Patterico's Pontifications

9/3/2010

Weigel Apologizes

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:04 pm



It’s a little defensive, but it’s an apology. It’s titled “Mea Culpa to Patterico and Allahpundit.” Weigel quotes Allahpundit — who, as you will recall, said this about the Discovery Channel gunman:

I’m not going to blame the actions of a nut on all lefties and environmentalists. I will, however, be sure to remind them of this the next time they pull that on the right. Which they do, merrily, at every conceivable opportunity.

Weigel then says:

The “so it’s only fair” reference referred to those last two sentences, which struck me as a very strong nudge — blaming the left without blaming the left. I didn’t click on it again and didn’t read the post later, but Allah updated it a few times to make it clear that he really, really wasn’t making that nudge.

I’m not sure what “blaming the left without blaming the left” means. Perhaps a little more clarity is in order? Allahpundit did not blame the left for the gunman. He did blame the left for blaming the right every time some arguably conservative nut does something violent. These are two separate concepts, and mushing them together under one giant “blaming the left” rubric serves to confuse rather than clarify. But let’s allow Weigel to continue:

This was all Wednesday. On Thursday blogger Patterico put up a post accusing me of an “appallingly uncharitable reading” of Allahpundit and demanding “some kind of apology and clarification.” He tweeted to get my attention, and I blew him off as an attention-seeker who was distorting what I wrote by implying that I considered Allahpundit one of the blame-the-left types. I thought it was clear I considered him part of a much smaller team — the I’m-not-going-to-blame-the-left-but-they-sure-blame-us types. Even then, though, there’s a pretty big difference between those teams.

The thing of it is that since I started appearing in more places to talk about my work, I’ve attracted a large number of critics. Some of them act in good faith and make smart critiques that improve my work. Some of them are, frankly, trolls. After I started to attract a steady stream of personal attacks I decided to institute a policy of 1) reiterating what I said and then 2) ignoring the critic. I originally misidentified Patterico as a troll, because the tone of the post made it sound like an assumed-guilty indictment and his demand for clarification came very late at night. It just didn’t strike me as a good faith criticism at first.

But the truth was that Patterico was trying to prevent a misleading reference from living on the Internet forever and portraying Allahpundit as saying something he didn’t say. I totally get that. I apologize to both of them. I always prefer e-mails about this stuff to blog posts and tweets, but forget it, Jake. It’s the Internet.

A few quibbles. First, I sent out my Twitter message at around 9 p.m. last night. How does the timing of that message have any relevance to my good faith?

Second, Weigel may think that he was clear that Allahpundit was one of those “I’m-not-going-to-blame-the-left-but-they-sure-blame-us types” — but in fact, he wasn’t clear about that, at all. If he had been, there would have been no need for my post. Instead, he seemed fairly clear that he was accusing Allahpundit of subtly hinting that the gunman was indeed representative of the left.

Finally, I’m a blogger. My criticisms tend to be public. If Weigel is going to lay out Allahpundit publicly (and unfairly), he can’t really complain when someone responds publicly.

Those concerns aside, I am happy to see that Weigel now sees that his post left an unfair impression, and I appreciate his issuing an apology. I accept it.

91 Responses to “Weigel Apologizes”

  1. Yes, we know he prefers e-mail. E-mail where he can talk bout setting Matt Drudge on fire. E-mail where he can urge his colleagues to stop talking about stories he doesn’t like. E-mail where he can urge his colleagues to spin the Mass-Sen election the way he likes. E-mail he can pretend got caught in his spam filter. E-mail he can delete.

    It’s nice that he apologized – just like it was nice when he admitted to acting like a complete jackass in the comments to a Reason post about his work. But it would be nicer if he had learned anything from these incidents.

    Karl (83846d)

  2. I always prefer e-mails about this stuff to blog posts and tweets, but forget it, Jake. It’s the Internet.

    No, Weigel, it’s you. Even in your apology, you can’t take full responsibility for your actions.

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

  3. weigel only sad
    his stuff misinterpreted
    correctly I think

    ColonelHaiku (619fc9)

  4. After I started to attract a steady stream of personal attacks I decided to institute a policy of 1) reiterating what I said and then 2) ignoring the critic.

    This seems like a really good-faith manner in which to evaluate one’s work.

    I don’t buy, for one second, that he did not know who Patterico was and simply dismissed his criticism as a troll.

    JD (8ded14)

  5. anyone that was on journolist shouldn’t be working for Washington Post Co don’t they have any standards anymores?

    That was corruption. Simple as that.

    Apology not accepted add me to the people who think you’re a corrupt douche you’ve collected.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  6. that doesn’t really scan very good huh

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  7. weigel still juicing
    with juicebox mafia but
    shoot rubber bullets

    ColonelHaiku (619fc9)

  8. if we were having shrimp cocktail I would say here Mr. P here is a tasty shrimp and some tasty red sauce and here’s one for Mr. Karl and here is one for you JD and here Colonel here is a tasty shrimp for you too and then I would get to this Weigel person and I would say sorry corrupt journolist douchebags don’t get tasty shrimps too bad so sad

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  9. Then I would give Weigel mine. Because I don’t like shrimp cocktail.

    Unless someone else wanted seconds.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  10. I don’t mean to disparaging about this, but Weigel is just a kid playing an adult game.

    That’s not necessarily bad, but it’s obvious that his mentors are bankrupt in advice. They are to blame.

    I have no doubt he is smart and clued in to the latest and most fabulous thinking. But that is his only experience.

    Being a go-to guy on the Web can be exciting. When you are given the go ahead to be the voice of a respected media conglomerate without the advice of some sort of reasoned professional or the threat of being fired, you tend to look foolish.

    When you go against a lawyer with real-world experience, you tend to look stupid.

    When you participate in some sort of echo-chamber listserv to advance your causes, you tend to look like a tool.

    And you’re opinion ceases to matter.

    Ag80 (2f74a7)

  11. Did you know Weigel has a chronic skin condition what makes him look funny?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  12. The thing of it is that since I started appearing in more places to talk about my work, I’ve attracted a large number of critics…

    Subtext: He still thinks he’s vastly more important than he is.

    Karl (83846d)

  13. Before tonight I thought only pompous actresses and actors talk about “my work”.

    elissa (5953ce)

  14. sub-subtext: more people notice that he’s logically-challenged

    Lord Nazh (821ae1)

  15. 9pm is midnight on the east coast, and as we all know “everyone important” lives on the east coast.

    The point is that Weigel, in response to criticism, became lazy and instituted a “policy” that amounts to “I dig in my heels and then ignore critics I think are beneath me.”

    That smacks of arrogance and ignorance.

    Weigel has dropped so many tiers on my esteemometer that I cannot even begin to count the them.

    Christian (c92ec1)

  16. He made the error in public. Why rely on private email to get the correction across? It sounds like Weigel has a lot of critics, after all.

    The reason is that he doesn’t want to be embarrassed. This is really misguided thinking on his part. His reaction was a lot more embarrassing than the initial error. All he had to do was not reply at all until he had a chance to look over the claim, or even post a comment saying he is busy and will look into it soon. It was such a simple little detail to get straight… he should have done so.

    He’s got a really bad reputation with regard to basic integrity, so he really missed an opportunity here to show he’s growing from all the embarrassments he’s faced recently.

    But at least he issued a correction. AP gets so much flack for this kind of fairness approach, and it was ugly to paint him as the opposite. Weigel doesn’t really even have a leg to stand on when it comes to ‘let’s find some freaks to tarnish our enemies with’.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  17. Goodnight, racists.

    JD (8ded14)

  18. Yes, he is honorable like when defended O’Keefe against Blumenthal, and Sarah against some of the crazier allegations in that VF piece of trash, but he could admit a) there’s a fair numberof crazy people in the left ranks, b) unlike the many phantom attacks attributed to the Tea Party, does he want a medal for that

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  19. I’m glad so many piled on that Vanity Fair nonsense. I am pretty surprised by that, but then, the article is pretty atrocious.

    This isn’t supererogatory… this is what they should have done many times by now. But still, good for Weigel for being among those who won’t abide that kind of hitjob. It just seems odd that several folks changed course at the exact same time on this sort of thing. I would be surprised if Dave and his friends are again using some sort of Journ-o-list scheme.

    For Dave in particular, it’s easy to wonder if he’s completely faking his civility in one case, just to bolster an attack in another case. Just a shame he went down that road. I guess you do what you have to do to get a career in that field these days.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  20. It was bad ‘Leonard Pinth-Garnell,’ Bulwer-Lytton,
    ‘it was a dark and stormy night’, bad, they haven’t learned their lesson from last year, when they had
    that slug put forward many of the same allegations first

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  21. Dan Ackroyd…might be my favorite SNL sketch of all time…he didn’t do it often, but, it was always funny….can’t find any of the videos…

    reff (176333)

  22. Here’s one bit, I’m sure there are more on Youtube:
    http://www.hulu.com/watch/4128/saturday-night-live-bad-ballet

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  23. “Dan Ackroyd…might be my favorite SNL sketch of all time”

    reff – Bass-O-Matic

    daleyrocks (940075)

  24. Well done.

    First and foremost, to Allahpundit for providing a fair, measured analysis of who is responsible for Lee’s crime and subsequent death.

    Two, to you for coming to Allahpundit’s defense when he was unfairly mischaracterized and accused by Weigel.

    And three, to Weigel for finally acknowledging his error and apologizing to both of you.

    Hip hip, hurray, Patterico. That’s the spirit. People like Weigel have to be held to account when they publicly and unjustly damage another person’s reputation for fairness, whether that’s a result of their error or blatant bias.

    And I for one know of none fairer than Allahpundit. Weigel should learn that fact too. If he misjudged you, Patterico, he sure as heck misjudged AP.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  25. Had the privilage years ago to meet Ackroyd, Jim Belushi, and John Goodman after a “Blues Brothers” show at the House of Blues in New Orleans…..about 2 in the morning, eating beginets at Cafe duMonde’ at Jackson Square. The three of them were real class, taking time to visit and take pics with the family, and the few sitting around….talked for about a half hour, then asked for privacy, which all gave them, even to the point of stopping others from approaching, telling of their wishes….they left about 3AM, and thanked us for their visit…imagine…they thanked us….

    reff (176333)

  26. The fact that he didn’t know who you are and how you operate stands as enough evidence that he shouldn’t be writing about conservatives on the net.

    breitbartfan77 (6bd10f)

  27. Yes drocks….thanks ian!

    reff (176333)

  28. #8 #9

    That cracked me up.

    Dave Surls (387634)

  29. Christoph,

    I may have removed the last barrier to your comments appearing outside of moderation.

    Try again.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  30. Testing.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  31. Worked.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  32. Everyone here, Patterico to start out, but then absolutely everyone, is being so reasonable, so magnanimous, so … so damned GRACIOUS about a reporter who regularly reaches an audience of several millions, maybe over 10 million daily, issuing a public apology, reinforced by a twitter message mind you, to a semi-pro blogger with a regular daily of audience of maybe a hundredth of that, physically located several thousands of miles away and holding to a set of values that makes him almost indistinguishable from hundreds to thousands of dittoheads, his main distinction being that his willingness to attempt to couch many of those values in the law and submit it for potential public scrutiny, where Weigel does not even have the legal background to suggest the slightest reason for picking up on that distinction … wow.

    Actually, I doubt Weigel spends any time whatsoever on blogs like volokh, scotusblog, lawyers-guns-and-money or balkinization, and probably has never even heard or read of the existence of some of them. I also suggest (and maybe this is related) he probably gets repeated twitter mortarings every day like the one Patterico launched today, and that they mostly ARE issued by Trolliban. Malcolm Gladwell wrote an entire best-selling book about the sort of sliced knowledge it takes for us to get through our days by routinely dismissing these sorts of things on appearance.

    On the issue of appearance, the earlier post from Patterico shows, or at least hints, at how this particular twit-challenge went. And just off that appearance, jumping to the conclusion of it having issued from the one those huddled for warmth about the vents of Hot Air looks like a pretty damned reasonable assessment. You could almost suggest Patterico deserves some of the blame here, for not having found a way to frame his challenge in a way that dramatically increased the likelihood of it being just crazed over-focused ranting from some pantless house-of-mom-based simpleton.

    Or I could suggest that — and do.

    shooter (32dc25)

  33. Huh?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  34. I’m pretty sure you were linked while Weigal was at Reason. Either way, your conservative weblog is popular enough that a conservative reporter/watchdog extraordinaire should be familiar.

    I’m not a frequent commenter* anywhere, but I do manage a few HnR threads a week. With the likes of Doherty and Ward, it’s just amazing that Weigel was and still is so hated. If making fun of stupid conservatives leads to hatred with that crowd, there’s a serious (inability-to-hide) bias issue. I used to believe media bias was more of a guild thing that just happened to lean overwhelmingly left. Then the last three years happened.

    *I haven’t read through the recent posts’ comments yet, but I really like the idea of encouraging lurkers. I used to read the comments, but they’re too predictable now. Any deviation from the consensus is treated as trolling.

    el duderino (fedc3d)

  35. An immature, partisan, contemptible hack who issues a half-hearted apology is still an immature, partisan, contemptible hack.

    Murgatroyd (fd5fcd)

  36. Gladwell, Ha!

    el duderino (fedc3d)

  37. Thanks for troubleshooting.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  38. I think that you are defining apologies down.
    Notice how Weigel includes his mitigating circumstances…He thought Patterico (or who ever) was a troll, it was ‘late at night’…none of which have any bearing on the issue.

    Mea culpa? (Which means “through my own fault”.)

    Pat, you are still falling into the trap of the double standard at play. Weigel’s headline should have read “Mea culpa, but it’s still your fault, not mine”, because you still get blamed.

    And Weigel uses these mitigating circumstances as
    though they are some how rules (which only apply to him of course): I’m not really wrong if I think some one is a troll. I’m not really wrong if the tweet comes in at night. And I’m not really wrong if it isn’t in my preferred format (email or twitter).

    What should you do on this blog? Keep exposing
    morally dishonest bastards like Weigel, because you know what? While practically no leftists are like that nut job Lee, they mostly are all like Weigel, except more of them know the difference between true and false.

    But we can’t expect Weigel to make such distinctions;
    he’s a journolist. (Whether he was on the list or not.)

    And let me illustrate Weigel’s game: If a democrat is 99% wrong, and 1% right, he’s right. If a
    conservative is 99% right, and 1% wrong, he’s wrong.

    Pat, I think that you are confusing acknowledgment (in this case, Weigel recognizing he has to address the issue) with apology. Weigel, OTH, is not confusing journalism with propaganda….he crossed that line a long time ago.

    Jack (e383ed)

  39. Patterico – He had no clue who you were. He probably gets tons of rapid-fire repeat twitter messages; after all, America is a big town (from the Paul Mazurksy movie Moscow on the Hudson). And I am suggesting that the way you framed your challenge — which you produced, I assume accurately, on an earlier post — may have given off a certain impression from the manner of its framing.

    That said, I take it your challenge was all twit-based, which may well support the Weigel reaction was partly owing to the inherent limits of the app. when you and Eric Boehlert go toe-to-toe, they are typically post v post battles. Twitter comes across more like bitch-slapping (Colbert called it twattering.). In my opinion, what Weigel did was worth a post v post confrontation. Interestingly, it was Weigel who took it there, using a tweet to point it out.

    Weigel was wrong on several counts, but the issue of the wrongness on his assumption about what Allahpundit posted is actually more interesting and important than his mistakening you for Trollibani. It holds the potential to start a conversation on a topic of specific importance (being the use of the Discovery channel incident as an analog for the I-take-the-president-at-his-word strategy on growing birtherism — which is what I think Weigel jumped at as really going on) and another of more constant general importance (the difference between looking at Washington from the outside versus looking at America from Washington). Twitter was the wrong means to challenge Weigel on his leap to judgment; twitter pointing to a post would have been better.

    Looked at it this way, I think an opportunity was wasted here. The Boehlert-Patterico battles were fought on the right ground and thus were more satisfying. As it stands, we are still left to guess at how Weigel made the leap to analog.

    shooter (32dc25)

  40. Patterico – He had no clue who you were.

    Then he has a poor memory. He has posted about me before.

    Research first, shoot your mouth off second.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  41. The Boehlert-Patterico battles were fought on the right ground and thus were more satisfying.

    If you followed those, you must know he banned me for dissenting and exposing his dishonesty.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  42. Jack,

    If you read the post, I didn’t let Weigel get away with anything. But if he wants to call it an apology, I’ll accept it — while still pointing out the numerous ways that he hedged and evaded full responsibility.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  43. That said, I take it your challenge was all twit-based, which may well support the Weigel reaction was partly owing to the inherent limits of the app. when you and Eric Boehlert go toe-to-toe, they are typically post v post battles. Twitter comes across more like bitch-slapping (Colbert called it twattering.). In my opinion, what Weigel did was worth a post v post confrontation. Interestingly, it was Weigel who took it there, using a tweet to point it out.

    You take it wrong. I did a full post. That full post is linked in my first Twitter message. Interestingly, it was I who took it there, using a tweet to point it out. Interestingly, you completely missed that fact.

    Research first, shoot your mouth off second. You’re starting to make a habit of getting basic facts wrong in your comments. It’s not a good habit. I recommend you break yourself of it.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  44. Twitter was the wrong means to challenge Weigel on his leap to judgment; twitter pointing to a post would have been better.

    Indeed. And that is precisely what I did. How could you have possibly missed that fact? Did you see the link in my first Twitter message to Weigel? Didja wonder what that was?

    There’s a great way of finding out what links say. It’s called clicking on them. You didn’t do it. I suspect Weigel didn’t either.

    Not my problem.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  45. el duderino,

    I have been reading Gladwell’s books of late and am enjoying them. You didn’t?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  46. No books, but I read his blog every so often. I’m a science guy and he’s a Utopian liberal sans left brain. His blog just has no substance whatsoever. The best analogy I can think of is E Klein. Without any knowledge of the material, he makes sweeping statements based on research he’s not educated enough to understand.

    I can’t understate how little respect I have for his stuff. I disagree with Nate Silver’s political and SABR stuff, but he’s a smart guy doing well in his field. Gladwell OTOH is a hack with only an artist wit to criticize stuff he reflexively disagrees with. If he wrote scifi I’d probably read a book on the beach every so often, but he takes himself seriously. And I don’t.

    el duderino (fedc3d)

  47. By left I meant right. Damn my right hand.

    el duderino (fedc3d)

  48. From Weigel’s article:

    I originally misidentified Patterico as a troll, because the tone of the post made it sound like an assumed-guilty indictment and his demand for clarification came very late at night. It just didn’t strike me as a good faith criticism at first. [emphasis added]

    I couldn’t care less about any skin conditions of Mr. Weigel or anyone else, and though I fully understand that the only reason he’s getting comments on that is to show him what grade school level petty insults look like when they are directed back at him, I urge people not to continue that.

    But what amuses me is Weigel’s conviction that any post coming in late at night is automatically suspect or to be taken less seriously.

    One would think he wasn’t aware of the existence of other time zones/countries, or even that other people even in his time zone live on a different schedule than he does.

    The parochialism of far-left-liberals, who continually lecture others on their lack of proper cosmopolitan views, is something they never realize they’re exposing in themselves until it’s too late, and always good for a smile.

    no one you know (6631bc)

  49. This controversy and comment thread strike me as a bunch of self-important individuals taking themselves WAY too seriously. Deciding someone is or isn’t a journalist and claiming he lacks moral integrity because he doesn’t respond to a query the way you judge he should is self-deception. You simply don’t like what he has to say, so you attempt to belittle his honesty and credentials. And the argument that Weigel is a parochial far-left liberal because he mentions that he reacted to a tweet received late at night is beyond laughable. He simply was tired after a busy 24 hours, as he said. Folks: get over yourselves!

    wolverstone (d1265d)

  50. Actually Weigel has really received more than the benefit of the doubt, since he defended Joe McGuinness’s provocation, since he has pretended
    that Col. West’s statements about radical Islam and the GZM are without foundation, that the investigation into Rangel and Waters, is about race,
    and not plain old fashion corruption. He’s better
    than Boehlert and Friedman, (any of them) but that’s not saying much

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  51. “Everyone here, Patterico to start out, but then absolutely everyone, is being so reasonable, so magnanimous, so … so damned GRACIOUS about a reporter who regularly reaches an audience of several millions”

    shooter – I thought Weigel was an inexperienced 20 something blogger. Am I wrong?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  52. Speaking of “puerile”, one thing I’ve gleaned
    about these journo-listers is that they’re
    really nothing but a bunch of 20-something know-
    nothings. They’re like the ill-mannered children
    at a family gathering, sassing their elders, speaking when not spoken-to, and lacking the slightest grasp of what they don’t know/have yet to learn.

    Until the kiddies get a few more years’ shoe-leather under their belts, they’re not fit to carry Frank Rich’s or Paul Krugman’s cafeteria trays.

    P.S. Rangel and Waters is indeed about racism. Please take up that with House Ethics Committee Chairman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA). Why isn’t Jane Schakowsky (D-IL) in the dock for helping bail out the bank that bailed out her
    check-kiting husband?
    Because she’s WHITE! And the Democrat leadership are RAC…er, never mind.

    furious (71af32)

  53. And the argument that Weigel is a parochial far-left liberal because he mentions that he reacted to a tweet received late at night is beyond laughable. He simply was tired after a busy 24 hours, as he said. Folks: get over yourselves!

    Comment by wolverstone — 9/4/2010 @ 6:31 am

    Sorry I wasn’t more clear. Mr. Weigel said that he suspected bad faith was both the perceived tone, and the time, of the post. IOW both reason related to how the post came in; Weigel said nothing about being tired. So not only do we have the parochialism of assuming that posts sent late at night are more likely from less serious people, but we have the forgetting that late night receipt doesn’t equal late-night sending.

    So either parochialism, or definite inability to properly convey his meaning; am not sure which sounds worse for his reputation as a journalist. Not that he had a stellar one to protect in any case. But you knew that. 🙂

    no one you know (6631bc)

  54. ==attempt to belittle his honesty and credentials==

    Dictionary.com defines “credentials” thusly:
    credentials. evidence of authority, status, rights, entitlement to privileges, or the like, usually in written form:

    Besides his recent college degree, a level of academic attainment not unusual in America these days, just what are young David’s “credentials”?

    elissa (5953ce)

  55. buncha typos; sorry.

    no one you know (6631bc)

  56. Ah, but you forget, hubby Schakowsky (nee Creamer)
    wrote the health care and stimulus strategy, while
    in prison

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  57. elissa – I did not know that Paul Ryan was in town fund raising for Joel Pollak, Schakowsky’s opponent this past week. Gateway Pundit has a write up of the lunch at the Four Seasons. I would have been tempted to go.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  58. One would think he wasn’t aware of the existence of other time zones/countries, or even that other people even in his time zone live on a different schedule than he does.

    One would think that, except that he writes about having a girlfriend in Alaska. Which makes the whole “late at night” excuse sound even more like the BS it is.

    Karl (83846d)

  59. Weigel operates on a middle school level. He is basically throwing spitballs to get traffic.

    The WaPo should be shamed. Oh well, they’re half dead anyway.

    Patricia (358f54)

  60. Well he’s moved on to Slate, which is kind of a lateral promotion

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  61. He simply was tired after a busy 24 hours, as he said. Folks: get over yourselves!

    and the dog ate his homework;
    his clock alarm in the morning didn’t go off;
    he had a bad cold and took medicine that made his mental state fuzzy

    So tired, so lame, so hacktastic.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  62. Daley–I didn’t know about it either until after the fact. I saw a short, wickedly good video of Pollak speaking at that event posted at a different site (the CapitolFax blog) on Thursday. The vid captured Pollak’s command of the crowd, his knowledge of his district’s needs, his sense of humor and his intelligence. It says something about the current state of Dem collapse that a big gun such as Paul Ryan was in the 9th to fundraise in a genuine attempt to take down the evil witch Schakowsky’s “safe” seat. According to Pollak they raised $150,000 that day. He did some ribbing of Schakowsky’s campaign manager who has apparently been stalking Pollak and who was sitting right there at the fundraiser. And Pollak obliquely referred to Schakowsky’s “friends” (Code Pinkos who were picketing outside).

    Pollak’s famous line is: “I will represent you to Washington. Jan Schakowsky has been busy representing Washington to you.” Good stuff. My district is the next one up the shore so I can’t vote for Pollak, but whatever happens in November I think he has a bright political future. I like Dold, too.

    elissa (5953ce)

  63. It’s very comforting to tell yourself that your critics aren’t acting in good faith. Especially when they are in the group that you criticize for a living.

    MayBee (1127e0)

  64. Karl is unusually quippy!

    Comment #1 is the best, IMO. This is a guy who really does love keeping reality hidden in his inbox.

    “He simply was tired after a busy 24 hours”

    He slurred an innocent person and was rude when a prominent journalist (Patterico) that he was familiar with brought it to his attention. the time he spent twittering ad homs was far greater than the time it took me to realize Patterico was correct.

    It’s no surprise he’s tired. He could have saved a ton of time right here by simply checking the correction out.

    All this ‘woe woe woe’ to poor Dave Weigel is just hilarious. If he isn’t up to the job of …whatever he thinks he’s doing, without getting it all wrong, then he should find another line of work. And honestly, the evidence is really piling up that he lacks the character or work ethic to be in his business. Maybe he should ‘start’ writing fiction novels.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  65. You people are pathetic.

    wolverstone (d1265d)

  66. We’ve all given examples of where Weigel has either gotten facts manifestly wrong, or just shown bad editorial judgement, so the next step is the dismissal. I’ve pointed out a few times when he has
    been up to the task,

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  67. You people are pathetic.

    Comment by wolverstone

    Getting this stuff accurate is not pathetic to me.

    What’s pathetic is that anyone got Allahpundit’s very important ideal completely backwards. It was a low blow.

    this ‘you people’ business sounds like you have an us vs them attitude about politics and can’t offer common respect. I guess I’m attacking you instead of your argument. Maybe you could help me out by making an argument.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  68. To say the Democrats and their media aren’t responsible for this Lee guy is like saying Jim Jones wasn’t responsible for the people who lifted the kool aid cup to their own lips.

    j curtis (4b7d63)

  69. Some explanations, since my message has obviously not been understood.
    “What’s pathetic is that anyone got Allahpundit’s very important ideal completely backwards. It was a low blow.” Weigel reacted to this statement: ” I will, however, be sure to remind them of this the next time they pull that on the right.” And this is an “ideal” to be praised?
    “He simply was tired after a busy 24 hours” The point was that it was late for him, versus the ridiculous conclusion that he doesn’t realize there are other time zones and is, thus, “parochial” — not to mention that this reveals he must be a “far-left liberal.”
    “this ‘you people’ business sounds like you have an us vs them attitude about politics and can’t offer common respect.” This statement exemplifies my overarching point. It implies my comment comes from a political bias, rather than it simply reflecting use of a grammatical choice to reference those who have blogged or commented. Political bias by those blogging and commenting is my point. Those who have taken issue with how Weigel handled this “controversy” and choose, as a result, to criticize his competence as a journalist, are deluding themselves. It is not Weigel’s handling or competence that causes you discomfort, it is your perspective that he does not express the right (no pun intended) political spin in his work.
    I plan now to shake the dust off my shoes and leave this site for good.

    wolverstone (d1265d)

  70. “You people are pathetic.”

    No, what’s pathetic is the fact that anyone connected with JournoList is still employed in the media or academia.

    What’s pathetic is that there are people in this world who would believe a single word that comes out of the mouth of scum like Weigel, or his friends at JournoList.

    That’s what’s pathetic.

    Dave Surls (445764)

  71. wolverstone, your comment #66 was nothing but an insult of everybody you don’t agree with.

    It was my mistake replying to it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  72. Dustin, ask around for the genesis of this statement:


    “I work here is done.”

    It’ll make you smile.

    Eric Blair (58b0cf)

  73. The point was that it was late for him, versus the ridiculous conclusion that he doesn’t realize there are other time zones and is, thus, “parochial” — not to mention that this reveals he must be a “far-left liberal.”
    Comment by wolverstone — 9/4/2010 @ 10:00 am

    *laughs gently* So to recap, I guess:
    missed sarcasm re: time zones: check
    Failure to realize Weigel said nothing whatever in the apology about 24 hours or tiredness or anything of the sort: check
    getting cause vs effect on “far left liberal” comment exactly backward: check (hmmm…another thing gotten backwards — are we sure this ip doesn’t match the one from Weigel’s comment? Note to wolverstone: that’s a joke)

    Hmmm. Perhaps it’s late where you are. 🙂 Hope you get some rest and have a good evening.

    I plan now to shake the dust off my shoes and leave this site for good.

    Oh, don’t go away now. You’re too much fun.

    no one you know (6631bc)

  74. “Although they make a lot of noises they got nuthin’ to say.”
    — Graham Parker

    Eh, no respect for Wagal, or whatever the fuck his name is.

    (spits)

    d. in c. (a606ad)

  75. wolverstone, your comment #66 was nothing but an insult of everybody you don’t agree with.
    Comment by Dustin — 9/4/2010 @ 10:14 am

    Am sure commenters like wolverstone have no idea how delighted, and amused, we are to read comments like that (or they wouldn’t make them): it’s their clear admission that they don’t have a substantive reply.

    no one you know (6631bc)

  76. “I work here is done.”

    It’ll make you smile.

    Comment by Eric Blair — 9/4/2010 @ 10:16 am

    I like it whenever you bring that up, Eric; it still makes me laugh after all this time.

    no one you know (6631bc)

  77. wolverstone–
    It is not clear why you are so protective of Weigel, or why you feel obligated to call people you don’t even know “pathetic”. From plumbers to surgeons to writers, true professionals in all fields recognize that they need to consistently demonstrate competence (which includes the application of skills, honest dealings and personal ethics), and to respectfully use the tools of the trade (both the physical and intellectual ones) in order to achieve respect as a professional in the first place.

    Mr Weigel is still young and seemingly at a crossroads. He has been blessed to receive an education and some recognition early in his career which obviously gives him confidence. He shows flashes of real talent from time to time. But what he has not done so far is demonstrate journalistic competence or intellectual integrity in a consistent manner. Nor has he shown respect for his chosen profession or for other practitioners of it on a consistent basis. Rather, he frequently comes across as a mean, arrogant, juvenile hack. That is a big problem if he wants to be taken seriously. David better figure out (and soon) who he is and what he wants to be when he grows up. Few get the chances he has had and he often does not appear to be using those opportunities particularly wisely.

    elissa (5953ce)

  78. Those who have taken issue with how Weigel handled this “controversy” and choose, as a result, to criticize his competence as a journalist

    Comment by Weigel Sockpuppet

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  79. I plan now to shake the dust off my shoes and leave this site for good.

    Oh. And here I was about to respond to you.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  80. Sorry, Patterico. I think wolverstone’s work is done.

    Eric Blair (58b0cf)

  81. “That is a big problem if he wants to be taken seriously.”

    Who cares what this punk wants? Just blow him out the fucking hatch like the monster in “Alien” — another critter who refused to let go no matter what.

    Scuse me now I need a new roll of toilet tissue after reading about this journo-zit for more seconds than he merits. Another minute of my life that I won’t get back, thanks Dave Waggle or whatevs…

    d. in c. (a606ad)

  82. Comment by Patterico — 9/4/2010 @ 10:40 am

    Oh, go ahead. You know he’s reading the thread. 😉 And then he can either sit there and steam or come back and call us more names and then we can make fun of the fact that he came back, like that other recent poster. Either way, more fun for us.

    no one you know (6631bc)

  83. ==It is not Weigel’s handling or competence that causes you discomfort, it is your perspective that he does not express the right (no pun intended) political spin==

    Maybe it’s just me, but I get real tetchy when someone tries to put words in my mouth and place thoughts in my head and attribute motivations to my actions–that just aren’t there.

    elissa (5953ce)

  84. Elissa, I think that many people can project their own issues onto others. I see it in the classroom all the time: students are sure they know what I am thinking, but really resent assumptions made about themselves.

    I keep that in mind when I get told by progressives what conservatives think (or that recent “voters having a tantrum” business from Eugene Robinson).

    It cuts both ways, of course.

    Eric Blair (58b0cf)

  85. “And this is an “ideal” to be praised?”

    wolverine – No, I missed praise part. The mistake was Weigel’s misreading of that sentence as the central tenet of Allahpundit’s post, but you already know that.

    Sigh.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  86. Have we seen “shooter” since I showed the basic premise of his criticism to be false?

    No?

    Odd, that.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  87. noyk,

    OK.

    “Those who have taken issue with how Weigel handled this “controversy” and choose, as a result, to criticize his competence as a journalist, are deluding themselves. It is not Weigel’s handling or competence that causes you discomfort, it is your perspective that he does not express the right (no pun intended) political spin in his work.”

    No, for me it was his decision to give an airy wave of the hand to criticism he now admits was on target — and, worse, to do it in an obnoxious manner that suggested I was doing it only for traffic.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  88. shooter?

    Oh, shoo-ter?!

    Patterico (c218bd)

  89. Anybody else think that Wolverstone might actually be a different guy with a name that starts with “W”? perhaps speaking about himself in the third person?

    Icy Texan (c067d2)

  90. Hmmm.

    I read Dave Weigel … ok so I don’t.

    Doesn’t impact my life either way really.

    memomachine (24fbc0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2838 secs.