****Welcome readers of Instapundit and Jonah Goldberg. The main discussion of Greenwald’s bad faith is here and previously dissected in more detail here. Jonah Goldberg fans can find an interview with his friend Michael Ledeen, which touches on Greenwald as well, here.
Michael Wade had our last Newsflash on the Sock Puppet king here.
My previous post on Greenwald and Reynolds was actually written a few days ago, so as I was checking my links I noticed that Glenn Greenwald is now claiming Glenn Reynolds is anti-gay! Unbelieveable! Here is Reynolds discussion of Harold Ford (who he has generally given positive coverage.) I’ll highlight the key “offensive” passage.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
He also challenges me to: “Come out with some tough criticism on your blog of Harold Ford for claiming to be a lawyer when in fact he isn’t–something you’d be singularly placed to do.”
He’s talking about this:
The Corker campaign has acknowledged Ford’s oratorical skills but is hoping to take advantage of what they have alleged as Ford’s embellishment of his resume.
At issue is whether Ford should be allowed to call himself a lawyer. He has referred to himself as a lawyer to several media outlets, but Ford senior adviser Michael Powell has denied that the candidate has represented himself as a practicing attorney.
Ford earned his law degree the University of Michigan in 1996, the same year he was elected to Congress. He failed the bar exam the following year.
This has gotten Ford some flak, but it doesn’t seem that huge to me. I ran it by my wife — who’s a strong Corker supporter — and she didn’t think it was a big deal. It’s true that “lawyer,” strictly speaking, means someone licensed to practice law, but the term is often used to refer to anyone with a law degree. Compared to Tom Harkin’s phony Vietnam-vet status, it doesn’t even register.
More damaging for Ford is the corollary to this, something he’s never made a secret of: that he went straight from law school to his father’s seat in Congress at the age of 26. But the voters know about that, and can make up their own minds.
UPDATE: Reader John Bragg emails:
Given that a large percentage of voting Americans tend to confuse “lawyer” with “dirtbag”, claiming that he’s not a lawyer is supposed to hurt Ford? “Come out with some tough criticism on your blog of Harold Ford for claiming to be a dirtbag when in fact he isn’t….” Somehow that doesn’t strike me as a brilliant strategy for the anti-Ford brigades.
I’m wounded at the notion that some Americans lack the high regard for lawyers that . . . Oh, hell, he’s right. Accusing your opponent of not being a lawyer isn’t exactly cutting to the bone.
Likewise, charging someone with partying with Playboy bunnies seems like pretty weak tea. I was talking about that with a Republican friend the other day, who said it was the best thing he’d heard about Ford so far. He’s not alone: Few people will really be offended by that, and other voters will find partying with bunnies to be amusing and perhaps even appealing, and if nothing else it undercuts potential voter worries that Ford is a goodie-two-shoes or — post-Foleygate, a risk for any unmarried male member of Congress — gay, which would seem to do his campaign more good than harm.
Ford’s somewhat Clintonian answer, though, “I’ve never been to a Playboy Mansion party,” (it was a Playboy party, but not at the Mansion) is an unforced error on his part.
UPDATE: Reader Chris Barr emails:
It’s the silly season. I’m a rock ribbed Republican, but I think it’s crazy not recognize Ford’s considerable skills, and he seems like a decent guy, to boot. Back when I listened to Don Imus, Ford was a fairly frequent guest. He always struck me as fairly reasonable, genial, and very intelligent and articulate. Sure he tended to parrot the talking points of the day, but they almost all do that. I could vote for him—he’s one of the very very few Dems with a national reputation that I can stomach.
His “lawyer†problem is a little troubling, but not much. He was lawyer enough to graduate from the University of Michigan. If the Instawife is cool, then I’m good to go. And I agree with your correspondent about the Playboy party. He like girls! And goes to Church. Where’s the beef?
It’s all part of the game, I know, but it’s easy to see how many highly qualified and talented folks don’t want to play that game. More’s the shame.
I said a long time ago that no sane person would want to be President. As campaigns get uglier (and Ford/Corker isn’t all that ugly, really), that’s working its way down the chain of office.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
First of all this is hardly some attack on Ford, so how it is a post doing the Republican Paty’s dirty work is beyond me. From this The King of Sock Puppets gets this:
It isn’t “voters” who are making a connection between Mark Foley and the issue of whether gay people are entitled to equal treatment. It’s the likes of Glenn Reynolds (cursory support for gay marriage notwithstanding) who are doing that, quite deliberately, in the hope that the old reliable strategy of demonizing gay people will strengthen the cultural tribalism on which they depend and will save them in this election.
From the post above we are supposed to feel Reynolds is “demonizing gay people.” The man is one of the few pundits I am aware of who has firmly and bluntly proclaimed himself as “pro-sodomy.” I won’t spend much time analyzing this, I think if you have read my previous posts on the puppet master you can recognize what he is doing. The only question is, is Greenwald this dense, purposely mendacious, or some of both? I report, you decide.
[tags] Glenn Greenwald, Glenn Reynolds, Harold Ford, Democrats, Republicans, Tennessee, Sodomy, gay [/tags]
Good morning,
I admit to being one of the slowest around but how Professor Reynolds’ comment is “anti-gay” throws me for a complete loss. He is merely making a point: it is probably better as far as voters in Tennessee are concerned that to be seen as a “playboy” than a “goody two shoes” or gay. I suspect that his observation is true elsewhere although not a universal truth.
I suppose according to Greenwald “logic”, if one can torture a word so, if you observe married woman will more likely vote for a married person than someone who is a playboy you are anti-playboy or married women or women or something.
I still don’t get it.
I like that. Greenwald – “Pro word-torture”
Excellent posting, I got here via Instapundit and after reading a number of posts I’m impressed with your writing and with your ability to look at the political world without obvious bias.
This is a great site, well designed and well crafted with a wordsmith that cares about what he does. I’m adding you to my blogroll.
Don,
I like that as well. I am sure if Greenwald stirs me to type again I’ll use that. If it becomes widely used I’ll make sure to go around giving you credit.
What, Greenwald didn’t also go bananas because Reynolds published a letter in which a reader describes the African-American Ford as “articulate”?
His leftist hypersensitive-self-righteous-faux-indignant radar must need a tune-up.
GM,
Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you in the future. It may not be obvious, but there are three of us (plus guests) and I am probably not the wordsmith. If you want some great writing I suggest going over to the categories and clicking on the “Great Lyrics” series. Robby only occasionally posts but the quality is very high.
The only question is, is Greenwald this dense, purposely mendacious, or some of both?
Purposely mendacious.
I just read through your previous post outlining Greenwald’s technique and you clearly have a good grip on it and find it just as tiresome as I do.
What’s always made me wonder is the way Greenwald cultists like Mona or his commenters find his drivel so piercingly intellectual. I’ve seen a lot of that over at Patterico’s site when he tosses up a Greenwald post. They’ll show up, make an ad-hom or 2 and then ask why he (Patterico) doesn’t address Greenwald’s underlying intellectual argument.
Exactly what intellectual argument are we talking about? That Glenn Reynolds is anti-Gay? That’s an example of what we should be debating intellectually with Greenwald?
I should also let everyone know, please feel free to leave comments on old posts. The people who subscribed to them, including us, will be notified. We love further discussion about anything, no matter how old the topic.
I’m surprised that no questions have arisen concerning Ford’s sexual leanings. Being a gay semi-lawyer would put him in good stead with Tennessee voters.
Jealous much?
Glenn Greenwald has had his statements engraved on the door of the Senate, has twelve law degrees, and is author of the New York Times Best Selling Book “How Would A Patriot Edit His Own Wikipedia Page?†His offhand comments to his dog often become front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country. And he has the most-read blogs on the Interent, or indeed the history of civilization, after just 9 days of blogging. I love how all you super-important rightwing bloggers attack me, I mean him, just to get traffic.
I bid you GOOD DAY, sir.
It should, under the circumstances. It’s one thing not to be a lawyer because you had better things to do than to attend law school or take the bar after you graduate. It’s quite another not to be a lawyer because you tried to become one and failed – and now falsely claim to be one anyway. If lawyers are dirt, Ford is dumber than dirt, and has test results to prove it.
I agree Xrlq that it is pretty weak to claim you are a lawyer under those circumstances, though it is a rather small sin compared to many. Of course small sins are blown up by the media all the time, so why this isn’t is a little odd, or maybe it isn’t. Double standards are no surprise. I do agree on the Playboy bunnies thing though. I am all in favor of the bunnies.
Glenn Reynolds has the same problem that a lot of the republicans in Congress apparently have. While he himself may like Teh Gay just fine, a lot of the people who vote for the candidates Glenn likes have a big problem with the Gay and pandering to that hate with “defense of Marriage initiatives” is what gets them to the polls. Some people credit exactly that effect for Bush’s win in Ohio. Glenn can claim not to be a conservative all he wants but he clearly likes him some Republicans and likes him some Bush. Similarly he can be pro sodomy or pro gay marriage ’til the cows come home but that position has yet to prevent him from supporting anti gay candidates or to prevent him from embracing the gay baiting that gets his favored cadidates elected.
Ellers Ellison “Ellsberg” McWilson?
Looks like the sockpuppets are back!
Can I play, too? How about this:
No matter what Glenn Reynolds says, he has to be anti-gay because he isn’t always anti-Republican, and my head would explode if anyone who isn’t always anti-Republican weren’t always anti-gay.
Glad to help.
“Glenn can claim not to be a conservative all he wants but he clearly likes him some Republicans and likes him some Bush.”
So because one finds the republicans more favorable than the democrats, it doesn’t matter what one says? So Glenn is for gay marriage and doesn’t like the republicans campaigning on that, it doesn’t matter because he is not a rabid enough anti-bush proselytizer for you? No, all republicans are now “his candidates” and he “likes him some bush” despite all that he’s said that makes those statements absurdly false. You, in the exact same vein as Greenwald and Mona, need to demonize him because of your hate for Bush and who you see as your political opponents. It’s, in a word, pathetic.
Retief,
Granted, I rarely have voted for Republicans, but that hardly means that when I have it meant I supported everything all republicans stand for. If Glenn votes for a Democrat, which historically I believe he has done more than for Republicans, then that means he is responsible for everything all Democrats stand for? That is silly.
Does that mean Glenn Greenwald favors a vastly expanded state just because he plans on supporting the Democrats? Either that is not true or he is lying about being a libertarian. We’ll see of after they get in power (whenever that may be) and he deigns not to criticize them for their own inevitable assault on our liberty. I am curious if he does what happens to his readership.
For example retief, on an issue near and dear to all libertarian hearts, where was Greenwald on Kelo? My guess is the man didn’t want to criticize the justices who ruled the way they did because he didn’t want to alienate his readership. Screaming about the tyranny of Democrats just isn’t important, getting Bush is.
Okay, if that is his goal how long before he turns his gaze leftward? Will he use the same smear tactics then as well? I am curious to find out.
Greenwald’s main obsession is calling attention to Greenwald. He’s been doing so lately by attacking the most respected (and hit) blogger on the net, hoping for links and cheap instalanches (righty blogs actually link to the lefty blog they are discussing, unlike Atrios and Kos et al who only link to ANOTHER LEFTY blog criticising righty blogs, never to righty blogs directly). Greenwald seems to actually believe if he can get righties to visit his realm they will be turned 180 by the sheer force of his intellectual prowess (vapidity). He’s just that damn good.
Also, I prefer to call Greenwald a ‘sockpuppetfarmer’ because he propagates them.
Great job missing Greenwald’s point altoggether.
If you came to know that someone had partied with Playboy bunnies, would your first reaction be wow, cool, that guy is not gay? Because that appears to be the Instapundit’s reaction. (yes, yes, he attributes this reaction to “a few people” without elaborateing who these people are, in the absence of which, it has to be assumed that he himself is those people. If he is not, then it needs to be said that he pulled those reactions out of his ass). And saying that “a few people” would look more highly upon someone known to have partied with playboy bunnies than someone who was gay is yeah, you got it, a backdoor method for demonizing gays. Which is the basis for Greenwald’s accusation.
Is it really so difficult to see that? So now tell me, are you being dense or deliberately mendacious in not understanding Greenwald’s point just like your friend the great and mighty instapundit?
g,
You obviously know nothing about Reynolds. Nor did I miss the point Mr. Sock Puppet was making. It is just false.
Except there is nothing in Reynolds comment to support the idea that that was his first reaction. It was an analysis about other peoples possible reaction, and a tongue in cheek one at that. That was what the “doesn’t get it” remark was about.
In logic your conclusions are referred to as non sequiter’s. More importantly he did not attribute any such reaction to anybody. Go re-read his remarks and obviously you need to do it more slowly. It was his own and only his own speculation to begin with. No one else’s, and it was tongue in cheek!
This:
Does not imply this:
Once again that is a non-sequiter. The first statement implies that Reynolds believes that some people would care. It signals no approval nor condemnation that people care(though Reynolds has made it quite clear where he stands) and it was tongue in cheek. You know, mocking! He is making fun of our political class, get it?
I got sock puppets point, it is just wrong and purposely so. I am happy you made his point clear, because otherwise I might have stayed up late thinking I had misunderstood him. But it turns out I didn’t and he is wrong for the same reasons you are. Your conclusions do not follow from your evidence.
g,
Let me help you. I am usually more gracious to first time visitors, so let me show you how Greenwald has set you up. here is Greenwald:
Now go read the Reynold’s post above. You will see, despite the Sock Puppets assertion that he is following the parties lead, he is actually criticizing and then mocking the Republican ad. You should be thankful, coming from someone who is not identified with the Democratic Party makes the defense work.
Reynolds has given Ford very positive coverage so far. This post is mostly a pretty good defense of Ford. It has nothing to do with gay bashing.
Lance,
And I think that is one of my biggest problems with Greenwald and his followers like Mona and G here. Their conclusions do not follow from their evidence. They must constantly blind themselves to what is actually said and mean by people’s words so that they can more fully demonize them. Thus “pro-sodomy” Glenn Reynolds becomes a demonizer of homosexuals, “against the Iraqi war” Michael Leeden becomes a “warmonger’s warmonger”.
To paraphrase a line from a well-known play about a lawyer: it’s not homophobia or racism or even a pro-2nd amendment stance for which Greenwald and others have sought Reynolds’ blood (metaphorically), but because he would not bend to the left’s dogma that the war on terrorism is bad.
Look fellas, Glenn Reynolds doesn’t have to “support everything all republicans stand for” for me to point out the fact that he calls himslef pro-sodomy while relentlessly cheerleading for the party that wants to make sododmy illegal. Anybody can indeed be pro-sodomy and set that position aside because the anti-(same sex) sodomy side is closer to him on other issues. But protesting that anti-sodomy isn’t why you support republicans rings hollow when your fellow supporters’ fears of the Gays is what gets your candidates elected. This puts people like Glenn, and it would seem Hastert et al not themselves caring a fig about sodomy while relying on many voters who are passionately anti-sodomy (at least of the two men variety) and whose passion must be stoked.
Lance, surely in todays climate of one party control of government nobody could disagree with the sentiment that “Screaming about the tyranny of Democrats just isn’t important, getting Bush is.” Democrats have no power of which to be afraid. Now I will happily agree taht it will be interesting to see what happens when the jackboot is on the other foot.
Chris B, Glenn is hardly just not a rabid enough anti-bush proselytizer for me. He is a unabashed cheerleader of conservo-republicanism. Just look at his post from today.
A link to VDH on how the left are hypocrits re Iraq vs Darfur
Heinlein
A link to a french anti-palestinian conspiracy theorist losing his libel case labeled “a real crushing of disdent”
Leaves
A link to his wifes latest rehashing of the shopworn righty favorite that the so-called open minded left won’t tolerate dissent.
A link to a satirical gaybashing outreach from Boogeyman Howard Dean to conservatives.
A complaint about his junk mail.
A link to Don’t tax virtual economies.
and, PUPPET-VIDEOBLOGGING
–
“not a rabid enough anti-bush proselytizer” doesn’t really capture it, does it?
Uh, you can believe all those things and not vote for Bush. Linking to them does not mean he approves of it all anyway, though on those he is probably does, or at least broadly.
Are you defending the karsenty ruling? You have to be kidding?
You believe that taxing virtual economies is okay at this point?
If those two make you pro Bush then most of the Democratic party should be pro Bush unless they have lost any sense I give them credit for. Wouldn’t Kerry be opposed to those as well?
The topics would be pretty par for the course for a libertarian. Greenwald, I would assume, have no problem as a libertarian with anything other than the puppet blogging and the VDH link, that is if he really is a libertarian as he say he is.
Reynolds has made more huge contributions to the case for Bush being a bad President, and against the Republicans as well. That he thinks even less of the Democrats does not mean he is “relentlessly cheerleading.” Maybe you should look up the word relentless.
That’s a “fact”? The Republicans all want to make sodomy illegal? So if they control the Executive and the Legislature (and the Supreme Court for those idiots who don’t know how the Legal Branch works), how come sodomy is still legal, and in fact has become MORE SO since Bush came to office?
That’s because its a non sequitor.
Look, Retief, your mind is obviously made up in that oh-so-open-minded way that you and your fellow travellers tend to exhibit, so why bother arguing the issue? You not only did not prove your point, you provided evidence to the contrary (especially since you obviously didn’t follow any of the links — “anti-Palestinian conspracy theorist”?). Not only is Reynolds NOT a Republican supporter (you realize that he actually worked for Al Gore, right?), he actively confronts social conservatives, especially during election seasons where the religious right propaganda is seen in full force. But if you could read him with a truly open mind, you’d already know that.
Lance, I don’t need to defend the Karsenty Ruling, I just need to point out that Karsenty case and al Dura are hobby horses of a certain faction of the far right who get off on fear of the Arab menace and think that fauxtography is the cleverest neologism in the world. He gives that constituency a shout out.
Let’s look at who his targets are in the other posts that aren’t irrelevant like the virtual economies one is. The hypocritical left, the intolerant left, and Howard Dean. This is par for the course for Glenn. The targets of his Libertarian Ire are constantly related to the one party not actually running the government today.
(On Karsenty, refusing to accept the verdict of the IDF puts you clearly into conspiracy theory land, an even bigger hobby for the French than here.)
And, Mike W, his twenty year-old Al Gore credentials can hardly outweigh his saying, as he did in his recent “premortem” that “Democrats are worse”. And why was his premortem post news? Because he doesn’t much target republicans.
Funny since he has a post and a link up slamming the Republicans right now. Does he criticize Democrats more, yes. Who denied that? It doesn’t excuse saying he is anti-gay or prove he is an unrelenting bush supporter. It proves he dislikes the Democrats more. That is a big difference.
As for Karsenty, Glenn and I can’t be outraged by it because a certain constituency is also outraged? I guess Glenn and I can’t be in favor of gay rights then, because we certainly don’t want to agree with anything Kos supports. Jeesh.
Pingback: A Second Hand Conjecture » Ann Coulter and Little Greenwald’s Footballs: Revised as a Carnival of Fisking