When you see an Instapundit link that says “White House official calls gays part of ‘Internet left fringe,” what do you think happened?
A) A White House official called gays part of the “Internet left fringe.”
B) A White House official called certain groups on the left that press for gay issues as part of the “Internet left fringe.”
C) An MSM reporter who appeared on a TV show made the claim that the White House views certain groups on the left that press for gay issues as part of the “Internet left fringe.”
D) An MSM reporter who appeared on a TV show made the claim that the White House views its “opposition” on the left as part of the the “Internet left fringe,” although it wasn’t entirely clear from the context whether the reference to its “opposition” specifically meant gay-rights groups or the opposition on the left as a whole.
My best sense is that in this case, the answer for what happened is “D.”
Nate says:
What I think happened is that a reasonable, intelligent law professor (i.e. Orin Kerr) reads nonsense conservative blogs. Let’s all hope Professor Kerr has learned his lesson.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 12:45 amDG says:
the “nonsense conservative blog” in question, Instapundit, reliably supports gay rights.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 1:03 amAnon21 says:
And also reliably bitches about, distorts the positions of, and generally lies about Democratic politicians of all descriptions.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 1:20 amTTC says:
Wow, all Instapundit did was link to a lefty gay blog post that talked about an MSNBC report about what a white house official said.
That’s some right wing nonsense there.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 1:27 amCareless says:
After reading A the answer was obviously D. Reading B made that 100% certain. Law school tests aren’t this easy, right?
Quote
October 12, 2009, 1:58 amRandy says:
What’s weird is that this White House person seems to think that the country is deeply divided. Last time I checked, the Dems controlled both houses in congress and the WH by wide margins. In addition, they still enjoy high poll ratings. Even more, support for such things as repealing DADT are at 70% for all Americans.
The WH is clearly watching Glen Beck a little too often.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 2:04 amCrazyTrain says:
Instapundit said something that is misleading? It cant be.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 2:06 amCrazyTrain says:
Yeah, but he just happens to ALWAYS vote for and spread propaganda on behalf of people who hate gays. Funny that.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 2:08 amCareless says:
I wonder if disapproval for gay marriage is so heavily loaded into the latino and black communities that it’s an actual electoral issue? If not, it must be irrelevant. I can’t see that many minorities leaving the democrats over DADT. It’s ridiculous that hasn’t been repealed this far into the first 21st century left of center presidency+Congress
Quote
October 12, 2009, 2:15 amKazinski says:
Wow.
Instapundit links to a progressive (“internet left fringe”) gay blog, uses the headline from the progressive gay blog without alteration, and the article that he links to is written by John Aravosis. Exerpt from his profile:
Reynolds doesn’t even quote Aravosis conclusion:
But somehow its Reynolds that did something wrong. It is unbelievable how sensitive some people are to any criticism of Obama. Not only must he not be criticized, no links to criticism are allowed either.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 2:17 amRandy says:
“lthough it wasn’t entirely clear from the context whether the reference to its “opposition” specifically meant gay-rights groups or the opposition on the left as a whole.”
Either way, it’s pretty darn idiotic, actually. If the WH really believes that the opposition is the left as a whole, then that pretty much explains Obama’s lack of any real change since he was elected.
Obama has a strange relationship with the bloggers. He ignored them throughout most of the campaign. Then when things stalled for him, he suddenly found them. Now he just wants them all to go away.
This man and all his advisors are still stuck in the 1990s, and they haven’t grasped the significant change from the new generation and web based technology.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 2:43 amOrin Kerr says:
Kazinski writes:
In my experience, it’s pretty sloppy to just quote a headline from another blog without first checking if the headline is accurate, at least when it is pretty easy to see that the headline is in fact inaccurate. (I don’t know of why the political orientation of the blog that is linked to somehow makes it okay, but I’m interested in knowing why if you think it does.)
Quote
October 12, 2009, 2:57 amDoc Merlin says:
Um, last I checked, Glen Beck was pro gay marriage being legal.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 3:36 amDoc Merlin says:
Um, no he doesn’t.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 3:37 amDoc Merlin says:
Mmmm, delicious, delicious BS
Quote
October 12, 2009, 3:39 amKazinski says:
Orin,
the specific quote was “the White House views this opposition as really part of the Internet left fringe.” That seems very close to the headline and while that may be a paraphrase of what the White House official actually said, it probably reflects the both the meaning and the spirit of the remarks. Hence the outrage by the Internet left fringe.
I suppose Reynolds could have made the additional comment: “its unclear whether the White House actually used the term “Internet left fringe” or said the same thing using different words.” but that would be over his word limit.
It just seems to me that the outrage, at least by some, is not because Reynolds directly quoted a slightly inaccurate headline of a blog post that is accurate, but because he gave it a higher profile than it otherwise would have received.
I’m also pretty sure that Reynolds thought the attitude of the White House toward its supposed allies was more notable than the actual words used, and if he noticed the inaccuracy then he probably figured that anybody who cared would click thru and decide for themselves. Just like you did.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 3:44 amJames N. Gibson says:
I think you need to recheck your polls. With all the Healthcare issues Barrack’s poll numbers, in general, are in the 50s, and the last time I looked at Congresses, if it wasn’t for incumbency and gerrymandering, the whole lot would be out next year. Barrack has lost a great deal of political capital on Healthcare and he is basing both his re-election in 2012 and that of friends in the Congress in 2010 on a Economic resurgence by the summer of 2010. Most think that isn’t in the cards and one report suggests the economy won’t recover now until 2013.
So why start a second divisive issue when he already has so many on his plate: the economy, Healthcare, troops to Afghanistan, Cap & Trade. In other words, its like Barrack deciding to ban assault weapons tomorrow to do something for Sarah Brady.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 3:55 amLeo Marvin says:
What’s telling about this is that both partisan extremes find something useful in the same misleading headline.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 6:53 amDaniel Chapman says:
Without even looking at the blog, I choose “E: He linked to some other page without comment.”
That’s pretty much all Instapundit ever does.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 7:25 amanonymous says:
When called, I love it when these bloggers (Instapundit, Althouse, etc) admit they haven’t actually fully read the story they’ve so prominently linked to. It’s all about traffic for some, — numbers — and not substance, principle or consistency.
That flies now, but tomorrow?
Quote
October 12, 2009, 7:40 amRyan Waxx says:
In my experience, It’s damn sloppy to criticize someone for linking to an article as opposed to criticizing the writer. If one posits that you are complaining about the distortion, criticizing the distorter would be the way to go. If one posits that you are looking to score hackery points against a person or persons you don’t like, then your actual approach is the best way to do it.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 8:28 amMr says:
I can’t help but notice that the only time Obama actually changed his course in response to complaints from the gay community was when there was talk of withholding financial support.
Pity they didn’t learn the most important lesson the first time.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 8:41 amjohnny says:
E) Instapundit linked to the story with the same headline as the story had, as he so often does.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 8:43 amInstapundit » Blog Archive » WHITE HOUSE: Gay rights marchers? Where? “He knows this march is happening, and he can’t even … says:
[...] UPDATE: Orin Kerr seems to think my linking of John Aravosis’ headline above is misleading. Well, follow the [...]
DaveW says:
Yes, without comment and in an update to a post on a Gay Rights march.
Anyone familiar with Reynolds blog knows he does this often. One can assume he is endorsing the content of the blog post — Andrew Sullivan often does this as Kerr has done here — but it is an assumption.
Or if you are used to Reynolds’ blog you can go read the story and come away more informed than you were before. Informed about what? Well, taking the post in it’s entirety, there was a Gay Rights march in Washington yesterday (didn’t know that) and some elements of the Gay Rights crowd are angry enough with Obama that they’re flinging spittle on their monitors (didn’t know that either).
And I’m not even sure it is reasonable to say the linked blog post is portraying the White House reaction inaccurately. It is Aravosis’ reaction to a NBC report on the Gay Rights march wherein a WH spokesperson called the left lunatic fringe. Perhaps NBC spludged it all together and left a wrong impression about what the WH said, or perhaps Aravosis is just too angry to blog it accurately. My interest doesn’t extend as far as watching and analyzing the NBC piece.
Either way I came away better informed. And of course I had the choice to go to the link if the subject interested me or scroll on to the next if it did not.
Is Kerr unfamiliar with Reynolds’ blog or does Kerr dislike Reynolds and I have just missed that?
Quote
October 12, 2009, 9:01 amanonymous says:
Either way I came away better informed.
Obviously, the bar was set rather low to begin with... Cmon, Glenn Reynolds like to stir the pot, and he has definite political leanings, let’s leave it at that.
Good on Orin for calling him out the story linked, and remember — for whatever reason, these are stories Reyonolds selects to highlight on his blog. Of course, like DaveW above, if you didn’t know nothing bout this story and were relying on InstaLinker as primary editor to feed your knowledge, then I guess you get what you pay for, eh?
Oh, make sure you buy an Amazon book (or whatever!) or try one of the many products he’s sampling. New media has to feed their coffers too, you know, and those durned FTC regs might just prove too embarrassing for him to keep pushing the quantities of freebie stuff at the levels he does.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 9:18 amtom says:
The problem here is that blogs are often more like gossip over the back fence than actual news. Bob said that Carol said that Ted overheard Alice talking about “X”.
...or in this case Orin said that Instapundit said that AmericaBlog said that John Harwood of CNBC said that some guy at the White House told him “X”.
We treat this 5th-hand stuff like this as news, or even as being remotely factual, at our peril. If someone actually manages to get a primary source like that un-named “white house advisor” on the record that’s news. This is garbage.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 9:26 amSwamp Fox says:
Orin,
I don’t know what Glenn did to piss you off, but you’re the one whose coming across as being petty and exaggerating an issue. Indeed, it should clue you in that the only commenters who agree with you are those that think Glenn Reynolds is an evil conservative who hates gays and consistently lies, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 9:27 amanonymous says:
Swamp Fox:
I call you on your mischaracterization. Whassamatter? Nobody can criticize the InstaLinker without it being taken personally?
He linked cheaply, and got called on it. (as opposed to the hundreds of times, as people have noted above, he linked cheaply and didn’t get called on it.)
Nobody hates Glenn. Nobody thinks he “hates” gays or even consistently lies. Even in your “face of evidence to the contrary”.
Still, he’s not exactly in the gig to provide enlightenment on behalf of bettering the nation, or bring Americans together to confront the vexing problems we collectively face. Why so upset when another blogger points that out, referencing a particular link?
Quote
October 12, 2009, 9:36 amwesley says:
I can’t wrap my head around why Prof Kerr posted this. My best guess is it’s an attempt to signal his evenhandedness.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 9:49 amrpt says:
On a related issue, not related to the merits of the issue, it appears the DC weekend march had at least twice as many participants as the tea partiers/baggers. How does that affect the fringe analysis?
Quote
October 12, 2009, 9:50 amRandy says:
Doc: “Um, last I checked, Glen Beck was pro gay marriage being legal.”
Then it’s even worse that Obama continues to oppose it.
James Gibson: “So why start a second divisive issue when he already has so many on his plate: the economy, Healthcare, troops to Afghanistan, Cap & Trade.”
Because it isn’t divisive. When you have 70% of Americans back something, that’s as close to a consensus you will ever get in the US. The ones who remain opposed are the basically not supporters of Obama anyway, so whatever he does or doesn’t do will always piss them off.
I understand that he doesn’t want a repeat of Clinton’s blunder in 1993. But this isn’t 1993 — the world is vastly different today in 2009.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 9:57 amDaily Pundit » Evil Glenn says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » “White House Official Calls Gays Part of ‘Internet Left... [...]
geokstr says:
Oh, you mean like the entire old-line media, and nearly the entire professorial and entertainment universes do with Republicans/conservatives (actually anyone to the right of Josef/Fidel/Hugo)?
Yeah, right.
The entire media universe noted above uses one off the cuff guess of 70,000 tea partiers as gospel, while every objective analysis of any sort comes out a lot higher, generally with a lower limit of a quarter million and ranging into 7 figures.
And you won’t get off that damned disgusting sexual slur of “tea baggers”, will you, “fudge packer”?
Quote
October 12, 2009, 10:15 amShelbyC says:
Geez. The title of this post isn’t conveying factual information either. The post isn’t trying to tell us that a White House official may or may not have called gays a part of the internet left fringe, it’s a title framed in a certain way in order to make a point. As is the instapundit link.
So when I read the instapunding link or the Aravosis article, I don’t think “A”, I think that someone is trying to characterize whatever the White House did in this way in order to make a point.
Just like when I read the title of this post, I don’t think:
A) Orin believes that the White House may have called gays fringe lefties, but isn’t sure
I think Orin is trying to make a point with his title.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 10:47 amCynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian says:
I attended both the Tea Party march on 9/12 and the National Equality March on 10/11. I thought the Tea Party crowd size at the rally at the Capitol building was larger than the NEM, although not hugely so. The Tea Party march itself was MUCH, MUCH more densely packed than the NEM.
I have been trying to translate Obama-ese to gays and wrote in a post at my place, A Conservative Lesbian, that Obama told the attendees at the HRC banquet that he would get the legislation they want enacted when hell freezes over. I’m also trying to get them to realize that their window of opportunity to get our legislative priorities enacted shuts tight by the Thanksgiving recess of Congress. This is the time for gays to realize the Democrats do NOT plan to keep any of their promises to gays and never have. They should go on strike today and stop their labor and donations to all Democrats everywhere until AFTER the Democrats keep their promises to repeal DOMA, DADT and pass ENDA.
Oh, and I think Prof. Reynolds’ characterization of the Obama White House official’s remarks as quoted by a reporter on NBC is correct — Obama’s proxy just poked the bear that has made huge sacrifices to elect Obama and the bear is extremely savvy and just woke up to the realization that it has been betrayed.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 10:58 amOrin Kerr says:
Ryan Waxx:
Ryan, you don’t need to score hackery points against me: I don’t keep score, even for commenters such as yourself who clearly don’t like my posts. Anyway, next time you’re in town maybe you can buy my friend Glenn and I a beer to discuss it; I’m sure we’d both be happy to be the recipient of your apparent generosity of spirit.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 11:07 amjosh says:
Look, Reynolds has made a practice of breathlessly linking to posts, giving his readers the reasonable belief that he is endorsing the content. It seems that everyone on the ‘Nets is on the same page about the benefits of new media, but the one reasonable criticism is the lack of context and, dare I say, nuance that goes along with insta-whatevering.
Reynolds has made his disdain for the Obama administration well known. That’s his right. But this type of breathless linking is the way it manifests and it is (indeed!) misleading.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 11:19 amRyan Waxx says:
How does one breathlessly link to a post?
—————————-
And Orin, I notice you completely bypassed the substantive part of my criticism, IE that if you were actually concerned with the distortion, you’d be criticizing the author. The fact that you want to expand this to some imagined dislike of all your posts is just gravy.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 11:26 amDuracomm says:
I’m not so sure reynolds did not accurately capture the flavor of what is running through some of the liberal blogs
He Was Never That Into You
Quote
October 12, 2009, 11:48 amShelbyC says:
@geokstr, the correct way to address someone who refers to others as tea-baggers is “teabag-ee”
Quote
October 12, 2009, 11:56 amkurt9 says:
Instead of calling it the mainstream media (MSM), I suggest that from now on we refer to it as the legacy media (LM), as it is a much more appropriate label.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 11:58 amOrin Kerr says:
Ryan Waxx,
You seem to have some hostility towards me, as your comment is filled with sarcasm, misrepresentation, and thinly-veiled accusations of bad faith. (It’s not relevant or coherent on the merits, either, but that’s another question.) I don’t think I know you personally, so I can’t tell if you’re just a hostile person, or are just having a bad day, or there is some other problem. The nature of the Internet is that it’s hard to know these things from a comment thread. But whatever the source of the problem, if you would like to continue commenting here, you need to find a way to decrease the level of hostility you’re expressing.
Thanks, and have a great day.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 12:01 pmSandy MacHoots says:
The comments make it clear that Kerr’s original post suggested that Instapundit’s description was deceptive. It wasn’t, it merely copied the headline of the linked post. Kerr backtracks, fails to explain why he’s more irritated at Reynolds’s link than at the original writer, suggests he and Glenn are good buddies.
Since he and Glenn are buds, and he’s not trying to score points off Instapundit, the point of this post obviously is — well, actually, I have no idea what it is.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 12:07 pmUsuallyaKerrfan says:
Have to agree with the critics here, if you read Instapundit regularly you realize that he sometimes uses another’s blog’s headline as his link, with the message being “here’s a provocative headline, underneath of which is a story I think readers will find of interest.” Orin seems to feel the need to pick fights with others lately. (Why pick a fight over a triviality with Glenn, when he links to Orin often?) And it seems that the video is specifically referring to the White House criticizing critical gay bloggers.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 12:14 pmOrin Kerr says:
Sandy,
I recognize that you see your comment as proof that I suggested something, but my view is that both the original post at “americablog” and the link to it are misleading. I mentioned instapundit rather than americablog because I read and many others read instapundit: What Glenn says is important.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 12:15 pmShelbyC says:
Is your view that the headline is trying to be a factual headline that is just wrong, or do you see it as misleading because is a rhetorical device that doesn’t work for you?
In my view it is similar to the headlines the other day saying “conservatives in league with terrorists” when both the righties and the Taliban criticized Obama’s Peace prize. Whatever you may think of the rhetorical device, I would charactarize that as misleading.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 12:27 pmBob from Ohio says:
I find it very funny that people consider Instapundit “conservative” because his national security views happen to coincide with the conservative view.
His views are libertarian in every other way. Low taxes, pro-gun, pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, pro-pot, anti-fundamentalist. Sure, conservatives want low taxes and generally like guns but seldom the other things. Other than the war, his views differ very little from the
fringe wackosmainstream libertarians of Reason.His wife is a conservative, he is not.
Not everything revolves around the War on Terror.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 12:28 pmKazinski says:
Kazinski:
Kerr:
I rest my case.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 12:36 pmjosh says:
Ryan Wax: “How does one breathlessly link to a post?”
Example Reynolds posts:
“Dude, Where’s My Recession”
“Iraq, We’re Winning.”
etc.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 12:39 pmrarango says:
The only closely divided constituency seems to be the posters on this thread. This situation is simple it seems to me: go to the linked article, read it yourself, and make your own judgment. For the most part, Reynolds is a news aggregator with a few editorial comments, eg, “heh.” But fundamentally his links lead to articles that he feels his reading base may find interesting. If you dont like what Reynolds links to, don’t read him. And that way you don’t have to read the articles he links to. The substance of the contretemp is on Americablog, not Instapundit.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 12:52 pmRPT says:
Is the term “tea person” acceptable?
Quote
October 12, 2009, 12:52 pmShelbyC says:
I’d imagine, as long as it avoids tea-bagging. Tea-bagging is, of course, one of the many predictable consequences of mixing teenagers and camera-phones.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 1:35 pmDerHahn says:
Did Eugene enable the ‘include’ and ‘exclude’ URL directives, or were they left behind in the move to WordPress?
If they are unavailable, I’d like to ask that the author name in the post heading be increased in size.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 1:43 pmArthurKirkland says:
I consider Professor Reynolds to be, first and foremost, a strongly partisan conservative for two reasons: (1) the content of his statements and (2) the fact he labeled himself a “conservative[] in the Movement” in a letter in which he begged John Shadegg to refrain from retiring.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 1:43 pmnicehonesty says:
Banning people like Ryan Waxx, who politely and accurately criticized your post, is the best way to convince everyone that you’re right.
It certainly won’t make you seem petty, thin-skinned and unable or unwilling to engage in argument to defend your claims.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 1:49 pmDaniel Chapman says:
The term has also gained more useage lately because it’s a common way to humiliate your fallen enemies in the online videogame Halo. (I think it’s Halo. I don’t actually play.)
Quote
October 12, 2009, 1:51 pmPlugInMonster says:
I hereby nominate the use of the term “teabagger” as hate-speech!
Quote
October 12, 2009, 2:12 pmKazinski says:
ArthurKirkland:
I think you are a little confused there, I think he is a conservative in many areas. But partisan? He seems to support politicians of any party who’s views he supports. He’s been pretty enthusiastic about Democrats like Phil Bredesen, used to be an Al Gore supporter, and he certainly was not leading the charge for John McCain. And he’s been very critical of pork barrel Republicans like Ted Stevens.
There is a big difference between being a conservative and a partisan hack. His support for legalizing drugs and gay marriage makes me suspect he may be a libertarian, as much as he tries to hide it.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 2:40 pmyoyo says:
I consider ArthurKirkland to be a partisan hack due to (1) the content of his statements; and (2) the fact that he cites boilerplate language at the beginning of a letter signed by more than 140 people, rather than Reynolds himself:
Quote
October 12, 2009, 2:40 pmOrin Kerr says:
Excellent trolling, both substantively and procedurally.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 2:45 pmRandy says:
Geostr: “And you won’t get off that damned disgusting sexual slur of “tea baggers”, will you, “fudge packer”?”
If it’s any consolation, someone carried a sign at yesterday’s Gay Rights March that read, “Teabagging our way to Equality”
Quote
October 12, 2009, 3:00 pmRPT says:
Thanks. I hope there is some language which identifies sufficiently without provoking responses which use more slang terms with which I am not familiar.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 3:14 pmArthurKirkland says:
Here is the letter to which I referred:
As conservatives in the Movement and advocates for a free society, we were saddened to read of your decision to retire from service as the representative from the 3rd District of Arizona.
We appreciate your sacrifice and commitment to protecting American freedom and liberty during your tenure. You have proven yourself to be an inspiring leader on critical issues facing this country such as holding the line on spending, reforming our healthcare system, and facing the growing threat of radicalism to our sovereignty and freedom.
The country is at a crossroads. And now more than ever your leadership is needed. We therefore ask that you reconsider your decision to retire from your position at this time so that we may continue to have you as a champion fighting for conservative values and principles on Capitol Hill.
Sincerely, . . .
Glenn Reynolds
Instapundit
[emphases supplied]
That letter was directed to the decidedly conservative — and anything but libertarian — John Shadegg. It was signed by a large group dominated by hard-core, partisan conservatives.
I suppose one could catalog the proportions of conservative, libertarian, liberal, partisan, nonpartisan, etc. content at Instapundit, but I doubt any casual reader would find it necessary. Professor Reynolds devotes the bulk of his blog to supporting conservatives, swiping at non-conservatives and promoting Amazon.com. There is less libertarian or anti-conservative content than there is Amazon content. This doesn’t make him reprehensible or criminal or anything other than a person who strongly supports conservatives. It does make the periodic attempts to bolster the value of his conservative slant by claiming to be something other than a ‘conservative in the Movement’ less than persuasive.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 3:24 pmChrisTS says:
I found Ryan’s comment, his first here, pretty rude:
I’m not surprised OK was annoyed. I also gather there might be some history. If we think it is fine for bloggers to turn off comments and to write on what they choose, how can we scold them for not putting up with someone they find offensive?
Quote
October 12, 2009, 3:37 pmIcePilot says:
I check Volokh and Instapundit almost every day and greatly enjoy both.
Having read this entire thread, I think that Orin Kerr lost this argument — in other words, Ryan Waxx, ShelbyC and Kazinski have it right.
So Orin, the next time you feel the urge to mistake criticism for hostility, take a deep breath....
Quote
October 12, 2009, 3:41 pmtriangle man says:
When called, I love it when these bloggers (Instapundit, Althouse, etc) admit they haven’t actually fully read the story they’ve so prominently linked to.
Show me once where Althouse admits to not having fully read something she prominently linked to. How about one for Instapundit?
Quote
October 12, 2009, 5:14 pmDr. Weevil says:
ArthurKirkland’s attempt to prove that Glenn Reynolds is lying when he claims not to be a conservative would be more convincing if his evidence weren’t so ambiguous. “As conservatives in the Movement and advocates for a free society” could easily be taken to imply that everyone on the list falls into both categories, as most no doubt do, but it could also easily be taken to imply that you have to be one or the other to sign, not necessarily both. Glenn Reynolds is certainly the latter, and has explicitly denied being the former. Wouldn’t it be fair to presume that he understand the first sentence in a way that doesn’t make him look like a liar?
As for supporting Shadegg in that case, and in general criticizing liberals far more than conservatives, is it really so hard to imagine that a strong-defense libertarian might find himself agreeing more with conservatives than with liberals these days, on principle?
By the way, I can’t find it on the web, but I distinctly recall someone in his first year on-line accusing him of wanting “to turn Tennessee into a big ol’ gun-totin’ porn barn” (in exactly or almost exactly those words), and that he quoted the description with approval. He’s only a conservative to those who aren’t paying attention.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 5:16 pmShelbyC says:
FWIW, When I saw how the “Geez” at the beginning of my comment looked, I tried to change it to “well” but ran out of time. It was early and I may have been a little grumpy. So sorry, Orin.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 5:28 pmRandy says:
Doc: “ArthurKirkland’s attempt to prove that Glenn Reynolds is lying when he claims not to be a conservative would be more convincing if his evidence weren’t so ambiguous.”
Who cares? I certainly don’t care whether Glenn Reynolds properly considers himself a conservative or anything else. Self-applied labels are of no use. In fact, most labels are woefully insufficient. If you want to have a debate about what conservatives are, that’s one thing, but to argue whether a particular person is really or really not a conservative is not a productive use of time, imho.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 6:30 pmRandy says:
And by the way, Americablog has an update on the issue that should interest everyone who is all bothered by this.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 6:30 pmyoyo says:
I’m sorry, ArthurKirkland, but is anyone supposed to take you seriously? Describing Reynolds as a “conservative in the Movement” is simply hilarious. Yes, yes, we know, he signed that letter you find so damning. But the best you can do is cite a letter he signed with at least 139 other people? Really? Why don’t you quote Reynolds himself at his blog?
Oh, right, because if you did that, you would find that while Reynolds does support some conservative causes, he also supports same-sex marriage and he’s pro-choice. Yep, he’s quite the movement conservative!
I suggest that you migrate over to Kos, where your mindless partisanship and disdain for facts will surely be more welcome.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 7:57 pmSandy MacHoots says:
No, I’m using the fact that a lot of people appear to have misunderstood you to suggest that maybe what you thought you said isn’t what everybody heard. That happens to me from time to time.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 8:03 pmChrisTS says:
I’m sure OK and the other Conspirators are delighted to have you suggest to another commenter that he is not welcome on their blog.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 8:28 pmRandy says:
yoyo: “Oh, right, because if you did that, you would find that while Reynolds does support some conservative causes, he also supports same-sex marriage.”
Oooooo. That really cut to the quick. Thanks so much for proving that Reynolds isn’t a movement conservative. We, the people, can now sleep better at night, now that you have put everyone in their place. Thanks for caring so much!
Oh, and btw, Dick Cheney supports same-sex marriage, so he’s not a conservative. Discuss.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 10:01 pmyoyo says:
Hold on to your hat, Randy, but the political views of some people do not fit neatly into “liberal” or “conservative.” Reynolds, for instance, is more or less a libertarian.
But I’m a little bewildered why you even care to talk about whether Reynolds (or Cheney, or whoever) is a conservative, because a couple hours ago you said “to argue whether a particular person is really or really not a conservative is not a productive use of time.” I guess I must’ve misunderstood you.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 10:34 pmArthurKirkland says:
Oh, and btw, Dick Cheney supports same-sex marriage, so he’s not a conservative. Discuss.
Bingo.
The most effective evidence concerning Professor Reynolds’ purpose and beliefs is his blog. Incessant sniping at anyone left of Dick Cheney (another “libertarian” in some eyes, apparently). Rarely a peep criticizing a conservative, even those who aggressively frustrate his apparently attenuated concerns about gay rights, the Drug Warriors, or the other issues regarding which he bases his claim to be a libertarian rather than a conservative.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that . . . unless you claim, when convenient, to be something your conduct contradicts.
Quote
October 13, 2009, 12:27 am