Althouse: "You can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say ... you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic..."

December 3, 2007

"You can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say ... you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic..."

Mobyism.

ADDED: Sorry to link mystifyingly to something so old! I saw the link in the comments in this post from Saturday, where we're talking about the teacher in Wisconsin who got arrested for posing as a right-winger and saying that teachers ought to be shot. Michael wondered if anyone had seen Moby lately.

57 comments:

Roger J. said...: Wait a minute--you mean people can send fake emails? Geez--perhaps that explains why I have never gotten my money from Nigeria.

As to driving his girl friend to an abortion clinic, sounds OK to me--it IS a matter of choice for the woman in question, not the man. Isnt that what pro choice means?; 12/3/07, 9:42 AM
Maxine Weiss said...: HELP ME, NOW !

I have a plane to catch in four hours, but I'm having a luggage problem.

I bought a brand new 30-inch Olympia tote, yesterday ($50.00).....that has a smell.

Does all new luggage have that weird smell?

It's a bit more than a 'new-car' smell.

I'm paranoid on a good day....but this seems to be a bit more toxic than a simple 'new car' smell.

1. Do I simply hope that this smell goes away? (My intuition tells me it won't.)

2. Do I bring everything to a crashing standstill---halt all my plans--- and go through the rigamorole of returning the toxic luggage to the Discounters, and buying a much more expensive piece that's been thoroughly inspected...??????

H-E-L-P !!!!!!; 12/3/07, 9:53 AM
Joan said...: Why are you linking to a post from February 2004? I feel like I missed something somewhere.; 12/3/07, 9:53 AM
Joan said...: Maxine: sorry. It smells something like kerosene or jet fuel, right? Why do you think the piece ended up at the discounters?

Use a different piece of luggage for this trip, otherwise your clothes will smell, too. When you get home, see if the smell has dissipated, chances are it won't be as strong, but that some faint odor will remain. Friends who have had this experience ended up exchanging the bags. Sorry you ran into this at the last minute, and I hope everything works out for you.; 12/3/07, 9:57 AM
Anonymous said...: It could also be called a Limbaughism. After all, if you listen to Rush, the sub prime credit crisis is the fault of the Democrats...Rush told me so.; 12/3/07, 10:03 AM
Unknown said...: Never forget that back during impeachment, Jonah Goldberg's mom famously told the NYPress that "For all we know, Clinton is fingerfucking Chelsea."

Memo to NRO: The apple doesn't fall too far from the tree.; 12/3/07, 10:10 AM
Maxine Weiss said...: As a rule, I never buy expensive luggage because I don't want to attract thieves.

I had good luck with Olympia in the past....

Hassle. Repacking. And, completely fouls up my schedule.

Merry Christmas, Everyone.; 12/3/07, 10:12 AM
Patuxent said...: Of course, concerning immigration, what Moby is saying about GWB for a "hoax" email is perfectly true. It's no lie that Bush favors amnesty and open borders. He's never hidden those agendas (except for weaseling over the word "amnesty")and people that voted for him had no reason not to know where he stood on the issue.; 12/3/07, 10:17 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Someone brought it up in a comment, and I thought it was funny. Sorry it was old!; 12/3/07, 10:27 AM
TJ said...: Crediting Moby for this practice is a slur to Karl Rove, King of the Whisper Campaign. Was it Moby who told Texas voters that Ann Richards might be gay? Was it Moby who told South Carolina primary voters that McCain had a black baby? Karl demands an apology.

Meanwhile Matt Drudge says, "What am I, chopped liver?"; 12/3/07, 10:29 AM
Swifty Quick said...: Being an old items renders it even more instructive, not less, because what it did is presage the Dem's suppress-the-Christian-right-vote schemes of the last 3 years.; 12/3/07, 10:43 AM
TJ said...: Schemes like sending IM's to pages from Mark Foley's computer? That was definitely one of their more clever schemes.

Schemes like congressman taking bribes from Jack Abramoff? Also very clever. Because it guessed that Christians might care about accountability and integrity in their political representatives as much as non-Christians.; 12/3/07, 11:04 AM
Laura Reynolds said...: Zeb, Don't mess with Trevor, he's got some serious 411.; 12/3/07, 11:07 AM
ricpic said...: Classic ends justify the means stuff.

Interesting that on this very thread Alan and Christopher are using the tactic.; 12/3/07, 11:07 AM
JohnAnnArbor said...: Interesting that on this very thread Alan and Christopher are using the tactic.

It's the rare "recursive Moby."; 12/3/07, 11:08 AM
Unknown said...: ricpic said...
Classic ends justify the means stuff.

Interesting that on this very thread Alan and Christopher are using the tactic.

11:07 AM

Please explain how my sole comment on this thread -- on the evil of Lucianne Goldberg -- in anyway implies the end justifies the means.

Until then, put a sock on it.; 12/3/07, 11:21 AM
Unknown said...: environmenatlists, racial hucksters and other leftists seem perfectly willing to make up "crises,"

I think vociferous supporters of the Iraq invasion are in a particularly poor rhetorical position to complain that their political opponents are making up crises.; 12/3/07, 11:25 AM
JohnAnnArbor said...: Until then, put a sock on it.

Hostility at the slightest touch....; 12/3/07, 11:26 AM
hdhouse said...: Am I wrong but was it strictly conjecture that the poster was a "liberal posing as a right winger"...that was a supposition not a fact.

two things in defense against that:

1. the site looks like a an "idiots black hole of craziness" and
2. the content of the site is such that most liberals I know wouldn't touch it with a stick.; 12/3/07, 11:33 AM
perfecthair said...: yeah, right, but, since Bush is your man, you would have been cool with that smear attack that Bush's own team launched against McCain in 2000, with disgusting insinuations about his adopted daughter.; 12/3/07, 11:36 AM
Ann Althouse said...: hdhouse said..."Am I wrong but was it strictly conjecture that the poster was a "liberal posing as a right winger"...that was a supposition not a fact."

Who said "liberal posing as a right winger"? You've got quotes around a phrase that I think you're the first one to use? Based on the news report, it seems to be a teacher who was creating the impression of being someone who hates teachers. He was being satirical and playing a character. Does anyone really think the teacher wanted teachers shot?

"two things in defense against that: 1. the site looks like a an "idiots black hole of craziness" and 2. the content of the site is such that most liberals I know wouldn't touch it with a stick."

Well,

1. You act like there aren't trolls and "mobyism."

2. Since they tracked down a teacher -- maybe he's been misidentified -- what's your explanation for why he did it?; 12/3/07, 11:46 AM
Ann Althouse said...: perfecthair said..."yeah, right, but, since Bush is your man, you would have been cool with that smear attack that Bush's own team launched against McCain in 2000, with disgusting insinuations about his adopted daughter."

Well, since I supported Al Gore... your idiotic presumption is even more idiotic usual...; 12/3/07, 12:06 PM
jeff said...: Moby has been an internet verb for some time now. I am sure he is proud.

'It could also be called a Limbaughism. After all, if you listen to Rush, the sub prime credit crisis is the fault of the Democrats...Rush told me so.'"

Ture, except that this is in no way related to a moby. But you got your slur in so be happy.

Chris is big on guilt by association. Something he will be against in a future thread should it be used against a issue he is for. He also isnt big on documenting anything. Such as the comment today with no cite.; 12/3/07, 12:10 PM
jeff said...: "Am I wrong but was it strictly conjecture that the poster was a "liberal posing as a right winger"...that was a supposition not a fact."

Not sure, but it looked like the person running the site and the cops both assumed it was a right wing nut. It was after they tracked him down that they found he was actually a teacher doing his idea of a imitation of a right wing nut. Classic Moby.; 12/3/07, 12:13 PM
Unknown said...: Jeff said:

Chris is big on guilt by association.He also isnt big on documenting anything. Such as the comment today with no cite.

How about "-- and then there's filthy-minded Lucianne Goldberg, who secured her footnote in American political history as Linda Tripp's accomplice, delightedly hawking a story to the equally spiteful New York Press about Clinton "finger-fucking" his daughter Chelsea."
http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/04/17/wimps/

Happy now? Or just too lazy to Google it yourself...

Yes, she said it. But of course I'm sure you already knew that.

And yes, the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree.; 12/3/07, 12:22 PM
perfecthair said...: Althouse said:

"Well, since I supported Al Gore......"

even worse!; 12/3/07, 12:31 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "it looked like the person running the site ... assumed it was a right wing nut."

No, he didn't! Read his post again.; 12/3/07, 12:43 PM
DaLawGiver said...: Never forget that back during impeachment, Jonah Goldberg's mom famously told the NYPress that "For all we know, Clinton is fingerfucking Chelsea."

From Moby to Jonah to Lucianne to Clintons.

Are we playing that Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon Game?; 12/3/07, 12:55 PM
KCFleming said...: With christopher and Moby,
extremism in defense of the left is no vice. Tolerance in the face of conservatism is no virtue.; 12/3/07, 1:07 PM
Roger J. said...: "the apple doesnt fall...." who knew Christopher was a genetic determinist! Keep that up christopher and we will induct you as an honorary wingut!; 12/3/07, 1:52 PM
Swifty Quick said...: Christopher:

You're seriously trying to palm that over-the-top hate rant off as some kind of "objective journalism"? Puh-leeeze.

If she really said that, while "delightedly hawking a story to the equally spiteful New York Press," as he says, then it'd be out there in multiple places. And it's not.

Pfff-tttt.; 12/3/07, 1:52 PM
Unknown said...: If she really said that, while "delightedly hawking a story to the equally spiteful New York Press," as he says, then it'd be out there in multiple places. And it's not.

Pfff-tttt.

Bullshit. I read it at the time, and I even had an e-mail exchange with her idiot son about it in 2000.

Apparently, the NYPress hasn't archived everything they've ever printed, but I'm sure if I had the energy I could find another attribution.

Not that you'd care, since you obviously don't even find the quote offensive.; 12/3/07, 1:57 PM
KCFleming said...: "and I even had an e-mail exchange with her idiot son"

How convenient that no one can actually verify this, just a few blog posts recirculating the same wording.

Sounds like Mobying to me. No, chris, I will not take your word for it.; 12/3/07, 2:16 PM
garage mahal said...: Didn't Whale get his break in journalism from a box of secret sex tapes his mole mother dropped in his lap? Pretty ironic, even for him.; 12/3/07, 2:27 PM
Unknown said...: Pogo said...

"and I even had an e-mail exchange with her idiot son"

How convenient that no one can actually verify this, just a few blog posts recirculating the same wording.

Sounds like Mobying to me. No, chris, I will not take your word for it.

E-mail somebody at the NYPress.
http://www.nypress.com/corp/contact.cfm

They'll confirm it I'm sure. Hell, as I recall, they thought it was cool at the time.

It was an article by their ex-editor, Russ Smith (AKA Mugger) from the run-up to impeachment. Either '97 or '98.

Although since I doubt you actualy find the quote offensive, I'm sure you won't bother.; 12/3/07, 2:39 PM
Unknown said...: Or e-mail the Mistress of the Dark herself.

I'm sure she'll confirm it.

http://lucianne.com/; 12/3/07, 2:41 PM
KCFleming said...: They'll confirm it I'm sure.

You made the calim, you confirm it. I don't check out every vile comment, and have no interest in chasing down your Mobyisms.

It's be a nice score for the left if true, so I am a bit surprised by your hesitance, expecially given the scorn heaped upon Lucianne.; 12/3/07, 2:45 PM
jeff said...: "Although since I doubt you actually find the quote offensive, I'm sure you won't bother." Burden of proof falls on you. You made the accusation. Of course no one will bother. You have deemed it false.; 12/3/07, 2:46 PM
jeff said...: "Pretty ironic, even for him."

I don't think that word means what you think it does.; 12/3/07, 2:47 PM
Swifty Quick said...: Not that you'd care, since you obviously don't even find the quote offensive.

So far the only ones that you have established as ever having said it are (1) that paragon of virtue, good manners, and mental health, David Brock, repeated by (2) David Talbot in Salon, and (3) repeated again by you right here.

Not good enough. Nowhere near. Like I said, if she really said that back then you'd be able to cite multiple sources. The fact that you can't --and that it all gets sourced back to Brock and only Brock-- is telling.; 12/3/07, 2:51 PM
jeff said...: "Not sure, but it looked like the person running the site and the cops both assumed it was a right wing nut."

"No, he didn't! Read his post again."

You're right. I read this last night and again just now.; 12/3/07, 3:19 PM
Revenant said...: Pogo, Jeff, et al,

Correct me if I'm wrong here... but are you seriously spending your time arguing with Luckyoldson's idiot nephew about a rumor that Jonah Goldberg's mom said something offensive about Bill Clinton a decade ago?

Good grief. Who even cares if the rumor's true? If that's the best Lucky the Younger can come up with, let him stew in his own juices.; 12/3/07, 3:34 PM
KCFleming said...: True.
I just thought it odd someone had the temerity to repeat a Moby in a post about Mobying.; 12/3/07, 3:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Mobyism, noose-ism...I'm so confused--I thought these people exist only to prove they are our moral betters?; 12/3/07, 3:55 PM
Michael The Magnificent said...: Ann: Michael wondered if anyone had seen Moby lately.

More specifically, I was wondering if anyone had seen titus20 (whom I suppose could be Moby), who likes to preface sexually inappropriate posts with "Hello fellow conservatives" or "Good morning fellow republicans."

But then, titus20 isn't any more convincing as a "true conservative" than is, say Glenn "sockpuppet" Greenwald or Andrew "sisters of the perpetually aggrieved" Sullivan.

I must add that sailing under false colors and COINTELPRO go back way before Moby suggested it.; 12/3/07, 4:38 PM
Trooper York said...: I am not familiar with this fellow Moby. Is his last name Dick?; 12/3/07, 5:07 PM
jeff said...: "Correct me if I'm wrong here... but are you seriously spending your time arguing with Luckyoldson's idiot nephew....."

yeah, I know I should leave Chris alone, but I'm at work and busy problem solving and for some reason trying to keep up with the posts sharpens my mind for my actual work. Weird, but true.

Michael, most of us like Titus. Even if he isn't conservative, he rarely gets into policy matters and when he does he makes a point. The other stuff is harmless. Maybe a bit to graphic sometimes, but he's a good writer and is friendly to all. He isn't a Moby. At least in my opinion.; 12/3/07, 5:49 PM
reader_iam said...: Apart from anything else:

The premise that there would be multiple citations from mainstream press outlets (assuming that's what you're seeking) reporting--quoting--that particular phraseology at that time is, shall we say, shaky at best, and for reasons that actually don't have anything to do with whether it was said or not.

I think that premise would likely be at least a little bit shaky right now, and in some respects, a decade ago is light years away.; 12/3/07, 8:34 PM
Revenant said...: The premise that there would be multiple citations from mainstream press outlets [is] shaky at best

How about a citation? The closest anyone's come to citing a news outlet so far is a link to an unsourced opinion piece in Salon.com.; 12/3/07, 9:26 PM
reader_iam said...: That's a reasonable question.

Rev, I'm not jumping in here with regard to the substance itself, deliberately so. I commented specifically on one particular premise, which I think is quite shaky, for reasons, as I said, that obtain regardless of what was said.

Conceptually, at least by my lights this is akin--though a distant cousin--to someone saying "it can't be true that x politician was screwing around because it would have been reported by multiple sources; we all would have known it at the time!"--even though, at the time, we DID NOT know it, and the reasons really had not a thing to do with reality of what did or did not take place. And I also think that people are extrapolating from NOW to state what was done then. (I think that's also true of archiving and easy availability of material online, but let's not go too much into that.)

I suggest that someone in New York stroll over to the NYPress and check their archives (in whatever form), if this is a point of vital interest.

And/or contact the more than one separate reporters/writers who referenced this at Salon.

Etc. Whatever.

My interests tend more to lie elsewhere. And my comment came from one of those.; 12/3/07, 10:10 PM
Revenant said...: Conceptually, at least by my lights this is akin--though a distant cousin--to someone saying "it can't be true that x politician was screwing around because it would have been reported by multiple sources;

That's not a distant cousin. It isn't even the same species. We're talking about something a fairly well-known person supposedly said to a member of the press, who then supposedly published her having said it -- all without leaving any trace, despite the fact that all of the above supposedly happened after the internet was already thriving and search engines (e.g., Yahoo) were already busily logging everything that cropped up online.

And/or contact the more than one separate reporters/writers who referenced this at Salon.

Assuming that Chris is lying takes less effort. He usually is, after all.; 12/3/07, 10:26 PM
reader_iam said...: Also, and I wish I'd said this upfront, given the language in question, it's rather more than highly unlikely it would have made its way into general media outlets, even at the end of the 20th century.

Hell, even now.; 12/3/07, 10:29 PM
reader_iam said...: We're talking about something a fairly well-known person ...

Not to the vast majority of the actual readership of the mainstream press at the time, she wasn't. No, Rev, she wasn't. I suspect you're not the template for the average (and that is not snark: it's a reasonable observation).

supposedly said to a member of the press

A member of the small alternative press (which I'm not deriding by so saying, but in terms of the point I'm making), which--however much influence it may or may not have had--may not have had a publisher with the resources, or inclination, to archive comprehensively.

despite the fact that all of the above supposedly happened after the internet was already thriving

But not necessarily in the way you're implying, and not globally, much less comprehensively.

and search engines (e.g., Yahoo) were already busily logging everything that cropped up online.

Ahem. Rev, you are an intelligent person and commenter. Do I really need to point out the obvious in that one?

Peace, dude.; 12/3/07, 10:36 PM
reader_iam said...: may not have had a publisher with the resources, or inclination, to archive comprehensively Add: "or put the stuff online, or make it accessible."; 12/3/07, 10:48 PM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: The only thing even remotely interesting from the Goldberg rubbish is this:

So far they've all been way too stupid to fool us, but that could change.

Clearly Goldberg is an idiot. How could he possibly know he hasn't already been fooled?; 12/4/07, 12:03 AM
Revenant said...: Not to the vast majority of the actual readership of the mainstream press at the time, she wasn't. No, Rev, she wasn't.

We're not talking about whether or not ordinary folks were talking about her all the time. We're talking about whether she'd have been covered by the press, which she would have been (and was) at the time, being that she was a player in the Clinton sex scandals.

But not necessarily in the way you're implying, and not globally, much less comprehensively.

Reader, maybe you weren't online back in those days, but the Clinton scandal and its every permutation were talked to death online. Remember that the whole Lewinsky scandal *started* with the "small alternative press" online -- i.e., with Drudge. It strikes me as unlikely that Goldberg could have accused Bill Clinton of molesting his daughter without the mainstream press picking up on it -- especially given the number of reporters for mainstream media outlets who were carrying water for the Clinton administration in those days. And if the mainstream press picked it up, there'd be a better online paper trail than a few comments on moonbat sites.

Do I really need to point out the obvious in that one?

Apparently you do.; 12/4/07, 2:25 AM
Unknown said...: A few last thoughts on Goldberg.

It strikes me as unlikely that Goldberg could have accused Bill Clinton of molesting his daughter without the mainstream press picking up on it -- especially given the number of reporters for mainstream media outlets who were carrying water for the Clinton administration in those days.

Right, the media was in the tank for Clinton during impeachment. You're delusional.

Salient points:

1. The NYPress is a minor local rag, and it's only mildly surprising that a mainstream outlet didnt pick up the story at the time, especially given the sheer disgustingness of the language and accusation.

2. The NYPress doesn't have archives going back to '97, so it's only mildly surprising the piece isn't online.

3. David Brock cites it and you call him a liar. That's evidence only of your own bias.

4. You're acting as if Goldberg couldn't have said it because she's too nice or something. That speaks for itself.

5. She said it, they printed it, I read it, and so did lots of other people. If any of you are honest, you'll contact the NYPress and find out yourself.; 12/4/07, 9:39 AM