Dandy Andy II

Might as well stick with a theme, as I said in my debate with Conor (with one N), Sullivan is a nut. I don't know how anyone even takes him seriously anymore. The Atlantic may as well label it fiction at this point, because that's what it is. And the look inside his head he often gives us is not a pleasant sight.

American Power on Andy and NDS.

With a side dish of Stacy on Andy and Trig.

Comments

[Bob]

"Might as well stick with a theme, as I said in my debate with Conor (with one N), Sullivan is a nut. I don't know how anyone even takes him seriously anymore."

One measure of how people take blogs seriously: In Wikio's rankings of the top blogs, Sullivan's blog (called the Daily Dish) comes in at #5. Riehl (that's i before e) World View comes much farther down at #60. American Power is even farther down the list at #262. Robert Stacy McCain's blog doesn't even seem to have made the list.

Another indicator is that Sullivan's blog won the most recent Weblog Awards "Top Blog" honors for 2008.

No matter how you slice it, Sullivan's blog is more popular and more highly regarded than Riehl (that's i before e) and any of his buddies. I can understand the jealousy, but being petty about it only harms Riehl's credibility.

[Lightwave]

Why lower yourself to his level?

[Ran]

Obama... reads the Dish, Bob. As do many liberals... looking for a "conservative" balance in their diet. (Yeah, me neither. Whatever.)

I do not know any conservatives who refer to Sullivan's analysis or opinion. He abandoned us, in steps, starting about six years ago. The Trig Palin thing was too much for most of us to ever bother with him again. That his blog is popular is good for Sullivan, and I wish him all the success he can get. But let's please not pretend that Sullivan has any remaining influence in Conservative or Libertarian circles.

No matter how you slice it, Bob, amongst Conservatives Riehl has a greater influence than you ever will and greater that Sully ever will. Please feel free to toss-in some bullshit about Sully's greater "moral authority" blah blah. F*c/ing public schools.

[Ran]

OOps... sorry Dan about the spelling. You made a good point elsewhere about language... my bad.

[Dan Riehl]

I don't see that I'm lowering myself somehow by pointing out Sullivan's derangement. If you think someone chasing a bizarre pregnancy conspiracy theory to the point of obsession isn't either disturbed, or qualifying Sullivan for the National Enquirer Award for blogging, than you're just as confused as Andy seems to be. Frankly, tolerating and excusing him given that is lowering oneself. Look around, that would be you, not me.

[Bob]

I suppose everyone has their pet peeves. Sullivan has Trig Palin, and you, Dan, have . . . Conor Friedersdorf. But even I wouldn't characterize you as "deranged." I just think you get overly caught-up in using ad hominem excuses to dismiss the ideas of otherwise reasonable and thoughtful commentators like Sullivan or Friedersdorf. It ends up creating a pissing match where people are just arguing over their own egos. Maybe you like pissing matches, and maybe your loyal readers want to see that. It's just not my cup of tea, because I would find it so much more interesting for you to have actual discussions with Sullivan or Friedersdorf or Dreher. I may be a liberal, but I'm interested to know what people are thinking on the right side of the political spectrum. And I'm much less interested in who thinks they're the most important, or who comes up with the cleverest way to mock someone else's name. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

[Dan Riehl]

Bob,

Then you should listen to the initial discussion with Conor at ordinary gentleman. Also, you seem to come into the threads as an opponent, not for me so much, as other commenters and you mix it up. Not sure how you see me or other commenters differently than yourself.

Throughout all this I have continuede to blog on events. SO suggesting the back and forth is my entire contribution to discourse strikes me as wrong.

This is a side show, not the main event. If you don't care for sideshows, you should probably avoid them. I've blogger precisely what I wanted for five years, I don't see that changing, frankly.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

"This is a side show, not the main event."

Another way to put it is that your front page at this moment has 13 blog posts about me -- more than twice as many blog posts as my lifetime output on Mark Levin. And the bulk of them are filled with ad hominem attacks. You criticize Andrew Sullivan for being deranged due to his criticism of someone running for the vice-president of the United States -- and yet you've spent your weekend writing juvenile insults about a 29 year old blogger that few if any of your readers ever heard of before this exchange. Yes, it's your prerogative to blog about whatever you'd like. But hell if anyone can comprehend the choices you've made of late.

[Dan Riehl]

"Another way to put it"

Sweetheart, if I were looking for another way to say something, trust me, you ain't the guy I'd ask. I don't believe this thread is about you, or do you also run around commenting to anyone writing about rawmuscglutes? I guess it does sort of make sense. Given that you're already so far up his azz, you might just as well watch his back.

But it is ironic that you'd take exception to blog posts about you, seeing as how your obsession is going around from blog to blog to blog to comment on any related post.

Now that's literally lowering yourself and genuinely experienced bloggers realize it has other disadvantages, as well. Any truly experienced blogger would respond on their blog, if they even responded at all.

Point being, just because some idiot aligned with the Right plucked you up and paid you good money to help create the miserable failure culture whatever it was represented, it doesn't mean you know anything about serious blogging. That you're more a dilettante people who think like old media types have decided to pay to publish on the web has shown itself to be the case throughtout this entire ordeal.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan,

You did mention my name in the post itself and in a comment -- and, of course, most of the blog posts I comment on generally aren't about me. Admittedly, I've taken an unusual interest in your blog lately. That's because you keep attacking me. The only method I have to set the record straight is to respond in comments. If I were attacking you multiple times each day with ad hominem attacks and misleading arguments, you'd probably take an interest in the blog I was writing on.

"it is ironic that you'd take exception to blog posts about you, seeing as how your obsession is going around from blog to blog to blog to comment on any related post.

"Now that's literally lowering yourself and genuinely experienced bloggers realize it has other disadvantages, as well. Any truly experienced blogger would respond on their blog, if they even responded at all."

Dan, by arguing that I am "literally" lowering myself, aren't you implying that you're in the wrong here, and I am descending to your level? If you don't mean that, what do you mean?

"Point being, just because some idiot aligned with the Right plucked you up and paid you good money to help create the miserable failure culture whatever it was represented, it doesn't mean you know anything about serious blogging."

Have I ever argued that my hiring at Culture11 proves my worth as a blogger? Indeed, the worth of every blogger is the merit of their work considered on its own terms. You're arguing against a straw man on that one.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Have I ever argued that my hiring at Culture11 proves my worth as a blogger?"

Indeed you did.

"And I think you know that. As for your presumption that I am a newbie to blogging, you should take more care to get your facts right. I was a paid blogger back in 2004, when I covered the immigration beat, a paid blogger at Culture11, and a paid blogger now at The Atlantic."

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/06/i-just-met-a-girl-.html?cid=6a00d83451c1db69e20115712d1fa5970b#comment-6a00d83451c1db69e20115712d1fa5970b

[Conor Friedersdorf]

North Dallas Thirty,

Did you read what you quoted? I cite blogging at Culture11 to refute Dan's factually incorrect charge that a am "a newbie" to blogging -- nowhere do I say that "my hiring at Culture11 proves my worth as a blogger."

It's unbelievable how often attacks on this blog and in its comments section are obviously spurious.

[Dan Riehl]

Conor,

Unfortunately, you haven't a leg to stand on in terms of complaining about being attacked. You continue to refuse to acknowledge that it is you who is responsible for all this, not I.

You were fortunate to be given a platform at The Atlantic. You promptly set to using it to attack Mark Levin. Is your argument that you, Conor, are immune from challenge, as the future light and life of the conservative movement? Can't you see how silly your complaining is, given your own actions that initiated this?

I am, as are others involved, fully entitled to take you on as we see fit.

As for your lowering yourself, you are again confused in attempting to turn the argument back on me. You just aren't good at this, my friend.

I said an experienced blogger would either not respond at all, or respond from their blog. Blog comments are literally "below" any blog post - figuratively, they are also below it in that they are an offshoot of the post and secondary to it. Consequently, you are clearly "lowering" yourself.

And yes, there are other disadvantages to doing it. If one were a part of the blog community over the years, they would have observed such dust ups over time and drawn conclusions as to what is, and is not effective in such situations. Hopefully you'll have an opportunity to learn, assuming you remain out here.

That would be a good thing for you and I wouldn't begrudge you the opportunity. Certainly you have real potential in your pursuits. However, I do believe you have much more to learn, than perhaps you realize.

I would hate to see you go too far down some of the paths you've chosen to explore. That does not mean I think you should change your ideas, or beliefs. But I do think that some of the tactics you are employing and some of the enemies you may be making will ultimately not serve you well in becoming an important part of the discussion of ideas, approaches and positions the movement should consider going forward.

But all of those choices are yours to make. You might want to, at this point in your career, spend less time thinking about how people may be responding to you, as opposed to how you are going about what you may want to achieve.

Good luck to you. As I believe I said above, you've been given a great opportunity. Make the most of it as you will.

[Bob]

"Also, you seem to come into the threads as an opponent, not for me so much, as other commenters and you mix it up. Not sure how you see me or other commenters differently than yourself."

Fair enough. Even I'm not fool enough to try to hold myself up as some paragon of virtue. On the other hand, I'm not here to just be an obnoxious troll, however much people may think so. Being a liberal sort of automatically puts me at odds with most of the other posters here and opens me up to perhaps more than my share of abuse. So of course I give some of it back, but it's usually in fun, and rarely rancorous.

But as the host of this site and a person of some prominence, I think that you have higher standards to live up to than me. The tone you set here at your blog really can influence people. And I think that you misuse that influence and cheapen your brand by wasting too much time trying to demonize and belittle other bloggers like Dreher or Friedersdorf over something as petty as that original Mark Levin kerfuffle. Couldn't you put the matter to rest over a few beers and lighten up a little? I think you'd be doing yourselves and your readers a favor.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan,

You write: "You were fortunate to be given a platform at The Atlantic. You promptly set to using it to attack Mark Levin. Is your argument that you, Conor, are immune from challenge, as the future light and life of the conservative movement? Can't you see how silly your complaining is, given your own actions that initiated this?"

Of course it is fair to challenge me! I welcome critiques of my ideas.

What you are to blame for isn't pushing back against my arguments -- as you'll recall, I invited you to debate our ideas.

What you are to blame for -- the thing that reflects so poorly on your character -- is that on many occasions in recent days, you haven't merely pushed back against my ideas, you've called me juvenile names, insulted me with ad hominem attacks, misrepresented my arguments, and linked to others who've done the same. You've called me a slut and a whore, among other names. You've made demonstrably false statements and failed to correct them.

These are the things you ought to apologize for, and that I think you'll be embarrassed by in hindsight. It is fantastical to suggest that when someone criticizes the substance of Mark Levin's radio show, they have brought unfair attacks, name calling, and outright misrepresentations and factual inaccuracies on themselves. And you know better. And your readers know it -- even the ones chuckling along.

"I said an experienced blogger would either not respond at all, or respond from their blog. Blog comments are literally 'below' any blog post - figuratively, they are also below it in that they are an offshoot of the post and secondary to it. Consequently, you are clearly 'lowering' yourself."

Well Dan, let's pretend that this self-evidently absurd argument is what you meant. Aren't you also "literally" lowering yourself? Aren't all your commenters?

"I do think that some of the tactics you are employing and some of the enemies you may be making will ultimately not serve you well in becoming an important part of the discussion of ideas, approaches and positions the movement should consider going forward."

You are correct that it is a bad career move to criticize powerful conservative commentators like Mr. Levin. I do so anyway because I truly believe that they are wrong. That is what a writer owes to his readers, and what a citizen owes the public discourse: to forthrightly and forcefully state what they truly believe to be right.

So I really do appreciate your warning, and I take it in the helpful spirit I believe you've offered it. And I shall certainly make the most of the opportunities I've been offered.

[Dan Riehl]

"What you are to blame for -- the thing that reflects so poorly on your character"

Conor,

Read carefully, very carefully. I wrote a mature and genuinely honest, open and ultimately supportive comment to you. What I just got back was another whining attack in which you questioned my character and went on with what has been your typical stupidity, vapidity and inability to reason like a mature adult. You're half grandmother and have infant. And you have now, repeatedly, revealed yourself to be a preening, contemptuous dolt.

What you have experienced up until now is nothing but the same thing many a blogger has experienced time and again within the blogging universe. In effect, it is no big deal.

Rest assured that when our paths cross again - and they will - the gloves are coming off.

Take that for what it is worth. And be careful of what you think it is worth, as I suspect you have no idea, my friend.

Goodbye, for now.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan,

If you read my last line, you'll see I acknowledged the spirit of your post. But forgive me if after days of ad hominem attacks and misrepresentations, I find it galling to see you suggest that I "asked for what I got," as though criticizing Mark Levin's radio show justifies any of that.

"Rest assured that when our paths cross again - and they will - the gloves are coming off."

What on earth that means I have no idea. But I'll continue to address the substance whatever you throw at me, though I hope you'll act like the honorable person I imagine you usually are, and attack my ideas, and only my ideas.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

I should be clear that "asked for what I got" isn't a direct quote from Dan -- his exact quote was "it is you who is responsible for all this, not I. You were fortunate to be given a platform at The Atlantic. You promptly set to using it to attack Mark Levin. Is your argument that you, Conor, are immune from challenge, as the future light and life of the conservative movement? Can't you see how silly your complaining is, given your own actions that initiated this?"

Apologies for the confusion.

[Rob Crawford]

Hey, Conor -- have you started using your platform at The Atlantic to put forward the arguments Levin makes, or are you still using it to let the lefties know they can ignore the arguments he makes in his #1 best-selling book?

In other words, are you more interested in promoting yourself, or in promoting liberty?

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Did you read what you quoted? I cite blogging at Culture11 to refute Dan's factually incorrect charge that a am "a newbie" to blogging -- nowhere do I say that "my hiring at Culture11 proves my worth as a blogger.""

Which is why you repeatedly went on about how you were a "paid blogger".

I read it, Conor, which is why I picked it and linked to it. You, as expected, whined, screamed, and attacked me, mainly because it so effectively pointed out your lies and idiotic behavior.

I responded as an adult with facts; you responded as a child with a tantrum. Therein lies the difference.