Conor Friedersdorf: It Takes A Village Idiot

As Conor with one N informs, it takes a Village Idiot to re-invent America's political discourse, reverse trends in journalism and improve the sophistication of the body politic at large. I realize those may seem like modest goals to some. But Conor looks to be just out of his teens. Give him time, my friends.

Happy Meals will be served to anyone who actually manages to read the whole thing. Offer not valid if you throw up.

The Good, The True, and The Beautiful: An Interview with Conor Friedersdorf

Disqualified so soon? : (

One insight I’ve gleaned in my career is that journalism impacts the quality of life in a given community. During college, I saw how the quality of campus debate rose when The Student Life published particularly good opinion pieces. My gig as a beat reporter in Rancho Cucamonga, California, exposed me to instances when exceptional local reportage directly resulted in better governance. Later, as a columnist and blogger on the immigration beat, I saw how even the most heated, intractable debates yielded productive exchanges when they were carried out properly. I see the same thing among my favorite writers in the blogosphere — our discourse is improved by the temperament of Eugene Volokh, the willingness of Will Wilkinson to solicit feedback from the smartest critics of his ideas, Andrew Sullivan’s willingness to air dissenting opinions on his blog, Jim Manzi’s attempts to ground his analysis in empiricism, the intellectual generosity of Reihan Salam, the ability of Julian Sanchez to broker honest conversations even on topics where he has an overwhelming information advantage, Megan McArdle’s ability to make dry economic matters an enjoyable read, the uncompromising intellectual independence of Daniel Larison, the research Hilzoy used to put into posts. I am leaving out a whole lot of writers I adore, on various sides of the ideological divide, whose best qualities are as impressive as the ones I’ve named. There is a great deal of first rate reporting and commentary produced everyday.

Comments

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan,

One remarkable feature of your blog is that every time you criticize me, you manage to do it without actually offering an argument against what I've written. Like an insecure third grade bully, you make fun of my name. Like an intellectually insecure fraud, you try to discredit my arguments by offering irrelevant insults -- "he looks to be just out of his teens" or "you might throw up."

But invariably, you lack some combination of the brains, the balls, and/or the integrity to refute the actual arguments that I've offered. (You also use emoticons.)

I've witnessed insightful analysis you've written on other subjects, so I suspect that you'd be capable of articulating objections to my work if you actually had them.

On the other hand, maybe you think my work isn't even worth taking the time to address. That's fine.

But what you do is to write posts about me constantly, as though my work obsesses you, without ever saying anything of substance about it.

What drives you to do this, Dan? Aren't you, dear reader who shares Dan's contempt for me, getting tired of this nonsense? I mean, thanks for the traffic, I guess, but what on earth motivates an otherwise rational person to behave like this?

[Bruce, NV]

Dan, Conor, this isn't fair. I am at work for another two hours. Why must you cause me to nod off during my time-wasting?

Dan--I didn't get the happy meal. :(

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Bruce,

I wonder how you'd react if a blogger began obsessing over you so much that he created pet nicknames for you, attacked you without ever articulating a reasonable reason for it, etc.

As a writer, I am happy to have someone attack any idea I put in the public square using the most forceful language imaginable. This isn't what Dan does. He petulantly attacks me as an individual.

It is, of course, inevitable that some people will behave this way on the Internet. But I suspect that if commenters on this site found themselves treated this way they'd object too.

[Dan Riehl]

Let me ask you a question my exceptionally bright, attuned young Conor, what does the hyperlink say?

You see, unlike me, you presume your readership thinks what and how you do, or would attempt to tell, or show them to. I harbor no such lofty, ultimately conceited sentiments of myself.

Consequently, in your mind, were there more of "you," more people would end up thinking and believing as you do because of this magic power you think you have as another Internet hack just like me. In your mind, it's the "right" way for people to think and believe. Your's is a completely elitist view.

All I do is state my own opinion while providing access to your work for people to judge for themselves, as I don't fancy the great masses as a bunch of rubes in need of education, or leading by me.

Now stop whining, it gets in the way of the glimmer of your star. How long did Culture 11 last? And how much money did it waste? If you can't understand that as the most reliable indicator of your out of step and failed world view, then I guess nothing is ever going to clue you in.

Talk about insecure. You scurry about everywhere everytime your name gets mentioned to rush in and defend yourself. I am genuinely concerned you may never quite lead us to this new world you envision for us if this keeps up.

Carry on, dude!

[Dan Riehl]

Shorter Conor - I can obsesss over Levin, Rush et al all I want, droning on and on. But no one should ever write a critical post about me, especially if they use humor. zzzzzzzzz

You really do go both ways, don't you, son?

[Lala]

For some reason Conor's article is not inspiring me to go and read any of the bloggers who he is touting.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan,

Normally when my name is mentioned, I take note because I regard it as a responsibility to read criticism of my work. On many occasions, I've been persuaded by a critique, or made aware of related knowledge that is useful to me, or made aware of an error. The Google Alert is a wonderful tool for a journalist.

But when you mention my name, there is never anything of value to read -- merely ad hominem.

Your comment above is transparently false. Contra what you say, you offer your readers opinions on all sorts of matters on this blog. To say that is elitist is both laughable and the same as calling yourself an elitist, since everyday you make attempts to persuade.

You also mis-characterize my views. I don't presume that if only there were more of me everyone would be persuaded to think as I do, and I've never asserted that, or anything implying it. In typical fashion, you've made something up out of whole cloth to argue against. But at least I refute a strawman, unlike an ad hominem attack.

It is also noteworthy that you continue to use Culture11's failure against me as a cudgel -- noteworthy because we both know that you haven't the foggiest idea why the magazine closed. I doubt you even know the name of the venture capital firm that backed it. Certainly you don't know how its money was spent, or what factors led the board of directors to close it, or what its traffic was, or decisions made by its upper management and its editors. You are, in other words, ignorant of information that a writer with integrity would need to make statements as definitive as yours about the magazine. Why are you so comfortable making presumptions about what its closure says when you're obviously ignorant of the facts?

Nor do you address or defend the constant ad hominem attacks you make generally. That is because there is no defense.

[Dan Riehl]

"Contra"

Serious question - do you get paid a nickle every time you use that word, or are you dating a Nicaraguan broad?

[templar knight]

Conor, you're an out and out brown-noser. You criticize the heavy hitters on the right so that you can ingratiate yourself with the partisans on the left. That's how you're making a living. Admit it and go on. Then you will know why most of us on the right can't stand you're writing.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Templar Knight,

I criticize some heavy hitters on the right -- the ones who are worthy of criticism. Rush Limbaugh does make accusations of racism with absurd frequency. Mark Levin did tell a female caller that her husband should put a gun to his head.

For me, being on the right doesn't mean that I should never criticize a fellow conservative.

Were I only after making a living, I'd do the much easier job of being a hack partisan writer working for the kind of movement publication where you don't have to have any particular talent save for a willingness to slavishly follow a party line.

There's far more money -- and much easier money -- doing that.

[Ran / Si Vis Pacem]

"One insight I’ve gleaned in my career is that journalism impacts the quality of life in a given community."

Right. For starters, his "career" has been mercifully short. 'Impact' is a frigkin' NOUN.

"My gig as a beat reporter in Rancho Cucamonga, California, exposed me to instances when exceptional local reportage directly resulted in better governance." Exposed! To Instances! Wow! And to think that "exceptional reportage" could lead to (gulp) "better governance"! Gee... nothing about the "crucible of public discourse"?

Someone please remind junior that when style becomes the only substantive content, the argument is FVCKED. He should toss the Verbal Advantage CD and do some thinking. "Quality" of debate is no substitute for principles. No wonder Republicans suffer from Electile Dysfunction... they're hard-up for core values. Newd Majority indeed.

I hereby ban myself for a while.

[Bruce, NV]

Conor, I don't know how often you visit Dan's blog. I visit it several times daily. I would say I agree with Dan no more than 60 percent of the time. Many of his commenters agree far less than I, and the comments threads are veritable free-for-alls--see the recent Ziegler posts, for example. Dan comments in them--something rare, non-elitist, and quite appreciated. Yes, sometimes his comments are ad hominem, but it seems that most of them are intended with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

Now, I confess, I don't have any idea about the origins of this "feud" that seems to have developed. I confess further, that before seeing your name on Dan's blog when you were going off on Mark Levin, I'd not heard of you. I found your comments on Levin to be of the Brooks/Frum/Parker variety..."we, the conservative intelligentsia, must save the GOP from the rabble". Well, it is we, the rabble, who will elect, or not elect (e.g., John McCain) the candidates that the intelligentsia foist upon us.

I don't see the liberal and leftwing thinkers and pundits "tut-tutting" over their hoi-polloi. Au contraire, they are more than happy to egg them on. It is only conservatives who seem ashamed of their base. When inside the beltway types talk about bipartisanship, "reaching across the aisle", compromise and decorum, what they usually mean is that conservatives must sacrifice their priciples in order to make the Democrat party happy--eight years of Bush 43 proved that. And what'd we get for it? The Chicago Way, dissent no longer being patriotic, a president who's learning on the job, a war on Fox, a Nixonian enemies list, etc.

I, for one, am fed up with the way the GOP and Ivory-Tower "conservatives" have led us astray. I no longer donate to the national party, or the NRCC or NRSC. I send my money to candidates that I endorse. I no longer read what the Frumians and Brooksians write; I no longer listen to what the Noonans say.

The beltway intellectuals had their chances and blew them, or in the cases of Chris Buckley and Doug Kmiec, threw them away. Now it's time for those of us out here in America, not back in DC, to have our turn, and we are certainly not going to screw it up as badly as that lot did.

[Dan Riehl]

"I would say I agree with Dan no more than 60 percent of the time. Many of his commenters agree far less"

That's okay, Bruce. Don't be so hard on yourself. You can't always be right. ; )

[Dan Riehl]

Bruce,

To actually follow up - what Conor fails to understand, and it especially grates as he fashions himself a member of the "new media" age - is that, new media is new because it isn't old.

New Media democratizes the information flow and is a discussion, or conversation among "us". That speaks to the notion of comments and such you mentioned, I believe.

OTOH, Conor actually has a completely "old media" world view as he aspires to be of that, moreso than this. Just as his idols do, they either mostly talk down to readers (not necessarily in tone), as opposed to talking "with" them. They reserve that distinction to other members of an alleged elite class. Consequently, there is nothing NEW about them, or Conor, at all. However, he may lack the insight to appreciate it, or all this. So I mostly just poke him sometimes when someone sends me a link to his latest. Otherwise, it's not very worthy of note. Were I am old media reader, there are far more compelling reads, some of which I do still enjoy.

[BlogDog]

Got dam that one touchy little pseduointellectual!

[chas]

sully goes over the line way more and way further than rush ever does but when does conor ever call him on it? oh, and was your spiel in the comment at 6:59 to imply that the investors decided to shutdown a successful and profitable website? cause it sounds like that was what you were trying to hint at.

you, frum and dreher such intellectually dishonest tools. but at least you dont try very hard to hide it. y'all have no intentions of trying to change conservatism. your goal is to drive traffic and that is all. if it were otherwise you wouldnt be so hostile to the heavy hitters such as rush or mark. and you certainly wouldnt be so insulting to their fans, you know, the people you are trying to persuade to your cause. its sad that their are those who read your site and actually fall for your con game. but oh well, the veil will be lifted and they will learn and you will kicked to the curb. not even a footnote in the annals of conservatism.

[Bob]

"Just as his idols do, they either mostly talk down to readers (not necessarily in tone), as opposed to talking "with" them."

In Dan's world, apparently, peddling the latest wingnut doomsday astroturf BS -- trying to piss people off about how Obama wants to "destroy" America and whatnot, or how his advisors are child molesters -- constitutes "talking WITH" the readers. Trying to be thoughtful and engage people people in honest discussions while assuming that they have the attention span and emotional control of adults, meanwhile, is being elitist and "talking DOWN" to them. As an otherwise impartial outside observer (i.e. not a conservative myself), it's pretty clear whose rhetoric assumes that the intended audience is a bunch of gullible rubes.

The only question I have about Riehl is whether or not he knows this, or if HE's also one of the rubes himself.

[narciso]

Right, we invented a safe school czar, tied to NAMBLA's founder, a wannabe marxist radical in charge of energy consolidation, an admirer of Chavez at the FCC, who hates all private media.

Now some of Conor's cohorts, you wonder McArdle knows way too much about economics, to have bought Obama's
shpiel. Sullivan is certifiable on a whole series of subjects, Volokh and Wilkinson, still have too much sense. As for the rest, it's good you're proving Evelyn Waugh right.

[Bob]

"Right, we invented a safe school czar, tied to NAMBLA's founder, a wannabe marxist radical . . ."

When you fish with bait as rank as Riehl's, big surprise what you reel in on the end of your line. LOL.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan,

Even cursory scrutiny of your latest argument is devastating.

In your world, I don't understand the following: "New Media democratizes the information flow and is a discussion, or conversation among 'us'. That speaks to the notion of comments and such you mentioned, I believe."

Yet here I am arguing in the comments of your blog, levying the criticism that your attacks don't facilitate conversation, because they are all ad hominem, and bereft of ideas.

You continue: "OTOH, Conor actually has a completely 'old media' world view as he aspires to be of that, moreso than this. Just as his idols do, they either mostly talk down to readers (not necessarily in tone), as opposed to talking 'with' them. They reserve that distinction to other members of an alleged elite class."

Ironic that you criticize me -- a blogger who writes for sites with comments sections -- of being "old media" and elevating myself above readers, while you lavish praise on Mark Levin, who broadcasts his show on radio, that oldest of media, and whose schtick is to constantly put himself on a pedestal above listeners by calling himself "The Great One" and saying things like "Thank Me." Apparently you are totally oblivious to the dynamic at play.

You conclude: "Consequently, there is nothing NEW about them, or Conor, at all. However, he may lack the insight to appreciate it, or all this. So I mostly just poke him sometimes when someone sends me a link to his latest. Otherwise, it's not very worthy of note. Were I am old media reader, there are far more compelling reads, some of which I do still enjoy."

So again, you claim that you are not very interested in me, despite dozens of posts about me, a pet nickname for me, pop psychoanalysis of me, a well-developed theory of the kind of writer I am, and even regular pokes at my former employer.

Review this comments thread, sir, and you'll see a series of devastating exchanges in which you haven't any actual response to my criticism, so you change the subject, ignore what I said, and make some totally different criticism of me.

I am sure it is embarrassing for you to have this record up on your Web site. And yet it is in your power to avoid these situations in the future by refraining from indefensible behavior.

[the bishop]

He doesn't really understand irony, it is part of the shtick, no Rush knows its the listeners
that make him, because he offers a better than average radio commentary. Levin is more to the point, sometimes, but he offers a valuable perspective. Now Olbermann doing his faux Murrow who is he addressing, the same audience
for Air America, and the gawk factor of conservatives who wait for his latest Ted Baxterism, his most recent special commentary
on death, reminded me of the Bill n Ted film
with DEath playing battleship.

[Mrs. Peperium]

Dan, thank you. A great thread. Really. Did you happen to catch George Will's critique of the Obama's going to Coppenhagen to bring home the Olympics for Chicago?

"The President and First Lady went to Copenhagen and gave little speeches about themselves. She, Mrs. Obama, used the first-person singular pronoun in some form or another, "I" or "me", sixteen, 34 times in sixteen paragraphs. He used it 23 times in thirteen paragraphs. It was all about them, and the danger is an adjective sooner or later attaches to presidents. Honest Abe, Tricky Dick Nixon. All kinds of adjectives. The danger to the President is that Vain is going to attach to him."

If you look at just Conor's last comment here, like the dynamic duo he voted for he seems to suffer from the same 'vain' affliction. Why in just 16 lines, not paragraphs, he mentions I or me at least 10 times. He beats even Michelle Obama in his self-centeredness and that's a tough act -pun so totally intended- to beat.

Narcissus is his name....

[J.K.]

He can be Narcissus if he wants. He used some cool word play in his piece:

"...willingness of Will Wilkinson to solicit..." Nice alliteration and assonance. Outstanding. So fine you can't even say it.

"...intellectual generosity..." Whatever that means.

"...uncompromising intellectual independence..." ? No chance he'll give it up to become intellectually dependent on thinking?

"...attempts to ground his analysis in empiricism..." Okay. I'm sorry he's still trying. He could try logic, I guess.

[Dan Riehl]

Conor,

I confess. I am devastated. I will promptly hang my head in shame, close the blog and move on. Thank you so much for showing me the error of my ways.

Or, contra that.

Can I have my nickle now?

; )

[x11b1p]

dan you are a dick! nothing wrong with that, you make the world go a little faster. imagine if all we did was agree and got along - boring boring boring even heaven had to end up with a hell! btw - contra broads are hot i guess http://tinyurl.com/yf8bepe

[Dan Riehl]

What is she, a cooking show host?

[North Dallas Thirty]

And as expected, the Bob shill shows up to remind us that all criticism of Obama is racist, that anyone who disagrees with Obama is wrong, that no honest person would ever do anything other than completely support and agree with Obama on everything, and that anyone who ever agrees with any criticism of Obama is a "rube".

[North Dallas Thirty]

"I criticize some heavy hitters on the right -- the ones who are worthy of criticism. Rush Limbaugh does make accusations of racism with absurd frequency. Mark Levin did tell a female caller that her husband should put a gun to his head."

And yet, when Andrew Sullivan states that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy, not a peep.

Why? Because Conor worked for and continues to work for Sullivan -- a fact which Conor hides and lies about, as I've already pointed out on this blog.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/06/conor-useful-idiot.html?cid=6a00d83451c1db69e201157055add9970c#comment-6a00d83451c1db69e201157055add9970c

I will say again now what I said then:

You see, Conor, you don't have a single piece of public blog evidence out there stating that you disagree, that Sullivan is wrong, and that his actions are damaging the conservative movement.

If you can bitch about Mark Levin so much, certainly you can state that a hateful anti-Semitic blogger who screams that everyone else is a Christianist, who is obsessed with Sarah Palin's vagina, and is shrieking that she lied about her pregnancy, even months after the election is doing damage to the "conservative cause".

Oddly enough, though, you can't find the "principles" to do that, even though you claim to be speaking "truth to power".

But of course, if you didn't attack conservatives and attacked liberals instead, you wouldn't be useful to The Atlantic and the liberals you are trying to appease, and would then get the treatment you support them giving to conservatives, such as their faking Rush quotes.

Again, did we notice how Conor refused to hold his liberal friends accountable for that? Instead, Conor screamed and bleated that the fact that liberals told lies about Rush was Rush's fault, and that Rush has only himself to blame, not the liberals who told the lies.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

North Dallas Thirty:

1) Andrew Sullivan certainly isn't anti-semetic. It is stunning how frequently folks on the right are race-baiting these days. It used to be that frivolous accusations of racism were isolated to the left, but no more.

2) I've repeatedly said that I disagree with Andrew Sullivan's doubts about former Governor Palin's pregnancy, that I respectfully disagree with him on all sorts of issues, and that I have a great deal of respect for his blogging because, among other things, he willingly publishes dissenting views on his site, including dissenting views about the Sarah Palin pregnancy. I have stated all this before, among other places, in the comments section of this blog on threads you've been party to!

3) I understand that there is debate about whether Andrew Sullivan is a conservative, but I don't think anyone regards him as part of the conservative movement.

4) In my column on Rush Limbaugh, I explicitly say that he is owed sympathy for the lies printed about him.

[Mrs. Peperium]

8 uses of "I" in 5 sentences.

[the bishop]

"Dissenting views about her pregnancy" see that is abject stupidity, she had the child, with
"Down's Syndrome" she had four before, what is the surprise. You're beyond satire, Conor, look this is you're right, but don't pretend you're
a conservative, a Whig maybe,

[templar knight]

Conor, you are certainly free to write for whomever you please, and to say what you want. And I'm not criticizing you for that. Perhaps you don't know how you appear to those of us who are conservatives. Suffice it to say that I have attempted to fight the good fight with liberals, and tried to convince them of the error of their ways, so to speak. I have been banned from dKos and HuffPo, and several others for my efforts, including the now delusional LGF(I don't know what he is).

That said, I don't think you're conservative. You seem to me to be a moderate who claims to be conservative in order to gain traction in the business. After all, no one in this climate wants to hear from a moderate. Those of us who are conservatives just think of moderates as liberal light, while those who are liberals think of you as liberals-in-waiting.

In my opinion, that makes you disingenious. Most conservatives just don't like your writing, myself included, and we certainly don't appreciate useless criticism of conservatives that does nothing for our cause. The liberals really don't need our help, as they have proven quite adept at driving the media. You play into their hands, and are used as a spokeperson, whether you intend it or not, to bash those evil conservatives. After all, conservatives like Conor F. are saying the same thing.

If you want to engage the left, so be it, I really don't have a problem with that, but for my part, I wish you would be a better spokesperson for conservatism, and leave most of your criticism for the left, which is in the process of destroying our country as we know it. If in fact you are a conservative. Only you know that, but actions speak louder than words, my friend.

[Sam]

"Review this comments thread, sir, and you'll see a series of devastating exchanges..."

Think pretty well of yourself, don't you, Conor?

It is your pedantic, pompous, and endlessly self-congratulatory way of writing, rather than your actual ideas (which are nothing more than Andrew Sullivan Light - without the sexual deviance, circumcision phobia, and obstetrics obsession,) that makes me grit my teeth whenever I read you.

You appear to think of yourself as some kind of Holy Keeper of The Public Discourse, setting the standard by which all political commentary must be judged. From my perspective, you come across as an arrogant, over-educated, self-righteous, and self-absorbed twerp. I have read a lot of your work, and I cannot recall a single interesting or even semi-original thought that you have expressed. Your repertoire seems limited to approving comments on people you like ("moderates", libertarians, and liberals) and criticism of those you don't (amazingly, almost always conservatives.)

[seekeronos]

Conar likes showing off his collection of $5 words.

Unfortunately, this tends to not appeal so very well to us rubes.

Illustrative alliteration and high-fallutin' language does not necessarily a scholarly pundit make.

But it does go a long way... to making you look like a pompous donkey.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Andrew Sullivan certainly isn't anti-semetic."

Of course not. He just blames the Jews for every problem in the world and talks about how Sarah Palin is being indoctrinated and mind-controlled by those evil Jooooos.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/sullivan_and_khamenei_agree_je.asp

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/cross_tabs/2008/09/kos_and_sullivan_merchants_of.html

The problem is, Conor, that you honestly believe that Jews are all mind-controlling monsters who want to take over the world. Therefore, Andrew Sullivan saying such things is not "anti-Semitism" in your mind because it's merely repeating what you believe to be the truth about Jews -- and who can get upset at Andrew for reporting the truth, right?

"I've repeatedly said that I disagree with Andrew Sullivan's doubts about former Governor Palin's pregnancy, that I respectfully disagree with him on all sorts of issues, and that I have a great deal of respect for his blogging because, among other things, he willingly publishes dissenting views on his site, including dissenting views about the Sarah Palin pregnancy."

"Doubts", Conor? Sullivan flat-out states she faked her pregnancy, and you are sitting there babbling about how it's perfectly OK for him to say that. Do you really think that adds to the discourse, Conor? Do you really think that's proper political speech? Can you explain the logic and rationality behind that conclusion? Would you provide the facts? Can you show where Andrew Sullivan reversed himself and admitted that he lied? Are you willing to state that, since Andrew Sullivan has no facts and has failed to correct his statements that Palin faked her pregnancy, that his website is not reliable and that he is blatantly partisan?

What this makes blatantly obvious, Conor, is that you are a liar and a hypocrite. You demand of everyone else what you won't demand of Andrew Sullivan.

And this one is a classic:

"I understand that there is debate about whether Andrew Sullivan is a conservative, but I don't think anyone regards him as part of the conservative movement."

He does, and liberals do.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/andrew-sullivan-and-hollow.html

And most hilariously, so do you.

"You're probably familiar with the conservative case for gay marriage, articulated most eloquently by Andrew Sullivan on many occasions."

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/care_about_marriage_let_gays_d.php#

So tell us, Conor; if you don't think Andrew Sullivan is a conservative, why do you support and endorse his ideas and beliefs as examples of your conservative case on so many issues?

"In my column on Rush Limbaugh, I explicitly say that he is owed sympathy for the lies printed about him."

Which you then neatly negate by claiming that he is responsible for the lies printed about him and that he is to blame for the fact that they were printed.

Your problem, Conor, is that you live in an environment that produces journalistic idiots. The Atlantic and Andrew Sullivan, like the rest of the liberal media, know that they don't have to fact-check, because liberals like yourself will believe anything that is anti-conservative -- the Rush Limbaugh quotes being a prime example. That's why you can make such ludicrous statements as saying that no one believes Andrew Sullivan is a conservative when you yourself were saying barely a year ago that he was. You simply don't ever expect to be fact-checked, so you say whatever fits the situation regardless of whether it is truthful or consistent.

[Sam]

ND30:

I started to address the same points that you did about Conor's hero-worship of Old Milky Loads, but you did much better than I would have.

Thanks

[Mike2Cents]

Conor,
Why....WHY...would you engage with ND30??

Conor writes to Dan:
'But when you mention my name, there is never anything of value to read'
And then Dan comes back with:
'do you get paid a nickle every time you use that word, or are you dating a Nicaraguan broad?'

Just priceless...way to make Conor's point for him, Dan.

[Bob]

"Conor,
Why....WHY...would you engage with ND30??"

And the hard-core wing nuts almost never fail to respond on a strictly petty and personal level. They're not interested in honest debates about ideas, policies, philosophies, etc. To them, most political discourse is carried out as if it were some sort of tribal ritual. Because he challenged their tribal leaders like Levin and Limbaugh, Friedersdorf must be banished from the tribe. They're not interested in debate, but in trying to shame and humiliate him by making fun of his name, ridiculing his style, calling him an "elitist," calling him "son," and other various put-downs intended to exclude him from their little society. It's like a junior high school clique, shunning the new kid in class, or a bunch of angry chimpanzees screeching and jumping up and down while throwing their own poo at some interloper. Having no ideas and being incapable of having an honest debate, all they have is faux outraged posturing and lame political theater. And their jealousy of Friedersdorf only adds to their fury. It's hilarious to watch.

[templar knight]

"They're not interested in honest debates..."

OMG, this from a drive-by troll who has never debated anything.

[Bob]

"OMG, this from a drive-by troll who has never debated anything."

For example, templar knight, maybe you could share a specific critique of Friedersdorf that concerns something BESIDES his criticism of other conservative figures. Other than who he does or doesn't criticize, what policy positions does he advocate that you think makes him a poor spokesman for the conservative cause?

[Dan Riehl]

It's Friday after 5 PM tk, nothing wrong with an entertaining look at the circus we call liberals today. Conor is just one of the trained monkeys they've gathered up to enhance the show.

It always cracks me up when he whines about my not taking him on with any substance. How can I? He offers no real substance in the first place. And he wonders why people don't take him seriously. It simply continues to amaze me how little insight he has into himself and his thinking and writing. He actually believes we aren't si,ply reading tripe we've read 1,000 times before.

His dismal failure at Culture 11 taught him nothing. But some other high-minded idiot will pick him up and let him dance for him. Oh well. On with the show.

[Bob]

"It always cracks me up when he whines about my not taking him on with any substance. How can I? He offers no real substance in the first place."

But does your disapproval involve anything other than what you claim is Friedersdorf's style or attitude, or his having dared to criticize this or that wing nut icon? Is there anything specific BESIDES those things that you think makes him a bad conservative? Any specific examples?

[Bruce, NV]

Bob, the thread is FULL of examples. I think if you go through and read the entire thread, you will find them. But to give you a little headstart, Mr. Friedersdorf CLAIMS to be a conservative, but doesn't seem to actually STAND for anything conservative. He wants discourse to be civil, but only chastises conservatives for lack of decorum, not his friends at the Daily Beast, Daily Dish or Kos. See, we "wing nuts" are tired of so-called conservatives who value their dinner invites and seminar chats more than they do any bedrock principles. We are tired, also, of trolls who mock us for using ad hominems, whilst using their own, such as "angry chimpanzee". I fully expect you to either not read this comment, or to respond with another ad hominem, ignoring the content here, as you have in the rest of this thread. Fear not; it won't keep me awake.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"They're not interested in honest debates about ideas, policies, philosophies, etc."

More precisely, Bob, we have already seen established the parameters for what liberals like yourself and Conor consider an "honest debate":

-- Obama is always right

-- Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Republicans, and conservatives are always wrong

-- Anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist

-- Anyone who criticizes Obama is dishonest

-- All reasons for opposing or criticizing Obama are irrational

-- Anyone who does not endorse, support, and worship Barack Obama as a god-king is a brain-dead "wingnut"

Since both you and Conor are incapable of doing anything other than repeating Obama talking points, there is no reason to do anything other than mock you as the intellectual lightweights and lobotomized zombies that you are.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Dammit ND30, you forgot a whole litany beginning with GW Bush stole the election, WMDs, blah, blah, blah and ending with George Bush did it first. How can we possible debate these mental megatoons if you cannot remember the facts????

[Bob]

See -- it's exactly like I said. There is nothing of any substance in your criticism. You might say something like:

"Mr. Friedersdorf CLAIMS to be a conservative, but doesn't seem to actually STAND for anything conservative."

But then your only examples are based on personalities that Friedersdorf either showed too little or too much respect for. Five out of six of these "issues," according to North Dallas Thirty, involved Friedersdorf's supposed attitude towards Obama, while the other involved him criticizing Limbaugh and Levin. The other responder says he doesn't like ad hominems from people like me. Nowhere is there a SINGLE substantive issue, like health care, government policy, tax policy, the Afghanistan war, or anything else that might identify a person as liberal or conservative, or be the basis for a real discussion or debate. It's all petty personality-based stuff. It's like you're a bunch of pre-teen girls making petty snark about someone from a different clique.

I don't think you guys even know what Friedersdorf stands for. I bet you haven't even read anything by him. You just line up behind Dan and start throwing rocks, I guess because group participation in spite and prejudice comes so naturally to the true wing nut. I think it's a combination of you being afraid of him, and also your apparent preference to wallow in small-mindedness and group prejudice. To people like you, honesty and thoughtfulness is apparently too much of a struggle. It's much easier to throw poo instead.

[templar knight]

"It's much easier to throw poo instead."

This from a drive-by wingnut troll who does nothing but throw poo.

[Bob]

"It's much easier to throw poo instead."

This from a drive-by wingnut troll who does nothing but throw poo."

I challenged you several posts above to back up your claim that Friedersdorf is a poor spokesman for conservatism with specific examples. Of course, what I get instead is more empty, petty bickering. You guys literally have nothing else. To say that you're like a bunch of bickering little girls does a disservice to little girls.

It's not even about Friedersdorf himself. It's just that the situation with him makes such a perfect example of how you guys operate. It's all about prejudice and personal spite. "Us" against "them." There's no substance in it at all. You guys have no ideas. You don't care about honest discussions. All you do is endlessly obsess about who you don't like and how terrible it is if you can't control everything. You're so petty and empty-headed that I'd almost feel sorry for you if you weren't mostly such a bunch of obnoxious fools.

[templar knight]

HairyBob, I don't want to discuss anything with a sorry shit like you. Don't you understand that by now? I will never discuss anything with you, mainly because you are not and never have been open to discussion. It has been and it always will be useless and a waste of time to discuss anything with a troll like you. You are here on Dan's blog to disrupt, not discuss. Now, go to hell. Quickly.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Again, Bob, what we realized long ago is that, in your world, these are the rules for "honest debate":

-- Obama is always right

-- Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Republicans, and conservatives are always wrong

-- Anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist

-- Anyone who criticizes Obama is dishonest

-- All reasons for opposing or criticizing Obama are irrational

-- Anyone who does not endorse, support, and worship Barack Obama as a god-king is a brain-dead "wingnut"

As for "substance", what we also realize is that what that constitutes in your mind is gushing about how dreamy Obama is and how everyone who says otherwise is just a petty, empty-headed, obnoxious fool.

When you demonstrate that you're capable of an adult and intelligent discussion, you might be favored with one. But all of us here are of the mind that, since you act and reason like a spoiled, spiteful child, you should be treated as one. We favor you by bothering to allow your posts about how perfect Obama is and how everyone who ever disagrees with him is an evil wingnut racist; however, none of us are obliged to join you in your imaginary fact-free world of God-King Barack worship.