Once high-profile blogger Jeff Goldstein, whom many of the several readers of this blog may remember, posts this opinion bleg in the comments of this forum:
Here’s a question for what’s left of my readership. If I come back, should I come back like Ace? Allah? Malkin? Reynolds?
I can do the “get some traffic†thing, but it takes networking and patience, and leaving for a few months seems to have placed me decidedly outside the loop. So I’ll have to rebuild, using a grassroots campaign.
Or should I come back as, like, some “good†wrestler who’s suddenly switched allegiances.
You knowâ€â€Andrew Sullivan without the gay thing.
Thoughts?
The vast majority of the commenters who respond seem to believe that Jeff ought to come back as some version of his old self, and Pablo adds the useful advice that all he has to do is start a few blog-wars to let everyone know he’s back on the scene.
Me, I think that Jeff ought to come back as:
That’ll really piss Andrew off.
Hardly my place to comment. But in the brief time I’ve been playing, the two most intellectually impressive and at the same time entertaining writers I have encountered have been Scott Burgess and Jeff Goldstein.
Scott has gone off to grow parsnips outside Bratislava. If Jeff now throws in the towel, the world will be a poorer and a duller place.
Who is this Messiah? And why is he on this blog?
furriskey–
Always glad to have your comments. I can’t wait for Jeff to come back so I can spend time with my mates at BS.
Hi, Matt! How are the Monsterlings?
I don’t think Sullivan will mind so long as Jeff sticks to the halo and leaves Andy his beloved crown of thorns.
Don’t forget the nail marks! They are an intimate part of the victimization complex.
BJ, the only place Andrew has nail marks is on his butt.
Sullivan has been nailed in his butt?
I think Jeff should come back EXACTLY as he was before. I enjoy the serious commentary coupled with the silly stuff. I wouldn’t change a thing.
I’d also keep Dan, Melissa and a few others around from time to time when he’s feeling a bit burnt out and feels the need for someone else to share the load.
I think Jeff should come back mainly as he was…but with needless football analogies for everything.
You could come back as Atrios, and just have an endless series of open threads and wanker-of-the-days. I think you need your Ph.D. to get away with that, though, so probably: too much work.
So I’m thinking: do as you please. It’s going to get mighty old if you’re not having fun with it.
. . . and then we woke up and discovered that Jeff had never been gone. It was all just a terrible, terrible dream . . .
If it’s traffic he’s looking for, maybe Jeff should come back as Mohammed. That body of work could use some competent editing.
Ululululululu!!!!
Wow, Eric Bohlert quotes Jeff in an article and destroys his will to blog? You can check the article from Bohlert out at Media Matters. Jeff apprently, according the very liberal Mr. Bohlert, qualifies as a quotable “warblogger.” I would think he would happy being lumped in Malkin, Reynolds, etc, but, then again, I don’t know him…
PS Yes, yes, I know Media AMtters is a toll of Satan and anyone who generally goes there is so stupid, etc. I was just surprised to find one extremist mention my newfound extremist. It was cool to have a reference point.
Why not just throw away your sock puppet identity as the fictitious “Jeff Goldstein,” and come out as your real self…Glenn Greenwald???
I think Jeff should come back like Sammy Davis Jr.
Davis was black and converted to the Jewish faith… Jeff is a Jew who can convert to black. If he still wants to do the gay thing, it is easy enough to add. (Maybe he can bring back “Men on Film” from In Living Color.)Or maybe he can come back like Rocky, but without all the plastic surgery
tw: “anyone 12” overheard at Democratic HQ while they were shopping the Foley story to the media
… Jeff who?…
You should come back as Andrew Sullivan…WITH THE GAY THING! Think of it, has any other blogger actually been able to carry off a complete ideological transformation, and, at the same time, change their sexual orientation? Oh sure, it would traumatize your family and you might not like all the gay sex (and the hyperbolic rants about the Nazi torture state we’re now living in). But these little objections are a small price to pay for being taken seriously when you first endorse John Kerry, then write a book about how “we” lost the “conservative soul”.
Goldstein, you sensitive flower, cut the crap. We know you write rings around these guys.
Pour another cocktail and sit down at the computer and write.
… Eric who? …
Bohlert. He is a reporter/jornalist/columnist for The Nation. Not saying he’s Peter freakin’ Jennings or anything, just that he’s as well-known as Eric Alterman or Bill Sammon or any of a number of partisan reporters.
Don’t tell me you only get your news from one side?
Nuhuh. But even on the liberal side of the fence, he’s not exactly marquee material.
tw: twenty56… hike, hike!
Jeff G has a life, I think he should live it. By that I mean, I think Jeff should write when we feels like it and leave the guest posters in place.
Dan posts lots of interesting stuff, as do ahem, cranky-d, and all the others who I can’t remember at this very moment but which has nothing to do with my enjoyment of their writing… OK, OK, I remember some more, Melissa, Karl, 6Gun… better?
PS I think we should get some higher quality trolls tho’.
Agreed. Some of them really, uh, stink up the place recently.
I wasn’t aware Eric Bohlert quoted me in an article. Is there a link, or do I have to resubscribe to the Nation?
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but right after 911 I subscribed to a number of periodicals so that I could get my ideological bearings. At the time, I would have considered myself a liberal. Turns out I was half right—I’m a classical liberal.
Anyway, I subscribed to The Nation, Harpers, the American Prospect, The New Republic, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and Reason.
I now subscribe to The Weekly Standard and Reason. Oh, and Mad.
Of course, as much as I like a boatload of the stuff in Reason, that mag seems to be heading into difficult territory. They now have about 5 former bloggers writing for them—none of whom likes me very much, sadly.
Still having trouble with logical progression, aren’t you, stinky?
Here’s your link, Jeff.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200612120001
When I was reading this, I was excited to realize I had read that post. It’s very easy, especially for bloggers and columnists to cherry pick quotes and I can’t read Malkin. After all, she certainly is hot, but anyone writes a book calling for the internment of entire racial groups has lost credibility in my eyes forever. When I see her on TV, she’s just too angry…I think even Ann Coulter does a better job acting above the Fray than Malkin does. So, I had no idea how many quotes he was taking out of context.
I thought he exaggerated the single sentence he quoted from you, but he does catch the spirit of many (not all) of PW posters, who all blame the media for “losing Iraq”.
P.S. I don’t read The Nation. Too shrill. I don’t make it to Media Matters very often, but I do enjoy their columnists. We don’t get to hear that kind of rhetoric in Indiana.
P.P.S. Kelly, I love your wit.
Just found the article. It quotes me as saying that the AP has been using a fake source since at least April to report on Shia violence against Sunnis. Nobody has turned up Jamil to this point, so I stick by that.
The crux of the article, though, is that we wingnut warbloggers seize on a teensy fabrication and blow it all out of proportion. Fake but accurate, you see—the story of violence is what’s important, the big picture, not little picayune details like phony sources. Or, if to be charitable, let’s call these sources what I’m sure Boehlert, in his private moments, rationalizes them as: composites.
But is Boehlert correct? I don’t believe I spent an inordinate amount of time covering the story, but I most certainly do believe it significant when a story like this comes up. Boehlert and his Media Matters “fact checkers” hope to present this as a straw that we desperate warmongers are clinging to at the tail end of a failed war. But our point is, how can people like Boehlert be so sure these stories are outliers? We’ve seen several other stories of media fabrication and enemy propaganda posted as news. And those are just the ones we know about.
So yes, it’s true, one or two instances don’t make a trend. But we’ve long surpassed that threshold, and now a number of us are concerned that this is indeed a media trend. From there, speculating on how phony media reports could be having an impact on domestic support for the war is hardly the stuff of conspiracy mongers (as the article tries to present us. Hell, from the article Boehlert wrote, you’d think I was Eric Rudolph or some such).
Anyway, here’s one of the comments I pulled from the thread, which should tell you everything you need to know about those who haunt media matters and consider it an information clearinghouse:
A clearer case of muddleheaded thinking, wilful blindness, and transparent projection you are not likely to find elsewhere.
It is like a lump of pure lefty coal that has been held onto so tightly that it now sparkles like a progressive diamond.
Note. I have to run out and do some errands before my wife gets in from NY. If one of you wants to elevate this comment to a post, that’s cool with me.
Nothing perks up the lunch hour like an overbroad, incorrect sweeping generalization. Urp.
And by “errands,” I mean pick up a bottle of Macallan 18-year-old scotch.
I may go into enormous debt, but I do so in style, baby!
Haiku withdrawal
Issues unresolved… Chaos
I say, “Jeff, come back!”
From “Don’t tell me you only get your news from one side?” to “I can’t read Malkin” in 79 minutes! Some sort of land speed record has been broken here.
Dear Lord, not a light bird yet?
I fail to see how my use of the “many (not all)” is overbroad. It intentionally stated that not all PW posters think that way. Why don’t log in and post “Media not reponsible for the American people’s lack of support for the War,” and see how many poster assail your virtue and cleverness.
Each time I make that point, I am castigated (and Kelly is then nice enough to check for typos…she’s my Gal Friday and I would have never made it this far without her!).
Give it whirl and let me know if there is a general consensus.
Jeff, hope the bottle hunting went well.
Did you participate in that discussion? I read most of the comments until the inanity of both sides overwhelmed me. Just wondering if you were able to resist?
If anyone’s working on the elevation, let us know, so that there aren’t multiple people doing so. As for me, I’m too busy right now with my “job.”
I didn’t participate, no. I just now read the article and looked through the comments. I lost interest after the third or fourth sweeping generalization about how all wingnuts make sweeping generalizations.
Instead, I decided to write a poem about chocolate mousse.
Now I’m off to run errands. Back later!
Like Joe Leiberman.
You need to post a coffee-drinking warning sign on that, lest some other poor sod…well, you get the picture.
You’ll be hearing from my lawyer. Reckless endangerment, or somesuch.
He needs to come back with some Anna Nicole Smith. Christmas hasn’t been the same this year.
Your flirtatiousness is noted, neostink. A few of the more long timers around here might better be familiar with my chromosomal inclinations. Or not, doesn’t really matter to me.
But I do so appreciate your pointing out my wittiness. It couldn’t possibly be insincere, could it?
It isn’t your typos per se but the often, uh, unfortunate placement of them that tends to undermine your ever-so-earnest comments and thus incite my snarkiness.
But please do stick around for us. As Jeff and others have said, overly broad generalizations of us here at PW tend to make you look rather foolish, though. But to be sure, you’re not the first troll to do so.
Oh, and one last thing, your nom de net comes across rather grade-schoolish. Just a helpful tip.
Heh. Always with the giving.
It’s one I’ve been using since pre-war on Slate. I consider it an anachronism now, since no one claims to be a neocon anymore and was largely directed to the irritating smug like Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, and the exercable Bob Kagan. I considered sort of ironic, since I doubt they hang around message boards looking for enlightenment. here, it does seem to engender more hostility than I intended, but many comment boards prevent mutiple names from the same IP address. I will gladly change it if I can still comment.
After all, I don’t any help seeming childish.
By the way, Kelly, I am the world’s worst typist and I apologize for that in advance.
… Eric who? …
If you’re not registered you can use any handle you want to use, simply change it in the Name window.
If you are registered and logging in, you can click “your account” at upper right and make the change there.
I know this because Jeff and I use the same blogging software.
Thanks. Like a phoenix I can be re-born
Big news from Malkin:
A more adventurous (or even: intellectually curious) soul would have tried this, already. I know I have, particularly when that whole PIATOR variations on a theme/contest went down. I still think that Phone Technician guy gets the prize, though.
Apology accepted, neo. Now slow down and proofread a tad more and you’ll come across with a little more intellectual heft.
FTR, I’ve been visiting and commenting on this board since Jeff resumed blogging though I’m much more intermittent than most because I’m usually at work. I’ve never encountered any mindless Bush worship and Hannityesque Republicanism that you keep alleging. Thus, the snark and general animus from us when you insist those attributes describe us. Quit broad-brushing and using caricatures when attempting to make a point and we’ll respond more cordially.
I remember that thread well. Very well.
I’d love to see that book, stinky.
Did anyone ever claim to be a neocon?
Yeah, but it came perjorative very quickly. Irving Kristol and Norm Podhoretz used to refer to themselves that way, as did a few others.
It became a name the media and conservative critics used long before your average progressive learned it. For instance, I first heard on the McLaughlin Group from Pat Buchanan.
Slartibartfast, mnay boards “instaban” anyone who tires to post under two different names from the same IP address.
Lastly, Kelly, the Hannity caricature is straight from Jeff and I use it to tease him about guessing things about me that I do not believe. He gets that it’s a joke and that’s why my Ann Coulter “watch me vote whereever I want to” voter registration card arrived in the mail the other day.
Like I said before, Hannity is too partisan for most posters on PW.
I seem to remember the PNAC guys (Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork, Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz) called themselves neoconservative. If you search google for the words PNAC and Neoconservative, you’ll see what I mean.
Parsnips: a Eurasian biennial herb (Pastinaca sativa) of the carrot family with large pinnate leaves and yellow flowers that is cultivated for its long tapered edible root which is cooked as a vegetable.
I just thought it was time I knew.
They taste foul. Some people roast them with turkeys.
I think many neoconservatives are borderline classical liberals. In fact, were we to bracket out the social conservativism of many (not all, mind you) neocons, many of them would look very much like me.
Only older and with less hair. And with a stubborn refusal to break out the ketamine and cock references.
I still call myself a neocon. Mostly I started it to piss off some lefty relatives but if I had to label myself, that would probably be as close as you can get. As Jeff said “I think many neoconservatives are borderline classical liberals”. My biggest problem with “Libertarians” (big L) is that they either lack a foreign policy or still believe withdrawing behind our borders and leaving the rest of world alone would be moral, safe and without negative effects. I’m a classical liberal/libertarian (small l) who believes that the bad people in the world won’t follow live and let live. We, in the west (I’m actually Canadian) need a muscular foreign policy since it is better to be feared than loved and if it you play it right you and actually be feared and loved.
Call me a neocon any day. I can’t think of a better term in the modern lexicon.
Pablo,
Michelle Malkin did, in fact, write a book. In it she argues, with stacks of references to back her up, that the internment of the Japanese during World War II was justifiable, and possibly even a correct decision, based on what was known at the time.
This, of course, is a direct shot across the bows of SS PC, and the fact that Malkin would almost certainly have wound up in a camp herself if she were alive at that time makes it glance off the bowsprit. Anything which is known now and benefits a pseudoLeftist cause has been known since at least the Flood, and anyone, in the remote past or otherwise, ignoring it is pure, unmitigated evil.
The pseudoLeft has responded in their usual fashion: lie like a rug. Malkin makes no attempt to generalize from the case beyond uging that all factors be investigated and considered—a course of action which, if followed in the Forties, would have resulted in avoiding the internment—but that’s not what you’ll hear from the pseudoLeft. Stinky and his allies have been indulging themselves in typical PC bigotry over the issue ever since.
Regards,
Ric
Thing about that is, I first heard of PNAC from some blog troll who was making it out to be some evil cabal aimed at taking over the world. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if what one finds via Google or any other search engine, would find a confluence of the use of the neoconservative label and the name PNAC.
Ric,
Malkin never states that the internment should have never happended. In fact, she argued it was successful and that racial profiling of its kind, possibly leading to internment is justified.
Frankly, since the Supreme Court has never repudiated expressly its opinion in Korematsu, there is an argument that the only thing that keeps the government from locking up ethnic groups is the will of the American voter. And, although Korematsu and ex Parte Quirin were cases legal scholars laughed at for decades, the Bush administration was able to use some of the arguments to rationalize its policies.
That concludes today’s lecture on World War 2 Supreme Court decisions. Please come tomorrow for a discussion on the commerce clause and what happens if I try to grow my own wheat.
Jeff Goldstein wrote:
I think many neoconservatives were assigned that label for the “crime” of disagreeing with oh-so-enlightened leftists.
I’m glad to see you drink no under-aged scotch, Jeff. That’s what we need: moral leadership.
I actually found a bottle of 29-year-old Dalwhinnie on sale for the same price, so I picked that up for special occasions.
Like, you know, after 5.
Had some last evening and I’ll be damned if it didn’t taste like chicken. Stored in peat, of course.