The Jury Talks Back

11/16/2018

White House Ordered To Restore Jim Acosta’s Press Pass

Filed under: Uncategorized — Dana @ 10:52 am

[guest post by Dana]

This morning, Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the White House to restore Jim Acosta’s press pass , which had been revoked after a heated exchange with President Trump at last week’s press conference. In granting CNN’s request, Kelly specifically focused on a lack of required due process:

A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump White House to immediately restore the press pass of CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta as the case progresses after the network filed a lawsuit suit claiming that revoking it violated the First Amendment.

The judge repeatedly emphasized that his decision was based on the Fifth Amendment and that Acosta was denied his right to due process.

“If at some point after restoring the hard pass the government would like to move to vacate the restraining order on the grounds that it has fulfilled its due process obligations then it may, of course, do so and I will promptly address that and then the remaining basis of the (temporary restraining order),” U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly said.

Speaking after the ruling, Ted Boutros, an attorney for CNN said the news organization is “extremely pleased with the ruling today.”

“A great day for the First Amendment and journalism,” he said. “We’re very excited to have Mr. Acosta be able to go back and get his hard pass and report the news about the White House.”

Judge Kelly was nominated by President Trump, and confirmed by a 94-2 vote. By noting this, does it help lay to rest claims made by those on the left side of the aisle that Trump only appoints judges that will protect his interests? Or does it simply demonstrate that Kelly is a judge who recognizes his duty to not be politically motivated and to act as a neutral arbiter who applies the law to the facts?

As far as Jim Acosta’s return to the White House press conferences, I’m curious to know who actually controls these events? It appears as if there is no mechanism in place for the White House to give a reporter their due process at the time and revoke their pass. And if that is the case, by not having control (or a mechanism in place), the door has been left wide open for further grandstanding by Acosta (and maybe others). If he was able to dominate a presser like he did last week, by refusing to accept that his turn was over and sit down, then what recourse does the White House have at its disposal now? And given Acosta’s evidenced persistence, even if Trump didn’t call on him, what would stop him from acting out, or sidling up to a colleague and co-opting the microphone? Because clearly, he didn’t care that he was stepping on other reporters’ opportunities to question the President last week.

The White House has not issued a response to the judge’s ruling, nor has President Trump tweeted about it.

–Dana

78 Comments »

  1. It should be easy to establish a procedure to deal with reporters’ access. It may take time and the reporters will be a pain during that time, but the President has lawyers to handle this. Trump likes being a dictator who can act on a whim, but that is not our system.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/16/2018 @ 11:44 am

  2. I’m done here. It is the last straw.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/16/2018 @ 11:48 am

  3. @1.The fish rots from the head down, DRJ. The structure and operation of the press office in any given administration reflects the character of the person at the top. Sloppy pressers are just a window revealing sloppy management.

    Comment by DCSCA — 11/16/2018 @ 12:09 pm

  4. DRJ, this is sadly what happens when jerks are allowed to act like jerks. You need to choose the “party” you want to attend. Patterico has a party with a lot of unpleasant people. But he doesn’t like to ban or mute people, which is his choice.

    I know how you feel. But clearly, your opinion (and mine) is not the norm.

    Comment by Simon Jester — 11/16/2018 @ 12:27 pm

  5. DCSCA, it’s a little rich for you to leave your snarky one-liners, bon mots, and exclamations of “meh” over at the main site, then suddenly come over here and try to engage DRJ with the argument that you could have made over there. It’s only my opinion, but you’ve been pretty insufferable the past few weeks. I’m not sure what that’s all about, since although you are generally a contrarian and provocateur, it seems as though you are deliberately amping up your act recently.

    As Simon points out, Patterico isn’t big on banning people, but he does ask that The Jury Talks Back be reserved for people who are interested in having debates rather than scoring repartee points, so I think it would be wise if you refrained from commenting on this page and save your thoughts for the main page. Note that happyfeet, for as annoying as he can be, has the good grace to stay away from here. I counsel you to do the same.

    Comment by JVW — 11/16/2018 @ 3:02 pm

  6. DRJ – don’t leave me!
    I don’t post a lot (I work, doesn’t anyone else?), but I enjoy talking to you even though, as I mentioned we are on different ends of the spectrum in some areas (what’s the wag about all ends meeting in the middle?), I like you being around.
    And TBH – I’m not really sure why that comment hit you so hard, as it’s fairly mild, but a straw is a straw, no matter what, I guess.
    If you do leave, I wish you all the best, in both your blogging and personal lives.

    Comment by TomM — 11/16/2018 @ 4:09 pm

  7. @5. Respectfully, JVW, you may have that ‘amping up’ backwards. Your hostility toward members of our free press has been evident- at least to me- for a while. You aren’t keen on Acosta’s methods, Big Media, etc.

    And as noted to you on another thread, I’ve been to a place or two where there truly was no free press. It’s easy to take it for granted here- even criticize it- that’s healthy. But when it’s actually, truly gone, for real— literally ripped out of your hands and taken away from you- you miss it fast. And you don’t forget it.

    Ever had uniformed Soviet officers board your aircraft, bodily search you and your friends for any literature from the West and confiscate every newspaper, paperback book, novel, magazine- even travel pamplets before passing through customs and entering Russia? I have. It’s scary.

    And you don’t forget that. For the better part of a month we were without any access to a free press and news of the Free World. Just Russian state TV, Tass, Pravda and Izvestia. We had no idea what was going on beyond what the Russians chose to let us know. So beating up on the press, endlessly ranting bout biases and such grows very, very thin at times. Especially when you have experienced a place where you’ve see what happens when it is truly silenced.

    Comment by DCSCA — 11/16/2018 @ 5:50 pm

  8. See what I mean, Patterico?

    Comment by Simon Jester — 11/17/2018 @ 7:38 am

  9. And TBH – I’m not really sure why that comment hit you so hard, as it’s fairly mild, but a straw is a straw, no matter what, I guess.

    I don’t quite get it either. However, DCSCA, you should heed JVW’s advice to stay away from this side of the blog.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/17/2018 @ 6:46 pm

  10. Actually, Patterico, you have yourself acted quite proactively toward people trying to insult and misrepresent you in similar “ain’t I clever” sort of banter from posters.

    But it’s your blog. Again, I value DRJ quite a bit. Bragging people who make up aspects of their lives repeatedly, not so much (again, I am looking at long term history here).

    Your mileage may vary.

    Comment by Simon Jester — 11/18/2018 @ 7:32 am

  11. I read the Sunday post and saw Simon’s name, so I read this. I’m surprised the reason for my offense wasn’t apparent to you, Patterico. Here is what DCSCA said:

    @2. There’s a little ‘soviet’ hidden in every ‘conservative,’ Mr. Feet.

    I don’t know if he thinks Trump is a conservative and was referring to his actions with the press (I suspect he is) or if he was discussing conservatives in general. Either way, it offends me that someone would come to a conservative blog and compare people who believe those principles to Soviets. It completely redefines what conservatism means.

    Certainly this was foreseeable when Trump took over the GOP, but I think someone who has read this blog would know what conservatism means and doesn’t mean. It isn’t at all like being a Soviet, or a racist — another word that can be spell using some of the words in “conservative” — but that doesn’t mean the words are synonymous or that anyone should use that device to insult people who believe in those principles.

    I meant what I said. That was the last straw, and it disappoints me no end that I had to return briefly to explain why that is the case.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/18/2018 @ 8:13 am

  12. It’s a dumb and wrong comment. I won’t comment on its being “offensive” because I increasingly try to avoid that word, but it’s dumb and wrong. I don’t claim to be surprised to see a dumb and wrong comment on my blog. What does surprise me — quite a bit, in fact — is to see someone like you leave the blog over the appearance of a dumb and wrong comment on the blog. That, you have not explained.

    It seems like a bolt out the blue. “Look, here is a dumb and wrong comment, so I will now leave forever.” Good luck finding a blog that has no dumb and wrong comments. The only such blogs are blogs without comment sections.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/18/2018 @ 8:50 am

  13. I will be very sad to see you leave the comment section, DRJ. But I will remain confused about why.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/18/2018 @ 9:12 am

  14. Also, I can’t shake the sense that I have personally done something to offend you. But I have no idea what that might be.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/18/2018 @ 9:22 am

  15. I dislike arguing with you, Patterico, but the person who oh so slyly wrote that has a long long long history of insulting others. This is just another example. You don’t see it that way. But you do take offense at people insulting you personally, or misrepresenting what you believe, even in what seems to others small ways.

    Your blog, your rules.

    You can say that DRJ is oversensitive if you like, but that can be applied to any other poster selectively.

    The comment was insulting to anyone who considers themselves conservative, and was intended to be so. Unless you disagree with that, too.

    You allow posters calling people they have never met names, even calling them antisemites or child molesters. It’s your blog. You can say you don’t take that kind of thing seriously, or ignore such people.

    But not everyone feels that way. Do you seem to be getting more and more unpleasant people as a result? Maybe.

    I just know I have a list of people whose posts and comments matter to me, and I see less and less from them.

    I certainly don’t speak for DRJ. But I doubt I am the only other person who sees the changes. I don’t have a solution, and I do appreciate your efforts.

    I just think folks like DRJ are more valuable than snotty weirdos. But that’s me.

    Comment by Simon Jester — 11/18/2018 @ 12:09 pm

  16. I dislike arguing with you, Patterico, but the person who oh so slyly wrote that has a long long long history of insulting others. This is just another example. You don’t see it that way. But you do take offense at people insulting you personally, or misrepresenting what you believe, even in what seems to others small ways.

    Your blog, your rules.

    You can say that DRJ is oversensitive if you like, but that can be applied to any other poster selectively.

    The comment was insulting to anyone who considers themselves conservative, and was intended to be so. Unless you disagree with that, too.

    DRJ said herself that he believed DCSCDCSCA was referring to Trump. I am a conservative and I didn’t take offense at the comment or see it as a personal insult at me (or at anyone but Trump).

    I’m not saying DRJ is oversensitive. I am saying I don’t understand her reaction to this particular comment.

    I just think folks like DRJ are more valuable than snotty weirdos.

    She certainly is. If it came down to a choice, I would choose her. But that’s not how it was presented to me. It was presented as: she is already leaving, for reasons I don’t understand.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/18/2018 @ 12:47 pm

  17. My opinion, and I could be wrong, but: You don’t read the comments enough anymore to realize how frustrating it has become, and when you do read you become frustrated even more quickly than those of us who read regularly.

    IMO you need a regular moderator (which is why I volunteered) but unfortunately it did not work out. I really, really hope you will find someone you trust who can help you do that.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/18/2018 @ 1:07 pm

  18. And it was an insult to conservatives like us, because he was saying Trump is conservatism now. We lost. Conservatism is Trumpism now.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/18/2018 @ 1:10 pm

  19. On the plus side, you argued that would happen and did not want Trump to win because of it. But being right seems like small consolation when Trump can act like a Soviet dictator and a commenter can plausibly argue that is what conservatism now stands for.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/18/2018 @ 1:14 pm

  20. Let them argue that at all those other blogs but not here. It’s hard seeing that here and I’d rather not read comments anymore to avoid seeing it go unanswered.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/18/2018 @ 1:17 pm

  21. Let me put this in a different way that may help you understand my decision, because I think I owe that to you.

    You and Beldar pontificate. You both spend a lot of time thinking about your positions, analyzing them, and trying to explain them cogently and completely. Remember how frustrated Beldar was when one of his lengthy, thoughtful comments was caught in the filter because of one word? The comment was still there and could have been released, but it was not enough for you or him and I understand why you both felt that way.

    Others of us don’t have as much ability or desire to formulate arguments like that. We see this as a forum to interact, but IMO it has become a forum met with sarcasm and snark unless your opinion agrees with the Trump view. That is frustrating, too, just as much as having a comment caught in the filter … but it happens a lot more. For me, it was the last straw.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/18/2018 @ 1:31 pm

  22. I think the world of you, DRJ. Best wishes to you and your family.

    Comment by Simon Jester — 11/18/2018 @ 1:39 pm

  23. Thank you, Simon, and I feel the same about you and your family.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/18/2018 @ 3:52 pm

  24. DRJ, I will be sorry to see you leave, as I enjoy conversing with you and consider your insights valuable even when I disagree. And I understand the frustration; at a certain level, engaging with it is just not worth the price.

    I would be interested to converse with you in the future, in other fora; and, in the event that that does not happen, I wish you a fond farewell.

    Comment by aphrael — 11/19/2018 @ 3:36 pm

  25. Gresham’s Law applies.

    Comment by Simon Jester — 11/19/2018 @ 4:15 pm

  26. IMO you need a regular moderator (which is why I volunteered) but unfortunately it did not work out. I really, really hope you will find someone you trust who can help you do that.

    I thought it was working out. I ended up making the decision to eliminate a small handful of commonly used words in the filter, since I thought too many comments were getting caught (something I thought even before Beldar complained) but I thought it was otherwise working out well and was puzzled as to why you stopped.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/19/2018 @ 9:51 pm

  27. My opinion, and I could be wrong, but: You don’t read the comments enough anymore to realize how frustrating it has become, and when you do read you become frustrated even more quickly than those of us who read regularly.

    I’ll admit that, with a demanding assignment and a lot of stuff going on at home, I don’t read the comments terribly thoroughly lately. Which is why I appreciated your help with moderation.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/19/2018 @ 9:52 pm

  28. Let me put this in a different way that may help you understand my decision, because I think I owe that to you.

    You and Beldar pontificate. You both spend a lot of time thinking about your positions, analyzing them, and trying to explain them cogently and completely. Remember how frustrated Beldar was when one of his lengthy, thoughtful comments was caught in the filter because of one word? The comment was still there and could have been released, but it was not enough for you or him and I understand why you both felt that way.

    Others of us don’t have as much ability or desire to formulate arguments like that. We see this as a forum to interact, but IMO it has become a forum met with sarcasm and snark unless your opinion agrees with the Trump view. That is frustrating, too, just as much as having a comment caught in the filter … but it happens a lot more. For me, it was the last straw.

    DCSCA certainly doesn’t agree with the Trump view. He is, however, annoying and snarky and repetitive. I have been frustrated with Trump superfans for months, but I actually thought that the new rules I implemented at the urging of a smart person who shall remain unnamed was improving things a lot. I think others agree too. It’s not perfect but it’s unquestionably better.

    DCSCA’s comment, I just don’t understand how that kind of dumb comment is any kind of final straw. I’m still just mystified.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/19/2018 @ 9:55 pm

  29. I don’t know what else to say so I guess you will have to be mystified, but people often leave blogs to go other places and do other things for lots of reasons. This isn’t worth being mystified over.

    DCSCA did “support” Trump because he thought Trump would hurt conservatives in the GOP. Many of us, including you, thought Trump was a poor choice because we support conservative principles, and we also thought Trump would hurt conservatism. For now, Trump has redefined conservatism and many people probably do think there is “a little ‘soviet’ hidden in every ‘conservative'” in Trump’s version of conservatism.

    FWIW I think DCSCA’s comment was him being clever, perhaps spiking the ball a little, and IMO he may also have revealed a reason for his conservative animus — but what DCSCA thinks isn’t the point. A lot of people think conservatism and conservatives are evil but, as a conservative, I know that is not true. It is an unfortunate by-product of Trump, though, and it is not dumb.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/20/2018 @ 8:15 am

  30. Coming after Obama’s authoritarian Presidency, I think Trump’s affection for more authoritarian leadership will be the hardest part for the GOP to overcome. That may be what will hurt conservatism and America the most. We beat the Soviets. I hope we don’t become more like them.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/20/2018 @ 8:22 am

  31. I can’t speak for DRJ, Patterico, but consider the following: there are people who have different points of view who are polite and enrich the comments section here. Then there are people who only post to stir the pot. To insult. And make no mistake, some folks post only to insult. You can say it doesn’t bother you, but with all due respect, that is you. Other folks have other feelings about it.

    What to do?

    What it looks like, from outside (that is, not running your blog), is that the trolls have the upper hand. They seem to control the filter (instead of controlling themselves), trapping useful commenters like Beldar. They continue to write juvenile and nasty things, despite the filter.

    Sure, you can use the script so you can’t see their posts, but you have to refresh each time. That’s frustrating.

    The trolls get to do almost whatever they want. Why should honest and decent commenters—by which I mean folks who genuinely want to engage and comment—have to do extra things to comment, when the people who bring little value do not?

    So it’s like a party at someone you like’s home. There are more and more insulting people at the door, and the host doesn’t kick people out for being jerks, unless they go way overboard. So more and more jerks come to the party, and up their style—trying to get ever more clever with dancing around restrictions, rather than just being honest and decent. And that’s okay, since it is the host’s party.

    But you can’t be surprised when some of the folks who aren’t trollish just give up and go elsewhere.

    Mind you, I don’t know what you can do. Appealing to the trolls is like ordering the tide back, like King Canute.

    I just miss any number of excellent commenters, including DRJ. That’s not code for “agrees with me,” by the way.

    But every blog and comment section takes on a “flavor” based on those who populate it.

    Comment by Simon Jester — 11/20/2018 @ 8:23 am

  32. Regarding Simon’s point, IMO you need a moderator to make your new rules work and to continue the camaraderie you created here.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/20/2018 @ 10:36 am

  33. It occurs to me that you think readers/commenters leave because they are offended. Maybe in some cases, but IMO if they get offended and leave then they typically come back. I think people are much more likely to give up and leave when they are discouraged that nothing will change.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/20/2018 @ 11:10 am

  34. I wish you would be that moderator. I thought it was working out very well.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/20/2018 @ 11:23 am

  35. Regarding the change in the commentariat to be pro-Trump: well, yeah. That has been a source of immense frustration for me (however predictable) but it’s hardly unique to this blog. I would like to have thought that I would remain the outpost of sanity in the comments — and (if you compare it to other blogs — have you read the comments at any other conservative site lately?) I have, to some degree — but the Trump insanity that is pervasive in society does intrude. Nor could I prevent it from intruding, unless I cut off the sort of free discussion I always wanted to have here.

    That said, I think there has been an improvement here with the “no personal attacks” rule. I could extend it to “no personal attacks on public figures either” but I tend to think that would kill discussion.

    Anyway, I totally get the frustration with the Trumpy comments. But if the implication is that I am to blame for that, I can’t accept it. I’m not.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/20/2018 @ 11:28 am

  36. You don’t support Trump but you aren’t as involved in the comments now. You are more like a working father who swats offenders when he gets home. That worked when you had a moderator like Stash who you trusted to give you the big picture. I’m not sure it does now.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/20/2018 @ 11:33 am

  37. But clearly it isn’t you. The political tone is uglier now. That isn’t going to change here or anywhere, but I don’t have to be a part of it. I don’t want to act vulgar and angry, but that is what politics is now.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/20/2018 @ 11:36 am

  38. Normally I would have tried to discuss with DCSCA that conservatives are the opposite of Soviets. He and I have actually had some good discussions over the past two years. But Trump’s brand of conservatism is authoritarian, and what’s the point of stirring that hornet’s nest in an unmoderated forum?

    Comment by DRJ — 11/20/2018 @ 11:46 am

  39. I’m confused: do you believe that pushing back and possibly stirring the hornet’s nest, which might lead to a nonsense response or possibly, a counter-argument which is silly, indicates that moderation is necessary?

    I’m also curious: when you say you wish there were an ongoing moderator, are you suggesting that comments should meet someone’s standard of acceptability, aside from personal attack or unacceptable words, but more in the line of one’s actual political views (pro-Trump v. not pro-Trump)?

    Please clarify.

    Comment by Dana — 11/20/2018 @ 12:15 pm

  40. I tend to think DRJ’s answer to both questions would be “no” — but there is room for confusion here.

    But clearly it isn’t you. The political tone is uglier now. That isn’t going to change here or anywhere, but I don’t have to be a part of it. I don’t want to act vulgar and angry, but that is what politics is now.

    My personal view is that the more people are willing to push back against the vulgar and the angry with calm, reasoned discussion, the more we can help banish that mode of expression.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/20/2018 @ 12:30 pm

  41. Then what is the point of having a moderator? We already have language and personal attack pretty much under control, so what would demand the need for a moderator? Is there a desire for inviduals to have the comments protected from snark, mockery, wordplay or even weak counter-argument? Is there a desire to only allow responses that are with considered merit?

    Comment by Dana — 11/20/2018 @ 12:34 pm

  42. I’m very concerned that there is a push to moderate comments considered “lesser than,” or comments made by individuals who brazenly challenge our perceptions/principles/viewpoints. To me, that would be a squelching of speech and an intellectual snobbery of sorts.

    If a commenter pushes back, no matter how ridiculously or snarkily, or with an incorrect assessment, then I believe countering that argument with logic would be the go-to for any conservative who is concerned. But the freedom to push back with principles and ideals of conservatism must be equally provided to individuals who may believe that Trump is now the face of conservatism. (A notion that I wholeheartedly reject.)

    Comment by Dana — 11/20/2018 @ 12:40 pm

  43. I think Dana is looking for clarity on what DRJ’s complaint is. Yes, some are snarky or attack public figures in a personal way. That obviously upsets Simon Jester, for example, and he often and repeatedly registers that complaint, but I have made a judgment (which he doesn’t like) that I will tolerate some of that while pushing back against it when it gets too extreme, as it sometimes does.

    Then there are personal attacks on commenters. Frankly, I tolerated that for years and years and years, and once it was pointed out to me (by DRJ!) that I should consider not tolerating it, I instituted new rules that I am very pleased with, and that I thank her for.

    I echo Dana’s confusion on what DRJ’s complaint is, especially as illustrated by the comment she deemed the last straw. She clearly is upset with a) the tenor of commentary that equates Trump with conservatism (which I agree is a problem, but one that I have little control over), b) my inattention to the comments section, which is a fair complaint but i) I have different priorities and personal concerns and ii) there still remains the question: what would a moderator do?

    In the worst instances of violations of the rules, even if I miss them, people bring them to my attention and I deal with them. So there is a sort of (I don’t mean to denigrate the process with this term but it’s sort of accurate) hall monitor process where people tell on other commenters, most often appropriately so, and I deal with it even though I am not glued to the comments day in and day out.

    What is the main issue to be addressed? Dana sounds perplexed by this and so am I. Given that the “final straw” was expressed in terms of taking offense at a snarky comment, it’s hard not to conclude that the problem being identified is snarky comments that might offend people. That’s not a problem that I see myself addressing by outlawing such comments, with or without an active moderator. I did not see the comment as a personal attack and I am inclined to give people a lot of leeway when they are not attacking other personally. Too much leeway for the Simon Jesters of the world, but I strike the balance as best as I can.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/20/2018 @ 12:58 pm

  44. I never banned anyone as moderatpr and I always warned people before recommending that Patterico moderate them, and usually the problem solved itself before that was needed. I used other approaches — chiefly trying to read all the posts/comments to understand the debate, and adding unusually offensive words to the filter as they were used (to keep the debate from needlessly escalating).

    This isn’t really about Trump to me, it’s about being discouraged that the debate s will always deteriorate so why bother? I often agree with the concerns raised by Trump defenders. But sometimes it seems like a few of them, like Trump, are the first to hurl insults so they get the blame. There is plenty of blame to go around, including for me since I have given up.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/20/2018 @ 3:23 pm

  45. Being a moderator requires different skills. You might check with Stadh. He was the best.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/20/2018 @ 3:25 pm

  46. Given that the “final straw” was expressed in terms of taking offense at a snarky comment, it’s hard not to conclude that the problem being identified is snarky comments that might offend people.

    I did not take offense at his snarky comment. I am discouraged because there is truth to his comment with Trump as head of the GOP. To me, it is not worth the effort to argue otherwise since doing so would not lead to a productive discussion — as it would have in the past. I am saddened to finally accept that fact, which prompted me to call it the last straw.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/20/2018 @ 3:38 pm

  47. “…the Simon Jesters of the world…”

    Oh, my.

    As I wrote to you privately (both now and in the past), Mr. Frey, you have a perfect right to run your blog however you like. People will visit or not, just like the metaphorical cocktail party, based on the other visitors who attend.

    My preference has always been for civility and honesty. You seem to do so as well. Other people may disagree.

    Regarding your comment, I was expressing my opinion after many, many years of visiting this site, and I explicitly apologize for doing so too often.

    Best wishes.

    Comment by Simon Jester — 11/20/2018 @ 3:41 pm

  48. You have plenty of commenters and you won’t even miss me. I still think you need a moderator but if the hall pass method works for you, that’s fine, too. Best wishes to the best bloggers I’ve read online.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/20/2018 @ 3:43 pm

  49. If a commenter pushes back, no matter how ridiculously or snarkily, or with an incorrect assessment, then I believe countering that argument with logic would be the go-to for any conservative who is concerned.

    I completely agree but I no longer have the patience or desire to do this in the Patterico or The Jury comment sections. Fortunately you and Patterico are still here to do that. Best of luck.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/20/2018 @ 4:44 pm

  50. I never banned anyone as moderatpr and I always warned people before recommending that Patterico moderate them, and usually the problem solved itself before that was needed. I used other approaches — chiefly trying to read all the posts/comments to understand the debate, and adding unusually offensive words to the filter as they were used (to keep the debate from needlessly escalating).

    And I thought you were doing a good job, and was surprised when you declared you were done. Just as I am surprised now with you declaring you are done with the site.

    I did not take offense at his snarky comment. I am discouraged because there is truth to his comment with Trump as head of the GOP. To me, it is not worth the effort to argue otherwise since doing so would not lead to a productive discussion — as it would have in the past. I am saddened to finally accept that fact, which prompted me to call it the last straw.

    I thought you did take offense because you said you did, so my confusion is just increasing rather than decreasing. Frankly, I wouldn’t argue the point with DCSCA because I don’t think it’s worth it. In fact, arguing with most people online is a waste of time. I stay in it for the few who are worth it. You are most definitely one of those.

    You have plenty of commenters and you won’t even miss me. I still think you need a moderator but if the hall pass method works for you, that’s fine, too. Best wishes to the best bloggers I’ve read online.

    I’ll miss you more than I would miss just about any other commenter. Surely you know that.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/20/2018 @ 4:49 pm

  51. I was confusing in my statements, and I apologize for that.

    It is offensive to have GOP conservatism compared to Soviet authoritarianism but my frustration isn’t about that. YOU know I can enjoy a spirited debate with almost anyone. There was a time when I would “counter that argument with logic” but what can I say to that now, with Trump in charge and most Republicans following meekly behind?

    There is no answer but: SHUT UP! and what is the point of that?

    Comment by DRJ — 11/20/2018 @ 5:33 pm

  52. If that debate isn’t worth it to you, then it isn’t worth it to me either. I guess we agree, as usual, but if we don’t debate something as important as that then what else is there? Ivanka’s emails?

    Comment by DRJ — 11/20/2018 @ 5:37 pm

  53. If that debate isn’t worth it to you, then it isn’t worth it to me either.

    It’s worth having. It’s just not worth having with DCSCA. I find him alternately amusing and annoying but I don’t see him as someone with whom I want to have a debate or a serious discussion.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/20/2018 @ 10:50 pm

  54. So you want me to stay and discuss topics with people that you don’t think are worth talking to? It sounds like you would make the same decision I made.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/21/2018 @ 7:14 am

  55. Why not stay on the Jury only? Don’t deal with the main site and try to bring good, solid discussion to this side of the blog?

    FWIW – I don’t post here often, but I lurk and read several times a day and I have to say that ‘s getting really hard to read and figure out what the point of a discussion is what with the annoying, nonsense (or tangential to nonsense) posts that either insult someone or gush or simply change the direction of any thread with off topic links to fever-swamp sites.
    I’d like to contribute more, but a) I’m busy b) I’m a slow typist and c) I need time to figure out an honest, thought out reply to someone who spent the time formulating an opinion. That’s hard to do (for me, anyway). So I say let’s rev up this side of things and let the others stew away on the main site.

    Comment by TomM — 11/21/2018 @ 12:04 pm

  56. So you want me to stay and discuss topics with people that you don’t think are worth talking to?

    Obviously not. Obviously my suggestion is to discuss topics with people who are worth talking to.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/21/2018 @ 12:33 pm

  57. But if all the people worth taking to decide they are leaving because of the people who aren’t, then everything spirals downward.

    There are still people worth taking to, on both sides.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/21/2018 @ 12:35 pm

  58. @29. Lord. FWIW, DRJ, was playing word games w/t family last weekend and by chance noticed the letters ‘s-o-v-i-e-t’ were nestled in the word ‘conservative.’ That’s all there was to it. Suspect you overlooked the italicized letters in the post which were not in the re-post- that’s all there is to it.

    But do all have a safe Thanksgiving.

    Comment by DCSCA — 11/21/2018 @ 1:34 pm

  59. I said I thought you were being clever, DCSCA. i guess conservatives are lucky you didn’t notice r-a-c-i-s-t is in there, too. But we aren’t that lucky, given Trump is holding our ideology hostage and he makes it easy to call conservatives racists and Soviets, while evangelicals pitched in to make us seem valueless. It’s a trifecta that I’m sure warms your heart.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/21/2018 @ 3:19 pm

  60. @59. If it makes you feel any better, DRJ, you can’t spell the word ‘liberal’ in English without using the letters ‘l-i-a-r’ either. But don’t want to be the catalyst for your departure; we’ve bantered back and forth over the years too long for that. But we can take pleasure in knowing on Thursday, some cook in Florida will be giving Mr. Trump the bird. 😉

    Have a swell Thanksgiving, DRJ.

    Comment by DCSCA — 11/21/2018 @ 3:38 pm

  61. If you stay, DRJ, I’ll tell you how to impress all your friends with your knowledge of music by recognizing every key signature at a glance. If you already know the trick, or all the key signatures by heart, you can ask me for something else.

    Comment by nk — 11/21/2018 @ 11:46 pm

  62. Oh, my.

    As I wrote to you privately (both now and in the past), Mr. Frey, you have a perfect right to run your blog however you like. People will visit or not, just like the metaphorical cocktail party, based on the other visitors who attend.

    My preference has always been for civility and honesty. You seem to do so as well. Other people may disagree.

    Regarding your comment, I was expressing my opinion after many, many years of visiting this site, and I explicitly apologize for doing so too often.

    Best wishes.

    Simon, you have a lot to offer in the way of commentary on the issues. I’d love to hear more from you on that. I hope you and everyone else has a great Thanksgiving.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/22/2018 @ 10:32 am

  63. For Smon,

    You are right about Gresham’s Law. It may even explain Trump’s curious leadership style and why so many “conservatives” accept his ideas.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/23/2018 @ 10:34 am

  64. With McCain always being a thorn, with flake for reasons I’ve made plain with Corker also a clear conflict of interests add Murkowski to the mix who is the joker in the deck, how is one supposed to deal.

    Comment by Narciso — 11/23/2018 @ 12:20 pm

  65. It’s seems easy to ban people if they make the wrong inference, however if they deride people who are suffering like those in Texas last year, well that gets a pass. It doesn’t anger anyone enough to take action.

    Comment by Narciso — 11/23/2018 @ 12:25 pm

  66. I haven’t visited the main site in years, Happyfeet and a few others (even after programming a personal filter to block them) turned the comments into a wasteland I didn’t want to be a part of. Looks like the same song, different verse.

    Comment by Sean — 11/24/2018 @ 8:18 am

  67. Our host can ban who he wants those he continues to let their freak flag fly is the question

    Comment by Narciso — 11/24/2018 @ 9:44 am

  68. I’ve come to that same conclusion, Sean. Most of the comments are a waste and it isn’t worth enduring them to find the good ones. Also, Trump has made it hard to argue anything intelligent because his views are based solely on self-interest and emotion, and that seems to be how most people now see politics. Finally, I find myself wanting to say things I shouldn’t. Thus, I thought about it for a few days and I still think commenting is a losing proposition for me. But even though I will no longer read the comments, I will read the posts as often as I can.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/24/2018 @ 12:01 pm

  69. This is a sad decision for me because I love this website, but I am happy that other people have more patience than I do and will continue to enjoy commenting as I did for many years.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/24/2018 @ 12:08 pm

  70. DRJ, sad to hear you’re leaving, but if I might make a couple of suggestions that have worked for me over these past two years…

    First, this alt-Jury site is a great way to consume this blog’s content without the rancor on the main site, and it’s been the only way I’ve read Dana and Patterico’s postings daily since before the election. I know you already realize this, but just keeping off the main site has made a world of difference. Sure, I miss the back and forth of the comments, but like you said, it’s no longer productive with that group due to their shifting perspective on politics and how they choose to deal with those that might oppose their lock-step views.

    Second, I’ve withdrawn from a lot of other sites that have had the same problem with their comment system since the Republican primary of 2016. Some, like HotAir, were involuntary due to a change in their comment system, but most (Twitchy, Ace, etc) were a conscious decision on my part. Not in an effort to slip into a bubble of my own making—because I still read Trump centered sites, as well as left-leaning—but after coming to the realization that the comments and discussions I was a part of were no longer two-sided but used as a platform for those on the right to do their own form of virtue signaling to the rest of the “in-crowd” in order to illustrate how their Trump flag flies higher than the rest.

    Simply put, in today’s online political wasteland it’s better to pick your battles and refrain from the fields where the rules of engagement no longer permit or reward constructive discourse. It wasn’t easy for me, having been a political commentator going back to the era of Bill Clinton and a regular on the old MSNBC chat system pre-election 2000, but this change has saved me a ton of headaches and heartburn. Simply sticking to comment on sites where I don’t have to worry about a constructive comment or critique will be flamed because it goes against dear leader (or sometimes for him) is one of the reasons I still check out this site daily. Perhaps chilling out over on this side of the fence for a few months might be just the thing the doctor ordered.

    Comment by Sean — 11/24/2018 @ 1:48 pm

  71. Thank you, Sean. I appreciate your thoughts and the sentiment behind them.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/24/2018 @ 3:40 pm

  72. Sean, that was a wonderful set of comments. Thank you.

    Comment by Simon Jester — 11/24/2018 @ 4:16 pm

  73. Really his decisions are about emotion and self interests, and there is no reciprocity here, how about the whole khashoggi kerfluffle has that not been blown out of proportion considering the stakes. Who has been fanning the flames the same parties behind the Iran deal.

    Comment by Narciso — 11/24/2018 @ 8:16 pm

  74. I just don’t see the reason for agitation when compared who the opposition (I don’t call them resistance or antifa, because it just flatters them) are and what they are doing to this country.

    Comment by Narciso — 11/24/2018 @ 8:39 pm

  75. The reason for agitation is simple.

    There is basically a soft quiet civil conflict in the Republican Party/conservative movement right now. This predates Trump, but the issues only became obvious around the time he started taking advantage of them.

    Anyone on the right who a) tries to build on principles that are more than convenience of the moment and who b) evaluates them in the eyes of other people is uncertain right now.

    Right now it isn’t clear who has a ‘home’ where. Those of us watching to find out where the political housing will be are a bit concerned.

    The end of the Trump administration will not bring peace to the right. But the fallout will probably help set the agenda for any peace settlement.

    Comment by BobtheRegisterredFool — 11/24/2018 @ 9:43 pm

  76. Except trump is accomplishing conservative ends through iconoclastic means, the whole khashoggi kerfluffle is the Kirkpatrick theorem from the 80s, the countries in the southern cone, did some ruthless things yet the risk in their replacement was more problemmatic.

    Comment by Narciso — 11/25/2018 @ 8:35 am

  77. Sean,

    Thanks for the comments. You may or may not know that (at DRJ’s excellent suggestion) I have instituted a no-personal-attacks policy on the main site, which is still more lax than the policy here. I’m glad you find this a usable alternative, though, and I have DRJ to thank for the idea for using the Jury this way, as I have many things to thank her for.

    Comment by Patterico — 11/25/2018 @ 2:15 pm

  78. Conservative is not a narrowly defined set of criteria that describes us all perfectly.

    Leftism is functionally a religion. A leftist outside of the doctrine currently being pushed by the inner party is apostate.

    Conservative in the sense of everyone the left hates is so broad that it includes people with extremely profound differences.

    We are individuals and can make our own decisions about our political goals and priorities. This does not have to include cooperation with anyone.

    I can set a price Trump would need to pay to buy my support, and walk away if he can’t or won’t meet it. Him doing a bunch of other things I like does not mean that he has met my price, or that I must trust that he will deliver. He can’t know me from Adam, but he could estimate that my price would get support for him from some people, and lose support for him from other people, and make his decision accordingly.

    For some of us it is more emotional than that.

    Comment by BobtheRegisterredFool — 11/25/2018 @ 6:04 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Live Preview


Powered by WordPress.