June 29, 2010

Andrew Breitbart offers $100,000 for the full Journolist archive — with a promise to keep the source secret.

Surely, somewhere among the 400 members of that former discussion group, there is someone who feels motivated to fulfill the desire of the information to be free. I've listed reasons why I think it would be doing a good thing to make the archive public, and now there is an additional motivation — $100,000. Now, virtue is mixed with venality. But virtue is mixed with venality when it comes to keeping the archive private. The motivations for not disclosing are not pure. People are protecting their careers, hoping for favors from powerful and well-placed co-Journolisters. Breitbart has added economic incentive to the other side of the balance, and he fortifies his offer of payment with an ethical argument:
Ezra Klein’s “JournoList 400” is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism. Now that collusion has been exposed when one of the weakest links in that cabal, Dave Weigel, was outed. Weigel was, in all likelihood, exposed because – to whoever the rat was who leaked his emails — he wasn’t liberal enough....
ADDED: Mediaite thinks it's "unlikely" that any Journolister will spring for the $100,000. I don't really understand her argument. It only takes one person to decide to disclose.  I think it's obvious someone with a mix of motives, including a desire for $100,000, is likely to do it. There's a great argument for transparency and freeing information — for the public good. I, personally, believe that argument. And it's impossible for me to believe that in a group that size, with that many people, people who are in competition with each other, that there isn't one person who feels on the outs and isn't interested in protecting anybody. Indeed, human nature being what it is, there are probably a few people who would love to see some of the prominent Journolisters exposed as... whatever the exposure would expose them as.

AND: Then there's the nothing-to-see-here-move-along gambit: Jonathan Chait insists that the conversations were "mundane..... requests for references... instantaneous reactions to events, joshing around, conversations about sports, and the like...." Matthew Yglesias portrays it as talk about sports,  links to published articles, and "failed efforts to get an interesting discussion going."

288 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 288 of 288
garage mahal said...

What's your point, Garage? Do you have one?

As Instapundit says "you know, if you’ve got the emails, well . . . ."

somefeller said...

I'll bet you are wrong, unless you count everyone who works for a newspaper as a journalist.

Journalists work for lots of media sources other than newspapers, including TV, radio and this newfangled thing called the internet. And as I mentioned, the Journolist group included bloggers and op-ed writers, of which there are no shortage of conservative examples.

Anonymous said...

Enigmatic -- I disagree. There are surely more than 400 conservative journalists in America. The difference is that these leftist idiots are comparing reporters for the Washington Post and the New York Times with reporter for the Chillicothe Constitution-Tribune and the Eufaula Tribune.

It's a horrific grasping at straws.

Anonymous said...

Garage -- You dolt. They are messages emailed from a list-serv. It's a list-serv that generates the email.

You are so stupid tonight. I am embarrassed for you.

EnigmatiCore said...

"Rightblogs...appears to be run by Rob Neppell"

OMG. Not by THE Rob Neppell.

My cat trembles at the sound of me typing that name. N... e... p... p.... RMMMMWWROOOOOOOWWWWWWW!

Some questions for you:

What the heck is "rightblogs", and can you name anyone on it? Who is the right's equivalent to Ezra Klein? To even Dave Weigel?

So far, I hear a Jim Geraghty. To paraphrase Bill James, I don't mean to be rude, but who the hell is Jim Geraghty?

Julius, my dead man, join with me. Let's both, together, call for the names of people on both lists to be revealed. Let's contrast and compare!

And, then, after we've done that, let's call for BOTH to have their archives made public.

What do you say? Join me in this battle for the people, who this is about (right) to know.

EnigmatiCore said...

Seven-

Probably nomenclature. I am thinking bylines, because I doubt anyone without one is getting into the exclusive club.

garage mahal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

Garage -- You dolt. They are messages emailed from a list-serv. It's a list-serv that generates the email.

But you can't be a member of the listserv without an email address. You can't post or receive messages without an email address. Except ESP listservs where messages are transmitted telepathically. I'm on one actually, and for a mere $25, I'll give you full access to the archives!

Anonymous said...

Enigmatic -- The conservatives have bylines. They are reporting about:

*. Sikeston police say thieves targeting unlocked cars

*. Lazy L Safari Park opens in Cape Girardeau County featuring exotic animals and a petting zoo.

*. Whitewater Teen Wins Rodeo Championship

Janis Gore said...

EnigmatiCore, Jim Geraghty works for National Review.

And don't put down the local papers. In Eufala, I'd guess more people read the local news than ever read the Washington Post.

Anonymous said...

Garage -- I am all for the release of any archive in which journalists collude in any way, shape, or form. Period.

So, what's your point?

Freeman Hunt said...

I am on a listserv for people learning Koine Greek. I have an archive of the past few years. It is really exciting, and there are heated arguments. For all I know, it might include discussions that are then shaping the Koine Greek-learning community.

Offers? I'll start the bidding at $100; that's a mere 1/1000 of Breitbart's offer for Journolist!

Anonymous said...

In Eufala, I'd guess more people read the local news than ever read the Washington Post.

Janis -- You are an idiot. The people who write the wire stories published in the Eufaula paper are the journalists for the Washington Post. Most of any newspaper in America is written by the same few writers. The papers pay a fee to publish the articles.

Is this something you did not know? If so, you have no business in an intelligent conversation about journalism, and you are summarily dismissed. With prejudice.

EnigmatiCore said...

"Journalists work for lots of media sources other than newspapers, including TV, radio and this newfangled thing called the internet."

Deliberately trying to miss my point.

I stand by my point. Name 40 US journalists on the right who would have been of sufficient stature to be on the Journolist, if only they had been on the left.

Bet you cannot.

Janis Gore said...

Washington Post reporters do not attend the city council meetings in Eufala where their sales taxes are debated, or where civic projects that influence them on a daily basis are chosen.

Why be so reflexively hateful?

garage mahal said...

7MO's
How do we know if there is colluding going on if we don't have full access to the archives and the context?

And you didn't want access to the ESP listserv? Not even a case of beer? Summer 07 we had a lot of parties, so the archive may be incomplete. I'll drop it down for a 12 pack. Just for you!

Synova said...

Yes, garage. This blog.

It's the equivalent and it's not Althouse's *fault* that she chose to have her discussions in public to begin with.

Now, if there is a Madison Law School or Law Professor list-serve where people who are law professors gather to spout off things contrary to their professional and public opinions then that would be different, I think.

Or more the same.

Or at least a bit like the ClimateGate thing where in public the scientists were presenting themselves as having scientific integrity and in "private" they clearly were presenting something different.

"Journalists" represent themselves as being objective and trustworthy. There is an enormous belief-system in place that insists on journalism as something akin to a holy calling and journalists as people set apart from the world. (Reference any number of interviews where famous TV reporters have baldly stated just that.)

What people suspect is that the Journolist archive would forever destroy this fantasy.

Think of who else presents themselves as having a profession that is somehow imbued with an uncommon morality... teachers, for example, or actual priests...

I don't think that Law Professors present themselves that way to begin with.

Journalists do, and quite a lot of people share that faith with them. (And so the outright anger at the "non-journalist" Gannon, the pretender, who dared to defile the noble order.)

Anonymous said...

How do we know if there is colluding going on if we don't have full access to the archives and the context?

Garage, the general way that we go about these matters is to assert claims, then discover data, then attempt to prove claims. Further, what is what Klein has said about his little circle jerk (to paraphrase, bouncing ideas off each other before writing) -- what is that but colluding?

somefeller said...

I stand by my point. Name 40 US journalists on the right who would have been of sufficient stature to be on the Journolist, if only they had been on the left.

If your definition is beat reporters as opposed to op-ed writers and bloggers, I don't know the names of 40 liberal beat reporters, or beat reporters in general. If you are talking about bloggers and op-ed writers (who according to Ezra Klein are part of the people on the list and who you seem to be ignoring), it wouldn't be too hard to come up with 40 names, if not more than that. Just get the names of writers who get bylines at Human Events, World Net Daily, National Review and The Weekly Standard, conservative bloggers who get over 10,000 hits a day, and round it out with syndicated conservative op-ed writers whose columns are picked up in a decent number of newspapers, and you'll get a lot more than 40 people who fall squarely in the group that would be on Journolist.

Anonymous said...

Why be so reflexively hateful?

It's not reflexive. You are being willfully obtuse or you are stupid. If the first, I hate fraud. If the second, you should go to a place where your level of intelligence is acceptable.

somefeller said...

Actually, now that I think about it, pretty much everyone that we've heard of who is on Journolist is an op-ed writer or blogger, so beat reporters may not be a particularly large part of the group. Plus, unless we are excluding the William F. Buckleys and Bob Novaks of the world from the definition of "journalist", ideological journalists are hardly outside the norm of what one would consider a journalist.

EnigmatiCore said...

"How do we know if there is colluding going on if we don't have full access to the archives and the context"

If only there was a solution to this conundrum.

I bet such a solution would be worth something to someone. Perhaps even $100k.

Anonymous said...

Feller -- If journalists would simply come out and say that they are leftists -- as Buckley and Novak most certainly did say they were conservative -- there wouldn't be a problem. But they don't. They pretend to be objective when they are not.

The whole issue is the fraud of objectivity.

Synova said...

Seven, I don't know if there is something else going on that I missed (I miss a whole lot) but while local papers certainly do print AP news about national and international events from those same journalists, the papers themselves are generally heavy on local content and local reporters do the real job of reporting in a way that (usually!) does the real job of informing people (as opposed to telling them what they ought to think about it.)

somefeller said...

Feller -- If journalists would simply come out and say that they are leftists -- as Buckley and Novak most certainly did say they were conservative -- there wouldn't be a problem. But they don't. They pretend to be objective when they are not. The whole issue is the fraud of objectivity.

But many if not most of the Journolisters are people who are known to be ideological. No one thinks Ezra Klein is a just-the-facts-ma'am beat reporter.

And as far as the fraud of objectivity is concerned, I actually may agree to a point - though the term should be the myth of objectivity. Namely that objectivity is a good goal to strive for, but a myth in reality. The objective journalist idea is something of a creation of mid-20th Century media culture in the US, and I wouldn't mind seeing it get tossed. The UK press doesn't deal in that sort of myth, and in this country, the ideological journals are usually where one finds the more interesting stories.

EnigmatiCore said...

Go easy on the bold. We only have so much of the extra dark pixelation to go around.

somefeller said...

And with that I'm signing off to get some sleep.

Anonymous said...

Synova -- What you are missing is this: the article about kudzu in Eufaula appears locally and is read by a few hundred people. The national article that is published by the Eufaula paper is also published by a hundred papers of varying sizes nationwide and, thus, is read by hundreds of thousands of people.

The people who work for the Washington Post have a lot more pull on a lot larger stage.

Get it?

Anonymous said...

But many if not most of the Journolisters are people who are known to be ideological.

You don't know that. That's one of the reasons I'd like to see the archive. All I'm asking is to see. I've gone on record in a thread as saying that there's going to be a lot less sizzle than many seem to believe.

EnigmatiCore said...

"I've gone on record in a thread as saying that there's going to be a lot less sizzle than many seem to believe."

That strikes me as likely right-- but here's the thing.

Assuming that there is nothing smoking, then why didn't Klein ever relax his "no one right-of-center" rule?

He was afraid of them using against them... football talk?

That does not add up. He thought there was a risk in what was being discussed. The list existed for a long time, and his rules were in place when Tucker Carlson came a-knocking.

Ann Althouse said...

"What about Rightblogs?"

I don't remember ever hearing about that at all. I'm not a member as far as I know. I do get a lot of spammy email about this or that thing I should link to, but I don't think I did anything to get my email address on that. I don't know of any planning or colluding about how to treat thing. What I do really is very much on the blog. It is what it is. I don't do anyone's bidding or try to get anyone else to do anything, except as you see on the blog.

LoafingOaf said...

Revenant:
Very subtle wording. Yes, indeed, the following two things have been proven:

(1): Conservative listservs exist.

(2): These listservs have been described -- e.g., by you, garage, and other lefties -- as "similar to JournoList".

But of course you're trying to imply that they are provably similar to JournoList. That, of course, is nonsense.

I said they are similar to JournoList because one of the members of a conservative version of JournoList said so.

Conservative blogger Jeff Dunetz posted on Breaitbart's Big Journalism blog the other day:

"I am a member of two conservative blogger/journalist lists similar to the liberal one that got Wiegel in trouble. Among the members of each list there is a strict understanding of “omerta,” what’s said on the list stays on the list. So there is some compassion for Weigel because someone broke his trust."

BTW, I'm not a lefty. I'm an independepent. I sound lefty on this blog because it became a conservative-agenda blog sometime around when Althouse got married. Hey, I still think it's one of the few good blogs. It just gets me wound up sometimes. :)

But I guess I wish bloggers of all persuasions would stop coordinating as teams so much. My two current fave blogs are Prof. Bainbridge and Volokh Conspiracy, not lefty blogs. Andrew Sullivan's used to be my fave, but I've grown weary of him, and I guess I had an epiphany recently that he's a phoney man. I don't actually read political blogs much anymore. Tired of 'em. Most of them seem to be lying to me, anyway, so what's the point.

It's telling that a lot of the bigshot blogs hired a bunch of co-bloggers when they became bigshots, knowing that their readers were coming there for the team and the talking points, not the talents of the blog's creator.
And most of these big blogs became big blogs because they were slavishly loyal to a side, and thus got the links.

EnigmatiCore said...

"Conservative blogger Jeff Dunetz..."

Three questions-

1) Is there anyone "bigger" than Conservative blogger Jeff Dunetz on ConservoList?

2) Who the hell is Conservative blogger Jeff Dunetz?

3) If Conservative blogger Jeff Dunetz is a big name on Conservolist, which is likely, and Dave Weigel is a small name on Journolist, which is apparent, then why the hell didn't you use bold in your post?

We all know. You are in England and have to do the laundry.

Anonymous said...

Yes, indeed...

"Conservative blogger Jeff Dunetz..."

I believe his website is on a par with the rarely updated blog of conservative blogger Seven Machos.

LoafingOaf said...

I don't know who Jeff Dunetz is, but he posted that on Andrew Breitbart's "Big Journalism" blog, and I see with a quick Google that he's being promoted by Hot Air as well. So, two of the heavies of the conservative blogosphere (Breitbart and Hot Air) are pushing him. Including the very man who is offering 100 grand for the JournoList archives. The rewards of being a member of the conservative version of JournoList, apparently.

Oh, but we're not supposed to know about any conservative versions of JournoList. InstaPundit and Althouse are just not interested.

Kev said...

"Rightblogs...appears to be run by Rob Neppell"

OMG. Not by THE Rob Neppell.


Actually, you probably do know who Neppell is, but under his nom de blog N.Z. Bear of "The Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem" fame.

LoafingOaf said...

And notice that you all completely ignored the revelation that conservative blogger Dan Riehl - frequently linked to by all the conservative bloggers - was on a list-serv designed to feed him Republican talking points to push on his blog, straight from staffer working for Republican politicians.

InstaPundit will just keep link-link-linking away to Dan Riehl, shill propagandist for the GOP, who has been busy on a list-serv receiving his GOP talking points to push on his blog. InstaPundit will keep link-linking away to him, while simultaneously calling for the archives of JournoList to be exposed.

Why is that? Oh yeah, because InstaPundit is a partisan propagandist too. And Althouse will never call him on it because he has made her very dependent on his links.

That's how it works in the stupid political blogosphere. You need links from big blogs, so you have to be loyal to your team.

Revenant said...

"Please explain the demented reasoning by which sharing her email with the world would "show she is serious" about wanting to see the contents of JournoList.

Because she is asking other people to show their archives.

... and? I asked somebody to get me a cup of coffee yesterday. He didn't reply "get me a cup of coffee first to show you're serious about wanting me to get you a cup of coffee". That would have been as idiotic as what you're suggesting here.

Revenant said...

One could put together a listserv of 400 conservative journalists, bloggers and op-ed writers from around the country, if one wanted to do so, and as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, such listservs do exist. (See LoafingOaf @6:21pm.)

LoafingOaf, at 6:21 pm, simply linked to another post where he claimed such lists exist. The evidence of their existence remains curiously elusive. :)

Revenant said...

Plus, unless we are excluding the William F. Buckleys and Bob Novaks of the world from the definition of "journalist", ideological journalists are hardly outside the norm of what one would consider a journalist.

Well, yes, I do exclude William F Buckley and Bob Novak from the definition of "journalist".

Because, er... they're dead.

LoafingOaf said...

LoafingOaf, at 6:21 pm, simply linked to another post where he claimed such lists exist. The evidence of their existence remains curiously elusive. :)

I linked to proof that several conservative bloggers have admitted they are on list-servs similar to (and in the case of Dan Reihl - worse than) JournoList. The big difference is that the conservative list-servs are much more on the downlow, and have a much more hardcore "code of secrecy", whereas we've known about JournoList for years, and it apparently had a more relaxed membership policy (thus the leaks, and the members who were centrists). The other diference is that Andrew Breitbar, InstaPundit, and Ann Althouse are not even slightly interested in knowing anything about (or telling anybody about) the conservative list-servs and what they are up to, whereas they are obsessed (in partisan coordination with each other) with getting at the JournoList archives.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone here said they have a problem with a conservative list-serv archive being made public?

No. So please stop with that silly line or argument.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

(in partisan coordination with each other)

Proof? Thanks.

Revenant said...

I said they are similar to JournoList because one of the members of a conservative version of JournoList said so.

I stand corrected. It has been proven that Conservative Blogger Jeff Dunetz thinks there are conservative listservs similar to Journolist. How can Althouse ignore this scandal?

I sound lefty on this blog because it became a conservative-agenda blog sometime around when Althouse got married.

You sound lefty on this blog because by the time Althouse got married in August of 2009, you had already spent well over a year alternating between wiggling your tongue in Barack Obama's ass and quoting the blogospheric left's Talking Point of the Day. This "there are conservative Journolists too" meme being the latest example. :)

Janis Gore said...

Revenant, Jim Geraghty writes about one in NRO.

I don't have an axe to grind in this fight. Show'em all.

Revenant said...

The big difference is that the conservative list-servs are much more on the downlow

Do you realize how silly it is to claim the lists are "on the downlow" when you just got finished explaining that your evidence for their existence is that they openly admitted to it?

And notice that you all completely ignored the revelation that conservative blogger Dan Riehl - frequently linked to by all the conservative bloggers - was on a list-serv designed to feed him Republican talking points to push on his blog, straight from staffer working for Republican politicians.

We ignored this "revelation" because only the bit in bold is true. The unbolded part at the end is something you made up. This is the article containing the "admission" you claim Riehl made. Not only is there zero suggestion that the listserv was designed to feed talking points to bloggers -- Riehl spends the whole time talking about how the RNC leadership thinks bloggers aren't worth engaging with.

Revenant said...

Revenant, Jim Geraghty writes about one in NRO.

Writes about one what? He mentioned Rightblogs, which he describes as "a way for conservative bloggers to talk to each other". How's that like Journolist, except in the sense that it involves people of similar political orientation talking to each other -- which, let's not forget, is NOT the aspect of Journolist that bothered people?

Anonymous said...

Which member of the list Geraghty speaks of was covering lefty blogs for the Washington Post?

I'll wait.

Janis Gore said...

He describes it the same way users of Journolist describe it.

We know a couple of leaks from Journolist. Is that the nature of the whole forum? Scott Winship, in the opinion that I cited earlier, said it was similar, but he didn't like a simple closing together of people of a like worldview.

Perhaps the Rightblogs site is that much tighter. I don't know.

I imagine both lists would be more open if they didn't fear the bosses they bitch about all the time.

Anonymous said...

Janis -- Which member of the list Geraghty speaks of was covering lefty blogs for the Washington Post?

I'll be here when you get an answer to that.

Janis Gore said...

Lefty activities for the Washington Post, Machos.

None that I know of. But that's not a problem of Journolist, as he was outed from the list. That's the Washington Post's problem.

Anonymous said...

But that's not a problem of Journolist

Dude, that is the problem with Journolist. He was only outed when it became public knowledge that he was a member, and his posts there also became public.

Anyway, still waiting. Will I die before you can give me a name?

Janis Gore said...

Dude, the membership was limited to left and center thinkers. The slant was was straightforward.

It's the Washington Post's problem.

Anonymous said...

The point here is that people would like to see who is a member and what they have said. The suggestion is that many others are similarly situated to Weigel, in the sense that they held themselves out to be objective but were not in front of 400 people.

There are also the many libels that no doubt took place in front of 400 people.

Revenant said...

He describes it the same way users of Journolist describe it.

Well, no. He describes it as a place conservative bloggers could talk to each other. Ezra Klein's stated purpose for Journolist was for left-wing policy experts to privately supply information to left-wing journalists and bloggers:

The idea, then as now, was to foster a safe space where policy experts, academics, and journalists could freely talk through issues, bringing up the questions they considered urgent and the information they thought important, with the result being a more informed commentariat

There's no similarity. If Journolist was nothing more than a place where some lefty bloggers hung out to chat, nobody would care. It is the "policy experts, academics, and journalists" bit that creeps people out. Journalism should not be carried out in secret.

Janis Gore said...

So what are you looking for? Maybe Walter Shapiro wants to take up with a toy boy?

Far as I can see, most are declared. There is the common "savages be west of the Hudson" from the east coast tribe, but that was true in 1980 (my witness.)

mybach62 said...

We offer the farouk chi flat iron. We provide the best price and free shipping for all the
chi flat iron. As we know, the
ghd iv styler is the first class and famous brand. So it is the good chance for you. Don't let it pass. If you are looking for the
babyliss flat iron, you have come to the right place for
instyler rotating hot iron.


ghd straighteners was known as
ghd flat iron, which was authorized online
ghd seller provides all kinds of hair straighteners,pink ghd,purple ghd,babyliss. By visiting
ghd iv salon styler , you will find what you want and made yourself more beautiful.If you miss it ,you miss beauty.Buy a piece of ghd for yourself.Come and join us
http://www.ghdhairs.com/ to win the
ghd iv mini styler.
ghd uk
ghd australia
ghd africa
ghd southafrica
t3 hair dryer
purple ghd straighteners
ghd spain
ghd ireland
ghd denmark
ghd america
ghd italy
ghd germany
ghd france
ghds
cheap ghd
purple ghd straighteners

Anonymous said...

Janis -- If you don't your thoughts to be known, don't write them down for 400 people. Also, don't work in a field where you are trying to score political victories. Also, don't do journalism in secret and then bitch about it.

It's information. It's out there. I hope it sees the light of day.

Janis Gore said...

You'd have seen the same play of Milton Friedman's ideas against Keynes that have occurred whether Journolist existed or not.

But, no one likes the idea that people are running around behind their backs.

Frum said nothing good would come of Journolist, and whether you like him or not, it true. Mickey Kaus didn't like it either. It's funny-looking, regardless of how you want to toss it.

LoafingOaf said...

Revenant: [Your] quoting the blogospheric left's Talking Point of the Day. This "there are conservative Journolists too" meme being the latest example.

First of all, you came at me saying the only people who said the conservative blogger list-servs are similar to JournoList are me and Garage. I said they were similar because a conservative blogger on them said they were similar.
Rather than apologize for your error, you moved on to the next attack.

And, I don't see how I got any "talking points" when I haven't even been paying attention to politics outside of checking Drudge each day, despairing over Obama's handling of the BP oil spill, and following the Gore sex scandal (I always love a political sex scandal). I noticed Weigel playing spin games with the Congressman who committed an assault and battery, simply because I found the YouTube funny and Drudge covered Weigel's response.

So I took notice when he got hit with this JournoList scandal shortly thereafter, also covered by Drudge (looks like a conservative site is influencing me more than any other...). When that happened, I read a piece on Big Journalism - Breitbart's blog - and noticed a dude saying he was on listservs just like JournoList and thus he has sympathy for Weigel. It seemed a lot of conservative bloggers had sympathy for Weigel, maybe because they are all on listservs like JournoList and are up to the same things the leftist bloggers are up to, I dunno....

My next stop in the blogosphere was the Althouse thread on the subject, and I posted about that. I got no talking points from anyone. I hadn't seen anyone bring up that "talking point" until today, when Ezra Klein posted about the listserv Dan Riehl is on.

BTW, Ezra Klein tweeted to Breitbart: "Would @andrewbreitbart like to partner with me in a bid for this off-the-record conservative e-mail list's archives?"

Lastly, my interest in all this is that I'd like the lid blown off of all these political bloggers, left and right, and to see the worst of them knocked off their perches. The Breitbart-InstaPundit-Althouse axis, it seems, is motivated by partisanship (and, in Althouse's case, personal grudges).

LoafingOaf said...

Oh, and I guess you're right that I started being more hostile around here earlier than I stated. I think it probably started when Althouse was being so unfair to Obama on his statements on foreign policy to Pakistan during a Democratic Party debate, trying to make him out as a nitwit on foreign policy compared to Hillary Clinton. But then not noticing that the Bush administration started adopting Obama's recommendations for Pakistan after Bush's own policy was declared a total failure by his own White house assessment.

And, when Althouse went completely in the tank for Sarah "Drill Baby Drill" Palin. I see what "drill baby drill" has done to the Gulf of Mexico. Horrendous.

And, the way Althouse keeps trying to push this instaPundit talking point that everyone in America misses George W. Bush, when actually we're struggling to get out of the mess he left. It's not a talking point that he left a massive mess; it's just objective fact.

Anonymous said...

I love that Obama and his lame, sorry apologists s are still blaming Bush in 2010, two years after Bush left office.

Was Bush blaming Clinton for merely lobbing a few bombs in the general direction of a terrorist organization that blew up the World Trade Center once already and destroyed two U.S. embassies (among much else)? How would you feel if Bush had?

And, also, if you'll just take the blinders off for a jiffy, don't you think it's stupid to blame the guy two years out from an electoral point of view?

Scott said...

Revenant gets it. Loafing Oaf elides -- he either doesn't get it or doesn't want you to get it.

And the search for false equivalence by the leftish continues...

Scott said...

I'm going to be on news.google.com today to see how the leftish do damage control. The emerging meme is the one that we're seeing here -- that there is a "secret conservative listserv that's just like JournoList."

It's going to be Bill Clinton style message coordination again -- conservatives said that he committed a felony, and the leftish reflexively SCREAMED that "He was only lying about sex," as if that was exculpatory.

What gets me is how the leftish never seem to get sick of that shit. It's like living among zombies.

Scott said...

Zombiecrats. :)

The Comedian said...

You could remain anonymous for a while, but the payment would be a taxable event.

If someone in the administration really wanted to know who first handed over the Journolist archives they'd merely have to use the power of the IRS to follow the money...

Word Verification = "taboo".

Dash said...

Especially likely since Weigel has said the majority of people on the list were lurkers and have nothing incriminating in the journal presumably.

Freeman Hunt said...

And notice that you all completely ignored the revelation that conservative blogger Dan Riehl - frequently linked to by all the conservative bloggers - was on a list-serv designed to feed him Republican talking points to push on his blog, straight from staffer working for Republican politicians.

That's utterly meaningless. I get all kinds of stuff like that, both from organizations I like and organizations I loathe. They're not participatory listservs, they're email blasts, the political equivalent of spam.

Mike said...

Will someone sell the archives out? For those of you who think it won't happen, Google "Prisoner's Dilemma". A sellout is virtually guaranteed.

Freeman Hunt said...

And most importantly about those GOP, DNC, and other political organization lists, they're not private. Anyone can get them; there are no secrets.

former law student said...

A couple of points:

Journolist was not a Listserv (TM) apparently, but a googlegroup.

Conservatives have no reason to use computers to share ideas -- like members of a WW II resistance group, they merely huddle around their AM radios to receive daily VRWC updates during the Sean Hannity show.

"He was only lying about sex," as if that was exculpatory.


Empathy for human weakness marks a huge difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals understand why someone who cheated on his wife might want to lie about it, at times when his wife would be able to find out about it. Compare how conservatives reacted when they found out David Vitter was boffing a hooker who worked for the Canal Street Madam. Vitter had to resig -- what do you mean, he's still in office?

Scott said...

@Mike: I would like to think so. However, there are some factors that militate against someone with a complete archive stepping forward:

1. Incomplete information. Not everyone on the list may be aware of the $100k bounty.

2. Archive no longer exists. Unlikely but possible.

3. Archive holder doesn't behave as expected. From Wikipedia: "One experiment based on the simple (prisoner's) dilemma found that approximately 40% of participants played "cooperate" (i.e., stayed silent)."

Scott said...

"Empathy for human weakness marks a huge difference between liberals and conservatives."

Or perhaps the rule of law matters more to conservatives than it does liberals.

Freeman Hunt said...

Google Groups are listservs.

Conservative bloggers sharing ideas are the same as very powerful journalists, bloggers, and policy activists getting together privately to hash out how to shape the news? I don't think so.

And if conservative journalists are doing this, out them too.

Scott said...

When you have a society whose politicians pass hard laws to get votes, and then selectively applies the law to be "compassionate" or to curry favor with constituents, it fosters a political culture where access to government depends on who you know. The United States is well along that corrupt path. The Tea Party movement is in part a reaction to that.

Perjury is a felony whether it's about sex or about something else. That's a conservative and libertarian position, and it's the correct one.

former law student said...

I'm a bit surprised that Freeman wants to strip away the intellectual property of L-Soft, by treating their trademark as a generic descriptor.

Scott said...

Almost all revolutions in recorded history were uprisings against corrupt government. The Tea Party movement is a shot across the bow.

former law student said...

Me: Empathy for human weakness marks a huge difference between liberals and conservatives.

Scott: Perjury is a felony whether it's about sex or about something else. That's a conservative and libertarian position, and it's the correct one.


QED.

blake said...

FLS,

Liberal's putative empathy for human weakness would have a lot more heft if it applied to non-lefties, too.

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Not a conservative principle.

In fact, given the vicious attacks made by putative liberals on anyone who dared stand in their way over the past, the idea that they have any empathy at all for non-fellow-travelers is risible.

former law student said...

blake -- you think Clinton was a liberal?

The man who by pushing NAFTA both sent good manufacturing jobs to Mexico and flooded Mexico with cheap tax-subsidized corn, further impoverishing Mexican peasants? The President who ended welfare? The one whose wife lobbied for a bill to strip children away from their drug-dependent parents? That Bill Clinton?

"Center-right" is as far as I would go.

Freeman Hunt said...

I'm a bit surprised that Freeman wants to strip away the intellectual property of L-Soft, by treating their trademark as a generic descriptor.

I'll send them some kleenexes to dry their tears. Maybe a coke of goodwill as well.

The point is that Google Groups are listservs in the common usage of the word "listserv." It is a distinction without a difference.

blake said...

FLS,

The man who by pushing NAFTA both sent good manufacturing jobs to Mexico and flooded Mexico with cheap tax-subsidized corn, further impoverishing Mexican peasants? The President who ended welfare? The one whose wife lobbied for a bill to strip children away from their drug-dependent parents? That Bill Clinton?

Someone who was interested might cross-analyze your list of "accomplishments" for both spin and deflection. "Only a conservative would strip children away from their drug-dependent parents!"

Clinton didn't come to office to enact conservative policy. (Hillarycare, anyone?)

He triangulated; he moved right for reasons we can speculate on (most likely wanting to be a two-termer) but he was clearly, clearly one of "the left". (And still is.)

From what I saw, there was a direct complement between empathy for Clinton and empathy for Lewinski. It seemed the more empathy the commenter had for Clinton, the less he had for Lewisnki.

Me? I felt sorry for them both and hoped they would run away to the Caribbean and live happily ever after.

But I'm a romantic.

Freeman Hunt said...

Liberal's putative empathy for human weakness would have a lot more heft if it applied to non-lefties, too.

I have to agree with blake. There is limitless empathy for their own and none at all for non-Democrats. And yes, Clinton was a Democrat and one of their own. It was the very popular Contract with America that was on the right.

Freeman Hunt said...

My empathy on that one is entirely with Lewinski who was twenty-one at the time of the affair.

Anonymous said...

If there’s nothing to hide, why is a reward even necessary? And if there’s nothing to hide, why would anybody privy to this list refuse such a generous reward? The questions answer themselves.

former law student said...

If there’s nothing to hide, why is a reward even necessary? And if there’s nothing to hide, why would anybody privy to this list refuse such a generous reward? The questions answer themselves.

You have to be quite likeable for people to help you for no reason. I suspect no one on the list thinks of Breitbart as a loving, cuddleable creature.

Which raises the question: Would Althouse have had a better shot at getting the archive had Breitbart not gotten involved? What if someone sends it to her; will she have to share it with Breitbart?

former law student said...

Clinton was accused of committing perjury for statements he made about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, while he being deposed by Paula Jones's lawyers in her sexual harassment suit.

Now, I deplore sexual harassment, especially, as with Ms. Jones, when it occurs between the top boss and a very minor employee. One of the evils of sexual harassment arises from the power differential between the man and woman involved.

But Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky appeared consensual -- in fact, she initiated it by flashing her thong. So what it had to do with Jones's harassment suit is unclear to me.

But, the reason for a husband downplaying in public his extramarital affair seems plain to me.

Now, Freeman touches on a different aspect: Was Clinton not a lowlife scum creature for leading Monica on, then breaing her heart by dumping her? Yes, indeed.

arshad said...

Hi its really very nice blog i enjoyed a lot to visit..Mobiles

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 288 of 288   Newer› Newest»