Breaking news: President George W. Bush lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC, in a large white house.

Posted by RSA on July 3, 2006 11:10 AM Link to comment

Power and paranoia go together like peas and carrots.

But this is a little embarrassing. Somebody should increase their dosage.

Posted by Buck on July 5, 2006 12:02 PM Link to comment

I skipped it because I thought there was no 'story'. When someone goes into public life, pretty much evreything is thus public & they have little private life to speak of - it comes with the job.

That said, the people you quoted are most certainly not 'nutcases'. A 'nutcase' is is someone like Fred Phelps (a registered Democrat who is a pro-life fanatic but also an anti-war fanatic....you pick the side) who is completely bonkers and beyond reason. Just because someone is disagreeable doesn't make them a 'nutcase'. Someone like Greenwald would last about 4 minutes in a debate with Malkin or Horowitz (not on this subject, where they were obviously wrong) because his schtick of simply demeaning 'the right' would be taken to task as being off topic for the conversation & that's simply all he and his one trick pony show have to offer (see: Walcott, James or Black, Duncan).

I can think of a few other folks I'd say are nutcases....Cindy Sheehan, sometimes Pat Robertson (on occasion) some of the folks in the "Clinton Chronicles" video, Greg Palast...not political pundits that you or I disagree with, however.

Posted by RW on July 6, 2006 11:05 AM Link to comment

Ok, if we grant that they (Malkin, Hinderacker, whoever at Red State, etc.), are not nuts - and I don't think they are - the question remains, how did they get so hysterically wrong so incredibly quickly about something like this?

I think it has to do with a sort of tribal hatred of all things "left" (which, in their view, includes the NYT), that leaves them able to believe virtually any kind of evil fantasy about people whose political opinions place them in the "other" group. And I think that colors a lot of their analysis and commentary. Maybe the same is true of some liberal commentators that I like... but whatever the case - when people think this way, it is always prudent to be aware that the quality of thought on their part is hampered in this way.

Posted by smijer on July 6, 2006 11:16 AM Link to comment

"Someone like Greenwald would last about 4 minutes in a debate with Malkin or Horowitz."

Greenwald's a lawyer, which makes me think he'd do pretty well in a debate that was conducted fairly. Now, if we're talking about the kind of exchange on TV where people are talking over each other trying to insert the most quotable sound bite, that's a different story, but that's not really a debate, either.

But I really do think that Malkin, Horowitz, and Hinderaker are nutcases. I haven't read Malkin's book, but should I have to wade through it (rather than just reading politically moderate reviews) to conclude that someone defending the internment of 100,000 Japanese during WWII is a nutcase? Or Horowitz, who thinks that Ward Churchill is the tip of an enormous iceberg (10,000 professors' worth) of intellectual corruption in our universities? Or Hinderaker, who says Jimmy Carter isn't misguided or ill-informed about the war on terror, but rather on the other side? Nutcases all.

Posted by RSA on July 6, 2006 12:02 PM Link to comment

Oh, man, internet ate a good 6 paragraph comment.
ARGH!!!!!!!!!

Posted by RW on July 6, 2006 12:42 PM Link to comment

Aargh. Wish I'd had a chance to read it.

Posted by RSA on July 6, 2006 12:49 PM Link to comment

The whole thing smells like pure Rovian genius.

You get the right all worked up about the terrorist loving left and stoke up the us versus them mentality and it works wonders at the polls.

If the NYT is a terrorist organization and the administration has a case against them it should either put up or shut up.

End of story.

Posted by Buck on July 6, 2006 12:50 PM Link to comment

Okay, I'll give this another try:

1. I agree completely that simply finding the bad in the 'other side' is what colors so many viewpoints and that it goes both ways (those generally out of power are usually the loudest, as well). The NYT is in the crosshairs of many on the right while one need only whisper the names "Coulter" or "Limbuagh" to get a virtual firestorm of reaction from the left. And, in many cases there really isn't as much to be upset about as the individuals perceive (this is opinion only, of course). Malkin, etc., are probably upset at the stories because they're outraged at the NYT right now, more than usual. Likewise, one need only to click over to Brock's mediamatters site to see similar instances where people are nitpicking the minutia in order to generate anger, often when there is nothing wrong to begin with (I'm now recalling the looooong initial 'rebuttal' from the media matters folks pertaining to the now disgraced Rather/Memo story, something they never apologized for, IMO) but generally when they want to bitch about someone/something that they dislike. Last week digby went beserk in a post on Limbaugh. No follow-up on how wrong he was.

Not that many expect him to actually apologize, nor should many expect apologies from Malkin in this case because she can't be wrong about her *opinion* any more than digby could be (although he went further and claimed facts that were non-existent, but he's not on par with others when it comes to cred so it doesn't draw as much attention).

Greenwald's one-trick-pony act sometimes wears thin because he spends roughly 100% of his time attempting to besmirch those that he doesn't like by using the mediamatters method of delving into the minutia and discussing it to death, usually dealing with the person that he is obsessed with - Glenn Reynolds - and then leaving it to his legions of commenters to give him the proverbial "you go girl" responses. Both sides have this situation, but my noting of Greenwald is that he's becoming a parody by way of constantly demanding that others respond to what he thinks is important and if they don't respond the way he thinks they should, well, then they're just not up to snuff and should be 'taken down a peg'. Case in point, he rightfully claimed that Zenergle's story on kosola included an e-mail that wasn't verified...but he also wrongly claimed - outright - that Zenergle made up the e-mail out of wholecloth, then assumed to take the high ground by saying that he, not the great 'litigator' (which is 'lawyer' to the rest of us), would ever lie and most certainly he wouldn't let a lie go unanswered especially if Glenn Reynolds hadn't posted soon enough to satisify his demands. Except, of course, when he wrongly alleges that someone made up an e-mail's existence (IIRC, three sources were wrong in backing up the story and in Georgia 3 sources are greated than 'made it up'). Not to pick on Greenwald, just following up on my 'one trick pony' thing....he's just another toby on the totem pole, like the rest of us. Strangely, he doesn't appear aware of that, as *he is as blinded by his disdain for his opponents* as those he (and others) claim that their opponents are. Well, we *all* are, which helps each of us recognize our biases.

The key is to be as honest about it as you can. I saw Malkin follow up on her post in an attempt to explain, although it didn't persuade me (a fan of hers), she at least put forth her cards, so to speak. Still waiting on Greenwald to apologize to Zenergle, but it appears that he's still busy demanding that everyone do whatever he says....

Okay, next:

****Greenwald's a lawyer, which makes me think he'd do pretty well in a debate that was conducted fairly***

If the subject were the law or a case, I'd agree. In a political debate, those with experience doing just that (in Horowitz's case, almost 5 decades worth of experience) would work for their advantage. Some folks are good at some things & others aren't. I've seen Limbaugh (old tapes) in a debate and he was terrible....few deny that he is the best radio talk show host, talent wise, around...maybe ever. I've seen Ann Coulter take Al Franken apart in a debate & saw her shred several Clintonites during the impeachment fiasco while I've seen Alan Colmes dissect Coulter on three different occasions (yes, I said Alan Colmes. Memo to Democrats: a thoughtful, logical argument works....trying to outsmear Coulter doesn't). Horowitz knows both sides and Malkin's career is political punditry and writing. Glenn Greenwald is a lawyer/blogger who does the same thing over and over ("ewwww, look at these righties. See, aren't they bad"?). I said four minutes because I figured he'd be into his second incarnation of going off-topic to mediamatter the subject before Horowitz/Malkin noted the theme and brought the discussion back to the topic at hand - thus scoring points.

I left out Hindraker because I have no idea how well he speaks extemporaneously and can only go by his writings, which are generally party-line-speak, which an intelligent person can joust with.

*****but should I have to wade through it (rather than just reading politically moderate reviews) to conclude that someone defending the internment of 100,000 Japanese during WWII is a nutcase? ****

If you're willing to go on record as saying that FDR and pretty much the entire federal gov't was nutcases, then....okay. I didn't read the book either (don't plan to) but I can recognize that an intelligent person can have a stance that is 180 degrees from my point of view, even when it comes to human lives. See: kos, "screw them" and every one of his thousands of defenders or followers.

***Or Horowitz, who thinks that Ward Churchill is the tip of an enormous iceberg****

The last vestige of unaccountable Marxist rhetoric most definitely exists on college campii. The question is how big a problem it is or if it is a problem. There are untold instances of overactive PC run amok at various colleges, that is undeniable. You can't say anything offensive to selected groups or fellow classmates lest you get sanctioned (a simple google search proves this, even in red-state Georgia). I think that Churchill is an aberration, but there's no denying that the percentage of tenured professors in America that are avowed Marxists/Socialists are quite staggering when taking into account that hardly anyone of substance in the general population as a whole subscribes to that point of view. There's, what, one elected representative (Bernie Sanders) who is an admitted socialist while you'd be hard pressed to find a state school w/o at least on on each campus. I know my school had two that I know of (and I went to an engineering school, where numbers outweigh philosophy), but that's anecdotal, of course.

One thing's for sure, I haven't seen Reynold's send out a "let's starve the story of oxygen" e-mail to a group of righties (and yes, some of us e-mail each other just as I've e-mailed you guys) and if he did I bet a good number would choose between writing the 'who the hell do you think you are?' reply or the 'can you believe what insty did' entry on our blogs.

Posted by RW on July 6, 2006 03:24 PM Link to comment

And, right on cue, today Greenwald does exactly what I said he constantly does: obsess over Glenn Reynolds and discuss the minutia until it's mundane.

That type of envious obsession is what can slowly erode one's chances of being taken seriously (see Andrew Sullivan for more representations).

Posted by RW on July 7, 2006 12:19 PM Link to comment