Home / Culture and Society / Science and Technology / Are conservatives stupid?

Are conservatives stupid?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Conservative pundits certainly seem to think they are. And sometimes, to read right-wingers like InstaPundit Glenn Reynolds and Matt Drudge is to come away with the impression that their devoted readers must be absolutely stupid to consider these hacks credible.

Consider two of the latest pieces of right-wing spin to come out of the Republican National Committee and be dutifully echoed by the conservative press.

First, the “revealing” comments by Democratic candidate Wesley Clark that supposedly proved that he a) supported the Iraq war and b) believed President Bush’s unsupported assertions about a Saddam/bin Laden connection.

Drudge broke this “world exclusive.” Here it is predictably echoed in a Washington Times analysis:

Now there’s a horsefly in Mr. Clark’s soup: the Drudge Report yesterday put up a copy of his op-ed in the London Times of only eight months ago, and the transcript of Clark testimony to the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, given 18 months ago. The transcripts render his claim that he has “always” been against the war in Iraq a spectacular lie. Ah, the cruelty of the remorseless record, cruelty magnified by the Internet.

But as the Columbia Journalism Review points out:

Thursday afternoon, the Drudge Report chimed in with a grossly incorrect headline, “Wes Clark Made Case For Iraq War Before Congress; Transcript Revealed” atop an article designed to distort the General’s position.

In excerpting Clark’s testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on September 26, 2002, Drudge entirely misrepresents the candidate’s remarks.

Drudge quotes Clark’s testimony: “‘There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.'” [ellipses Drudge’s]

Drudge is using the ellipse as a weapon, with malice aforethought. Clark’s statement that “Saddam Hussein is a threat” came from his opening remarks to the committee. An ellipse then carries the reader more than 11,500 words later into the transcript to a second quotation. Finally, Drudge uses the next ellipse to jump way back to the beginning of Clark’s testimony. The effect is to make Clark’s testimony sound more frantic than it really is and to incorrectly suggest that Clark had endorsed the war.

The deceptive reporting continues with two final excerpts. The first is drawn from a section in which Clark states that the use of force must remain on the table as a threat, but that all diplomatic measures must be taken before military action proceeds. Drudge’s selective excerpt ends with Clark suggesting that the situation with Iraq has “been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this.”

Drudge would like you to think that Clark’s thoughts on the subject end there. In fact, only moments later, Clark clearly stated, “but time is on our side in the near term and we should use it.”

Then Drudge leads into the final excerpt with the words, “Clark explained,” implying that Clark’s statements in the final excerpt modified his statements in the previous excerpt. Once again, however, Drudge is cavalierly skipping through Clark’s testimony: There are 3,798 words in-between these two statements — enough to fill four pages of Time magazine.

Give me 11,500 words by anybody and I could manipulate them to say whatever I wanted, if I can use drudgellipses*. But the right-wing press peddles this stuff to their readers as if it’s fact. Who are these stupid readers?

An eight-month-old op-ed piece from the London Times, in which Clark shockingly acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrant, was “unearthed” and presented in the right-wing blogosphere as further evidence to support the accusations against Clark.

And what is Glenn Reynolds’ response to all this? He’s confused, and he knows whose fault it is:

Hmm. For a plain-spoken ex-General, that Clark guy sure is hard to pin down.

Let’s see…Drudge virtually manufactures a “scandal” out of nothing, honest journalists struggle to point out Drudge’s shoddy work and try to get the accurate story out there (competing, of course, with the Drudge-Fox News-Washington Times right-wing media machine that is openly working in concert to transmit the false story to the public), and what does Glenn Reynolds see as the problem here?

“[T]hat Clark guy sure is hard to pin down.” Yep. Sounds like the right conclusion to me. Because I’m fucking stupid.

Why does their audience put up with this bullshit? Clearly Reynolds and Drudge are treating their readers as if they’re just plain retarded. Are they?

(UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds points out that he did acknowledge some criticism of the Drudge portion of this pseudo-scandal.)

It was a great week for stupidity. The Republican National Committee’s talking points also included this bit of science education for their loyal dopes: “Global warming” is a myth, because it’s cold today in New York. Yep, Al Gore gave a speech about global warming while it was bitter cold in the city in which he gave that speech–and that disproves global warming entirely.

Why? Because you’re fucking stupid.


Along with its insatiable thirst for tax cuts for the wealthy, the Republicans’ anti-environmentalism is one of the most painfully obvious ways that it dupes and betrays its rank and file. The average Republican didn’t truly benefit from the President’s tax cuts–left and right, we’re all suffering together from the harm Bush has done to the economy. And the average Republican certainly does not benefit from a cavalier attitude toward some very real dangers to our environment–again, left and right, we’ll all suffer together as the environment is degraded as a result of bad policy.

The only entities that benefit from the notion that environmentalists are loons are the polluters who make up such a large part of the Republican campaign-finance machine. The other 99% of Republicans are as victimized as everyone else by those who want to exploit the environment for short-term gain. But a widespread belief that the science supporting the assertions of environmentalists is a crock sure would help those polluters, who are so valuable to the RNC and President Bush.

Thus, global warming is a myth. Proof: it still gets cold outside in winter.

(To his credit, Reynolds did not participate in this pile-on. The InstaPundit: “Of course, a cold day in January is no more proof that global warming theories are bunk than a hot day in July is proof that they’re correct.”)

The incomparable Bob Somerby puts it well in his Daily Howler:

GLOBAL CLOWNING: Don’t worry — Dennis Miller will recite this one too. In this morning’s Washington Times, James Lakely engages in consummate clownistry as he “reports” Gore’s address on global warming:

LAKELY (pgh 1): Former Vice President Al Gore delivered a speech on the theory of global warming yesterday, the coldest day in New York City in decades, calling President Bush a “moral coward” for adhering to policies that put the planet in catastrophic peril of overheating.

(2) The speech, sponsored by the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org, came when the mercury was expected to dip to minus 1 in New York City, shattering a record low temperature that has stood for 47 years, and notching just a few degrees higher than the coldest day ever recorded there.

Pitiful, isn’t it? Nothing about global warming theory says there will be no cold days in New York. But Lakely throws dim-witted feed to the herd. Can’t you hear what he’s actually saying? We think we can hear him: Hey, rubes!

Indeed, Lakely gives a perfect example of the conservative press corp’ rapidly evolving, propagandistic style of “reporting.” He quotes two experts on global warming — both of whom say what a Big Nut Gore is. After that, he quotes a major pol. And he’s been to Clown College too:

LAKELY: House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican, said it was “fitting that Mr. Gore chose one of the coldest days of the year to spread false information about the Bush administration’s record on global warming.”

“Mother Nature didn’t agree with his message, and neither do I,” the congressman said. “Al, it’s cold outside.”

Don’t worry: In Hollywood, Miller is honing the message. After all, he even saw Brit recite it last night. Yep! A Pander Bear was going polar on last evening’s Special Report:

HUME: In a case of unfortunate timing, former Vice President Al Gore was in New York City today attacking the Bush administration’s policies on global warming. Gore called President Bush, quote, a “moral coward on the environment.” He said evidence of the warming problem is undeniable.

GORE (on tape): I really don’t think there is any longer a credible basis for doubting that the earth’s atmosphere is heating up because of global warming.

HUME: As Gore spoke, New Yorkers were freezing in 18-degree weather with a wind chill of one degree. And forecasters were saying that tonight could be the coldest January 15 in 47 years.

That was Hume’s entire report! Increasingly, your discourse is managed by clowns. Disaster is one sure result.

The right-wing media is clearly promoting these memes because they believe their audience is stupid enough to believe them. I fear they’ve made an accurate calculation.

*NOTE: “drudgellipses” is a term I saw on a blog somewhere, but I don’t remember where, and a Google search doesn’t turn it up as of this writing. My apologies to the coiner of this term.

Powered by

About Brian Flemming

  • I don’t know about stupid: over-zealously insecure and confrontational, maybe. See Chicken Little Conservatives and a Failure of Reverence.

  • Glenn Reynolds is hardly a right winger on the level of Drudge. In fact, he’s not a right winger at all.

    But I guess that doesn’t matter when the only purpose you have here is to say “Conservatives are Stupid!” in as many words as you can muster.

    This piece would have been interesting if you didn’t resort to calling people who don’t agree with you “fucking stupid” or “idiots.”

  • Eric Olsen

    Drudge is an irresponsible scandal monger. Despite your crusade to paint him otherwise, Glenn Reynolds is all over the map politically, clearly based upon his conscience, and he without a doubt ends up as a centrist overall. It is also rather damning that this wrongheaded campaign is directed at the blogger who happens to generate more traffic than any other.

    The reason for the traffic? Many of his readers don’t read any other blogs because they are comfortable relying on his judgment, relative impartiality, and polymath range of interest to let them know what is going on. This is not coincidental. All of this frenzied thrashing about will never make it otherwise.

  • Get with the program, Brian. Conservatives are evil. Liberals are stupid.

  • Eric Olsen

    good point

  • [insert evil laugh here]

  • But I hate President Bush and I want to have Osama bin Laden’s butt baby.

    Doesn’t that make me evil and stupid?

  • bhw

    I haven’t read this Instapundit fellow, so I can’t comment directly on his political leanings or the quality of his work, though I do know he’s popular. That said, if he’s taking Drudge at his word, then at the very least his judgment and relative impartiality are in question.

    As for the poster’s verbal thrashing of said blogger being damning because he is popular, I can’t get on board with that. A blogger’s prominence shouldn’t keep others from taking him/her to task if he/she has made a gaffe such as using Drudge as a main source on which to draw an opinion about a presidential candidate.

    No sacred blogger cows!

  • Eric,

    You wrote:

    It is also rather damning that this wrongheaded campaign is directed at the blogger who happens to generate more traffic than any other.

    The reason for the traffic? Many of his readers don’t read any other blogs because they are comfortable relying on his judgment, relative impartiality, and polymath range of interest to let them know what is going on.

    I love your InstaLogic!

    Drudge Report has more traffic than InstaPundit by a factor of 10 or 20 or so.

    Does that make Matt Drudge 10-20 times more impartial than Glenn Reynolds?

  • Eric Olsen

    Drudge isn’t a blog – it’s an online tabloid with links. Drudge had the fortune and foresight of getting in on the ground floor of the web and he became entrenched when no one else was doing such a thing.

    Reynolds is read for his reasonableness and range of interests – Drudge for opposite reasons.

  • John Mudd

    Life is like a box of blog posts. You never know just how stupid it’s going to get until you experience it in its entirety.

    Great way to get traffic, though, pinging all your posts and using popular names. If you’re writing for a liberal audience, it’s bound to build a loyal audience for your blog or your website all while making conservatives bash you, which will only increase your liberal audience’s loyalty.

    While the post, itself, seems stupid, the traffic-generating strategy is very smart, even if it does violate the Blogger’s Code of Conduct/Code of Ethics that I posted not too long ago.


  • scott h.

    The Columbia Journalism Review claims Drudge did it deceptively, but offers little to back up its claim. “…but time is on our side in the near term and we should use it.”? That’s it? You would think that if Clark was anti-war, you could find more and better examples in 22,000+ words of testimony.

    Instead, Clark emphasizes Saddam’s threat in his opening statement to members of Congress. “But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities.” “…Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed.” He did not use any of the anti-war arguments: that he wasn’t an imminent threat, or that Saddam could be contained. His arguments are right out of the pro-war playbook.

    The best that could be said is that he felt the matter should have been handled through the UN. Two problems. One: he urged Congress, in his opening statement, to support use of force if the UN failed to act. “The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration.” (Emphasis mine).

    Two, it’s hard to say he was critical of Bush’s diplomatic efforts when you read his London Times op-ed. “As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times.” That’s pretty mild stuff. And it certainly implies he agreed with their convictions, especially when he later says “…President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.” (Yes, I am aware of Philosoraptor’s rather lame defense of this. Resolve is “a virtue even when one has undertaken an enterprise in error”? He could just have soon praised the resolve of Chirac, or Schroeder, or taking it to an absurd degree, he could have praised Saddam’s resolve.) Then there’s this statement: “Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced.” Clark’s siding with the pro-war camp there. After all was said and done, the fact that the situation was not solved through the UN didn’t seem to bother Clark much.

  • Actually, John, I did it to frustrate a certain Blogcritic who habitually pings my Glenn Reynolds posts with an old post of his. I never thought about any traffic considerations. (And all those posts are here at Blogcritics, btw, not my own blog.)

    But, more to the point, you wrote a Bloggers Code of Ethics that addresses pinging? You, the blogger who somehow registers every one of his Blogcritics posts as an independent blog, thus screwing up the Technorati stats for every single Blogcritic, making it look like real-estate is a prime subject of every Blogcritics’ personal blog?

    That’s some balls, dude.

    (For those who don’t know, Technorati is a site that is supposed to show you which bloggers are referring to your site in their posts. It specifically ignores the permanent blogrolls on blogs and only focusses on specific posts, so you know when someone is specifically talking about your blog rather than just linking to it in a blogroll. Er, that’s how it’s supposed to work. But if you’re a Blogcritic, every time John Mudd makes a move on the Internet, it is listed as an event related to your personal site.)

    John, currently at Technorati, your Blogcritics posts are listed as referring to my personal blog (they don’t) at numbers 3, 4, 9, 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33…oh, well, the list goes on. If someone were to Technorati my site, it looks for all the world like real estate is a major focus of my blog, and John Mudd talks about me all the time.

    Somehow, no other Blogcritics’ posts have this distorting, counter-productive effect on Technorati. Only yours. Only John Mudd’s. Out of hundreds of posts here, only yours do this.

    Hey, look! Blogcritic Marty Dodge talks about real estate 20% of the time on his own blog!

    And look at Blogcritic bookofjoe’s personal site. All he apparently blogs about is real estate!

    How do you do this, John? You’ve refused to say in the past. How about coming clean now that you have brought up the subject of pinging ethics?

    I don’t know how you execute this misrepresentation, or particularly care that you do do it. It’s just a minor annoyance to me. It’s the mystery of it that frustrates me more than anything else.

    But a Blogger’s Code of Ethics?


  • Actually, Brian, you missed my post on Drudge, which notes the context issue. It’s here. You might also have linked this post, which suggests that rather a lot of people across the political spectrum are having trouble pinning down Clark.

  • Glenn,

    I updated the post with a link to your comments on Drudge.

    And, yeah, Glenn, Clark is hard to pin down if your viewpoint is that anyone who disagrees with the President’s approach to the Iraq problem is, as you so memorably put it, “objectively pro-Saddam.”

    If there are only two kinds of people in the world, the pro-warriors and the granola-chomping pacifist hippies, boy, that General Clark sure doesn’t know who he is! How confusing!

    As Josh Marshall put it:

    The issue here is what it means to be ‘anti-war’. I’ve said I suppose a million times now that Clark was a consistent opponent of the president’s policy. But I’ve also said that calling him ‘anti-war’ misses the mark. I say this because in our politics this phrase ‘anti-war’ has a meaning that goes beyond one’s position on a given use of military force. It signals a general tone — one that simply doesn’t apply to Clark and leads to all sorts of innocent and in other cases not so innocent misunderstandings.

    So for instance this very anti-Clark editorial in the Florida Times-Union says Clark now has no credibility because his congressional testimony “hardly sound[s] like the words of a war protester.”

    A ‘war-protester’. You get the idea where this goes.

    Similarly, Mickey Kaus says “it’s impossible to square this London Times article with Clark’s current antiwar criticism. Not only is the tone the opposite of Bush-bashing, but Clark seems to have forgotten that it was ‘the wrong war at the wrong time,’ as his adviser Jamie Rubin characterizes his current position.”

    This is priceless on a couple levels. Apparently, if a pundit decides you’re a ‘Bush-basher’ and then finds you’ve said something generous about the president, it means you’ve been untrue to your Bush-bashing values. I don’t know quite what to make of that.

    Me either. I’m so confused!

    Must be the General’s fault.

  • Pshaw! Glenn Reynolds is just another Southern conservative who calls himself a libertarian.

    His refusal to admit his error in regard to this episode is very similar to his refusal to admit John Lott, the Right Wing gun issues ‘expert’, whom he supported, is a fraud. Come on, say it, Glenn: “John Lott lied.”

    One of my favorite Reynolds’ entries, which Atrios turned me on to, discusses having his Nigerian sister-in-law to be to dinner at Tara (wink). Apparently, she was allowed to enter through the front door, even. Reynolds goes on as if he is discussing a dog talking or a pig doing higher mathematics, not a human being. And, the whole time, typical of a Southern conservative, he believes he is flattering the woman. MEGO!

  • I realize this may be somewhat off-topic of US right wing vs. right winger politics and disinfo, but when people blather about how can there be global warming when it’s so cold, think about this:

    What makes the inside of your refrigerator cold? That’s right, heat energy. Put in more heat, and the inside gets colder. The same thing with the planetary climate, retain more heat energy, and the climate doesn’t get uniformly warmer, it gets more extreme.

  • Bhw, in my opinion, brown-nosing of popular bloggers is probably the most destructive aspect of the blogosphere. Right behind untalented bloggers attacking talented bloggers because they’re resentful. That can harm the talented bloggers’ traffic while building traffic for the know-nothings, but it can’t give them ability. So, people end up linking to and citing the least able bloggers out of cowardice and stupidity. The impact of both problems is to make this little corner of the world very unreliable. Content from blogs usually can’t be trusted.

    Brian, I addressed the piggy-backing issue in regard to Sam Vaknin, a Blogcritic who does not even have a blog. What he does have is a site where he pretends to be a doctor dispensing medical advice. From it, Amazon and a few other online-only sites, he sells a self-published booklet and pamphlets about Narcissistic personality disorder, which he may have. He posts the same material scores of times all over the Internet to keep his site high in search engines. Here at Blogcritics, he was second only to Eric in number of posts last month. (I predict he will become the leading poster if allowed to. He appears to do nothing but repost material all day every day.) Those posts consists of recycled material, with a paragraph changed here or a headline there, that have been published all over the ‘Net for years. This is what happens when people focus more on number of pings and/or visitors than worth of content. Obviously, I don’t have any clout here, but, if I did, the behavior of a Vaknin is were I would draw the line. Going along with a fraud cheapens the site.

  • Content from blogs usually can’t be trusted.

    Tell me about it.

  • scott h.

    Now, Clark’s position is that it was “the wrong war at the wrong time”. Maybe it would have been helpful to mention that to Congress instead of urging them to authorize use of force if the UN failed to act. It’s one thing to change your mind, another to claim you’ve been consistent.

  • Gee, Mac Diva, I guess it’s hard for you to imagine that I might genuinely respect her and be in awe of her abilities.

    But keep it up guys. This kind of criticism doesn’t hurt — it just demonstrates the nature of the critics.

  • “It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly…who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who have never known neither victory nor defeat.”-Teddy Roosevelt

  • John, it seems to me, most of us are in the arena. By which I mean blogging, with the exception of people who are just using the blogosphere to build traffic at non-blog sites, like Vaknin.

    Glenn, you don’t show appreciation for a person by patronizing her. Using the Nigerian woman as an opportunity to sneer at affirmative action (which as an immigrant she does not qualify for) was also shameless. Since you haven’t figured it out for yourself, a good rule of thumb is not to pat a woman or a minority on the head for anything you would not do the same for if she were a white man. For example, if bhw wins a Pulitzer, by all means congratulate her. But, don’t act flabbergasted because she can think, for heaven’s sake. We recently had a discussion at Blogcritics about Condi Rice that I think you would find it beneficial to look at. Dawn posted the entry.

  • MD, you can view my blog here.

    I am a business blogger. I have never pretended to be someone or something I’m not (ask anyone in the media who have interviewed me because of the business blogs I have created). The fact that I am a business blogger does not put me outside the arena of blogging, as you seemed to infer. However, even though I am a business blogger, I also blog about other things not relating to my business from time to time, when I am both able and willing.


  • Eric Olsen

    Hey, Jim’s right about global warming – it doesn’t get uniformly warmer, but more extreme, which certainly bears out here in Ohio with 65 degrees one week and 5 degrees a week later.

    Beyond that, “best” is about as subjective and amorphous as it gets when it comes to blogs, but in general I see the better sites rising to the top. There are all kinds of criteria by which to judge, but quality of writing, quality of thinking, uniqueness, originality, personality, reliability and on and on are all matters that bear on quality and traffic, and in the long run the BETTER (not necessarily the BEST, whatever that means) sites generally rise to the top.

    I also think everyone should be careful in jumping to conclusions about the motivations and intent of others: if you look for the worst you will find it.

  • MD, you can view my blog here (or you can wait to see it in Florida Realtor Magazine in February).

    I am a business blogger. I have never pretended to be someone or something I’m not (ask anyone in the media who have interviewed me because of the business blogs I have created). The fact that I am a business blogger does not put me outside the arena of blogging, as you seemed to infer. However, even though I am a business blogger, I also blog about other things not relating to my business from time to time, when I am both able and willing.


  • Eric Olsen

    So John, how DO you do the Technorati thing, since it keeps coming up?

  • scott h.

    Mac Diva, if you’re going to talk about a post you feel is “patronizing”, would it really be that hard to link to the post in question? The only post I could find fitting your description was this one, which hardly sounds patronizing. Is that the post you were talking about?

  • Eric Olsen:

    I also think everyone should be careful in jumping to conclusions about the motivations and intent of others…

    vs. Eric Olsen:

    I also don’t think Brian is a bigot, but based upon what I have gathered, the wholesale rejection of a clearly narrow-minded Christian fundamentalist past has resulted in a trajectory that is in some ways equally narrow-minded and dogmatic.

    Well, I guess this is mostly psychoanalysis as opposed to speculation on “motivations and intent,” so it’s not entirely a contradiction.

  • Nothing wrong with business bloggers.

    John, hit me up by email or phone (number is posted at tdscripts.com) sometime. I’d like to see about the possibility of getting you on a future radio show of ours to talk about your approach to using blogging in your Real Estate business.

    Seems like you have done really well with that. It would fit the audience of webmasters that we’ve been working with to encourage starting and using blogs in business the last couple years.

  • This just in: interest rates are down.

  • Brian- Sorry I’m late to the party. As you can see, I’ve got the link to our backstory pinged in. It’s endearing to see that you were pining away in anticipation of my attention.

    However, I’m not real pleased that you’re expressing interest in UBL. This is UNACCEPTABLE. Trying to hook up with Glenn is bad enough, but this is going too far. I won’t stand for it.

    You might almost have a slightly reasonable beef here with Drudge, and his selective editing. If you weren’t so over reaching with it,I might regard the argument more seriously.

    However, even factoring in your mitigating counterquotes, it does seem that Drudge et al have a legitimate point about the supposed staunch anti-war stance Clark the candidate seems to espouse now versus the far more ambiguous responses from a year ago.

    Drudge rocks. He’s a fine, reliable source. He has (rarely) jumped the gun on a story that didn’t pan out- but he’s generally been pretty good about making something near equally prominent corrections. He honest.

    Really though, 95% of what he’s doing is just being a media filter- pointing to what he considers the most relevant stories. I find his regular media links to be a useful resource. I just don’t see what Eric’s beef is.

    Plus, I would think that you might have one or two kind words for someone such as Mr. Drudge who has managed to get Bill O’Reilly’s goat. Doesn’t that count for anything?

    Of course cold weather on the day of Gore’s speech doesn’t PROVE anything- and nobody says it does. However, it does start to look as if God were mocking Al Gore with a cleverly timed little blast of cold, perhaps just for sport at this point. I’m sure it’s tough being Al Gore.

    Now Brian, I know you don’t dare speak my name in the light of day. What would the blog neighbors think? But I know you’re going to give up on chasing that silly law professor and come on back to ol’ Al.


  • Scott (joined at the hip with Glenn, eh?) I do find that entry patronizing. The subtext is that it is shocking for a woman, and an African one at that, to have brains. The last graf is a dig at affirmative action.

    However, former InstaPundit fan and longterm white supremacist Steve Sailer got a real thrill out of the entry. He picked it up to use for multiple sneers — at black people, interracial relationships, immigration and Glenn Reynolds. (Seems they had a parting of ways. Though I find Glenn dubious on racial issues, Sailer decided he wasn’t racist enough.) Which raises the question: Why does the InstaPundit keep company with people like Sailer, and his offspring at Gene Expression, anyway? People who believe in the genetic inferiority of some ‘races,’ as they do, are not exactly mainstream.

  • Barger, since Drudge is of your political ilk, gay and available, why not give him a call for what you want? He seems perfect to fulfill your desires. I’ll even send a commitment gift down to the farm. It sure makes more sense than the torch you’re carrying for Natalie.

  • Oh no, Diva. I would carry a torch for you WAY before Natalie. You paint such a delightfully evil, Cruella de Ville figure.

    You can give up pining over Brian, though. You ain’t getting any no matter how much you Tom for him. And that goes for Reynolds too. Brian is MY girlfriend.

  • Ok, I have a couple of issues here so far. First of all, I was with you Brian on the Drudge portion. I thought the whole criticism of Clark being an opinion-hopper was baseless. I mean he is a military guy. His job is to give opinions behind closed doors, but generally military people (while they are still in the military) don’t oppose in the press. I think that is a good tradition as they are technically advisers for the President. So, I think even if he HAD switched his “opinion” dramatically that we can’t exactly hold Clark 100% accountable because his actual opinions aren’t on record.

    After that you lost me a bit. I think you hurt your good argument by trying to lump Glenn Reynolds in with Matt Drudge. Others have gone through this argument, so I won’t do it again.

    You are 100% correct about the global warming too. I guess it might be a little ironic to give a speech about global warming on a cold day, but it sure isn’t the kind of story that anyone should run with because of its significance.

    Finally, Diva, I was a little disturbed by your characterization of Glenn Reynolds as gay and available and then using that as some sort of ammunition against Barger. Maybe I am not reading it right, or don’t have proper context of other arguments or something, but it came off a little anti-gay.

  • Eric Olsen

    C, she was talking about Drudge

  • Exactly. I was playing matchmaker for Barger and Drudge, in the wake of the recent revelation that Barger has a thing for . . . Natalie. (I can’t help being a Good Samaritan somtimes.)

    I don’t doubt that Glenn Reynolds is heterosexual, though probably in a rather tedious way.

    Craig, I was thinking the same thing about Clark. It must be very hard for a hardcore military type to say no to any war — like going against reflex . It also seems to me that politicians who wanted to make it clear they support the war have been explicit about it regardless of party affiliation. Heck, Zell Miller has endorsed Shrub. If Clark wanted to go that route, he would have done so explicitly.

    I do some adjunct teaching. One of the examples I use to caution students against jumping to conclusions about cause and effect is: Ice cream sales are high during the summer. Murder rates are high during the summer. However, eating ice cream does not cause murder. It seems to me that this kind of basic reasoning error would have to be present for anyone to believe the presence of a given temperature, high or low, anywhere on a given day means global warming is not occuring. Yes, I drop into Free Republic often enough to know those folks eat nonsense like that up. But, I must blame the citizenry on this one. Perhaps people have a duty not to be so stupid.

  • Sorry, I said Reynolds instead of Drudge. My Fault.

    Anyway, I think the Diva and I agree about Clark. I think not reading between the lines on what a military guy says in front of a microphone while still actively involved in the military is a mistake. We don’t truly know what a guy like Clark thought, at the time because he has a certain obligation as a part of his job. I am willing to take his opinions now at face value without scouring his past conversations on record to look for inconsistencies. I think it is a baseless accusation of indecisiveness.

  • Diva, the only “revelation” about me digging on Natalie is that you pronounced one out of the blue in this very comment thread [#34]. Not to put too fine a point on it, but her victimhood schtick doesn’t get me hard.

    Craig, Diva has a habit of wanting to out people who may or may not actually be gay, and using that as a little smear. She’s playing that here with Drudge. She was making similar implications about Condi Rice a few days ago.

    It’s OK when she does this type of thing though, since liberals are not homophobes. It’s a special dispensation of some kind.

  • To get back to the main topic, are conservatives stupid?

    On CBC this morning, they interviewed some Repubilicans in Iowa who are trying to copy Howard Dean’s internet recruiting. Their biggest complaints about Dean supporters were they were educated, informed, thought about issues before deciding their opinion and active.

    Forget development of artificial intelligence, the US administration wants to perfect artificial stupidity.

  • Hello? I am hardly the source of outting of either Rice or Drudge. I don’t think Barger gets away from the farm much or he would know that. Or, if he wasn’t opposed to doing research, he could just Google the issue. (Signorile works so hard. It seems a shame to let the credit go to me.)

    Furthermore, before another false claim about the Diva gets planted, let me emphatically state I have nothing against ice cream. Prefer Breyer’s, but it is hard to find out here. So, I settle for Haagen-Dazs. My favorite flavor is strawberry, with butter-pecan second. I eat it during all seasons and have noticed no impact on global warming,

    Good line at the end there, Jim, I may steal it.