually honest about what democrats are and how to politically achieve anything.

    But sober reality is not useful to cheerleaders.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  49. Why did the movie “My Cousin Vinnie” suddenly pop into my head?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  50. I wasn’t aware of the “taxpayer money” comment either. Seeing conservatives attack government employees just because they get paid with taxpayer money reminds me of liberals who attack military personnel just because they are in the military. There isn’t much difference between the two and they both make themselves look bad.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  51. I understand pragmatism, so my words are no insult to Patterico or anyone else.

    We have suffered, as a nation, through the good intentions of government since Woodrow Wilson. Almost every action since his presidency, by government, has been concentrated on righting the wrongs of 18th Century and modern politics.

    In that time, the government has been and will continue to be the answer for righting a good many wrongs.

    Regardless of the party, though, the baseline assumption since Wilson is that the government is the answer. It is an answer, but it is not the only answer.

    When any nation yields the authority of judgment to the government, in all cases, the result is totalitarianism.

    This is what I don’t understand about my friends on the left. They want a just world. So do I.

    But, we have to muddle through with what we have. Bad things happen. People disagree.

    More and more laws may help, but at some point, all there is more and more laws to point that the individual is enslaved, the economy is ruined and all we have is an equal society of equally miserable people.

    I know the left wants to win the hearts and minds of all the disenfranchised. That’s a noble goal, but when the victory means every one suffers the same, you forget human nature.

    Wanting to win, wanting to be successful, wanting to be admired is an innate trait in humans.

    And, by that token, you forget that those who impose the rules don’t suffer from the rules.

    Ag80 (743fd1)

  52. DRJ:

    Here you go.

    http://www.facebook.com/marklevinshow/posts/166763950013663

    It is one of three posts Levin posted about me in a single day.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  53. Quote:

    Mark Levin
    It seems the civil service blogger, Patrick Frey, annoys far and wide. http://tiny.cc/18cem Taxpayers of California are no doubt happy with his work habits.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  54. They damn well ought to be.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  55. ________________________________________

    Don’t demand perfection, or you’ll be disappointed.

    Anyone who lives in the real world should understand that. Anyone who observes the varying biases and opinions among family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, colleagues, acquaintances, etc, should understand that.

    A leftist counterpart to what Reynolds is talking about is evident among all the knuckleheaded liberals in areas like San Francisco or Massachusetts or groups like black America. IOW, because so many people in such clusters are in a sounding-board environment, in which almost everyone thinks, says and believes the same thing, they end up buying into the notion that a liberal version of “demand perfection” is the way to go.

    Whether it comes from the left or right, it’s idiotic, naive and tactically foolish.

    Mark (411533)

  56. My thoughts, inspired by Ag80:

    “…and we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden…” (Joni Mitchell)

    I think this is what the liberal instinct is about. We see the world and the trouble in it, and we want to do something about it. We want to make the pain and trouble go away. Whether one thinks of it in these terms or not, we want to go back to the Garden of Eden where life is perfect. The liberal instinct is to make it happen on a grand scale, which means governement, which means government making people do “what’s best for them”.

    The problem is it doesn’t work. As they say in Maine (and in Pittsburgh), “You can’t get there from here.”

    The Liberal instinct hasn’t accepted that fact, so thinks those who don’t share their ideals are heartless.

    Now, I thought I would do a multi-media reference, but the only thing I could quickly find this morning is below. Graham Nash has aged well, Crosby has too considering he is agout 20 years post liver transplant, but Stephen, resembles me too much (Young not there); so I was going to suggest just listening to it, but then Stills showed his voice isn’t so hot either. So, if you are content with any reference and like Crosby/Nash harmonies and guitar, go for it.

    http://vodpod.com/watch/4617053-crosby-stills-and-nash-woodstock-madison-square-garden-nyc-2009-

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  57. MD in Philly – Wherever you go, there you are.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  58. There are always those who will place robotic adherence to their own vision of the Holy Dogma above all other considerations. Not surprisingly, those people are often more interested in seizing the reins of an organization than in seeing the organization itself actually succeed.

    Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureuacracy is somewhat relevant.

    Tully (62151d)

  59. daley- was that a quote off of “Four Way Street”, or is my inadequate fund of knowledge showing?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  60. Joe,

    I think you mean: Stacy and Jeff grub for links from Mark Levin.

    Patterico (fadf0b)

  61. MD in Philly – Just down home folk wisdom.

    daleyrocks (9896ff)

  62. Hi knob polishing Joe!

    daleyrocks (9896ff)

  63. It’s good to see Joe battling his reputation as a blog war instigator.

    Patterico (fadf0b)

  64. Joe – Why is Jeff obsessed with Patterico? Why doesn’t he understand what Patterico is saying? For a supposedly smart guy he acts pretty dumb.

    daleyrocks (9896ff)

  65. daley- I can’t remember what it was, but on the live album “Four Way Street” one of them makes some comment like that and another states, “Sheer profundity”.

    I must say, one thing about the clip I linked above when compared to another clip from ’74 (but of a different song)- in 2009 they were not in danger of being stopped for probable cause, in ’74 the glass-eyed look would have been enough in many jurisdictions!

    I think off topic discussions are more worthwhile than paying attention to Mr. Levin or those carrying water for him.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  66. The Good Man meme…
    Could we put this to rest?
    I’ve long ago put this down to just some “youthful exuberance” on Patrick’s part.
    Continuation of the dispute will just result in the circular firing squad we see on the “More Conservative Than Thou” theme.
    After all, we have more serious matters to debate…
    Now, just how many Angels can stand on the head of a pin?

    AD-RtR/OS! (747679)

  67. Re: those purist fantasies: Thankfully, the left’s issues with purification appear to be no less problematic and equally as obvious to sober and pragmatic Democrats.

    Yet, the 2008 swing voters who lifted Obama in these states (Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina) — which are likely to have a combined 39 electoral votes in 2012 — wholeheartedly supported the GOP last week, leading local party officials to warn that Democrats must find a way to appeal to the political center again if they expect to compete there in two years.

    “It’ll be more difficult,” conceded Indiana Democratic Chairman Dan Parker,….to win back the moderates who fled the party last week.

    What worries Parker, though, is the view among some liberals that the party shouldn’t tolerate the sort of centrist Democrats who populate the Hoosier State.

    “Does the Democratic Party want to be a progressive party or a majority party?” he asked, lamenting “the vilification of moderate Democrats.” (from Ed Driscoll’s column at Pajamas Media)

    elissa (b417e1)

  68. Since 1972, they have wanted to be the former, despite the fact the likes of Carter and Clinton arise from it, we give them the benefit of the doubt every generation, and their impacts aren’t illusory, the CRA revisions took 15 years to fully take effect, we’re still dealing with the results of Carter’s policies more than 30 years hence.They control the media in large part, the educational establishment, almost entirely, Hence
    the LA Times version, and not your correction will be in the official record

    It’s a wonder how they can destroy good,sometimes flawed people like Jack Ryan for instance,inplace of someone like Obama, following the pattern, the next big thing, probably was defeated this turn, Clinton in 1980, Obama in his own way, in 2000, In ’94, they delayed Jeb’s move to the Governor’s
    mansion, and Romney, North, and Huffington’s Senate bids, in 2006, they with the help of Larry Sabato, they torpedoed George Allen

    justin cord (82637e)

  69. “This is precisely what I have been saying for months”

    On the contrary, you were demanding perfection, or at least someone with less trouble with reality than O’D and your own self.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  70. On the contrary, you were demanding perfection, or at least someone with less trouble with reality than O’D and your own self.

    Nonsense. I was demanding honesty.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  71. “There ain’t no honesty in Politics!”

    AD-RtR/OS! (747679)

  72. There is a big difference between demanding one key quality (trustworthiness) that is essential before entrusting someone with power than demanding the person purely matches their political philosophy in all major details.

    There are enough trustworthy people in the world to, at least in theory, choose one of them for a leadership or legislative role. There simply too many people with too many different beliefs for each of them to get a politically “pure” candidate who matches their opinions, values, and goals in all major details.

    Mathematically, it could not happen. Essentially you’re saying you’re so special you deserve to get everything you want in a democracy and that others don’t.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  73. Joe’s links above contain lengthy and fascinating discussions on the topic of Jeff Goldstein’s comment in which he told a commenter (who was admittedly an asshole and had provoked him):

    If I ever meet up with you, ST, I swear to god I’ll fucking kill you.

    Remember that.

    Somewhere, Scott Jacobs is smiling a smile of vindication.

    By the way, Joe’s links are two of the three Frey-bashing posts we have seen today, the third being from Dan Riehl titled “Patterico, Or Patrick Frey’s Divisive, Dishonest, Weak-Minded And Uncivil Tactics.” See, Mark Levin has now made it known that he will link pretty much any blog post that bashes me, so naturally these three dishonest traffic grubbers have done two posts each bashing me in the past 2-3 days or so.

    Further confirmation of the thesis of my post: namely, the “pragmatic” tendency of these bloggers to look after their own SiteMeters. Here, it’s ideal, as they each get to take a dishonest and petty potshot against someone who has called them on their bullshit in the past.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  74. My neighbor just asked me why I still do this.

    Sometimes I wonder.

    Come for the lawsuit threats from convicted bombers … stay for the character assassination!

    Patterico (c218bd)

  75. It’s pretty amusing they are using the term uncivil to attract links from Levin.

    I really hate even bothering with the blog-war crap. If they disagree, then they should just disagree like men.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  76. My neighbor just asked me why I still do this.

    Sometimes I wonder.

    Don’t let these bullies see you bleed for chrissake. That will just give them hope they can ‘win’.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  77. You have a point. It’s not like I am going to be intimidated into stopping. Nor will I threaten to shut down the site to garner a lot of praise, like one of those folks is famous for doing.

    Let me just say: I appreciate your spirited defense of me, Dustin. I do notice it.

    Most of the support I get is of the quiet e-mailed variety. Most people don’t want to go on record opposing these character assassins. They have seen what they are capable of. I won’t say who writes but you might be surprised.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  78. Now John Hitchcock is running me down at McCain’s.

    Did he ever come back and respond to my answer to his critique?

    No, he did not.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  79. Saturday Night Live with Pat and Jeff.

    Most of the support I get is of the quiet e-mailed variety. Most people don’t want to go on record opposing these character assassins. They have seen what they are capable of. I won’t say who writes but you might be surprised.

    I doubt anyone would be surprised.

    Joe (a40c54)

  80. Joe, it must be sad for your only happiness in life to be trying to set people at war with one another.

    Of all the people I have read today, I bet your life is one of the emptiest.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  81. Actually, I am doing okay. But thanks for asking.

    Joe (a40c54)

  82. I doubt that sincerely. But put on your brave face.

    Patterico (fadf0b)

  83. At Goldstein’s they are citing Reynolds posts to try to turn him into a Castle opponent.

    Try this one, folks:

    SUGGESTION TO TEA PARTIERS: LEAVE MIKE CASTLE ALONE. “Do you know who Mike Castle would be a lot more conservative than? Democratic nominee Chris Coons.”

    Fact is, Glenn links a lot of viewpoints. He opines rarely.

    One of his few viewpoints is quoted in the post above, about not demanding perfection. That’s a clearly expressed opinion. Linking here and there? Not so much. It’s just doing what he does well: linking different opinions.

    He has also talked about some of the Establishment sore losers, like Murkowski.

    And I agree with him.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  84. INDEED: Tea Partiers to GOP: Fall in line or face challengers. “Prominent leaders within the Tea Party movement have a warning for presumptive House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. – keep their campaign promises to cut spending and repeal the health care law or face defeat in their next primaries.”

    I agree.

    Certain lying “purists” claim otherwise.

    They lie like they breathe.

    Or like they issue death threats . . .

    Patterico (c218bd)

  85. Oh — and to the people who are trying to link me at the hip with Bainbridge?

    Lying again.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  86. “Nonsense. I was demanding honesty.”

    And that is what you cannot grant. Blind as a bat.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  87. Thank goodness you have people who are also frequent commentors at PW, and are willing to stand up for you.

    The Departed (d027b8)

  88. “74.There is a big difference between demanding one key quality (trustworthiness) that is essential before entrusting someone with power than demanding the person purely matches their political philosophy in all major details”

    And this is the unworthy smear of a studied liar. Castle was the worst rated member of the GOP caucus. In the Senate power is held by the deciding votes. The charge was never one of purity but real damage.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  89. Castle was the worst rated member of the GOP caucus

    And yet still better than Coons.

    No one has ever suggested he was the best Republican ever, but he would have been better than Coons.

    The Departed (d027b8)

  90. “And this is the unworthy smear of a studied liar.”

    How so? Speaking of smears … .

    Christoph (8ec277)

  91. “No one has ever suggested he was the best Republican ever, but he would have been better than Coons.”

    You’re ignoring 53% who knew Castle like the back of their hand, as well as the point that the power brokers in the Senate are the undistributed middle. The teddy bear would not have been in Reid’s pocket?

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  92. I remember when this was a lively, always interesting, sometimes riveting blog.

    When did it turn into Crazy Town?

    Whenever the host spends this much time in his/her own comments section, you realize most of it is taking place in the blogger’s mind and all you want to do is back out slowly…..

    jcp370 (021620)

  93. It’s like St. Elsewhere, it was a figment of someone’s imagination

    justin cord (82637e)

  94. Jcp370 has almost never commented except to whine that he didn’t like my O’Donnell posts.

    Just don’t pretend like you were once some fan, OK, dude?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  95. You can believe what you want. I almost never comment. Now you’re accusing readers of not having been fans. So I didn’t enjoy your in-depth investigative pieces? Or your posts trying to keep the LATimes honest? Or the great discussions in the comments section?

    Christine O’Donnell, like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, is a mirror into the dark soul of those who would destroy her. Lousy candidate? Sure. The rest is pure projection.

    jcp370 (021620)

  96. Patterico, I just don’t understand the spleen that has been raining down. I don’t always agree with your positions. So what? It works the other way, too. I don’t like trolls, and some of these digital warriors are acting out.

    There is a reason Professor Reynolds doesn’t have comments on his blog.

    You should look up an essay by SF writer John Scalzi. It’s called something like “Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded.” I don’t agree with a LOT of Mr. Scalzi’s politics, but he has the right idea about flamewars.

    I still don’t see why Levin is acting that way. Weird and a little needy, when he has everything a good person could ever want.

    I’m sorry this nonsense happens. Lots of folks—particularly folks who don’t post comments much—-appreciate what you do.

    One more thing. I have never seen you be rude and offensive to people who are polite to you. That’s a rare standard, and appreciated.

    Eric Blair (ad3ef3)

  97. Christine O’Donnell, like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, is a mirror into the dark soul of those who would destroy her. Lousy candidate? Sure. The rest is pure projection.

    Comment by jcp370

    O’donnell’s a lousy candidate for a reason. So it’s strange to pretend it’s projection to talk about it.

    What actually happened was that a constant volley of trolls insisted we repeatedly go over the entire case against O’donnell. When people like jcp attack those who criticize her, the best response to that is to go over the problems with O’donnell. I don’t feel like doing it again, but I do feel like pointing out the entire purpose of this trolling was to identify who is the less pure conservative. It got needlessly personal.

    Now, these same creeps are pretending someone was uncivil and dishonest for telling the truth in the face of constant and unreasonable character assassination.

    JCP: Honest people with credibility are more valuable than cheerleaders. In the long run, the people who endorsed O’Donnell and screamed that her nomination proved she had any hope of winning the general election lost face and are less reliable than those, like Karl Rove, who called this election honestly.

    Pretending honesty is actually some secret agenda requires evidence. I’ve got my evidence that the nay-sayers are not motivated by honesty, and just want to bolster their egos.

    And frankly, I think those who pretend they can’t see this are useless.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  98. You’re ignoring 53% who knew Castle like the back of their hand, as well as the point that the power brokers in the Senate are the undistributed middle. The teddy bear would not have been in Reid’s pocket?

    Comment by gary gulrud

    They didn’t think Castle and Coons were the same, so your argument is coming up short of what you’re replying to. Only a democrat things Castle isn’t much better than Coons (and probably some of them voted in that primary, despite the 6 month rule).

    There are still legit reasons to oust O’Donnell. Despite Castle being a vote against stimulus and Obamacare, I respect the idea of just drawing a line in the sand (cap and tax). The price for this is many years of Senator Coons, as O’Donnell never had a shot and was obviously unqualified (read Ace if you want this explained clearly… I don’t feel like bashing the poor woman).

    What I see are two legitimate and defensible paths that could have been argued intelligently without this constant ‘you are a loser jackass who needs to be crushed’ crap. Those who can’t figure this out are useless.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  99. Excuse me, I hate one of my many typos.

    I meant in #100 that there are still legit reasons to oust Castle, of course.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  100. _______________________________________________

    An even bigger reason why people with more than a bit of common sense can’t demand or expect perfection — and shrug off the meaning of political tactics and strategies that either work or fail — at this wobbly moment in US history? We have to deal with the following politician—and I thought being a happy follower of Jeremiah Wright was the ultimate Rorschach test into just how warped is the mind of the current occupant of the White House:

    New York Times, November 8, 2010:

    In the compound, Mr. Obama often played with the two sons of the physician’s driver.

    One time, recalled the elder son, Slamet Januadi, now 52, Mr. Obama asked a group of boys whether they wanted to grow up to be president, a soldier or a businessman. A president would own nothing while a soldier would possess weapons and a businessmen would have money, the young Obama explained.

    Mr. Januadi and his younger brother, both of whom later joined the Indonesian military, said they wanted to become soldiers. Another boy, a future banker, said he would become a businessman.

    “Then Barry said he would become president and order the soldier to guard him and the businessman to use his money to build him something,” Mr. Januadi said.

    “We told him, ‘You cheated. You didn’t give us those details.'”

    Mark (411533)

  101. Patterico, but your early movies were funnier.

    Wait a minute, that was Woody Allen.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  102. You can believe what you want. I almost never comment. Now you’re accusing readers of not having been fans. So I didn’t enjoy your in-depth investigative pieces? Or your posts trying to keep the LATimes honest? Or the great discussions in the comments section?

    Evidently not enough to tolerate one instance of disagreement as to one candidate whom I found to be serially dishonest.

    Christine O’Donnell, like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, is a mirror into the dark soul of those who would destroy her. Lousy candidate? Sure. The rest is pure projection.

    Whatever. She is a serially dishonest person and that bothers me more than it bothered you. It’s a disagreement. If a simple disagreement leads to a dramatic flounce, then you were never much of a fan. That’s my view.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  103. Now Hitchcock is publishing my private e-mails to him on R.S. McCain’s site.

    He’s gone full Protein Wisdom.

    I never realized he was actually a dishonorable person. I just thought he was having a hissy fit.

    Lesson learned. I’ll not make any further attempts to reason with him. I will just realize that I made a poor judgment about his character.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  104. People hate Javert not because he is for “the law” but b/c he is so petty in its pursuit, blind to all the other factors involved in the venial crime, and willing invest infinite time and resources in pursuit of his principles … err obsession(s).

    Torquemada (a8a9b2)

  105. I believe one of your alternate nicknames, Torquemada, was “Javert.”

    You have, in a petty manner, expended infinite time and resources in coming up with different names to avoid being identified as the author of comments by Obama Uber Alles and a half-dozen other names.

    So, you were saying . . .?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  106. Many names. Same old ideas.

    Torquemada/javert/aka (a8a9b2)

  107. Patter-EE-koh,

    1) What does it matter what screen names I use. What matters is what I write.

    2) I wish you the best but you stuck your pecker in the meat grinder.

    3) Petty? Giant 100lb pot calling kettle black. That is what the blog-o-sphere is actually calling you for your persistent O’Donnell posts!

    Precious!!!!!!!!!!!

    I am still waiting to hear you renounce some Colleagues or Friends-of-Colleagues for doing bad things much like you demand others do.

    Torquemada/javert/aka (a8a9b2)

  108. Patterico, a surprise, I didn’t spot the crazy either.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  109. JF,

    Do you know the context of screens names Javert, Torquemada, Uber Alles?????

    Torquemada/javert/aka (a8a9b2)

  110. I am still waiting to hear you renounce some Colleagues or Friends-of-Colleagues for doing bad things much like you demand others do.

    To be fair, there’s at least one regular commenter here he doesn’t demand such renouncements from.

    The Departed (d027b8)

  111. #112 He has got talent but no perspective. Shame. Brains are not a match for wisdom in human matters. And for person who demands such high, unrelenting standards of individuals — he matches equal amount of apathy to the institutions he represents or speaks for.

    Torquemada/javert/aka (a8a9b2)

  112. Torquemada etc.

    I have no idea what you’re talking about — either the alleged demanding, or the alleged failure to denounce.

    Try making sense for a change.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  113. No, The Departed, I don’t have a loyalty test for commenting here.

    I suppose if I did, I would have a smaller number of commenters, but they would all be loyal.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  114. #114,

    On a recent thread you went after David Frum for employing a 20 year old homosexual male who made some outrageous posts on a gay teen forum. Your title, “Does a David Frum Protege Have Tendencies Towards Pedophilia?”

    You happily (and other readers) went along with the “Never has Frum condemned any of this previously-disclosed material.” In the end, the 20 year old lost his job.

    Accurate so far?

    Now juxtapose, what about your boss?
    http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/08/kamala_harris_steve_cooley_mon.php or http://wn.com/Is_LA_District_Attorney_Steve_Cooley_Corrupt?_Two_Views — He has also been accused of corruption himself by selectively prosecuting based on friends and cronyism. Not prosecuting big dogs in the LA community ….

    So will you join me in asking for Steve Cooley to renounce corruption and cronyism?

    Or the many powerful Hollywood types who make movies with Polanski?

    I think you need to shine the same mirror on them as you do others.

    Torquemada/javert/aka (a8a9b2)

  115. #116, Now I don’t expect anything here but my point is pissing on someone’s Cheerios 1,200 miles away is easy … try next door first.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y9dt35goWM&feature=player_embedded

    Torquemada/javert/aka (a8a9b2)

  116. Torquemada:

    Yes, I remember your minimizing of the David Frum protege’s numerous Internet postings that displayed a tendency towards pedophilia.

    No, I don’t think Steve Cooley is corrupt. So why would I say he is, when I don’t believe it?

    Yes, I have already denounced people who linked themselves to Polanski, applauded for him, signed petitions for him, etc.

    Yes, I have taken on the local paper, gone toe to toe with Michael Biltzik, Chuck Philips, Anthony Pellicano, Suge Knight, etc.

    I walk the walk. It’s easy to take potshots behind a variety of Internet nicknames, as you do. Try putting your name and profession out there and taking on the bad guys publicly.

    Get back to me when you are ready to display that courage that you claim I lack.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  117. If you agree with Glenn that “Demand as good as you can get, and move ahead”, then explain why a liar is a poorer candidate for the Senate than an avowed Marxist.

    JackWayne (7c859c)

  118. An avowed marxist!

    imdw (a230ba)

  119. A demonstrated troll!

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  120. #118, No, I don’t think Steve Cooley is corrupt. So why would I say he is, when I don’t believe it?

    LOL, but Frum is “bad” for not condemning a 20 year gay kid to the scrap heap. “Principles,” right?

    James, you choose your path. I did not. You want to be Da Shiz/Javert/Uber Alles/Torquemada (get it now?) then you can go right ahead sport. I did not volunteer — you did.

    But again, I find your “prosecutorial discretion” on who, and how, you target to be quite selective. And, no, you have not denounced anyone too close to the home environment of any importance — that would actually take courage of principled type that you write of.

    To me, you seem to take a televangelist torch to folks un-deserving for the most venial of issues. That “gotta get the last word in” and “I am so perfect” attitude serves you well in your day job, but not so much in life. Which is why folks in the blog-o-sphere are after you. O’Donnell is what folks are in a lather about now — it will multiply.

    Anyway, best wishes with your day job. God’s work getting bad guys off the street.

    Torquemada/javert/aka (a8a9b2)

  121. That didn’t make sense. If you have issues with Mr. Frey, why don’t you communicate with him directly, via e-mail. The above makes you look a bit unhinged.

    And if you are actually trying to toast Mr. Frey, why?

    Discuss it with him directly. Trying to score points on the Internet is an odd way to do so. Especially the weird commentary at the end.

    Eric Blair (ad3ef3)

  122. I don’t have the slightest clue what this guy is talking about.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  123. Or why he is calling me “James:”

    Patterico (c218bd)

  124. isn’t there an author named James Frey?

    Eric Blair (ad3ef3)

  125. He seems to assume that he and I share some big secret. We don’t.

    And anyone who has read this site for any length of time knows I am not perfect and do not claim to be.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  126. “isn’t there an author named James Frey?”

    He was the fraud that Oprah promoted.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  127. I can’t keep things straight, Patterico, but wasn’t this yet another multi-named Troll Like Entity? Or did I misread things?

    Eric Blair (ad3ef3)

  128. “What does it matter what screen names I use.”

    Torquemada/javert/aka – If it doesn’t matter, why not just stick to one? What are you trying to hide? Is it because you keep embarrassing yourself so often?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  129. If you agree with Glenn that “Demand as good as you can get, and move ahead”, then explain why a liar is a poorer candidate for the Senate than an avowed Marxist.

    Patterico said repeatedly he supported O’Donnell over Coons. Unless you meant to say that Mike Castle is an avowed Marxist, in which case I’d call that “too stupid for words”.

    Some chump (e84e27)

  130. A Reynold’s featured comment “interesting take”:

    “This is exactly why the Tea Party nominating Senate candidates was such a big win. The weakness of the candidates, far from being a Tea Party failure, makes it an even bigger win in terms of leverage within the party. The GOP establishment exists primarily to further the interests of the GOP: namely, winning elections and raking in funds. Everything else, including issues, voters’ desires, the well-being of the country, etc., is secondary. With weak Tea Party candidates losing important, winnable races, the GOP establishment either has to give in and start backing principled, electable fiscal conservatives rather than good ol’ boys or face the punishment they fear most: letting power and influence slip through their fingers because the establishment candidate got taken down in the primary by another O’Donnell.”

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  131. But demanding purity and perfection at every stage — and declaring a willingness to lose ten elections in a row as an alternative — is a recipe for disappointment . . . and expansion of the welfare state and philosopher-king judges.

    While I would agree, isn’t settling largely why we find ourselves in this position. Mostly I lay this at the feet of social cons, voting to return anyone to office who voted correctly on certain issues.

    Go ahead, stuff your pockets (and those of your family and friends), cheat on your wife with your aide, bring home the bacon and most of all Let’s Make a Deal for those votes and we will return you to office over and over again, as long at you vote correctly on abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, etc, etc, etc….

    sookie (60809e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4619 secs.