Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
There are so many. But I would start with Atrios, Josh Marshall, Glenn Greenwald, Kevin Drum.Part of "being good" is marshalling facts, and part is motivating the troops. Josh Marshall probably wins the gold in the category of marshalling facts; he was so effective at it in 2005 that more than any other person he managed to avert Bush's Social Security privitization scheme. Marshall has truly done an amazing job over the years. Gold for Best Motivater goes to Atrios. Atrios was there in the beginning, splashing water in the face of people who had fallen under the post 9/11 spell that allowed Bush and the Republicans to do so much damage to the United States.
So there you are. A sock-puppet is promoted as a leading liberal blogger.
I'd throw Yglesias in there.
Mickey Kaus is the best! I like to read Alan Dershowitz's blog at Huffington Post, though his comment section is just depressing and he doesn't post all that much. I check in on several of the Townhouse coordinated lefty blogs, but I hate them. I'm pretty much kicking the overly partisan righty blogs to the curb too, lately. Sick of it. Sometimes it's enjoyable to read blogs from people outside the USA, as a relief from the hyper-partisanship.
You. Yglesias. Blumenthal (Mystery Pollster).
I suggest the New York Times.
"Best" is a nebulous term. Most readable? Most interesting? Most powerful? Most effective? Most well-liked? Most palatable to conservatives? Most likely to convince undecideds/ moderates/ conservatives that lefties are right on specific issues?I assume blogs that get facts wrong, angrily denounce innocent things, hurl vile insults at people, support our insurgent enemies, etc. wouldn't qualify.I don't think most conservatives are in any position to tell you what the best liberal blog is, because I get the sense most of us don't read them often. The things that make a leftist blog good are just as likely to annoy us as the things that make it bad.I think Patterico's recent takedown (1 2 3 4 5 6 7) of Glenn Greenwald (a.k.a. Ellison, Thomas Ellers, Rick Ellensburg) shows that Glenn is not worth wasting time on. The man is a joke. He said something crazy, and instead of taking it back, he dug himself in further and declared that he wasn't interested in having a civil, rational debate, he just wants to heap abuse and ridicule on conservatives. Fine. That's his privilege, but it means his blog sucks. That a lot of lefties go there to "rah rah" only shows how dumb they are.I think Jeralyn Merrit's complete misstatement of the facts in the Libby case should count heavily against considering her blog one of the best.
Note that I want names of individuals, not sites or groups. I want specific names, really. Picture a debate where you want someone representing the liberal side of the blogosphere. Who would be good for that? I'm not asking for advice for what I should read.
"Picture a debate where you want someone representing the liberal side of the blogosphere. "Oh. Well, in that case I would say that Amanda nutjob. If there was some sort of debate going on, I would really enjoy her being the the voice of my political opposition.
Define "liberal." Seriously.Without context, liberal and conservative are meaningless terms. Or maybe that's just me.
Assume I want a great, balanced debate. And that I want to be in the same room with them.
And that I'm not the conservative. A real conservative is the conservative. I'm the moderate.
I also like Josh Marshall, although he can tend to get too absorbed in fine details, such that you get overwhelmed (or bored). And he talks too much about his infant son. You have functioning reproductive organs. Hooray.
The view that people who talk about their children are really talking about their genitalia is hilarious. I'm going to apply that to everyday life from now on.
I like Publius of Legal Fiction/Obsidian Wings, Ezra Klein, Mark Schmidt.
Madisonman, sorry to hear about your nonfunctioning reproductive organs. Really, didn't need to know that.Or is that not what you meant?
Ezra Klein has called me one of the most loathsome characters on the internet. Really. Google "loathsome Althouse" and you'll get Ezra.
I mean to say that when I go to a site like Josh Marshall's, I'm more interested in reading about scandal (the site's function/purpose, in my view) than in the fullness of someone's diaper.If a kid is somehow relevant to the conversation, then a mention is fine -- heck, I've done that here. But the kid posts over there aren't.
me!! pick me!! isn't it interesting that there are so few specific liberals to choose from?what does that say about the state of liberal blogs or well known bloggers or, the audience on althouse who isn't taking the opportunity to toss something in the ring.
Ann said:"Picture a debate where you want someone representing the liberal side of the blogosphere. Who would be good for that?"I see. It's a trick question. I'd probably want to see someone like David Halberstam on the liberal side, but he doesn't appear to have succumbed to the Siren call of the blogospehere
No offense, Ann, but isn't "balanced debate" involving a modern liberal rather an oxymoron? Said liberals tend to be characterized by their refusal to openly debate anything.
If you are into having smoke blown up your ass, want to hear that liberals are the only force of good in the universe and that their shit doesn't stink, you can't get better than Greenwald, but I doubt you are looking for that kind of propaganda. I have always though Brenden Nyhan has done a great job sorting through facts even if they make liberals look bad. Like others mentioned, I think Yglesias is interesting and read Marshall and Drum and find them worth reading.
I challenged Ezra in the comments to that post because I thought that was inappropriate. I certainly don't fault you for discounting him on that basis, but he rarely does things like that. I think he felt too much loyalty to the young feminist bloggers with whom you have such a rocky repoire. But otherwise, I think he is a substantive and talented liberal writer.
"And that I'm not the conservative. A real conservative is the conservative. I'm the moderate."If the goal is to have a balanced, substantive debate, then I would say that the hypothetical lineup you propose, even sans names beyond your own, would fail that purpose. It would be a debate slanted leftward. You are accurately depicted as a moderate, but a center-left one. I suggest that you would need to have a center-right participant in addition to yourself (or someone like you), the liberal, and the conservative.Although that would probably not be a balanced panel, either, since there would be more weight in the center.
I have an idea! Let's ask a bunch of conservatives who the best liberal bloggers are!No groupthink there!Digby, Josh Marshall, Jeralyn Merritt, Yglesias, Wolcott, Greenwald (self-identifies as not a liberal), Max Sawicky, Paul Krugman, the folks at Tapped, Kevin Drum are all some very good liberal bloggers.Of course silly, they are all right there on your neutral, non-partisan blogroll!
MM, I think Josh, a proud new father, Mazel Tov, has done about 1/2 dozen posts on his kid.We have seen far more of the droolings and filled diapers of the Althouse clan here, and ya know what, all the more power to Ann and congratulations to her too.MM, I have met pinheads, and you are a pinhead.
So, rc, who are your favorite right-wing bloggers?
I have yet to find a liberal blogger whose site I want to return to daily. I want a liberal version of Andrew Sullivan: a liberal who is not a partisan flack and quite outraged by the party that purports to represent liberalism.
You are, Annie, of course!!!Mirror, mirror on the wall....
reality check said "MM, I have met pinheads, and you are a pinhead."Well, I'm glad the circus job is working out so well for you.
rc -- the althouse blog is far different from tpm. I expect a wide range of topics here, that's the design. tpm is a political blog. If Josh Marshall were to ask me (ha!), I'd say start a new blog on the mewlings of a new father. The seen-them-all-before mewlings of a new father, that is. If he had any original things to say, I'd read them with more enthusiasm. But really, most new parents, when writing about their experiences, are Boring. It's just like Parents Magazine at the pediatrician's -- the articles are the same as they were 13+ years ago in the ob/gyn office. They just recycle them every 5 years for a new audience.Interactions with adult children are always more interesting than interactions with infants. I find Marshall's posts about his parents very moving. But about the Son? Snooze city.I'll add YMMV.
I didn't expect that you would hire me Pogo, I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised.(At our Circus, Pogo is known as The Freak With No Brain!)
If you exclude his comments section, Kevin Drum is one of the better left-wing bloggers out there, IMNSHO. While I disagree with him on almost any given issue, he refrains from hyperbole and generally backs up his statements with documentation and cites. (The comments section is a lost cause, as the signal-to-noise ratio is far too low.) Jeralyn Merritt's Talk Left is also good, and Josh Marshall, Matt Yglesias, and Ezra Klein (his dislike of you notwithstanding) occasionally have views worth noting if you want "dissenting views".
My favorites: Glenn Greenwald (not liberal as much as anti-Bush), Atrios, Yglesias, Marshall, Alterman, Ezra Klein, Digby, TAPPED, teh Sadly, No! Also, TRex at FDL is pretty entertaining. I love the nominations of Mickey Kaus and Ann. Good stuff :-)
Assume I want a great, balanced debate. And that I want to be in the same room with them.Again, I guess it depends on what you want to debate. Judging by the other comments, looks like everyone is going for the boring political and defining liberal to be Democratic party hack (and conservative would be Republican party hack). Personally, I'd prefer a discussion over a couple of pints to a counting coup talking points debate. But I think that goes against the Internet bylaws.Anyway, looking for more interesting people than those already mentioned:Amy Alkon, doesn't have children, and is known for yelling at ill-behaved children.Julia Sweeney might be a long shot. Bonus points for having nonfunctioning reproduction organs, but she adopted, so you still get child talk.Crispin Sartwell I used to find interesting, though I mostly read him for his country music reviews. Has a blog that I haven't read. I think his children are grown.Here's a wildcard: Neal Boortz isn't a liberal in any sense of the word, but he hates Republicans slightly less than Democrats and pisses off conservatives almost as much as liberals. Talks about his dog more than his children.Poppy Z. Brite, cranky author living in New Orleans. Should be your go to source for all things culinary in New Orleans. No children, but slowly turning into an insane cat lady. On politics, here's a recent post:I'm sure Times-Picayune columnist James Gill (whom I think is brilliant even on the rare occasions when I disagree with him) is taking a lot of abuse over this piece. Personally, I not only think Edwin Edwards should be released from prison; I think he should be re-elected governor. If we can't have the nice tasteful king Ignatius J. Reilly wanted, we could at least have a competent politician who would never stand for all this Road Home(less) bullshit. People love to talk about how Louisiana politicians like Edwards and Huey Long lined their own pockets, seldom mentioning that they also put money and resources in the pockets of Louisiana citizens. Please, give me a corrupt politician like Marc Morial or Edwin Edwards over an "honest" one like Ray Nagin or Kathleen Blanco any day.Instead of Edwards for governor, I suspect and very much fear that we're going to get Bobby "I Hate Fags and I Have the Cold, Dead Eyes of a Corpse" Jindal.
Josh MarshallJosh MarshallGlenn GreenwalddigbyEschaton
MadisonMan,I generally agree that writing about children is often quite dull, especially describing in excruciating detail the travails early parenthood. Anne Lamotte, in contrast, wrote a painfully funny diary of the first year of her sons life in "Operating Instructions". It is about the only original thing I've ever read on early childhood.
a liberal who is not a partisan flack and quite outraged by the party that purports to represent liberalism. Well that's certainly how Mickey Kaus sees himself, except he's also increasingly outraged at liberalism itself, and could very easily be mistaken for a Republican flack. He didn't even want the Dems to control congress (because of all the immigrants!), so you should definitely check him out.
I like Kevin Drum. He's thoughtful and usually has a pretty good grasp of the central factual and operational issues of annything he discusses, though his opinions about "what ought we to do" are usually quite different from mine. I like Balkin and his guest commenters sometimes - they occasionally drop the political mask and consider that maybe reasonable minds can differ. Yglesias is pretty good, and Marshall is okay when he's not too busy conspiracy mongering and being unctuous - about half the time. It's been a long time but I think I got decent treatment from Billmon at some stage (Whiskey Bar) but it's been a long time since I visited his site, and Oliver Willis was an interesting read for a while, though he appeared to move away from thinking and more toward rhetorical bomb chucking around the time of the 2004 elections.As for the Gleen/Kos/Duncan Black axis, the Townhouse Boys and Girls, I tend to not read those propagandists because (as Gleen(s) has admitted, he's not really interested in debate or getting issues right but in winning one for his side. Self-avowed moderate my ass... it really suits him to appear in Buchanan's magazine). If I wanted to get in a screaming contest, I'd go out on the street corner and do it with the schizophrenic homeless guy out there - he says much more interesting and less predictable things. Plus it's just not worth subjecting yourself to the good faith-lacking steaming vitriol poured out by the hosts and their commenters, many of whom give flying monkeys a bad name. Man, do you ever get some hate email when one of those guys picks up on one of your blog entries. They are assholes, and that about sums it up - they aren't able to rail on about the other side's politics without pissing all over the people on the other side in a personal manner, which tends to make me disregard them, and their ideas; reasoned debate simply isn't possible. (I've gotten in some fights with some acquaintence in the right-0-sphere about this too...) I sometimes shoot my mouth off, but generally if somebody is willing to engage in reasoned debate, will give back at least the same respect I get - that M.O. isn't in the flamethrowers' vocabulary. So I guess the real answer to the question is, "fewer and fewer of them over time."
Marshall is okay when he's not too busy conspiracy mongering Boy it takes a lot of balls given that he was exactly right to dig into the USA issue while getting mocked by douchebags like Jay Carney.Why don't you wait until he gets one as horribly wrong as Michelle Malkin does constantly before you start calling him a conspiracy monger.
Doyle - Did you mean to say "count him out" not "check him out?" Mickey would be a poor choice, I think.Merritt, Marshall, Yglesias & Drum are not excessively fond of listening to their own voices, and capable of rational debate without sinking into endless streams of vulgarities. Corn & Alterman do fine on bloggingheads. Bob Wright is a classic liberal thinker.Might be more interesting to find someone who is not as well-known in the blog community, though.
I was saying Peter Hoh should check Mickey out, since he clearly isn't really looking for a liberal blogger. Mickey's a full-blown liberal hater (like Ann), actually, and an apologist for both W. and the Coulter.Somewhat off the beaten track: Roger Ailes, DownWithTyranny, driftglass, Crooked Timber.
Ann Althouse said..."And that I'm not the conservative. A real conservative is the conservative. I'm the moderate."So, the moderate in this debate is someone who vocally supported George W. Bush's re-election in 2004, bashes liberals and Democrats on a regular basis, and rarely criticizes conservatives or Republicans, unless they are rude to her at dinner parties (such as in the dustup with the Reason crowd over federalism). Interesting. Who is sponsoring this debate, Fox News?As far as liberal bloggers go for debates like this, I'd pick Josh Marshall, Matthew Yglesias or Duncan Black (Atrios). Markos Moulitsas might be a good choice also, but at this point he's more of a mogul than a blogger.
It might be helpful to know that the subject is political blogging, not just politics. We want to talk about how blogging is done, and I think it is done differently from different spots on the spectrum.
Good idea, Doyle - one of the Crooked Timber contributers (save the perpetually angry and superior Daniel Davies) would be an excellent choice, (Of the other 3 you mentioned, I only know Ailes, mainly because of the name confusion, so thanks for the heads up - will check them out for myself.)
We want to talk about how blogging is done.No liberal blogger worth his/her salt is going to want to spend time "going meta" and debating the fine points of the craft with you. They're going to want to talk politics, and if they've read you with any regularity they're going to want to take your head off.You want to piss off liberals, don't you? Reap what you sow.
Doyle, I'm not a Mickey kind of guy.
What's notable is that Ann doesn't even realize how biased it is to claim herself as a moderate.Everyone is like me or everyone should be like me! I am the very model of a modern moderate in general, I've information scandalous, gossipy, and viewable, I know the kings of television, and I quote the fights historical From Survivor and on Runway, in order categorical; I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical, I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical, About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news, With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse. For my legalistic knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury, Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century; But still, in matters scandalous, gossipy, and viewable, I am the very model of a modern moderate in general.
Well that's to your credit, Peter :-)
I think Althouse would be a fine "moderate" for this discussion, as long as someone like Andrew Sullivan was also there to represent the "middle," whatever that is these days.
Though he's not much of a political bloger, I think that Dan Savage represents the kind of liberal blogger I like.
No liberal bloggers want to talk about blogging? Anyway, it's not my project, so if you don't like it, don't mix it up with what you think of me.
Most of the bloggers listed above, Atrios, Marshall, Drum, etc., are not extremist liberals. Most are very moderate liberals.Any panel that would somehow position them as extreme would be misleading from the get go.
Boy it takes a lot of balls given that he was exactly right to dig into the USA issue while getting mocked by douchebags like Jay Carney.Yeah, it does. I'm still waiting for Josh Micah Marshall Jinglemyer Schmidt's super secret source who is going to blow the lid off Plamegate and the Presidency to come through. It's only been... about three years now. And if you want USA Attorneys who are removed from Executive Branch supervision and policy adherence, we can do that. The last time we had one of those - a high profile guy named Ken Starr - your type didn't like him too much. You need to be careful what you ask for, Doyle, because you're going to get it. See, e.g. Sarbanes Oxley.
I think that there have been several names mentioned that probably have an interest in what you describe as the topic, Ann: Merritt, Drum, Bertram & Farrell @ Crooked Timber to name a few.
Mark A. R. Kleiman, of samefacts.org. Nancy Nall, of nancynall.com.
I work in finance, so I hear a lot about how awful Sarbanes-Oxley is, but my sympathy level for publicly traded corporations is about as low as you'd expect.But Henry Paulson's a decent guy and if he says there's overly restrictive stuff in there, he may be right.Just lay off JMMJS...
Steve Benen, of the carpetbaggerreport.
We went through this at my place a while back when Jay Tea over at Wizbang said that there were no thoughtful writers in the left blogosphere, so I helpfully put together a list and my readers helped add to it.The post is here.
Yeah D. Neiwert (Orcinus) is good. I also want to give a special nomination to Marty Kaplan at HuffPo who wrote an excellent post/column entitled "Impeachment is an Underblown Personnel Matter."
Matt WelchKen Layne
Marshall. Sullivan.I'd like to see all political bloggers--left or right--do more original reporting. And offer space to opposing viewpoints, just as newspapers do on their op-ed pages.This whole linking to the New York Times business is getting pretty old...
Mickey Kaus and Andy Sullivan are by no means liberals. Kaus is more of a moderate who flacks for GOP or at least goes very easy on them while going hard on libs and Dems. Sullivan a liberal? Simply an absurd idea.
Matt Taibbi from RollingStone/Alternet is hilarious. Daily Howler, David Neiwert, Tom Tomorrow, Wolcott, tBogg, Digby, Steve Gilliard, Mark Kleiman, and Michael Bérubé to name a few not already mentioned. Rude Pundit if your a daring soul.
Any panel that would somehow position them as extreme would be misleading from the get go.Agreed. Someone from pandagon should be there, or someone from feministing. Depending, of course, on how one defines best liberal blogger. Is the best liberal blogger the most extreme, the most knowledgeable, the most persuasive, or most influential?I too would like a liberal version of Andrew Sullivan.
Well, if you are looking for the blog that gives the most completely unfiltered insight into the liberal mind I would say the Democratic Underground.
If you invite Andrew Sullivan (already been noted: not a liberal), he's not going to talk about blogging, he's going to talk about Christianists.
I'd have to say the best liberal blogger is Matthew Yglesias. I'm pretty conservative, but I find his posts consistently interesting and non-stupid. The latter quality is not always there when it comes to most other big bloggers. Yglesias mixes facts, observations, commentary, political ideals, and logic quite effectively.
Agree on Matthew Yglesias. I read him every day, and he is a good writer and a straight shooter. I think Josh Marshall is a great blogging entreprenuer -- his TPM cafe is magnificent. But his actual writings are pretty thin, partisan, told-you-so type stuff. Someone mentioned Julia Sweeney, the 90s era SNL star. Her blog is great! She's become a committed atheist, but unlike most atheists, is racked with self-doubt about it, which she manifests in a beautifully comic way. Her post about the trendy new "The Secret" had me laughing out loud. Dick Polman, who writes for the Philadelphia Inquirer, also writes a blog and it's excellent. 99 percent politics. His depth as a reporter combined with his writing skills would make him a great challenge to any conservative. I find a maturity in him that even Yglesias (who's not even 30) or Marshall don't have yet.
Someone mentioned Julia Sweeney, the 90s era SNL star. Her blog is great! She's become a committed atheist, but unlike most atheists, is racked with self-doubt about it, which she manifests in a beautifully comic way. Her post about the trendy new "The Secret" had me laughing out loud. How can one be comitted to anything and be "racked" with self-doubt? I don't question the self-doubt deal with atheists - my bet has always been they would cover their asses in a quick prayer right before death if they had the time - but it seems to me that if you are racked with self-doubt (as opposed to having a tinge of doubt now and again) then you aren't that comitted.
I've had a soft spot in my heart for Jeralyn Merritt ever since the Duke Rape fiasco, when we were the only two to defend, or at least vocally refuse to castigate, the accused men from the beginning. I remember that she took a lot of flack from that in her comments. I don't think that qualifies her for "best liberal blogger", but she wins points from me.I agree with the Yglasias and Drum picks. Jon Chait does a good job at the TNR blog. I like Bob Wright, but I think he fancies himself more of a foreign policy maven then he really is.Hmmm... who are the best conservative bloggers- that is, bloggers who no one would deny is certifiably conservative, but isn't a blowhard or unsensible?
Madison Man,Normally I appreciate your voice of reason, but you are just way over the top and totally beyond the facts with your complete mischaracterization of Josh Marshall's blog.He has mentioned his son maybe 3 times (that I know of) in the span of several months since the kid was born. I read his blog daily, and would not have missed many posts. Despite your fabrications, he does not "write about his experiences" as a father. You make it sound like he writes about his son. He does not. He has merely mentioned his son, in passing, very briefly and very infrequently.One of those 3 times was simply to announce the birth of his first child. Another was in a brief, reflective post about the crazy year in which he got married, had his first child, and lost his father. Again, it was probably one paragraph and the kid was mentioned only in passing.He has never mentioned a diaper, nor anything as mundane as changing diapers, nor does he "mewl" about what it is like being a dad. I honestly have no idea what compelled you to so grossly mischaracterize both the extent and content of Marshall's posts on the topic.
Bob Wright--he's freakin' brilliant (see his book "Nonzero"). Pairing him against someone like Hugh Hewitt would make for a phenomenal debate.
Ok, we need a few more women represented here, and no, not those from the Pandagon or Feministing crowd.How about:Laura at 1ATeresa Nielsen Hayden at Making LightDooce (you can call her a mommy blogger, but she's 1) a good writer/blogger and 2) liberal)Belle Waring
If you hum a few bars, I bet Sippican could fake it.
John Scalzi. I go there and read all his posts, even if they piss me off. And a lot of his comments. Note, his comments are moderateded by him, so the comments tend to be on the tame side...As for liberal, it is hard to say, because no one person personifies the modern left / liberal, much less a definition of liberal that incluse Joe Lieberman. (Who is absolultely not conservative, but gets pounded by many of the people proposed...kinda like how McCain is not a liberal and gets pounded by many conservatives.... hmmm... Lieberman / War, McCain / BPCFR... hmm....)
I have to be boring and list the same bloggers everyone else is saying: Kevin Drum, Matthew Yglesias, Josh Micah Marshall and Mark Kleiman. I'd also add Spencer Ackerman who's pretty good (and is in Iraq right now).reality check–"moderate in general" doesn't really track syllabalwise with "major general", I'd change it to "blogging moderate". And the math section should be replaced by something that's a parody.
For example, here's a really interesting ground-eye view from Iraq that Ackerman wrote.
Jacob, you're absolutely right, and I wanted to do better. I didn't songwrite with the time I wanted, I songwrit with the time I had.
While it didn't track in number of syllables, I felt it kept the same meter (as if I had any understanding of meter) and so was somewhat acceptable.But don't blame me, the real question is, how come there is no G&S song generator on the net?
But Henry Paulson's a decent guy and if he says there's overly restrictive stuff in there, he may be right.Jeebus Doyle, Oxley himself has publicly recanted from the damn thing, and says it was the dumbest thing he ever did in his entire public service career. And while it's nifty to talk about how little you care about corporations, where do you think jobs and pensions come from? Capital investment and corporations, of course. Three years ago, 24 of the top 25 IPOs were in the United States. That means billions in investments, thousands of new jobs, and income and growth potential. Last year, 25 of 25 IPOs were listed only on foreign markets, not in the U.S. The populist pose is really cool and all, but this is how economies are destroyed.
The obvious candidates like Drum, Marshall, Black and Yglesias have been discussed so I'll give a few not on the list. I think that Steve Gilliard is brilliant in a Captain Quarter's (one of my favorite conservative blogs) kind of way with large scale takes on issues. Mark Kleinman is really good especially on business issues. And if you're looking for some bomb-throwers in the Malkin-type class Skippy at Skippy the Bush Kangaroo and Oliver Willis are two of the funnier ones.
ASX: kidblogging is a real fingernail on the chalkboard kind of thing for me. So when it happens, I really really notice it out of proportion to its size. It is not rational.Look at what's happened to Garrison Keilor, for example. He isn't even worth reading now (that is, if you thought he was before) that he's talking all about his GoldenDaughter. Bleah.
The best blogger on the left is the neo-liberal Mickey Kaus. The runner-up would be Andrew Sullivan, who despite his claims to the contrary is a liberal who demonizes anyone who dare oppose gay marriage. He is the most effective anti-Bush blogger on the web. The most effective liberal blogger in general is Kos. He forced Lieberman into a competetive re-election and to leaving the Democratic party, Democrats consult with him even though he has never worked in politics, his nasty attacks on George Allen helped give Webb the win, and in general has been very effective at gettting msm to pick up on stories. http://holdthesenate.blogspot.comhttp://holdthesenate.blogspot.com/
BTW, Ann is not a conservative. Most who characterize her as that display their own liberalism. She is pro-choice and partial birth abortion, pro-Michigan style affirmative action, and pro gay marriage. She is a social liberal and a foreign policy hawk. There used to be many in the Democratic party that held these views. The fact that few do now, does not make her a conservative. People that think she is conservative should pick up a copy or read online the National Review or American Spectator. This would be to your own benefit as you might actually realize what a conservative is. One of the problems liberals have, is they characterize anyone diverts from party orthodoxy as a conservative, neo-liberal, or neo-conservative. Republicans recognize that writers such as David Frum, Bill Buckley, and George Will have differences of opinion but none of them are liberals.
Now THAT's how blogwhoring is done!
Ron Silliman is an ok and intelligent liberal. He's actually a socialist, but he's still got a brain. His posts are generally about art, film and especially poetry but now and then he writes something political.He hates Bush, and he hates Republicans, but he doesn't waddle around in diapers sucking his thumb as he says it, as most liberals do. He's fairly grown up at least by my standards.http:/www.ronsilliman.blogspot.com
Eric Muller at Is that Legal? (http://isthatlegal.org/) is a terrific liberal law professor blogger. I can't argue with the others who are sincerely trying to answer Ann's question (i.e., telling her which sites they think are excellent liberal blogs), but Eric doesn't get the credit he gets for his brilliance and his efforts to be lawyerly (i.e., supporting his point of view with citations to evidence and authority). And the breadth of the matters he addresses makes him a genuine counterpart to Ann. To be fair, and in the interests of full disclosure, I did for a brief time guest blog for him.
It should be added that Eric is THE authority on the, ahem, "deficiencies" of Malkin's "Defense of Internment."
It should be added that Eric is THE authority on the, ahem, "deficiencies" of Malkin's "Defense of Internment." Didn't he also post a photoshopped pic of Maklin's head on someone else's half-dressed torso?Anyway, if he's emblematic of the counter-argument on internment, I'm going to have to start taking her arguments more seriously. Just for starters, he claimed that no actions were taken against Germans or Italians, which is patently false.
I'ds like to see a bit of framing here. If we can agree that nobody who voted for Bush in 2000 is a liberal, and nobody who voted for Kerry in 2004 is a conservative, we might have a useful framework in which to begin. Of course, this will kill a few of the popular shibboleths, such as "Mickey Kaus is conservative" and "Andrew Sullivan is conservative", but it is flexible enough to eliminate obvious partisans from the mix. There are a lot of prominent centrist bloggers (Ann Althouse, Glenn Reynolds) who voted Gore 2000/Bush 2004) who might very well vote for whoever the Democrats offer in 2008. (Others, such as Charles Johnson, are fairly firmly tethered to the GOP for now.) Not everyone who voted for Bush in 2004 is tied to the religious right's social puritanism, and not everyone who voted for Gore in 2000 believes in the redistributionist left's socialism.
blake,Yeah, Muller did post a photoshopped picture of Malkin, and, when caught out on that dumb mistake, apologized. It's the risks someone takes putting himself or herself out there (as readers of this blog no doubt appreciate). And you're not seriously defending "In Defense of Internment," are you?
Yeah, Muller did post a photoshopped picture of Malkin, and, when caught out on that dumb mistake, apologized. It's the risks someone takes putting himself or herself out there (as readers of this blog no doubt appreciate). What is the phrase? He "showed his ass"? He can apologize all day long, but the "logic" is apparent there: If Malkin ever did anything in her past that she currently claims to abhor, she (and by association, her ideas) should be shunned.And you're not seriously defending "In Defense of Internment," are you?Interesting response. I point out a factual error in (using your phrase) THE authority on debunking the book, and you reply not on point but with, perhaps, a similar brush as Muller's. Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying, "If you defend this book, you (and by association, all your ideas) should be shunned."I haven't read the book, so I can't really defend it. Even if I had, I wouldn't feel obliged to, because I didn't write it. I imagine that (as with most books) there are parts that I'd agree with and parts that I wouldn't agree with.Growing up, I only heard one story: Americans locked up innocent Japanese in WWII for no other reason than racism. Information about how Germans and Italians were affected, and how Japan was different (in terms of threat) than our enemies in the European theater would've been welcome. Then I could come to my own conclusions.I also think we judge previous generations according to modern ideals at our own peril.
There are parts of Defense of Internment you'd agree with and parts you wouldn't? That could be said about every book ever written. Maybe you'd extend the same courtesy to Muller. But every book (and every blog) has its mistakes. That doesn't mean some aren't a lot better than others. It's pretty clear which I think is a lot better between Malkin's and Muller's views regarding the Japanese internment. I don't know what you're referring to about what was done to German-Americans or Italian-Americans in WWII (but I know a lot about WWII, and a lot of from very close to home), but is that really material to what was done to Japanese-Americans? Maybe you think it is. Could you enlighten us how it was?And of course we judge history at our peril. But I'll answer that truism with my own, just as true and just as trite: We ignore history at our peril. Do you think our treatment of Americans of German/Italian/Japanese descent in WWII has anything to teach us about our situation today? And what might that be?It can't be difficult to imagine what I think the Japanese Internment might teach us. But that gets back to the point of this thread: what liberal blogs would readers recommmend? The question wasn't: what are the problems the haters of liberal blogs want to point out? Are there any liberal blogs you'd recommend, Blake?
NSC, How can one be comitted to anything and be "racked" with self-doubt? I don't question the self-doubt deal with atheists - my bet has always been they would cover their asses in a quick prayer right before death if they had the time - but it seems to me that if you are racked with self-doubt (as opposed to having a tinge of doubt now and again) then you aren't that comitted.Read her blog. The post I had in mind was one where she tries to reconcile her atheism with a desire not to have a superior attitude with regard to those who believe in God or some other kind of supernatural force; finally concluding she does have a superior attitude, and there's nothing she can do about it.The humor of this might not be for everyone.
Glenn Reynolds isn't a centrist. The real political center is probably more around the opposite of Reynolds. Reynolds position on the war is not held by most Americans. By contrast neither are his leftwing opinions, say, his support of gay marriage. He's a hawkish libertarian and there's nothing generally wrong with that worldview but it's a centrist one.Reality Check,What do you think of these changes (I'm still thinking of something to replace the math part). I am the very model of a modern blogging moderateI've information chitchatable, gossipy, and literate,I know the kings of tv, and I quote the fights historicalFrom Survivor to Apprentice, in order categorical;For my legalistic knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;But still, in matters chitchatable, gossipy, and literate,I am the very model of a modern modern blogging moderate
Jacob,Well, that's much much better than mine! I am not a songwriter and it seems a bit rough, but I think it's terrific!What say you Ann?
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;Earlier, I was thinking that should be "beginning of last century", but "the century also works, because Ann stopped at Bush V. Gore and hasn't kept up with anything legal since Survivor, Palau.
reality check,I'm just building off what you made. I think now I have a complete version (at least of what you posted). I also changed chitchtable to controversial, because chitchtable 1) doesn't really flow and 2) isn't a "word".I am the very model of a modern blogging moderateI've information controversial, gossipy, and literate,I know the kings of tv, and I quote the fights historicalFrom Survivor to Apprentice, in order categorical;I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters confrontationalI've tangled with some bloggers, both the milquetoast and radicalOn Marcotte, Cole and Bailey I am teeming with a lot o' viewsBut politics is secondary, I just comment on the newsFor my legalistic knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;But still, in matters controversial, gossipy, and literate,I am the very model of a modern modern blogging moderate
I want a liberal version of Andrew Sullivan: a liberal who is not a partisan flack and quite outraged by the party that purports to represent liberalism.Might I recommend the folks at CorrenteWire? They've taken to voluntarily using the term "Democrat Party" as punishment. On the other hand, they use dirty words.
This thread is undoubtedly dead, but I'm just finding it now. So let me say to Blake: you won't be able to cite for me the place where I "claimed that no actions were taken against Germans or Italians," because it doesn't exist.The U.S. government targeted U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry in World War II with a program of forced removal and detention. It created no such program for U.S. citizens of German or Italian ancestry.The U.S. government also targeted aliens of Japanese, German, and Italian ancestry for removal and detention. In certain instances, U.S. citizen children of German and Italian ancestry went into internment with their alien parent or parents, but the internment orders were not directed at them (as they were against U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry). And in a small number of cases, the precise extent of which the literature does not (yet) reveal (though it hopefully soon will), the U.S. placed naturalized U.S. citizens of German or Italian ancestry into internment.It is important to note, too, that the method of internment for most Japanese aliens was different from that used for German and Italian aliens. Though there were undoubtedly small numbers of exceptions, the large majority of those German and Italian aliens who were interned in World War II were treated consistently with the Alien Enemy Act and its implementing regulations, and given hearings. The overwhelming majority of Japanese aliens were not given hearings; they were simply placed behind barbed wire.None of this is to say that German and Italian aliens were fairly treated in World War II. Congress is considering legislation to investigate the circumstances of German and Italian internment in World War II, and I hope it passes.But Blake, your claim that I have said that "no actions were taken against Germans or Italians" is simply false.
But Blake, your claim that I have said that "no actions were taken against Germans or Italians" is simply false.I guess I'm not "getting" part 7 of your rebuttal where you write (in part):The government...took no action affecting American citizens of German or Italian ancestry.lolOK, in fairness, there's a context to that quote that can be read here. I haven't excerpted the context so as not to hijack this blog.But really, a casual reading left me with three possibilities:1. You agreed with Malkin and simply didn't believe she did a credible job pointing out how Germans and Italians were dealt with.2. You actually believe it, which I take you to be denying.3. You believe a less hyperbolic version of said point, which I take you to be saying here.You then go on to say (in that link) that Asians historically had been demonized, which was true. But you don't mention that so had Germans. ("The Hun" was famously portrayed as a baby eater in WWI.)I think the degree to which racism played a part in internment can be reasonably discussed, but I suspect such reasonable discussions don't sell books like Malkin's--or blogs like yours.That is all.
Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings. Jonathan Schwarz at Tiny Revolution (a real Cindy-Sheehan style liberal for a change). Bradford Plumer.
No, Blake, that's not quite all.You say: "I haven't excerpted the context so as not to hijack this blog."Not so, Blake. If anyone actually bothers to click over and dig through the lengthy critique of Malkin's book and find the part you are referring to, they will quickly see that the reason you didn't "excerpt[ ] the context" was "so as not to" reveal more plainly that you are pulling your criticism of my work out of your ass.lol, as you would say.
Post a Comment