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.

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.

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.

I suggest that you migrate over to Kos, where your mindless partisanship and disdain for facts will surely be more welcome.

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.

Orin Kerr: I recognize that you see your comment as proof that I suggested something,

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.

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.

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.

ChrisTS: 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?

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.

Show me once where Althouse admits to not having fully read something she prominently linked to. How about one for Instapundit?

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….

nicehonesty: 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.

I found Ryan’s comment, his first here, pretty rude:

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.

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?

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.

ShelbyC:
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.

If it’s any consolation, someone carried a sign at yesterday’s Gay Rights March that read, “Teabagging our way to Equality”

Banning people like Ryan Waxx, who politely and accurately criticized your post, is the best way to convince everyone that you’re right.

Excellent trolling, both substantively and procedurally.

ArthurKirkland: 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.

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:

I don’t think I’m really a “conservative” in any meaningful sense. . . . I’m more of a techno-libertarian, really. I’m rather a traditionalist, personally, in terms of lifestyle, but I don’t believe in laws mandating that other people live that way.

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.

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.

It certainly won’t make you seem petty, thin-skinned and unable or unwilling to engage in argument to defend your claims.

If they are unavailable, I’d like to ask that the author name in the post heading be increased in size.

RPT: Is the term “tea person” acceptable?

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.

Example Reynolds posts:

“Dude, Where’s My Recession”

“Iraq, We’re Winning.”

etc.

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.

Kerr:

I mentioned instapundit rather than americablog because I read and many others read instapundit: What Glenn says is important.

I rest my case.

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 wackos mainstream libertarians of Reason.

His wife is a conservative, he is not.

Not everything revolves around the War on Terror.

Orin Kerr: but my view is that both the original post at “americablog” and the link to it are misleading.

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.

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.

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.

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.