December 17, 2006

Grande Conservative Blogress Diva 2007.

Ooh, were you missing the chance to vote for me on a daily basis? Well, there's a new contest in town. I concede I'm not the most conservative. But I am a diva, and I am a blogress, and I can be your blogress diva, you conservative, you.
Please note that not all nominees are conservative per se. Some are libertarian. And others, while more centrist, distinguish themselves by their iconoclasm and the manner in which they take on the silliness of certain leftists -- and conservative pretenders, i.e., those who in the words of one of our nominees, "drives liberals nuts."
You know which one is me! And you know it's a very special thing I'm doing here. And you know I know what I'm doing. The voting hasn't started yet, so rein in your enthusiasm, but pay attention.

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't know if you drive liberals crazy, but I'll definitely vote for you. I sure like you better than the other ones up there (especially M.M.). Althouse a diva? Perfect.

Anonymous said...

That word "blogress" is still a bit strange.

Maybe it's the "ogre" sitting in the middle of it.

But, despite Prof. Althouse's merits, I'm more inclined to vote for Tammy Bruce.

More of a true 'conservative' on many issues, plus a talk radio host.

Prof. Althouse is many wonderful things, including "grande", "diva-ish", and she's a blogger.

But despite the desire of those from the left to push her out of their camp, she's not a conservative.

Maybe one day she'll be more enlightened and give in, but until then, she's only a centrist/moderate at best.

But as a conservative, rather than trying to push her away, I'll continue to try and pull her this way, and I delight when her views align with my own, while I try to understand and forgive when they don't.

{{insert phrase regarding conservatives/converts and liberals/apostates here}}

GayPatriotWest said...

Now that you've quoted me, I realized I made a glaring grammatical error in the initial post! And I trust you understand the reference to conservative pretenders.

alphie said...

Given enough blogging contests...

...every blogger could be the best at something.

caffeine soldier said...

Wow, it's difficult for us average folks to keep up with the high pace of the information age. Yesterday moderate, today conservative. This spinning makes me feel dizzy...
:P

caffeine soldier said...

"You know which one is me!"
Sure. "conservative per se". Especially "per se"! :D

caffeine soldier said...

Btw: The Weblog Awards 2006 are out!
Sry, The Moderate Voice won. But you crushed 8 other finalists!
Not bad for a not-so-really-centrist conservative blogger.
Congratulations!
:D

caffeine soldier said...

Really sry, but I can't resist :)

"I can be your blogress diva, you conservative, you."

Ooh, you naughty little teaser, you.
This will make many conservatives VERY excited!
Do you come with an air-pump?
And what's on the price tag?
:D

David said...

"You conservative you?"

I feel so cheap!

So used!

It hurts so good!

Simon said...

They have a qualification which seems tailor-made for you:

"And others, while more centrist, distinguish themselves by their iconoclasm and the manner in which they take on the silliness of certain leftists"

Also: I think David is chanelling Mortimer Brezny. ;)

The Drill SGT said...

I'm not trying to be a sore loser here, and I don't read The Moderate Voice, so I don't know their tone, but I was put off by the fact that their apparent view of being a Centrist meant having "Left" and "Center" voices as linked sites.

I didn't understand the claim to balance.

Pogo said...

Glad to see The Moderate Voice, in their quest for "No Votes For Us Please", was able to deliver in a mere six hours twice as many votes as in all the previous several days' voting. Like someone had harnessed the power of some kind of, well, computer or some such, and programmed it to vote, like, alot.

Now I suppose some blowhard, let's say, just for instance, caffeine soldier, will ask for proof. Oh well, lacking all but the obvious meaning of a huge data dump over a few hours, I have to admit only that the victory of TMV is like all other leftist victories: a sham of a fake of a hoax of a flimflam of a spoof.

Fake, but accurate and all. Like sending yourself valentines. TMV, we love us!

caffeine soldier said...

Sgt, with all due respect, but did you lose your right eye in combat? If that's the case, pls move your head more to the right to see the huge "right wing" blogroll in that frame...

bearbee said...

That word "blogress" is still a bit strange.

'Diva' is overused and pretentious.

Palladian said...

caffeine soldier, switch to decaf...

Anyway, all the voters that atrios et al bussed in to vote for "The Moderate Voice" can go back to not reading it.

This contest is so yours.

caffeine soldier said...

"Like someone had harnessed the power of some kind of, well, computer or some such, and programmed it to vote, like, alot."

That 'someone' was Ezra Klein and, yes, he did use his computer to post an endorsement of TMV on his blog. Well, I don't actually think his persuasive skills are advanced enough to really PROGRAM readers to vote and other bloggers to post endorsements, but who knows? It might have been some kind of mass hypnosis...
:P
(btw, the incredible amount of centrist and liberal sites endorsing TMV and linking to the voting page did show up at technorati when the poll was online, so there's not much of a secret where the votes came from)

caffeine soldier said...

"caffeine soldier, switch to decaf..."

EEEK!!!!!

Where's the cross coffee mug? The garlic? And the wooden spike?

Vade retro, Satanas!

:D

Pogo said...

No go, caffeine man.
That few hours accounted for 50% of the total, all at dinner time. Bogus, all of it.

Woody Allen (before becoming an unfunny pederast) once defined masturbation as sex with someone you love. TMVs victory is the digital analogue.

Ann Althouse said...

Whatever happened, it wasn't pro-TMV, it was anti-Althouse. So the votes there are nearly all about Althouse. I dominated their minds. That's all I want.

caffeine soldier said...

"That few hours accounted for 50% of the total, all at dinner time. Bogus, all of it."

Nonsense. It took half a day for TMV to even pull ahead after Ezra's endorsement. And after that, the advantage steadily rose until it reached 2:1 for incoming votes near the end. Don't believe me, sore loser, ask the admins at the Weblog Awards forum.

"masturbation as sex with someone you love. TMVs victory is the digital analogue."
Hehe! But since TMV actually surrendered the race on monday and didn't do any advertisement anymore after this date, I'd say it's been more of a gangbang, with TMV as a passive spectator.

caffeine soldier said...

"Whatever happened, it wasn't pro-TMV, it was anti-Althouse."

I guess, part of it. Well, imho you made a huge mistake by publicly claiming you want to crush TMV at the awards in retaliation for the struggle you had with TMV's Shaun before.

(Yeah, I know, I know, "it was a joke". Too sad that centrist and liberal jokers didn't get it.)

caffeine soldier said...

"I dominated their minds. That's all I want."

Ok, Althouse, so you're a hell of a domina. Whatever.
:D

Goesh said...

You da' woman! You da' woman!

The Drill SGT said...

caffeine soldier said...
Sgt, with all due respect, but did you lose your right eye in combat? If that's the case, pls move your head more to the right to see the huge "right wing" blogroll in that frame...


No I wasn't wounded in combat. My browser opens on the left side of the screen and I never bothered to scroll the page right, just up and down.

There are right blogs listed.

Anonymous said...

Chief Justice Althouse said:
Whatever happened, it wasn't pro-TMV, it was anti-Althouse. So the votes there are nearly all about Althouse. I dominated their minds. That's all I want.

Actually, I thought it was "really important" for you to "crush" The Moderate Voice. I think because they "attacked" you, isn't that right? Or did you not mean what you said?

If it was a joke, somebody please explain it to me, because I didn't get it. Maybe my sense of humor isn't as sophisticated as someone's who wants to "crush" other blogs, or "dominate" people's minds. But I certainly didn't read any posts by Althouse about how much of a "joke" the contest was. Gee Ann, you seemed pretty serious about the contest when you were leading, why the change of heart?

I guess when you're winning, it's an "important" enough contest to go vote in multiple times, but when you lose? 'Oh well it was all just a joke and the winners just don't have a sense of humor. I got in their heads, that's all I wanted.' Let me guess- you didn't play any sports, did you Ann?

For the record, I voted for Pedro.

caffeine soldier said...

"cfaller" has a point here. In your judgment on the proper form of addressing Chief Justices in court opinions, you really showed some 'extraordinary flexibility', Althouse. Well, many may prefer to call this 'applying a double standard' or simply 'hypocrisy'...

Ruth Anne Adams said...

XWL said: Maybe one day she'll be more enlightened and give in, but until then, she's only a centrist/moderate at best.


I am re-thinking this whole philosophy on a macro level. I'm very conservative especially on the social issues. The key issue these days for me is the foreign affairs/global war on Islamofascism. I want to be on the winning side so as to effect my preferred policies. To do that seems to require tabling some of my more socially conservative issues for a more important issue. People like Althouse are exactly the people who can comfortably see the conservative view, but they are often put off by the social agenda. Maybe we need to rethink how we pitch the intelligent middle to become hawks. If they lean libertarian, then the social issues can become a "live and let live" policy. We lose nothing. Most of the social issues are "hearts and minds" battles anyway. We can't legislate everything.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Any idea when the weekly podcast will be posted?

Simon said...

cfaller96 said...
"Chief Justice Althouse"

That has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Caffeine Soldier,
You do realize that the comment in the post you cite about how the Chief Justice is addressed in opinion writing ("My understanding ... is that when citing the Chief Justice's written opinions, the preferred title is "Justice," since in his opinion he is simply acting as first among equals") is totally, completely and utterly wrong?

Simon said...

Ruth Anne Adams said...
"Any idea when the weekly podcast will be posted?"

Let me be the first to request that, if and when the next Podcast is recorded, Ann takes the opportunity to expand a little about what was said at the Chicago conference. It has clearly had an impact, and I for one would like the opportunity to perhaps say a few words in rebuttal (on the assumption that, from what we have learned thusfar of it) that this was way off the mark.

Ann Althouse said...

Podcast later tonight if I get through this pile of work!

Simon: I'll be doing a Bloggingheads with Jonah Goldberg this week that ought to cover some of this. But ... yeah, the podcast too.

Ron said...

Ann, you are a conservatease!

caffeine soldier said...

"You do realize that the comment ... is totally, completely and utterly wrong?"

Wow! So, Althouse did address the Chief-Justice in the wrong way, too? Althouse makes mistakes? Who would have thought?

I'm SHOCKED, I tell ya, Simon!
:P

caffeine soldier said...

"Ann, you are a conservatease!"

Hehe! +
:D

Cedarford said...

I voted for you.
I hope you win, and your faculty pals learn of your new title.

I have no doubt knowing you got an award as "Grande Conservative Blogress Diva" will drive some of your Lefty Madison peers snakeshit.

Then you can say it came from a Gay webpage and watch them grit their teeth and say..."Well! If it is an award from a gay site, we HAVE to approve! Congratulations!"

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Simon said...

caffeine soldier said...
"Wow! So, Althouse did address the Chief-Justice in the wrong way, too? Althouse makes mistakes? Who would have thought?"

Even if we assume that the mistake is, in fact, Ann's, rather than that of her editor at the New York Times, you are comparing apples with oranges. How can you seriously compare an error in an op/ed thrown together within a few hours (note the timing: that op/ed was printed with 24 hours of Bush announcing the nomination) with an opinion of a United States District Court, on a matter of critical national security, which has supposedly been considered diligently and thoughtfully, released for public scrutiny only at the time of the Judge's choosing? You have to be kidding. Anyone who thinks the two are even vaguely comparable is a moron.

And in any event, if you have me pegged as someone who reflexively and uncritically takes Ann's side in all matters, you are WAY off the mark.

Anonymous said...

simon says:
You do realize that the comment in the post you cite about how the Chief Justice is addressed in opinion writing...is totally, completely and utterly wrong?

Holy crap, you totally missed the point of that link! The point Madison Guy made was that while Ann Althouse sneers at Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's "carelessness" because Judge Taylor didn't use the title "Chief" Justice, Ann Althouse has done the exact same thing!

So, was Ann Althouse "highlighting her own carelessness" (Ann's words) and "totally, completely, and utterly wrong" (your words) when she did it? Or is it only "careless" and "totally, completely, and utterly wrong" when Judge Anna Diggs Taylor does it?

What does that say about someone who accuses another of "carelessness," while doing the same damn thing herself? That's as pure a definition of hypocrisy as I think we'll find. That was Madison Guy's point, not some refutation on Ann Althouse's view of semantical niceties...

(And no, Althouse was NOT joking in that editorial...)

Simon said...

cfaller96 -
See my previous reply to Caffeine Soldier. I ignored the comparison at first, because I assumed it was fascetious; when it became clear he wasn't joking, I explained why it was absurd.

Anonymous said...

And you know it's a very special thing I'm doing here. And you know I know what I'm doing.

Presenting intuition as evidence? That certainly is special, but hardly an indication that you know what you are doing.

Anonymous said...

simon says:
How can you seriously compare an error in an op/ed thrown together within a few hours...with an opinion of a United States District Court, on a matter of critical national security, which has supposedly been considered diligently and thoughtfully, released for public scrutiny only at the time of the Judge's choosing?

Well, my first thought is that when writing an op-ed about a legal ruling that deals with "a matter of critical national security," what does it matter whether someone is referred to as "Chief Justice" or simply "Justice?" When dealing with the President's "inherent authority" to break the law, is the proper title relevant and important enough to even talk about it?

Ann thought so. She mentioned it. Twice. But apparently for Ann, it's not relevant and important enough to get it right herself. She can't even meet her own standards of "careful" writing. Your efforts to defend her touch my heart, but really, no NYT editor would take out "Chief Justice" to replace it with "Justice." That was Ann's "careless error," if it was an error in the first place. (My opinion: it's not an error, but if it is, it's minor and irrelevant).

In any case, I think you've answered my question- it's ok for Ann to do it, but not ok for Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to do it. Who does it matters more to you than what was done. I disagree.

But we've digressed. Let's get back to voting for Ann as a superduper Centrist blog. Oh wait, she lost, so let's claim it was a "joke" and move on to the next contest. Whatever it takes to get an award, I guess...

Ann Althouse said...

I blamed myself long ago for not catching that mistake in an op-ed. I don't see the point of going on and on about it. The district judge's opinion was still appallingly shoddy. The fact that one little blunder in it was also one I once made doesn't change that. I feel bad about my little mistake. We never, of course, hear any apology from a judge for a poorly written and reasoned decision.

Simon said...

cfaller96,
But again, you miss the point. It is one thing to miss an error in an op/ed column that is written under intense time pressure. But Judge Taylor was writing neither anything as ephemeral as an op/ed, nor under any time pressure but that which she herself imposed. The two are simply incomparable. If Justice Breyer makes an egregious misquotation in a formal, published opinion, it is no rejoinder to say "well, Scalia gave a speech last month and he misquoted Justice Douglas slightly." Off-the-cuff writing and speaking, which includes short-notice op/eds, are vastly and incomparably different to the thoughtful and carefully-scrutinized genesis of law review articles and judicial opinions.

And the reason the mistake matters in Taylor's case is because she was writing an opinion in which a close and careful attention to detail was demanded even more so than in any other opinion, because of the uniquely important and sensitive nature of the subject matter. When you read an opinion which makes a blatant error that you notice, it is natural that one starts to wonder what other mistakes are in the opinion that you didn't notice, or that you couldn't know were mistakes.

dklittl said...

cfaller96,

I wouldn't worry about this argument with Simon, as he seems excessively determined to win the loving approval of his (blog)mistress.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ann Althouse said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ann Althouse said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ann Althouse said...

cfaller: You falsely accused me of lying. I'm not wasting my time responding to you. Go away. I don't have to host that kind of insulting crap on my own blog.