Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Who cares about Glenn Greenwald?
Posted by: Dale Franks on Monday, July 17, 2006

Jon tried to short-circuit some anti-Greenwald comments from his post immediately below by adding, as the first comment:
Note: if I cite Greenwald often, it’s because his stuff sparks my interest. Just clearing that up before the latest "him again?" eruption.
Well, sorry, but I guess my response is still, "Him again?" I mean, I really have no idea who Glenn Greenwald is, and even less of an idea why I should care about anything he says. Maybe it's because I've never been a blogger who links much to other bloggers. I've always preferred to link to primary sources and give my opinions about them, not my opinion about what some other blogger said. If you wanna know what some other blogger says, well, then, go read that blogger.

I dunno, but I just don't get why anything Greenwald says—which is pretty much what you could read at the Democratic Party's web site—should be invested with any particular importance. By the same token, I don't know why anybody would quote me all through the blogosphere either. This whole intra-blog thing is just pointless in most cases.

OK, sure, occasionally, a blogger will come up with a "fire ants" statement that catches everybody's eye. But that should be the exception, rather than the rule.

It's kinda funny though, that Greenwald is so exercised about the intolerance and intemperate statements from the right side of the Blogosphere, when he so often approvingly links to Sadly, No!, a lefty blog that sells this T-Shirt:

I guess when Sadly! No does it, it's just a humorous and satirical commentary on the viciousness of the Right, but when someone on the right does it, it's A Bad Thing. Eliminationist rhetoric, don't you know. Just like those Nazi Browshirts.

Yeah. Whatever.

I guess the difference between Glenn Greenwald and I is that I don't care if the Sadly No! guys sell that T-Shirt, any more than I care that Mischa made the statement in the first place. And I guess the difference between me and the Sadly, No! guys is that I don't condemn the use of "eliminationist rhetoric", then turn around and try to capitalize on it to make some scratch.

And, as far as condemning what goes on the comments section of a blog, well, scroll through the comments at any big blog, at Democratic Underground or Free Republic, and you'll see just about the same number of whack jobs. Cripes knows we have enough of 'em here. This pretension that the Left is some repository of virtue, while the Right is the "Home of the Haters" is a load of crap. And all the pretentious posturing on the part of the Left won't change that.

So, go ahead. Cry me a river, Lefty-boy.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Well, sorry, but I guess my response is still, "Him again?" I mean, I really have no idea who Glenn Greenwald is, and even less of an idea why I should care about anything he says.
Here’s a pretty good reason not to care what Glenn Greenwald says on any topic, if I do say so myself. And, arrogant s.o.b. that I am, I do indeed say so myself.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Ah, the conservative strategy of just saying something = it must be true.
 
Written By: Oliver
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
Ah, the conservative strategy of just saying something = it must be true.
Ah, the Lefty strategy of denying something by bald assertion=disproof.

Ass.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Name-calling, nice (I thought we lefties were supposed to be the pottymouths with all the rage?). Any person with half a brain who thinks that Fox, Hannity, Coulter, O’Reilly and the con blogs = the same noise as Air America, Al Franken, liberal blogs etc. has been hiding in a cave somewhere for the last 10 years.
 
Written By: Oliver
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
I love how Franks claims not to know who Greenwald is and never reads his blog - "I really have no idea who Glenn Greenwald is" — but somehow also claims to knows that he’s just a "lefty-boy" who only writes "pretty much what you could read at the Democratic Party’s web site." Wouldn’t you have to know who he is and read him to know that?

 
Written By: Thomas Ellers
URL: http://
Well, sorry, but I guess my response is still, "Him again?" I mean, I really have no idea who Glenn Greenwald is, and even less of an idea why I should care about anything he says.
And that’s why you proceeded to write 400+ words about him.

In any event, I was explaining why I wrote about his ideas, not why you should write about them.
I dunno, but I just don’t get why anything Greenwald says—which is pretty much what you could read at the Democratic Party’s web site—should be invested with any particular importance.
That’s either a sad ad hominem or a good description of why libertarians temporarily have more in common with Democrats than with the current Republican administration.
But that should be the exception, rather than the rule. [...] This whole intra-blog thing is just pointless in most cases.
Blogging for 3 years now, and I’m just learning the rules. I wish somebody had told me this before I spent three years being un-read.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Fox, Hannity, Coulter, O’Reilly and the con blogs = the same noise as Air America, Al Franken, liberal blogs
Fox, Hannity, Coulter and O’Reilly and the con blogs do not get multiple puff pieces in the New York Times.

You forgot to add Rush and most of Talk radio to conservative side and the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Time/Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC and your follow hacks at Media Matters to the liberal side.
 
Written By: Paul L
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
This is rather a tasteless send-up of Dick Cheney and a Republican Congresswoman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7usANL62Dw
 
Written By: Jon
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7usANL62Dw
This send-up of flag burning is much better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ1GTXO0U14&mode=related&search=
 
Written By: Jon
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ1GTXO0U14&mode=related&search=
Mr. Franks:

Thank you for writing that. I could not care less what Glenn Greenwald thinks or says. If I did, I would go to his blog and read what he writes. I found this commmenting about commenting nonsense intolerably boring. If you have something worthwhile to say, say it. There is surely no need to preface a point with a reference to someone who spends half his time stirring up inter-blog feuds. Who cares??

 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
libertarians temporarily have more in common with Democrats than with the current Republican administration
And the correct responseis to plug Glenn Greenwald ad nauseum?
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
Thank you for writing that. I could not care less what Glenn Greenwald thinks or says. If I did, I would go to his blog and read what he writes. I found this commmenting about commenting nonsense intolerably boring. If you have something worthwhile to say, say it. There is surely no need to preface a point with a reference to someone who spends half his time stirring up inter-blog feuds. Who cares??
David S. used to go to Greenwald’s blog every day and write paeans to Greenwald that made Mona’s praise look mild by comparison. Then one day, Greenwald ignored a bunch of questions David S. was posing and David S. had a very bruised ego ("I know he has 250 comments every day, but I’m different and must not be ignored!"). Then he announced he would never come back and now goes around the Internet bad-mouthing Greenwald. From a fan to a hater, overnight.

Which brings up an interesting point: isn’t a lot of this hatred of Greenwald jealousy-based. The Bestselling book, all the media attention, the overnight blog success, etc? I’d be the first to say his style can be bombastic and he can be overly aggressive. But nobody denies that he’s very smart, and among liberal bloggers at least, very moderate and rational in his view, and unusually willing to engage debate. So it’s hard to figure out what there could be about the guy that generates such strong emotions.

Here Franks want to pop up out of the blue and announce that he doesn’t care about Greenwald, and does so by creating yet another post with his name in the title and then calls him a series of names. Not exactly the sign of someone who doesn’t care about Greenwald. So what’s really going on here?
 
Written By: Thomas Ellers
URL: http://
From Shaughnessy’s blog:
I am a great admirer of Glenn Greenwald. I think he is constructively trying to direct the power of the internet into public affairs and politics. Further, having just endured the Sunday talk shows, I am affirmed in my opinion that the quality of debate is significantly higher in this blog than that offered by the TV news outfits. Putting those two things together, I think Glenn has embarked on a worthy undertaking in trying to enlist grass-roots internet support to impact politics and political changes.
And another post:

You can find my comments at Glenn Greenwald’s blog, Unclaimed Territory. Mr. Greenwald, in my opinion, runs the most respectful, thoughtful, and intelligent politico-legal blog in the whole dang blogosphere.

I will add this. I believe that blogs like Mr. Greenwald’s demonstrate the awesome democratic potential of the internet. Such innovations are how we, as a united people, can proceed.
But today:
I could not care less what Glenn Greenwald thinks or says.
Tell me there isn’t something going on here on an emotional level in terms of the response to Greenwald.
 
Written By: Thomas Ellers
URL: http://
The Bestselling book, all the media attention, the overnight blog success
Didn’t know he had a book...

Haven’t heard about him in the media...

And other then following a few links from here, could care less what he writes.

From what I’ve read, I’m not all that impressed.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
But nobody denies that he’s very smart, and among liberal bloggers at least, very moderate and rational in his view, and unusually willing to engage debate. So it’s hard to figure out what there could be about the guy that generates such strong emotions.
Let me stop you here to point out what seems to be a widespread fallacy among critics too shallow to see anything but ’if he thinks the right is bad, then he must be a lib’rul Democrat!" First, there’s nothing at all immoderate in Greenwald’s opposition to the Bush administration. In fact, he’s pretty much squarely in the mainstream on that point.

Secondly, and notwithstanding the puerile accusations of Greenwald being ideologically left, let me note that Greenwald does hold some quite immoderate views. Specifically:
I think that the reach of the Federal Government is so far beyond what the Founders ever intended, thanks largely though not exclusively to a complete bastardization of the Interstate Commerce Clause, that the Federal Government basically has become everything which the Founders promised the country it would never be — a huge, sprawling, distant, centralized power which has almost entirely eviscerated the right of states and localties to control their own destiny...
[...]
I am an ardent advocate of limited government and think that restoring the limitations on governmental power envisioned by the Founders is one of the most pressing priorities for preserving liberty.
"Lefty-boy", indeed.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I think Greenwald is just another porch-monkey tryin’ to create a super-entity on the web.

His plan:
1. find a high knoll where the rest of us monkeys can see him;
2. grab the troop’s attention with unintelligible utterances, hand-waving, stick-snapping, and such;
3. then solicit - and receive - public-grooming favors from high-profile alpha’s in the troop (like Andrew Sullivan, for example).

There is nothing new to Greenwald’s "social climbing" technique. As long as we’re talking about him, it’s fine by him.
-Steve
 
Written By: steve
URL: http://
Thomas Ellers, whoever who are, I don’t need you to explain me. I’m happy to do it myself. I discovered blogging (and initiated my little blog, which I promptly abandoned) shortly after Glenn Greenwald launched his website. At that time, Greenwald was indeed how I described him in my February 18, 2006 post, the one you quoted. This was at a time when Greenwald was doing yeoman work on the NSA/FISA issue, for which he remains a valuable repository of information. He also remains an intelligent person and a fine writer. His character, however, revealed to me in time, is another matter.

What you have neglected to mention is that I have always been resolutely non-partisan. Indeed, look at the post on February 26, 2006 — just 8 days after the one you quoted — in which I wrote (emphasis added):
I am a great admirer of Glenn Greenwald. I think he is constructively trying to direct the power of the internet into public affairs and politics. Further, having just endured the Sunday talk shows, I am affirmed in my opinion that the quality of debate is significantly higher in this blog than that offered by the TV news outfits. Putting those two things together, I think Glenn has embarked on a worthy undertaking in trying to enlist grass-roots internet support to impact politics and political changes. I applaud those efforts and will suppport them to the extent they are non-partisan.
You write this, Mr. Eller:
David S. used to go to Greenwald’s blog every day and write paeans to Greenwald that made Mona’s praise look mild by comparison. Then one day, Greenwald ignored a bunch of questions David S. was posing and David S. had a very bruised ego ("I know he has 250 comments every day, but I’m different and must not be ignored!"). Then he announced he would never come back and now goes around the Internet bad-mouthing Greenwald. From a fan to a hater, overnight.
And you could not be more wrong, which is surprising for one who claims to be familiar with my comments on Greenwald’s blog. What actually happened was this: Greenwald became a Democratic partisan. That, of course, is his right, but it was not how he had portrayed himself previously (or even now, for that matter). More unfortunately, he did so (and still does) in subterfuge. The focus of his posts became increasingly partisan and the quality of his blog deteriorated until it became the yammering fooldom it remains today.

The "bunch of questions" that you reference which Greenwald refused to answer have to do with Greenwald’s participation in the TalkHouse Group. They are questions which, for me at least, go to the core questions of Greenwald’s integrity and independence. He refused to answer them. That, again, is his right. And it is my right to draw appropriate conclusions about his integrity and independence (or lack thereof). I have decided, quite reluctantly I might add, that Greenwald is a glossy self-promoter and unworthy of belief. That is why I left his blog and came here, where I thought I would find independence and integrity. Only to find . . . Greenwald.

Oh, as for Greenwald’s "best-seller," (self-decribed as such on his website, just above the review by the high-school girl in the Mercury News) well here’s a free tip for you, Mr. Ellers: Don’t believe everything you read.

If you have any other questions about me, Mr. Ellers, please ask. I’d be happy to answer, though I don’t imagine the other participants here would care to listen.

Now, can we move on to other topics?


 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
I love how Franks claims not to know who Greenwald is and never reads his blog - "I really have no idea who Glenn Greenwald is" — but somehow also claims to knows that he’s just a "lefty-boy" who only writes "pretty much what you could read at the Democratic Party’s web site." Wouldn’t you have to know who he is and read him to know that?
No. You just have to peruse his blog, once he comes to your attention.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Here Franks want to pop up out of the blue and announce that he doesn’t care about Greenwald, and does so by creating yet another post with his name in the title and then calls him a series of names. Not exactly the sign of someone who doesn’t care about Greenwald. So what’s really going on here?
Uh, I’m responding to my fellow bloggers doing several Greenwald-related posts in one week, and wondering why.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Oh, as for Greenwald’s "best-seller," (self-decribed as such on his website, just above the review by the high-school girl in the Mercury News) well here’s a free tip for you, Mr. Ellers: Don’t believe everything you read.
Can you elaborate on this accusation? I’ve clicked over to the links I’ve seen on his site and saw the book, right there, on the Times Best seller list on several different weeks. Are those pages fabricated? Has his book not really been on the Times’ Best Seller list like he claims, or at #1 on Amazon? If so, this is a big story, so I’m interested in your support for this accusation.
 
Written By: Thomas Ellers
URL: http://
Davis S. writes revisionist history :
The "bunch of questions" that you reference which Greenwald refused to answer have to do with Greenwald’s participation in the TalkHouse Group.
Well,now, you had announced you were leaving so many times it can be hard to keep track of the stated reason for each "departure," but the primary cause of your snit was that you repeatedly, obnoxiously demanded that not just Glenn, but all of his commenters, see the light and join you in getting behind a third party. That call to arms was rebuffed by everyone (as best I recall) and some got quite testy with your unwillingness to cease proselytizing for it.

And now, you run around dissing he whom you used to venerate as my mother does the Blessed Virgin. Your righteous denunciations are all about you.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
I’m responding to my fellow bloggers doing several Greenwald-related posts in one week, and wondering why.
I thought I’d already mentioned that "it’s because his stuff sparks my interest." Wait, I’m sure I did!

In fact, you begun your post by citing that comment.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
"First, there’s nothing at all immoderate in Greenwald’s opposition to the Bush administration. In fact, he’s pretty much squarely in the mainstream on that point."
Jon, please remember, he may be mainstream among the opposition. That doesn’t make him mainstream.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Jon, please remember, he may be mainstream among the opposition. That doesn’t make him mainstream.
Have you seen Bush’s approval ratings?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Have you seen Bush’s approval ratings?
Non sequitur. I don’t approve of President Bush’s job performance on just about any measure. That neither places me within the mainstream beyond that extremely broad parameter, nor does it mean Greenwald and I are therefore ideological soul mates.
 
Written By: Andrew Olmsted
URL: http://andrewolmsted.com
"Have you seen Bush’s approval ratings?"

Which

a) are far from being out of line with every lame duck administration since the 21st amendment.

and

b) don’t show that a majority agree with greenwald, or even that he’s in the middle 50% of the electorate.

You cite irrelevant, obfuscatory facts. A smokescreen.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
"Lefty-boy", indeed.
Then why would he be on the Townhouse mailing list?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
I thought I’d already mentioned that "it’s because his stuff sparks my interest."
Yeah, I get that. I’m sure that the guys at the Washington Post find all sorts of interesting stuff in the LA Times every day, too. But they don’t regularly write about and comment on what the Times is doing.

Blogs do. It’s kind of incestuous and pointless, isn’t it?
Blogging for 3 years now, and I’m just learning the rules. I wish somebody had told me this before I spent three years being un-read.
I’m talking about my preferences. Not yours. So, you don’t have to get all snippy about it.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Isn’t Mona just Greenwald’s alt? Since Jon has let Mona post topics on you alls blog that would make it kinda important for you to care what he has to say.

ThankYou to McQ,Dale and Jon for having this wonderful blog and allowing us to comment on the topics. However, for my own tastes and tend to skip over Jon’s posts or just scan them to see if he is just going off on a lefty position again.
 
Written By: tasis
URL: http://
Secondly, and notwithstanding the puerile accusations of Greenwald being ideologically left, let me note that Greenwald does hold some quite immoderate views. Specifically:
I think that the reach of the Federal Government is so far beyond what the Founders ever intended, thanks largely though not exclusively to a complete bastardization of the Interstate Commerce Clause, that the Federal Government basically has become everything which the Founders promised the country it would never be — a huge, sprawling, distant, centralized power which has almost entirely eviscerated the right of states and localties to control their own destiny...
[...]
I am an ardent advocate of limited government and think that restoring the limitations on governmental power envisioned by the Founders is one of the most pressing priorities for preserving liberty.
I never thought I’d live to see the day when a libertarian (Jon) describes as immoderate a call for limited government.
puerile accusations of Greenwald being ideologically left
So "lefty-boy" is puerile. Grow up Dale.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
Yeah, I get that.
Well, no, apparently you don’t. Which is why you were "wondering why" I’d cited him numerous times.
It’s kind of incestuous and pointless, isn’t it?
Well, we can’t all write important posts about how much we don’t care about a blogger that another blogger is citing too much.

Besides which, I’m not sure what important difference you see between finding an idea in the Times and finding an idea on another blog.
So, you don’t have to get all snippy about it.
Oh, you can dish it, but...
I never thought I’d live to see the day when a libertarian (Jon) describes as immoderate a call for limited government.
Do you think sharply limited government is in the mainstream of US political thought? It’s become as radical to say that today as it was back in the 1770s. That doesn’t make it wrong, but let’s not pretend that it’s the moderate position in today’s political geography.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
It seems to me that some of Jon’s basic assumptions about his own views, this blog, etc., have changed in the last few months. This shift is manifested in various ways, including allowing Mona (who seems to be a Democrat in Libertarian clothing) to guest blog; and the shift is causing friction between our three favorite bloggers. This is all very dramatic, but it’s changing the tone of this blog.

Will Q&O survive? Will Mona convince us all to be Democrats? Like sands through the hour glass, these are the Days of Our Blog.

(Disclaimer: The above is my impression/opinion and not intended to insult anyone.)
 
Written By: Fyro
URL: http://
tais writes:
Isn’t Mona just Greenwald’s alt? Since Jon has let Mona post topics on you alls blog that would make it kinda important for you to care what he has to say.
No, I am not. When he is wrong in my opinion, I’ve said so quite vehemently. That I agree with his critiques of the modern GOP, and the media, as well as the vile nature of some right-wing pundits (electronic and print) and some like-thinking bloggers, is not surpirsing. It would be the odd libertarian who wouldn’t have varying levels of agreement with these points, and that no doubt is why most if not all of Greenwald’s arguments are tracked by various writers/bloggers at Reason. (Maybe Jacob Sullum, Julian Sanchez, Dave Weigel etc. are all on the Townhouse list, too, robotically taking orders from the Arch-Maestro Kos.)
ThankYou to McQ,Dale and Jon for having this wonderful blog and allowing us to comment on the topics. However, for my own tastes and tend to skip over Jon’s posts or just scan them to see if he is just going off on a lefty position again.
Yeah, when I read someone objecting to state-sponsored torture, my eyes glaze over, and I figure ’em for a commie. It’s a hallmark of libertarianism.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Dale, I don’t know who Glenn is, either. I haven’t taken the time to look up who he is, because I don’t care. On that, I understand you. But I do have a few questions.

You say that you’ve always preferred to link to primary sources. I assume this means with regard to current events. But if somebody’s interest strays off to a different topic (like say selective media coverage of political blogs), then citing Greenwald’s take on the matter is perfectly legitimate. The frequency of reference doesn’t make Greenwald lose legitimacy as a source of information or conversation, any more than the NYT loses legitimacy if I write about them more than a few times a week. Does it?

I agree with you when you say if you wanna know what some other blogger says, well, then, go read that blogger. And if Jon were simply reporting on Greenwald’s posts without sharing his thoughts on Greenwald’s topic, then that might be kinda sad. But Jon is sharing his thoughts on the guy’s point. I guess I don’t understand why that bothers you… does it go beyond not caring who Greenwald is? If Jon’s interest was sparked by (and he wrote frequently referring to) somebody you knew more about (say Malkin or Kos or Huffington or Ben Stein), would that still bother you? I’m just asking, and not trying to imply that it wouldn’t.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
Wow.

A food fight and I’m not involved in it at all.

How unusual ... and cool. ;)
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
If y’all want to tongue-bathe Glenn Greenwald, could you at least do it on HIS site? This Greeenwald Admiration Society stuff is getting old.

I swear, fanatical defenders like Mona and Thomas come off like f*cking Scientologists. Do you track down every blog that mentions him to ensure he isn’t being maligned in the comments section?

And about his best seller - it appears to be another idiotic lefty screed accusing George Bush of being a "despot" and wielding "unlimited presidential power." Does this dumb*ss realize that after 2008 George Bush WILL NO LONGER BE PRESIDENT?

Oh, and Jon:
"Lefty-boy"; indeed
Why don’t you check out Working Assets Publishing, which published his book. Quotes from Joseph Wilson, Kos, Arianna Huffington, etc. Why don’t you go see who Working Assets supports?
Since 1985, Working Assets has generated over $50 million for progressive nonprofits, including Greenpeace, Doctors Without Borders, Planned Parenthood, Amnesty International and Project Vote, among many others.


Your naivete is truly astounding sometimes. Glenn Greenwald is mainstream, you say? Working Assets is a telecommunications company that funds some of the most extreme lunatic left-fringe groups on the planet.

So how did a telecom company that in it’s twenty years had NEVER published a book before just "stumble" across Mr. Best-Seller? They commissioned the book:
Because the book became Amazon’s #1 "without a single penny being spent on marketing or advertising," according to Greenwald. The book’s sudden and so far enduring popularity (at press time it had dropped only to #160) is all the more intriguing when you consider that the book doesn’t, technically, exist yet; its now sold-out first printing of 20,000 copies will be shipped the week of May 15. (A second printing is in the works.)

How did a San Francisco–based do-gooder telecom organization—20-year-old Working Assets is primarily a wireless and credit card company that has donated millions to what cofounder and CEO Laura Scher describes as "progressive" causes, such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International and Planned Parenthood—suddenly find itself in the book business? First, it hired editorial director Jennifer Nix "to find ways to bring the progressive message into larger media." She immediately contacted Greenwald, who’d recently given up his day job as a lawyer to blog full time on glenngreenwald.blogspot.[Perhaps this is Mona’s real name.] He agreed to write a book for a small advance in a short time. Patriot was finished in April and sent out to a printer (Donnelley, which Working Assets had used to print some of its phone bills and flyers); while still in conversations with PGW about distribution, Nix got an ISBN number and then submitted the book to Amazon. For promotion, she relied on Greenwald’s popular blog and "about five or six" other bloggers to spread the word. Obviously, they managed to do so.
I’m going to go out on a limb and accuse Greenwald, his sycophant lickspittles like Mona and Thomas Ellers, here, other lefty bloggers, and his bullsh*t "publisher" of gaming Amazon to generate book orders from other venues like Barnes and Noble. It’s been done before, no doubt it will be done again.

In conclusion, Glenn Greenwald is a tool of the far left, and you are a tool if you pretend otherwise.

And that doesn’t require more than a few minutes to find out.

 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
As one who has been reading Greenwald’s blog since its inception last Fall, I know that he approvingly links to libertarians with frequency. Including Reason, Jon here at QandO, Orin Kerr, and The Cato Institute. Yesterday, he linked to another libertarian, Arthur Silber, whose blog I then explored. Silber’s first entry declares this (my emphasis):
For the moment, libertarianism’s reputation has been almost entirely destroyed and deservedly so, if one considers only its loudest contemporary advocates. These phony libertarians have no understanding at all of the principles they claim to be defending, and genuine liberty can find no place in their world view.... In a [2003 - ed. Mona] article entitled "The Neoconservative Persuasion",[Irving] Kristol spells out the nature of neoconservatism with admirable honesty and clarity — and all I can say to those libertarians who continue to praise Bush for his understanding and defense of the uniquely American values of individual liberty and freedom is this: if you don’t believe me, perhaps you will believe Kristol. And if you still aren’t convinced, you at least ought to pay very careful attention to what he has to say, since this is the program which, as Kristol himself indicates, Bush has completely adopted, and with which Bush is enormously comfortable.
Do read Silber’s analysis of (godfather) Irving Kristol’s elucidation of neoconservatism, and then any of you libertarians here tell me: How can you continue to give even limited support to an Administration that has been so accommodating of these authoritarian statists, statists whom the neocons love (they criticize Bush only from their neocon right).
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
The whole denounciation thing is a crock. Greenwald selectively cites The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler for a reason: That type of statement is their schtick, it’s what they do, routinely going over the top.

Expecting the Righties to denounce Misha en masse is rediculous, for I know that there are blogs in my bookmarks that I haven’t visited in a long time. Blogrolls probably suffer the same fate. Some even have outdated and dead links, so you KNOW that the blog has not been visited, or the entry would probably be gone. While a link to Misha may exist on a blogroll, the owner of that blogroll may not have visited his site in months. So if he comes especially unglued on a subject, it isn’t really safe to assume that even those who have him blogrolled have seen it.

Seeing that Greenwald links blogs that had heard of the Frisch dust-up, I don’t know how he could be unaware of it.

But the mantra is the same: blame Goldstein, it’s the evil right, blah, blah, blah. Thankfully I can push a button and get the Dale and McQ posts and skip the Greenwald fawning.
 
Written By: David R. Block
URL: http://
libertarianism’s reputation has been almost entirely destroyed and deservedly so
And what reputation did that have before now?

As an ineffectual, ideologically pure party, almost completely without any real power, how can it get any worse?
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Jeff spits out silliness:
In conclusion, Glenn Greenwald is a tool of the far left, and you are a tool if you pretend otherwise.
Who did you think was going to publish a book deeply critical of George Bush? Regnery? Jeff, libertarians hold some common ground with some leftist positions. That’s kinda why, yanno, we don’t call ourselves "conservatives." See Hayek, F.A.

As for this:
I swear, fanatical defenders like Mona and Thomas come off like f*cking Scientologists. Do you track down every blog that mentions him to ensure he isn’t being maligned in the comments section?
I’ve been posting here for several years, well in advance of Greenwald’s explosion into the blogosphere last Fall. I believe I first read here when Jon announced the site over at Hit & Run several years ago — as a Reason libertarian who’d taken the mag for some 20 years, I was a regular there — and first commented at QandO sometime shortly thereafter. (Indeed, I’ve had the same email address for 15 mos., but no matter what I do I cannot change the field at this site to over-ride the obsolete one I was using when I first arrived here.)
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Do you track down every blog that mentions him to ensure he isn’t being maligned in the comments section?
Easy way to find out: write a derogatory post about Greenwald and see if they show up.
 
Written By: Andrew Olmsted
URL: http://andrewolmsted.com
If y’all want to tongue-bathe Glenn Greenwald, could you at least do it on HIS site? This Greeenwald Admiration Society stuff is getting old.
Ironically, this arises from a post in which I criticized Greenwald’s point of view. And if I recall correctly, I’ve spent more time criticizing him than agreeing with him on this blog. And now some people thing my blogging is up for a vote.
Glenn Greenwald is mainstream, you say? Working Assets is a telecommunications company that funds some of the most extreme lunatic left-fringe groups on the planet.
Y’know, I said he was in the mainstream in opposing the Bush administration. The majority of Americans DO oppose the Bush administration. That’s a mainstream position.

As for his associations, I’m not really sure what relevance that has. Greenwald is ideologically quite libertarian. That he’s temporarily aligned with other opponents of the Bush administration who are liberal no more makes him a liberal than temporary alignment with the Bush administration makes one a conservative.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I’ve been posting here for several years
Funny, because this site hasn’t been here for "several years." I used to read QandO when it was just Jon Henke on blogspot, and it wasn’t that long ago, sister.
well in advance of Greenwald’s explosion into the blogosphere last Fall.
Kool-Aid, Kool-Aid - Tastes Great! I Wish I Had Some - Can’t Wait!

So tell me, Reason libertarian, how have you addressed the fact that your pig-god was COMMISSIONED to "bring the progressive message into larger media?" Hmm?

And who do I think would publish a book critical of the Bush administration? How about Harper Collins (Michael Moore) or Penguin (Al Franken) or Random House (Molly Ivins) or Putnam (Maureen Dowd)? You know, some of the biggest publishers on the PLANET?

Logic just ain’t in you, Mona.

So how about addressing the FACTS: Glenn Greenwald was HIRED to get the left’s message out. You can’t even say he’s an unwitting tool. Witless, maybe.

You, on the other hand, are a willing tool.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
If Jon’s interest was sparked by (and he wrote frequently referring to) somebody you knew more about (say Malkin or Kos or Huffington or Ben Stein), would that still bother you? I’m just asking, and not trying to imply that it wouldn’t.
It might, depending on what it’s about. If it’s Kos arguing that a new economic study by, say, a George Mason University economics faculty member shows that increasing the minimum wage does not affect employment elasticity among minimum wage earners, then it might be important to spend a few posts looking into it.

If it’s along the lines of "Kos says that Instapundit is a doodoo-head!" then, really, who cares?

One of the problems with the blogosphere is that it often degenerates into a larger, more public version of the USEnet simply because one blogger says something nasty about another.

That kind of stuff is why I left the USEnet in the first place.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
"The majority of Americans DO oppose the Bush administration. That’s a mainstream position."
No, a majority aren’t happy with him. A good half of that majority could be people who are terribly unhappy with him being to soft on immigration, and the other half might be angry with him being too hard on immigration. You aren’t supporting what you claim to believe you are saying.

Greenwald, if he were to be in the "too hard" on immigration category in that instance, would not then be in the mainstream.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Jon, the first part of my post was addressed to Mona and Thomas. Only the guilty need feel offended.
As for his associations, I’m not really sure what relevance that has.
Of course you don’t understand.

Working Assets: liberal fund-raising group, interested in promulgating their liberal message in the media.

Glenn Greenwald: the FIRST person Working Assets IMMEDIATELY contacts to launch their project of spreading their liberal message by writing a histrionic screed about George Bush.

So if MoveOn.org contacted Glenn Greenwald and said, "Hey Glenn, can you pump us out an hit piece on Chimpy McBush*tlerburton in the next 45 days," and Glenn replied, "Sure! I’d be glad to!" - that wouldn’t carry any liberal onus with you?




 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
No, Jeff. Working with the Left for a common cause doesn’t make him ideologically Left. It just means have have a common cause. Libertarians are not conservatives, either, despite the fact that they sometimes work together.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Glenn Greenwald: the FIRST person Working Assets IMMEDIATELY contacts to launch their project of spreading their liberal message by writing a histrionic screed about George Bush.
You haven’t read the book, which his hilarious, considering that you are trying to categorize it as some sort of liberal book. I have read it. Greenwald’s primary sources are Bob Barr, Bruce Fein, George Will, Antonin Scalia, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. I don’t think there is a single liberal or leftist on whom he relies in any of his arguments. And as daily a reader of Greenwald’s blog, I really don’t know of a single liberal view he espouses.

Greenwald was writing about executive power abuses long before he was approached to write the book. He quickly became one of the blogosphere’s most cited experts on the NSA issues, and becasue of that, he was approached to write a book.

I have no doubt liberals want his message to be heard, because he is a very articulate and forceful critic of George Bush. That doesn’t make him a liberal, anymore than it makes Bob Barr a liberal because the ACLU promotes his libertarian anti-Bush message, or anymore than it makes Ed Koch a conservative because pro-Bush groups promote his advocacy of the war in Iraq.
 
Written By: Tomas Ellers
URL: http://
Dave Weigel (that fake libertarian at that fake libertarian magazine) is approvingly citing George Will’s smackdown of Bill "let’s war on Iran and Syria" Kristol today at Reason’s Hit & Run ; also today citing Will who lambastes neoconservatism and Kristol is....Glenn Greenwald!

That’s it. Lefties — or at least Democrats — all of ’em/us. Me, Will, Weigel, Reason, and Glenn Greenwald. (And can it now be doubted that Will, Weigel and Reason are taking orders from Kos via a list-serve? I think not!)

It’s just binary, folks. Deeply critical of Bush and opposing full-bore WWIII in the ME = left-winger.

Support for Bush’s foreign and domestic national security policies, and hopes that he unleashes our military on Iran and Syria = conservative and/or non-leftist.

My, but this simple dualism makes the world of American politics sooooo much easier to navigate.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Y’know, I said he was in the mainstream in opposing the Bush administration. The majority of Americans DO oppose the Bush administration. That’s a mainstream position.
C’mon, Jon, that’s too clever by half. By that logic, the "mainstream" is so broad it means everything, and therfore also means nothing. Tim McVeigh? Mainstream. He opposed Clinton. That was a mainstream position.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
think that the reach of the Federal Government is so far beyond what the Founders ever intended, thanks largely though not exclusively to a complete bastardization of the Interstate Commerce Clause, that the Federal Government basically has become everything which the Founders promised the country it would never be — a huge, sprawling, distant, centralized power which has almost entirely eviscerated the right of states and localties to control their own destiny...
[...]
I am an ardent advocate of limited government and think that restoring the limitations on governmental power envisioned by the Founders is one of the most pressing priorities for preserving liberty.
Sounds good. Now, are Bush appointees to the Sepremes or Clinton appointees more likely to decide that the Tenth actually means something?

And, after spending the last 60 plus years "bastardizing the Interstate Commerce Clause", are the Democrats going to backtrack when they get in power?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Why do Greenwald’s minions find it necessary to bandy about their credentials all the time ("I’ve subscribed to Reason for blankety-blank years"; "I visit all sorts of right-wing blogs"; "Well, I know Whosa Whatsit who cites Greenwald (praised be his name) and Whatsit is a conservative!"; etc., etc.)?

And who the hell made you all arbiters of just what make’s one a "libertarian"?

Y’all spend more time trying to bolster your own, and Greenwald’s, reputations as "libertarian" and yet have very little to offer besides moral indignation and name-dropping. If you’ve got some great ideas about the promotion of liberty then, by all means speak up! Wading through comment after comment of how awful and vile you find the "Right" to be is getting rather tiresome, IMHO.

You all are starting to mkultra looking reasonable.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Jeff writes:
Funny, because this site hasn’t been here for "several years." I used to read QandO when it was just Jon Henke on blogspot, and it wasn’t that long ago, sister.
It is older than April of 2005, when I adopted my current email address, because I cannot change the field here to remove the obsolete address — tho I exchanged email w/ Jon trying to determine how I might do that. Whenever Jon announced this site at Reason, I showed up (with a now-obsolete email addy). As I recall, when I read his H ’n R announcement, I even emailed Jon to congratulate him and state that I looked forward to his blog.

However old QandO is, I’ve been reading from the beginning, and felt moved to first comment sometime shortly thereafter. Well, well before Greenwald was a presence in the blogosphere.

I’m a libertarian. As Jon notes above, Greenwald is ideologically quite libertarian. It is thus not shocking or at all surprising that I endorse much that he writes, which not astonishingly tracks much that is written at Reason. And as another commenter notes, if you’d read his book you would find few (I actually think there are none) left-wing sources cited therein, except maybe Sen. Frank Church and others on his committee, but even more so on Sam Ervin); he is reliant on Publius, other Founders, Scalia, and conservative constitutional scholars.

As for the rest of your comments, they are shrill, unfounded, uncivil, and unworthy of response.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
C’mon, Jon, that’s too clever by half. By that logic, the "mainstream" is so broad it means everything, and therfore also means nothing
That’s why I said that his "opposition to the Bush administration" was mainstream. If Tim McVeigh opposed the Bush administration — and was alive to do so — then on that point he would be in the mainstream. (or rather, the majority; I think a persuasive case can be made that the mainsteam is not solely majority opinion)
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I’M WITH DALE WHO CARES ABOUT GLENN GREENWALD. I DON’T LET’S JUST SHUT UP ABOUT HIM!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
What MichaelW said.

Give it up, already. No one wants to join your little Greenwald cult. Michael Moore cites all kinds of conservatives in his books to make what he thinks are points. Does that make him a conservative? A libertarian?

He was solicited to write an anti-Bush book by a liberal telecom company THAT HAS NEVER PUBLISHED BOOKS. That has admitted to hiring Greenwald to push their liberal message.

But that’s okay, because he quoted George Will. That’s intellectually honest writing. Are you out of your d*mn mind? Sure, he’s a libertarian, he just works for the left.


I got your cui bono right here.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
BTW, I was passing the newsstand the other day when my arm brushed against a copy of Reason. Three days later, my neck goiter had completely dissolved.


Now I’m the approved prophet for "Reason libertarianism." And guess what, Mona? You can’t be one anymore. You’ll have to call yourself something else.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Reason went sharply downhill when they decided that the battle for free markets was essentially won, and they switched to a focus on things that appealed to their metrosexual senses. Dang I miss Virginia . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
That’s why I said that his "opposition to the Bush administration" was mainstream. If Tim McVeigh opposed the Bush administration — and was alive to do so — then on that point he would be in the mainstream. (or rather, the majority; I think a persuasive case can be made that the mainsteam is not solely majority opinion).
Not sure why it is any more "mainstream" to oppose Bush today than it was to oppose Clinton in 1995, but there we are. In any event, it’s not meaningful to say someone is "in the mainstream" because they support/oppose the winner/runner-up of the most recent Presidential election. An ordinary Bush supporter is in the mainstream, while a guy who voted for Bush because he couldn’t convince Pat Buchanan to run in his place is not. Similarly, a guy who opposes Bush because he favors a slightly higher level of taxation or a go-slow foreign policy in the Middle East is within the mainstream, while a guy who opposes Bush because "Bush Lied, People Died!" is not. Ergo, the mere fact that a person supports or opposes a sitting President simply doesn’t tell us enough about that person to place him either inside or outside the mainstream in any meaningful sense of the word.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
You all are starting to mkultra looking reasonable.
God that’s frightening.
As for the rest of your comments, they are shrill, unfounded, uncivil, and unworthy of response.
Satan made him do it (homage to Dana Carvey) says the Church Lady.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
That’s why I said that his "opposition to the Bush administration" was mainstream
"Opposition" to the administration isn’t the same as his disapproval rating.

For example, Kos is "opposed" to the administration.

I may disapprove of the job Bush is doing on a various issue for whatever reason, (which you can bet would be for a different reason than Kos would for example) but I still support his administration in the overall.

That doesn’t make "opposition" to the administration mainstream.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
As for the rest of your comments, they are shrill, unfounded, uncivil, and unworthy of response.


Paid for by Friends of Glenn Greenwald.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://repatriate.blogspot.com
And now some people thing my blogging is up for a vote.
But Jon, it always is. People can vote with their feet or in this case their fingers.

What ever happened to ignoring that which one finds disinteresting...

I mean, other then a few snarky comments, I’ve kept myself out of these Greenwald feuds.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
It seems to me that some of Jon’s basic assumptions about his own views, this blog, etc., have changed in the last few months.


Okay, Fyro. I’ve got issues.

This shift is manifested in various ways, including allowing Mona (who seems to be a Democrat in Libertarian clothing) to guest blog;
And who put you in charge of wardrobe?
I personally find Mr. Henke’s posts to be the most “libertarian” of the three who author this blog. And “Mona’s” comments seem pretty in line with traditional libertarian thought. That is, of course, my humble opinion. And my notation will no doubt – for the benefit of most of the commenters here – do no favors for Mr. Henke. (sorry, dude)
I’ve been reading and commenting here for well over a year now, and every time I call attention to McQ’s or Dale’s opinion as not being, traditionally, compatible with libertarian philosophy, I am reminded that they note themselves as “neo”. Whatever.
Most recently, when Dale opined that it was a good thing for the government to “stress assimilation and English fluency” among immigrants. I retorted that, “Why on earth should a self-proclaimed libertarian care if an immigrant, legal or otherwise, be fluent in English?”
He then responded, “If you are referring to paleolibertarians, then, I guess so. You’ll note, however, that we don’t describe ourselves as being in that category.”

Well I guess that shut me up, then, huh?

So it seems to me that – after passing out libertarian clothing – there would be an alarming amount of naked people here.
And who the hell made you all arbiters of just what make’s one a "libertarian"?
Written By: MichaelW
Myself, I’m wearing a libertarian G-string. Which my neighbors complain about, constantly.

Dude!? Will you at least put on some shorts?

 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Reason went sharply downhill when they decided that the battle for free markets was essentially won, and they switched to a focus on things that appealed to their metrosexual senses. Dang I miss Virginia . . .
Well Don, I’ve come to see Reason and Hit and Run as the Libertarian equivalent of the Free Republic or mayhap better as "Cultural Libertarians". It’s not that they necessarily present a factual argument or focus on specific policy areas and issues, but that their whole zeigeist if some form of libertarian. Just as Cultural COnservatives are not my favourite form of Conservative, though I am one, Reason has long been off my list of readings, because it just makes a whole raft of assumptions I can’t share. I miss Postrel, too. I wonder how they’re doing business-wise since she left?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Myself, I’m wearing a libertarian G-string.
Doctor, my eye-eees/Tell what is wrong ...
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Myself, I’m wearing a libertarian G-string.
ok, well,... how can one possibly respond to that.
do no favors for Mr. Henke. (sorry, dude)
At least that last comment fits
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Myself, I’m wearing a libertarian G-string.
ok, well,... how can one possibly respond to that.
Ok, well,… if I have to tell you…

One possible response, in your case Captain Big Boy,
Myself, I’m wearing a libertarian G-string.
What color is it? And… Is it edible?
Written By: capt joe
;)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
I’ve got plenty of popcorn, McQ. Pull up a chair.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
lol.
Now that’s funny.
 
Written By: Herald of Galactus
URL: http://
I like this blog.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
I guess when Sadly! No does it, it’s just a humorous and satirical commentary on the viciousness of the Right

Wow. You’re on the cusp of understanding irony! It’s a big day for you.
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
So when did QandO becomes a goofy singles club?

Pogue, I think you mean that as humor but it creeps me out that someone who probably looks like Andrew Sullivan is coming on to me.

Euuuw, skin crawling and everything. Bleech

:)

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
OK again this is all very silly. Greenwald is merely advancing a political position and his RSS returns and therefore his revenue, the same of which can be said of QandO. First this is akin to an academic debate that flies back and forth between competing schools of thought. The end result of which is increased publications and citations, FOR BOTH SCHOOLS. So too, here, Greenwald gets cited here and QandO gets cited elsewhere, the end result is that BOTH pages get increased pageviews and that in turn can increase revenue potential for all concerned. I see little point in participating in something, that I said was akin to the feud between Frankie Goes to Hollywood and Boy George.

Secondly, this debate serves a political purpose. Kos and the Kossacs have run into a spot of trouble. How ethical IS Markos AND if Lieberman wins in Connecticutt, and he will, then how powerful can the Kossacs and the Netroots Movement be? So this debate about "hate" on the Right comes along to distract from these problems. It gets the debate OFF of the Netroots Krew and onto their opponents. Also it’s a variant of the "Chickenhawk" Theme. By accusing someone of being a Chickenhawk it, can, force the person accused to become defensive diverting attention from their argument and onto THEM. So too this, now we "have" to debate/defend "hate" on the Right.

Bottom-line: this is a POINTLESS debate designed to further the Netroots Kause and sitemeter readings, of ALL CONCERNED no more no less. You don’t like Mischa, don’t read Mischa, don’t like DU don’t read DU. Pogue doesn’t like Rush, don’t listen, don’t like Randi Rhodes, change channels. Beyond that who cares?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
My impression of Greenwald is that he is a slippery opportunist. I think he very smartly seeks out and comments on issues that fill a niche between the major political sides, and his posts are finely tailored with the intent of siphoning off support for Bush (Ask yourself: has he ever agreed with the President?)

I think he’s frequently dishonest and hyperbolic. I don’t trust him to be honest about what he believes, and I don’t care what he has to say except as a study in political opportunism.
 
Written By: equitus
URL: http://
I think he’s frequently dishonest and hyperbolic. I don’t trust him to be honest about what he believes, and I don’t care what he has to say except as a study in political opportunism.
Dude, a few hours ago I’d have agreed with you but I’ve finally seen the light. You’re missing the forest for the trees. It doesn’t matter that he’s chronically dishonest; all that matters is that he’s a libertarian! So what if he’s a rotten, lying son of a bitch? He’s our son of a bitch!
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
And... AND, he and high priestest Mona will show us the way to nirvana.

 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
xrlq,

I think you hit the nail on the head. Whatever his ideology, my issue is he is dishonest. Reading his blog, which I have now linked to a few times, I am reminded of Coulter. Not the eliminationist rhetoric (and why that is some special sin as compared to many others I can’t fathom) but the way he can mix things of real concern from one point of view, throw in some allusions to other issues and jam it all together and claim he has made a coherent case for why those he disagrees with are really bad guys and gals. Coulter used the same technique in "Treason." She has footnotes and quotes they say. Glenn has links, footnotes, etc. Never mind that the links or footnotes or whatever don’t actually say what the two of them say they do all the time. Never mind that they don’t represent the fullness of those peoples thought, the two claim it does. Nevermind that their interpretations are tendentious and misleading. Those I disagree with are all eviiiiilllll!

His post on media matters campaign included Jane Galt as an example of a right wing hate monger. Jane Galt, the lovely Megan McCardle? The whole premise is ridiculous but if Jane Galt is in your radar the kids here at QandO better watch out. I promise you Jon, he’s coming after you. I bet you’re scared;)

Anyway, Greenwald may in some sense be a libertarian, but most conservatives I know don’t have much use for Coulter or Pat Buchanan. I figure we libertarians don’t need to own this guy either. However, to each his or her own Mona.

Pogue,

Could you please never say anything like that again? Also, I am glad you have Jon’s back, though I have no idea who is the most libertarian. They all three seem to violate the high priests edicts in various ways, I just never knew that punishment might mean the removal of clothes. Please reform!

Jon,

As to you being a liberal, I find that laughable. I am sorry some can’t accept a little dissent. However, I think you and Dale are both being snippy. I wish you could both see the grin on my face as I stick my tongue out at both of you.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Jane Galt as an example of a right wing hate monger. Jane Galt, the lovely Megan McCardle?
Very true Lance, positively ridiculous. Even to the extend of his attacks on Reynolds and others.

That and his association with Townhouse shows him to be a complete cutout. Perhaps, they saw him as an effective attack against prominent NOT left bloggers. Personally, I think the whole thing is backfiring and causing the opposite effect.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Yeah, with the Jane Galt thing I would say Greenwald has definitively jumped the Shark, but our friend might be swimming nearby ready to pounce.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
This is giving me a grand ole chuckle.

It confirms everything I have seen from that clown so far. But I will stop talking about GiGi now. Must STOP....
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Who cares about Glenn Greenwald, you ask? Try Ellison, Sam Mathews and Wilson, for starters. Those three care so much about Glenn Greenwald, they even use his IP address to post comments on other people’s blogs!
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Thomas Ellers says:
David S. used to go to Greenwald’s blog every day and write paeans to Greenwald that made Mona’s praise look mild by comparison. Then one day, Greenwald ignored a bunch of questions David S. was posing and David S. had a very bruised ego ("I know he has 250 comments every day, but I’m different and must not be ignored!"). Then he announced he would never come back and now goes around the Internet bad-mouthing Greenwald. From a fan to a hater, overnight.

Which brings up an interesting point: isn’t a lot of this hatred of Greenwald jealousy-based. The Bestselling book, all the media attention, the overnight blog success, etc? I’d be the first to say his style can be bombastic and he can be overly aggressive. But nobody denies that he’s very smart...
Imagine the look on David Shaughnessy’s face when he realizes that Thomas Ellers is actually Gleen Greenwald via one of his drawerful of sock puppets!

Glenn, wrt the bolded bit, I think that several people have picked up that gantlet. :-)
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
I think it’s sad.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
My mistake Sam Mathews does not use Greenwald’s IP address, and probably isn’t even in Brazil. Wilson, Ellison, Thomas Ellers and the rest? That’s another story. Those all sound like typical Brazilian names to me; they could be almost anyone.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider